Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[ucsbgaucho]

They did this in San Diego maybe 10 years ago, in an area where the two biggest freeways in the county merged together, I-5 and I-805. It's a HUGE bottleneck, imagine 215 and 15 merging in a V shape in Lehi. So they widened the freeway to I think 22 lanes, the widest in the US at the time, but 6 of the outside lanes (3 in each direction) were separated from main traffic and served as the "Local Bypass" for people exiting at the few exits in the area.

I'm surprised cities don't do this more, allowing cars not needing to exit to be separated from the traffic that is coming on and off the exits, reducing the amount of congestion.

Originally Posted by i-215

It's a different kind of widening this time. No more haphazardly adding lanes. UDOT is building a parallel collector-distributor system. It's more similar to what is built in Dallas and less similar to Los Angeles.



Here's what's different: While true, the new C/D system does *add* 3 lanes to I-15. But, UDOT will actually remove 2 lanes from the old mainline freeway.

(At full build-out, in a future year) The C/D will have access to local exits in Sandy (126th, 114th, 106th, and 90th), while the mainline will skip the exits and zoom from Bangerter to I-215 without interruption.

[i-215]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

Regardless it's still adding to the total size and width of the freeway. Maybe more logical from an efficiency/traffic flow standpoint, but it's still adding freeway mass.

True. Though I originally thought it was a +3 widening. Which made even me whistle with horror.

3-1 (and especially 3-2) seems more reasonable.

[Makid]

Utah County revives $22 million sales tax voters shot down 3 years ago

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/...years-ago.html

PROVO — A sales tax hike that would raise $22 million for transportation projects in Utah County has officially come back from the dead.

Utah County voters shot it down in 2015, largely due to distrust of the Utah Transit Authority. But thanks to a sweeping transportation bill passed by the Utah Legislature earlier this year that restructured UTA, county leaders were given the power to put it back on the ballot again — or enact it themselves.

Tuesday, the Utah County Commission voted to enact.

Up until Tuesday's vote, Utah County was the only county along the Wasatch Front to not impose the tax.

Starting April 1, Utah County shoppers will start paying an extra penny for every $4 spent on taxable goods, not including food. The 0.25 percent sales tax hike is projected to generate an additional $22 million per year for transit and road projects.

Utah County will get 100 percent of the new revenue up until July 1 next year, after which the tax money will be split 20 percent to Utah County, 40 percent to cities and 40 percent to UTA.

It looks like the State Legislature won't need to enact the sales tax on Utah County this upcoming session after all. I know there were plans brewing to force the tax on Utah County.

I know the State would like to use some of the funds to help bring Trax into Utah County as well as to upgrade FrontRunner. But because the tax itself wouldn't only provide UTA with roughly $9 Million a year, we may see the State enact the 0.25% sales tax (only available for Counties that enacted the 40/40/20 tax). They could enact it in Weber, Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah Counties adding approximately $90 Million a year to transit projects.

This would fund the FrontRunner upgrades (full double track and electrify the route), Trax to Utah County, and improved transit in Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons.

With projected growth rates, it is possible that some of the funds could be used to provide free transit. Free transit would only work if Tooele County was added since that would be the only direct benefit they would see outside of a few new routes.

[StevenF]

So far Elon Musk has only built a test tunnel but would be interesting to see what it will cost the Boring Company to build an actual tunnel that is meant to transport thousands of people. Ben just goes over the numbers he has on hand as he is a data guy.

Hope you find it interesting or at least drives conversation about possible options for transit for the future.

• Video Link

[Hatman]

I like the idea of vehicles being able to leave the tunnel network and switch to the surface street network once they leave the dense inner-city area. What I don't think is feasible is a car-elevator raising cars from surface streets to streetside parking spaces in the middle of the downtown. My theory is - just like with the electric skates of previous Boring Company proposals - they will have to create underground stations in the downtown area where people exit their autonomous taxis below-grade and then come up to the surface on stairs/escalators/elevators, like a subway system. I think there is an interesting niche in the transportation demand for such a service.

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by i-215

True. Though I originally thought it was a +3 widening. Which made even me whistle with horror.

3-1 (and especially 3-2) seems more reasonable.

Do you think that this is going to be the start of a trend? Are we going to see a big push to get all of I-15 flanked by distributor-collectors in the same way we've seen a big push through the last decade+ to have all of I-15 widened to 5 lanes + HOV in each direction?

I'd been thinking that the freeways were about as wide as they could get already, and that money for new construction would now be spent on a wider variety of projects, such as upgrading FrontRunner. I'm fine with this current project, since this section of I-15 is at the confluence of both I-15 and I-215 - but I'm also kind of nervous that this could set off a whole wave of new Collector-Distributor widening projects that will soak up all available new-construction money.

[Hatman]

Updates of the S-Line double-track. The catenary system is nearly ready to start stringing the new wires over the second track. Here is the west end terminal pole, with the counterweights and anchor cable all ready:


The second platform at the 300 East 'stop'. It's weird that they've already installed the card reader and the trash can, even though this platform is many months away from entering service. It still needs the messsage board, signs, light pole, and seating installed, but at least we've got our trash can ready!

