Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[i-215]

delete

[i-215]

Originally Posted by Hatman

Perhaps you have some insight, I-215, if such a thing is possible under current freeway design standards?

I have seen a freeway-to-garage ramp system done before off the SR-400 freeway north of Atlanta.



Two characteristics are different with this site, versus the one you diagram above:

* The Atlanta garage ramps are only grabbing one set of movements (to/from the north) to capture inbound traffic only.
* Your proposal tries to grab from multiple directions.

* The Atlanta garage ramps are spaced fairly far from adjacent interchanges.
* Your proposal has zero spacing. This requires a complex of flyover ramps right at the I-80/400 South complex, which would be very expensive and technically challenging to do.

* The Atlanta garage ramps wrap around to the back side (relative to the freeway, opposite the rail station) giving adequate slowing/stopping distance.
* Your proposed site would mean ramps would be impeding with pedestrian access to the train station.

Could it happen? Yes, I think a design like this could happen, but is extremely unlikely due to cost and potential operational impact to the existing interchange. More than likely the garage would have ramps that connect to 400 South, rather than to the freeway directly. This napkin sketch shows how to accommodate reasonable access without any new ramps at all:



It's worth asking a bigger question: Would money be better spent expanding parking options at suburban rail stops rather than at one big one? This garage will likely supplement (rather than replace) existing parking spaces downtown. Each new space attracts new traffic on I-15. With the investment we have already made on Frontrunner and TRAX, I believe we are better served to end the vehicle leg of trips as far away into the suburbs as we can and use rail to bring people into intermodal.

Ideally, I'd kind of like to see most of the downtown parking disappear entirely. In the future, people park at their nearest TRAX station and ride the rest of the way in. That would take a lot of pressure off the I-15 corridor through SLC proper.

[joscar]

In honor of FrontRunner's 10th Anniversary, UTA did a question and answer on Twitter. One of the questions asked revolved around the future station at Vineyard (aka the old Geneva site). UTA said "It's in the short-term plan, and we're working on obtaining funding."

I did some digging and the city of Vineyard is definitely wanting this station. The city has received a state infrastructure loan, and they are considering using it on a couple of these projects:

• Center Street overpass
• FrontRunner Station
• UP Rail spur
• Vineyard Connector extension

As you read through the minutes of the redevelopment board, it seems the FrontRunner Station is high in their priorities. So maybe we'll see that station added soon! It will be a benefit to those in the Pleasant Grove and Lindon areas that currently have to go to the American Fork or Orem stations. When I lived in PG for a short while a lot of folks told me they didn't use FrontRunner to commute because the stations were further away, and if they were already on the freeway why not stay there until they got to work.

I also was interested in the UP Rail spur project. Basically it has to do with moving Union Pacific's track that is part of the Provo Industrial Lead in the old Geneva area. These tracks leave the mainline near the Orem station and roughly parallel Geneva Road and State Street north to the Point of the Mountain. (This is the old UP mainline, and TRAX currently uses it's old corridor in the Salt Lake Valley.) UTA already owns these tracks from Point of the Mountain south to an area called "Hardy" in Lindon. One day this rail corridor will be used to extend TRAX all the way to Orem, so I was a little dismayed to hear about the city pushing to get it removed. Vineyard wants to move the section of track that runs along Geneva Road from about Center Street north to 1600 North. Just north of 1600, they would built track west that connects the industrial lead to the current UP mainline (which runs in the same corridor as FrontRunner). I'm a bit worried regarding how a double-tracked FrontRunner, UP's current (and future lines?), and a double-tracked light rail system will all fit within the same rail corridor. Although it does seem UTA is on board with this, as the 2015 North Utah County Transit Study shows light rail using this new connection.

You can see the realignment in this map. Source: page 5-28, Transit Study:


Vineyard city wants the rail to be moved so that Geneva Road can be expanded. Also, apparently having this track along side Geneva Road is preventing development (such as a Walmart) from coming in. Something holding the city up (from making a decision about funding it) is hearing whether or not Geneva Nitrogen will move. As a spur running south from the new connection will have to be built to the nitrogen plant, so they can remain connected to the UP system if they choose to stay.