I already saw one woman waiting on that platform; I hope the operator waited for her to get to the other side...


Going farther up the line (eastward) it is clear that all the poles are in place and all the brackets have been installed on existing poles. All that is left is to place the pulleys onto the arms so that the line-stringing can begin!



It will be a glorious day when poles like this start going up along the FrontRunner!

[i-215]

Originally Posted by Hatman

Do you think that this is going to be the start of a trend? Are we going to see a big push to get all of I-15 flanked by distributor-collectors in the same way we've seen a big push through the last decade+ to have all of I-15 widened to 5 lanes + HOV in each direction?

Only in certain areas where it makes sense.

The Silicon Slopes segment of I-15 (currently in construction) already has a collector-distributor system as part of its design. The RTP shows/showed a C/D from Bangerter Hwy to I-215. It seems plausible that eventually one will be built over point of the mountain, which perhaps could double as truck lanes. I wouldn't anticipate anything north of the 215 south interchange. The Belt Route kind of serves the redundancy that a C/D system provides. The RTP only displays an expansion of the HOT lanes from 1 to 2 lanes in each direction, along a new HOT-only exit at South Temple (probably so buses can more easily access the intermodal hub).

Mountain View Corridor has C/D from day-one from Old Bingham Highway southward. In fact, the initial road is the C/D lanes, and the freeway is to be added later. No C/D is to be built north of Old Bingham.

The only other C/D that I see is I-215W from SR-201 to 4700 South, which will provide access to Parkway Blvd, 3800 South, and 4100 South.

I don't see any new C/Ds outside of Salt Lake County, nor would I predict any within the next 30 years.

[Wasatch Wasteland]

More information on the i15 North project in south Salt Lake County:

https://www.i-15northbound.com/

[Liberty Wellsian]

Smog Blights Salt Lake City But No Space For Cyclists On Historically Wide Streets

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlton...e-streets/amp/

[Hatman]

That was a very comprehensive article. I'm impressed. Thanks for sharing!

I got to try out the UVX line over Christmas, now that they are using their center-running lanes:


Overall the trip was much faster and smoother than the last time I rode it (without bus lanes). So much less swerving back and forth - I didn't get motion sick at all!

But holy cow, those bus drivers drive like they were on a race track! The ride was smooth but you had to hold onto your seat - even if you were sitting down - because they just fly around those corners! It was pretty exciting, and it makes the bus feel even faster than it really is.

Only one thing slowed us down on our trip, and that was a car thinking that the bus lane was an extra left turn lane. The first light cycle there was no car next to us so the left turn arrow didn't activate - only the bus signal, which the car driver didn't understand. The next time the left turn arrow activated but only after the bus signal had gone through its phase, meaning we had to wait for a third cycle before we could turn left onto University Avenue. The bus driver was really PO'd, honking and lurching and flashing his lights... I hope there will be good enforcement of penalties for people who get in the wrong lanes, since the bus is recording them and will certainly have got a picture of their license plate number.

While I was riding I noticed technicians messing with wiring in the cabinets at the station platforms. They seemed to be running a test on the information screens:



It looks like the screen will be displaying the real-time positions of the approaching buses. Blue icons mean southbound and green icons mean northbound (presumably for the two Universities). And I say 'will be' because on the day I went this was the only screen working, it didn't update, the Date was wrong (it was December 26th) and it was displaying the wrong station name (I was at the BYU South Campus Station, like the map shows), but the idea is there.

[brankrom]

I couldn't believe how fast those buses were going. I was pacing one of them in my car on that long stretch between the mall and shopko on University? dude was going 60+ mph

[gakidave]

S-line is closing this weekend and next weekend to do some install work on the new section of track.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics...ouse-streetcar

[i-215]

Originally Posted by brankrom

I couldn't believe how fast those buses were going. I was pacing one of them in my car on that long stretch between the mall and shopko on University? dude was going 60+ mph

I love it! Instead of doddling slowly to "keep a schedule," drivers run the route as quickly (legally) as they can.

[Hatman]

I think we could see a lot less 'doddling' for schedule reasons if UTA could replicate two features from the UVX route to other bus lines.

1) More frequent service. It isn't so terrible to be off from your schedule if there are other buses running six minutes before and after you.
2) Variable headways depending on the time of day. While it looks good on a spreadsheet to have the buses scheduled to arrive and depart at the same time all day long, this doesn't take into account traffic considerations that will cause the buses to be late when there is lots of traffic or cause them to 'doddle' when traffic is lighter than anticipated. The UVX's schedule changes based on what time of the day it is and how much traffic the buses are expected to meet. This could easily be done with other high-frequency routes.