A map of the proposed changes is shown here. Source: this Town Council packet, 27 July 2016.

[joscar]

Guessing I should have checked out more recent city council meeting minutes before my last post. It seems UTA got a grant to build the Vineyard Station. The minutes aren't clear, but maybe the money came from the legislature? Rather than using the loan money from the city? Anyhow they state this project could start as early as this summer!

The mayor says the station is coming this year too!

[Hatman]

Thanks for the very comprehensive answer, I-215. You exceed my expectations.

My thoughts on the garage originally stemmed from imagining what impacts autonomous cars would have on traffic patterns. It seems to me like freeways will gain a huge amount of capacity when they go fully autonomous, while side roads will only gain a little, since freeways do not need to worry about intersections and stoplights and pedestrians.
So, if you've got a very high-capacity freeway and a very low capacity road, the worst thing to do would be make the freeway dependent on the capacity of the side streets. Ideally you would want to isolate the networks so that only the freeway capacity matters.
I think that in the autonomous future there will be ways to board/unload from autonomous buses/taxis within the freeway network, either by having special pull-outs or by having a large Pickup/drop-off zone on the site of the parking garage site. I was thinking that perhaps something can be built there now to save a place for this new freeway feature, but you are very right that a parking garage with specialty ramps like I've shown is much to expensive to be a place holder for something in the future.

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by joscar

Also, apparently having this track along side Geneva Road is preventing development (such as a Walmart) from coming in.

Why Richard, it profit a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world. . . but for Walmart!

Thanks joscar, for this very informative post! The thought of the Vineyard station being opened this year is news to me, and it makes me happy. I've heard rumors of construction several times before, and I hope they are right this time. If the trains are going to be stopping in Vineyard to pass each other anyway, you may as well have a station there.

I'm less pleased about the relocation plan. It seems like basic urban planning 101 to incorporate future transit corridors into your planned development, not eliminate them. It's too bad UTA couldn't buy the Industrial Lead all the way down to Orem. Now they are powerless in whatever Vineyard decides they want - and I'm getting the vibes that Vineyard is being planned by developers with little knowledge or caring of what good transit is or can be.

[Makid]

News about Life on State:

https://www.lifeonstate.com/workshop-2-rsvp-now-1/

Salt Lake City walkers and bikers are hit more on State Street than anywhere else. Will it ever change?

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics...t-ever-change/

By Taylor W. Anderson

Walkers and bikers are hit more often on State Street than anywhere else in Salt Lake City, according to police crash records, a reality that may have helped drive a public perception that the road through town needs drastic changes.

The state-owned highway that cuts through all of Salt Lake Valley also is viewed as a hot spot for crime, a tough road to cross even at crosswalks, and a car-friendly climate that’s not great for biking, storefronts or housing.

Residents have told city and state leaders they want to feel safer along the road, and the city worked to put those ideas into a high-level vision for the road in a new draft plan called Life on State that will be presented to the public Monday night at Salt Lake Community College South City campus.

But some of the ideas that consultants say would spur economic growth and make the street safer, like slowing down cars and giving more space to bikers, walkers and buses, clash with policies of the Utah Department of Transportation. That puts in doubt whether the most drastic changes in the draft plan will happen.

“State Street needs to serve a high volume of vehicles,” said Heidi Goedhart, active transportation manager with UDOT. “People need to travel that corridor in downtown Salt Lake City.”

Salt Lake City spent months working with the county, South Salt Lake, the state and Utah Transit Authority to see what residents wanted after what the draft plan says were “decades of change and benign neglect” that degraded the road in “many stretches.”

Residents who weighed in called for making the street safer for all users, plus better transit options and new businesses. Sixty-seven percent of people who gave input said they wanted the street to be safer for bikers, walkers and cars, reduced crime, or general wholesale change.

Indeed, as consultant John Fregonese put it in a recent interview: “There’s no way to get from one side to the other of State safely.”

Salt Lake City engineers confirmed an analysis by The Salt Lake Tribune: In 2016 and 2017, more walkers and bikers were hit on State Street than anywhere else in town. Those collisions occurred at intersections but also at designated pedestrian crosswalks with flashing yellow or red lights throughout the road in Salt Lake City.

Records from the Salt Lake City Police Department show 38 walkers and 27 bikers were hit in that time. (A city traffic engineer put the number at 37 walkers and 30 bikers, but confirmed that both were the highest of any road in the city.) None of the crashes during the two years was fatal.

“Safety was a big driving force behind this plan or the need for this plan because it is the most dangerous place to walk,” said Julia Reed, with Fregonese Associates. “There’s a real need to improve safety and security for pedestrians on State to make it a more enjoyable place to be.”

On much of the street, designated crosswalks are only at intersections that are a quarter-mile from one another. Pedestrians frequently cross midblock.

UDOT representatives say the agency is open to changes that focus on people traveling on foot and it will look at those when it repairs segments of road as part of its regular maintenance schedule. But altering the look and feel of the street — generally by taking some space from cars and giving it to bikers, walkers and buses — clashes with UDOT’s guidelines of keeping cars moving.

“In many respects, it could be true that the community is not seeing the regional aspect of the roadway,” said Molly Robinson, urban designer for Salt Lake City. “And it could be true that UDOT is not seeing the local needs and desires for the roadway.”

Like other state departments of transportation, UDOT conducts road planning using what’s called level of service guidelines, which is generally the ability to keep cars moving down the road without congestion.

“This is a regional roadway,” Goedhart said. “We’re still very focused on maintaining kind of the level of service for cars — the amount of cars that can still drive down this. We’re not looking at removing capacity” for cars.

Using that metric could prevent ideas that consultants and residents put together as part of the new vision, such as bike lanes that are protected from car lanes, wider sidewalks or lanes dedicated to buses, urban planners say.

“If we default to a level of service goal for cars, I’ve been in so many projects where that precludes so many other design elements that are included in” the Life on State draft plan, said Don Kostelec, a Boise urban planning consultant who has done work in Utah.

Business on State

If the biggest changes consultants and the public envisioned would lead to more congestion on State Street, they also likely would lead to more housing, offices and retail being built along the street, consultants said.

Those changes include taking a lane from parking and giving it to bikers who would be protected from traffic by trees. There would be wider medians separating traffic, with areas for pedestrians to take a break while crossing the 100-foot-plus-wide road, and wider sidewalks.

In the project area, which runs from North Temple to 3300 South and 200 East to 300 West, Salt Lake City and South Salt Lake could attract 30,500 new jobs and $4.4 billion in new development over 20 years, according to the draft. That’s up about threefold over the growth the modeling says would happen without any changes.

Sales tax collections from new businesses opening could climb fivefold, and annual property tax collections could climb from $12 million a year to $43 million. Eight-thousand housing units could be created in large and midsize apartment buildings under what the plan calls “full implementation,” up from 1,700 built by doing nothing.

People “don’t necessarily want to have their apartment located on a scene like this,” Fregonese, the consultant, said, showing a picture of State Street near 2300 South in South Salt Lake.

The modeling also looked at changes in retail and office and energy consumption with different changes in the street. It found that every metric but one could improve with more drastic street shifts, though rent would slightly climb compared to the existing setup.

“Converting that auto-oriented use is just a great per-acre return on property taxes for the city,” Kostelec said.

Bike on State

There are no bike lanes on State Street, yet bikers routinely use the shoulders and sidewalks and some join cars in the main lanes to travel north toward downtown or south toward Interstate 80.

Most of the changes proposed in the draft plan don’t include space dedicated to biking. They do include wider sidewalks and possibly eliminating a right-turn-only lane to make space for a bigger pedestrian waiting area that would make crosswalks narrower.