In other news, over the last two weekends the Overhead Catenary System was installed on the S-Line's extended siding. Over the first weekend the catenary wire and the 'hanger' wires that drop down and hold the copper wire level were installed:




Over the next weekend closure the copper wire and the springs to keep it tightly away from the catenary wire were installed:




All major construction on this project is now complete, and I think my photo updates will be done for a while. This project is projected to open near the beginning of April, when the S-Line will switch to a 15-minute frequency to match TRAX. I still wish this project had been bigger, since adding a second track in small bit-sized pieces is overall the most expensive and slowest way of adding a second track. It really shouldn't have been so hard to double-track the entire two-mile corridor since the ROW is already there and the OCS poles are already in place to accomodate the second track. What is the S-Line going to do when TRAX is finally funded enough to run at 12 or 10 minute frequencies? UTA would need to run all three of its white-painted S70's to get the S-Line frequency up that high, but they can't unless the entire 2 miles have a second track.

But whatever, I still like taking pictures of construction projects, and this has kept me busy for nearly a year. Overall I'm just glad that something is getting built at all, and that progress is still being made on our rail system.

[Wasatch Wasteland]

Future of Frontrunner Study Update:

The full study is being redone under the new UTA leadership, and progress has been put on hold until the management transition is completed. Supposedly UTA didn’t like some of the recommendations and suggestions. Most likely will be completed in 2020. Previous study lasted from July 2016 to September 2018.

Guess we still won’t be seeing that any time soon...

Also, perhaps someone could clarify on these things, what is the purpose of doing a two year in-depth study in order to find the best alternatives moving forward, only to disagree with those alternatives and recommission the study?

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Wasatch Wasteland

Future of Frontrunner Study Update:

The full study is being redone under the new UTA leadership, and progress has been put on hold until the management transition is completed. Supposedly UTA didn’t like some of the recommendations and suggestions. Most likely will be completed in 2020. Previous study lasted from July 2016 to September 2018.

Guess we still won’t be seeing that any time soon...

Also, perhaps someone could clarify on these things, what is the purpose of doing a two year in-depth study in order to find the best alternatives moving forward, only to disagree with those alternatives and recommission the study?

That is b.s.

@asies this screams for a freedom of information act request.

#journalism

Isaac is moving? Noooooooo!

[Makid]

I have a few thoughts on the redo of the Study.

1st, they wanted to keep the idea of FrontRunner being a regional service so they wanted to drop some of the infill stations which would slow the travel times.

2nd, everyone wants FrontRunner electrified, it is pointless to include portions that are electrified and portions that aren't. As well as discussing a double track option that still relies on diesel engines.

3rd, with the new power of UTA being partially a State agency, it does qualify for additional eminent domain powers which can make many of the trouble sections less troublesome for double tracking. This would make it easier to do a full double track option even if the directional tracks aren't directly adjacent to each other.

4th, with the recently added Sales Tax in both SL County and Utah County, a study showing a Double Tracked and Electrified FrontRunner that has ridership of 90K or more would justify the State directing some of the funds from the Sales Tax increase from Roads to FrontRunner. Additionally, it would also justify the use of State Funds to help speed up the project.

5th, with the use of State Funds to help speed up the project, extensions to Brigham City and Payson could be justified. Trips beyond Ogden and Provo could be limited to hourly or every 30 minutes as opposed to the planned 15 minute frequencies between Ogden and Provo.

6th, they may want to include possible East/West options to include Tooele and Park City (routing to be determined by the study). This is a guess only because there is really only 1 way between both locations and Salt Lake City and both communities are growing quickly causing increased traffic along I-80.

Realistically, it could be for any of these thoughts if not multiple ones. As the base of the study has been completed, I don't think it should take 2 years to complete, unless they are including an East/West option which hasn't yet been officially studied.

[Hatman]

Delays are almost always disappointing, but in this case I feel slightly more relieved than I feel disappointed. I didn't like the direction that study was going - talk of infill stations and only lengthening sidings as opposed to doing a full double-track. It felt like the same people responsible for approving the S-Line siding lengthening project (which they call a 'double track' project but it isn't really) were put in charge of FrontRunner.

There is only one logical way to go about double-tracking the FrontRunner system, and that is by adding a second track the entire distance between station pairs. Nothing else will be worth the money. Lengthening sidings may give trains a larger window in which to pass each other, but because the switches slow the trains down to half their full speed it would slow the system down far more than the more fluid passing would speed it up.

Also, I'm not a fan if infill stations on FrontRunner. There is already a station roughly every 6 miles along the current route, and almost all of them are already well-connected to the bus network. There is no need to slow down everyone on the train just so a few passengers can get dropped off a mile or so closer to their homes, if that. The whole thing smelled of political favors rather than a desire to speed up and improve the rail service.

I hope all your points are correct, Makid, but this one especially:

Originally Posted by Makid

, [...] they may want to include possible East/West options to include Tooele and Park City (routing to be determined by the study). This is a guess only because there is really only 1 way between both locations and Salt Lake City and both communities are growing quickly causing increased traffic along I-80.

I know someone who can help with this! It's me, I can do it! Pick me! Seriously, click the link in my signature line! The plans are all there! Please let the east-west commuter rail project become a real thing!

[bob rulz]

A commuter rail line to Park City would be fantastic and incredibly beneficial, and I think it should be priority #1 if we get the Olympics again.