That irks some bike advocates who say residents out of cars face roadblocks to reach existing and possible future businesses there.

“Bicyclists have destinations on State Street,” said Dave Iltis, editor and publisher of Cycling Utah and a biking advocate. “What are we supposed to do?”

Goedhart said bikers have other options, like using parallel streets and side streets to get where they need to on State.

“We’ve kind of understood that a lot of the cyclists need to access destinations on State Street,” Goedhart said. “But predominantly they’re choosing to bike along lower stressed” routes like Main Street and 200 West.

Expecting bikers to use streets off State and still find businesses on State Street is unreasonable, Iltis said.

“The problem is their whole mentality is about moving cars,” Iltis said of UDOT. “They are why I’m participating in the process but I’m not very optimistic with any of it changing.”

UDOT spokesman John Gleason said the agency will continue working with Salt Lake City and others on next steps, and that changes would be put in place if needed and if money is available for them. That could take years, and it would be pricey.

“If funding becomes available and it’s determined that there’s a need there and that need is prioritized then we could potentially go in sooner than that and put in some of these recommendations,” Gleason said.

I think the simple solution to the issue is that UDoT sell State Street to SLC and SSLC. SLC gets North Temple to 2100 South, SSLC gets 2100 South to 3300 South.

UDoT gets money for other projects and each City is able to begin implementing updates and upgrades to the streets over time. They could use various funding sources from TIF to Impact Fees to pay for the improvements.

Additionally, UDoT needs to get out of the business of moving just cars and into the business of moving people.

[Always Sunny in SLC]

This is a perfect example of conflicting values and why it is tough when you don't have a transportation policy that has the same goals at every level of government. UDOT is in the business of moving cars not people. I used to think that was a silly distinction, but then I realized that if we were more mode agnostic then we could change our policies and still have a goal of mobility. Basically, what UDOT is saying is we are tasked with moving cars at very high levels and all other priorities (health, other modes of transport, crime, human lives not contained in a car and property values) are clearly of secondary importance. I recognize that is what UDOT is tasked with and they are simply executing the policies set by generations of lawmakers, but the result is the traveler is given huge priority over the local and functions as a clear subsidy to non local traffic. I would like to see state, county and city laws that say we will seek to accommodate non local traffic up to a point, but beyond that point we will not because it has so many ill effects on the communities these roads cut through.

These types of roads are great if you live at the edge of the city where those roads turn into low traffic streets, but as soon as homes are built out further and further and your edge of the city sleepy city is now in the middle of the region you realize these roads are terrible. Now that sleepy road is a 6-9 lane monster that is a de facto barrier to children, elderly and disabled and every other brave soul who dares move through the area in anything other than a car. This is non virtuous cycle that needs new policies to unwind this mess.

[Makid]

We new it was coming:

Council votes to enact $25M sales tax hike to 'change life' in Salt Lake City

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46312231&ni...salt-lake-city

The day after Mayor Jackie Biskupski unveiled her proposal on how to spend roughly $25 million that a half-penny sales tax hike would generate, the Salt Lake City Council unanimously voted to activate the increase.

That means those who shop in Salt Lake City will pay an estimated 5 cents more for every $10 spent (minus food and big-ticket purchases like vehicles) when the tax starts being collected later this fall.

The funding layout will be adjusted over the next few weeks and finalized with the City's budget. We do know that the City does plan to enact the entire City Mass Transit Plan with this as well as some additional routes.

The route changes from the Mass Transit Plan will be enacted in August of 2019.

Now, if SL County enacts their Sales Tax increase, next August could be one of the biggest change days ever for UTA/TDU. This is without even thinking about Utah County enacting the tax increase.

The Wasatch Front (UTA area) has been nearing a return to a positive growth rate on transit usage across all modes. It was #4 in the U.S. for ridership growth between `16 and `17 with a ridership loss of .08%. We are close to being in a very small minority of growing transit riders (with minimal investment).

The upcoming restructuring next year will increase ridership. The only question currently is how much will ridership increase? This is the question as again, currently only SLC has increased taxes for transit and the increase will primarily only impact those living and visiting SLC.

I do know that when the SLC Transit Master Plan is in place, I personally will have 15 minute bus service on all 4 sides of my house by 2.5 blocks or closer. I as well as most of my neighbors do plan to take transit to work once the frequencies and improvements are in place. While it is a small sample size, it is a big change since all currently drive. It may be an increase of roughly 5 riders daily but that is just myself and my neighbors. I would like to think that this could be an increase of at least 15% to bus ridership. It would only be approximately 12,000 average daily riders for that to happen, based on the most recent ridership reports.

[jubguy3]

Where can we view the proposed changes?

[Makid]

Originally Posted by jubguy3

Where can we view the proposed changes?

The Master Plan document is located here:

http://www.slcdocs.com/transportatio...FULL_FINAL.pdf

This doesn't include any changes that are proposed to improve transit within the NWQ that have been discussed in the last few weeks by the City Council.

For the County level, there aren't any concrete plans other than to increase bus frequencies and paying down existing debt loads to be able to begin speeding up work on the WFRC transit projects. Utah County would be MAG projects.

[Utahn]

I've been a lurker on the forum for a few years. I found this gem in the Mayor's proposed budget and thought I'd share it here. On page D-18, the Mayor's proposed budget includes $558,000 towards a new Trax Station at 650 South Main Street.

http://www.slcdocs.com/budget/mayor19.pdf

Funding will be utilized for construction of a new light rail station at 650 S. Main Street. Demand for the stop will come from the
proposed 650 Main office development and potential redevelopment of the Sears property. The project aligns with the Downtown Master
Plan by improving transit access and addressing transit gaps between the downtown and surrounding neighborhoods. The project will
also facilitate economic development around the station by providing a link to downtown and other major destinations. It is anticipated
that these funds would need to be supplemented by surrounding development in order to construct the station pursuant to actual cost
estimates.

[Hatman]

Welcome, Utahn, and good find! I've wanted that station to be finished for a few years now. It's really awesome that its finally happening!

Also, the price seems to be pretty nice. Granted, there is no track or utility work to be done, just placing the station down on top of the existing ground - but $550,000 is such a small price compared to other projects I wonder why this hasn't been done sooner? (probably politics of who would pay for it...)

[Utahn]

I'm excited as well! This will have a huge impact on the surrounding blocks. Unfortunately, I think there is still a little ways to go.

Originally Posted by Hatman

It is anticipated
that these funds would need to be supplemented by surrounding development in order to construct the station pursuant to actual cost
estimates.

Based on this, I think the actual cost of the station is higher and they expect developers to pitch in. Perhaps the Patrinely Group has said they will contribute towards the cost of the station?

[Makid]

Originally Posted by Utahn

I'm excited as well! This will have a huge impact on the surrounding blocks. Unfortunately, I think there is still a little ways to go.



Based on this, I think the actual cost of the station is higher and they expect developers to pitch in. Perhaps the Patrinely Group has said they will contribute towards the cost of the station?

I think I read that the stations cost approximately $1.5 Million. So the City is supplying just over 1/3 of the cost.

Some of the cost can come from impact fees from Patrinely's 650 tower. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if Wasatch Partners was interested in the station as well as they did the apartments on 600 S and State.

With the possible 20+ story apartment building on the SE corner of 600S and Main as well as the Sears block redevelopment, this station just makes sense.

I do wonder what the final breakdown will be for the remaining funds for the station.

[RC14]

I was talking to someone the other day about the old rail ROW that runs down the middle of 400 W. This person said a street car line on that ROW was being talked about. I don't know how knowledgeable he is about such subjects but I was wonder if anyone had heard anything about that? I know I have seen people on this forum propose similar things but have there been any proposals by the city or UTA for such a line?

I would like to see the S line extended up to Ballpark, then over to the north-west on existing ROW to 400 W and from there up to Salt Lake Central.

[Makid]

Originally Posted by RC14

I was talking to someone the other day about the old rail ROW that runs down the middle of 400 W. This person said a street car line on that ROW was being talked about. I don't know how knowledgeable he is about such subjects but I was wonder if anyone had heard anything about that? I know I have seen people on this forum propose similar things but have there been any proposals by the city or UTA for such a line?

I would like to see the S line extended up to Ballpark, then over to the north-west on existing ROW to 400 W and from there up to Salt Lake Central.

The 400 W ROW is planned to be used as both a streetcar line to the Granary as well as part of the Trax outer Loop to 700 South.

This is still quite a few years out 15+ but on the planning lists at least.

[Hatman]

A newly released rendering of a project my office is working on for the city of Omaha, which is building a "BRT" line called ORBT (Omaha Rapid Bus Transit):


As you can see, the bus stations are BRT quality, but the buses have no bus lanes. For a few blocks in the downtown area, the streetside parking is being removed for a 'BAT' lane (Buses and Right-Turns ONLY), but beyond that the buses share the road with cars and make station stops without leaving their travel lane.

I think this approach would work very nicely on State Street, Redwood Road, and 700 East, where the roads are already very fast with very few stoplights. If every road getting BRT has to be fully reconstructed like the two University roads in Provo/Orem did, we'll be waiting for the end of time to get BRT everywhere it is needed. Doing it this way would be a compromise, but not a big one, IMO.

[Makid]

Hatman,

I do like the project. I also agree that this would be a great mid-level step between the current bus service and full center running BRT.

This type of project allows for a cheaper build out and faster build times while encouraging denser development and improving the transit culture along the transit line. Once development and ridership get to a level to support additional upgrades, it could be done in sections (1 or 2 miles at a time) to save on costs.

As long as an increase in zoning accompanies the stations, this process could work very well and help improve transit ridership and the way transit is perceived by the general public, particularly the dreaded bus.

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by Makid

This type of project allows for a cheaper build out and faster build times while encouraging denser development and improving the transit culture along the transit line. Once development and ridership get to a level to support additional upgrades, it could be done in sections (1 or 2 miles at a time) to save on costs.

I like the way you think, Makid.
This is the sensible approach. The most important thing is to get something running so that it has popular support. For example, the only reason people are talking about improving FrontRunner into a higher-speed electrified double-tracked railway is because these are improvements, not something new. If you were to propose going from no commuter rail to a fully built-out and improved FrontRunner, people would laugh in your face. The only reason the improvements have legitimacy is because people are already cramming themselves into every available space of FrontRunner trains during rush hours every day.

So when it comes to BRT, we need to have the same over-popularity problem to solve. How do we get riding the bus to be more attractive? Make better stations. Spread them out like the MAX line does for faster running times. Have the buses stop in the street rather than pulling out of traffic so that the buses don't need to fight with car traffic. Increase the frequencies so that during rush hours no schedule is needed - a bus will come ever 5-6 minutes, so if you miss one it's no big deal.

...make them free to use?

And once the buses become so popular that overcrowding becomes a problem, people will begin to ask 'how can we add capacity?' and 'how can we speed up the buses and avoid traffic?' The answer to both of these questions is dedicated bus lanes. And then, just like that, people will become big fans of real BRT.

Originally Posted by Makid

As long as an increase in zoning accompanies the stations, this process could work very well and help improve transit ridership and the way transit is perceived by the general public, particularly the dreaded bus.

I often feel this way myself. The last time I rode a bus it made me motion sick with how often it pulled in and out of traffic, and the constant lurching that involved as the driver had to nose his way into uncooperative cars.

Zoning is important too - we need to treat our bus stations like we do TRAX stations.

In general, we really need to treat all aspects of bus transit like we treat rail transit. I'm fairly convinced the reason people like TRAX and rail transit is not because they are rail fans. (I am a rail fan, and it takes one to know one!) Instead they like the superior experience. Buses can offer that same experience, it just needs a coordinated vision from UTA (or whatever we call it now) and funding.