Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[Hatman]

Hopefully the money for the second track comes through. Right now, with nothing started, it sounds like one of those pie-in-the-sky ideas that will never happen, but once there is actual money given to it and real work done, we can say that double-tracking is a "work in progress" and I feel like it will get a momentum of its own. After all, the goal is both reliability and more frequent service, and we're not going to get both of those things with merely strategic double-tracking.
If you double the amount of second track, and then also double the frequency, you still have the same reliability issues (arguably they are even worse sense there are twice as many trains that could be delayed now). If you double the amount of second track without doubling the frequency, you have only doubled the reliability (because trains will delay each other less) but you haven't made the system completely reliable, since there will still be places where delays will occur.
There may be places like the South Jordan flyover bridge that take decades to get a second track, but on the whole FrontRunner needs a dedicated source of funding for upgrades until we get a system that is fully double-tracked and electrified. These one-time charity handouts are excellent, but they're nothing like what UDOT gets to build new freeways.
Which leads to...

Originally Posted by bob rulz

I absolutely do not want UTA as part of UDOT. UTA should be its own agency, not be run by people who think the car is the answer to everything. Consider me skeptical that it would lead to better transit as opposed to transit just being marginalized.

I completely understand these fears. In the last few years especially it seems like the car-centric minds at UDOT have sucked up all the available transportation funding for new roads and wider freeways.

But ideally UDOT should be able to understand that transit is a more effective use of their funding in some cases, and once they get rolling on something it is generally hard to stop them. Look at the West Davis Expressway. If that massive, unnecessary project is still going forward after so much local opposition - as well as ecological and agricultural concerns - it stands to follow that UDOT would make an awesome driving force behind a full upgrade of FrontRunner. And a full upgrade will require a lot of driving force, due to its massive costs (estimated here on this thread to be between $1-2 Billion).


So... where should the first $34-100 million go? What sections would be the most strategic to double-track first?

• I hope that the first $6 million is added to the Vineyard Station project (discussed a few pages back) so that the new double-track around that station can extend all the way to American Fork. That is, by my estimation, the lowest-hanging fruit.
• Once that is done, it is very tempting to kick in another $6-8 million to add a second track between Vineyard and Orem, so that double-track goes all the way from Provo to American Fork. But that section would involve relocating some miles of Union Pacific track and the associated signals, so it might not be the most cost-effective use of this money.
• Draper to South Jordan should be pretty cheap and easy, presuming UTA can use the existing bridge at 12300 south.
• Extending the double track from north Salt Lake to Woods Cross station is also very tempting, but that section is 5 miles long and has some ROW issues.
• Woods Cross to Farmington would be awesome, since it is right next to the freeway and would eliminate the Centerville siding, which is always embarrassing to use (having a train stopped next to I-15 traffic blowing past at 75 mph). But that section is 7.5 miles long and would require several relocations to make everything fit.
• Any station pair between Farmington and Roy could probably be done pretty cheaply.

It's hard not to get my hopes up, but I will have to wait and see what we get.

[Makid]

Originally Posted by Hatman

So... where should the first $34-100 million go? What sections would be the most strategic to double-track first?

• I hope that the first $6 million is added to the Vineyard Station project (discussed a few pages back) so that the new double-track around that station can extend all the way to American Fork. That is, by my estimation, the lowest-hanging fruit.
• Once that is done, it is very tempting to kick in another $6-8 million to add a second track between Vineyard and Orem, so that double-track goes all the way from Provo to American Fork. But that section would involve relocating some miles of Union Pacific track and the associated signals, so it might not be the most cost-effective use of this money.
• Draper to South Jordan should be pretty cheap and easy, presuming UTA can use the existing bridge at 12300 south.
• Extending the double track from north Salt Lake to Woods Cross station is also very tempting, but that section is 5 miles long and has some ROW issues.
• Woods Cross to Farmington would be awesome, since it is right next to the freeway and would eliminate the Centerville siding, which is always embarrassing to use (having a train stopped next to I-15 traffic blowing past at 75 mph). But that section is 7.5 miles long and would require several relocations to make everything fit.
• Any station pair between Farmington and Roy could probably be done pretty cheaply.

It's hard not to get my hopes up, but I will have to wait and see what we get.

I would honestly like it broken into 2 parts, Easy/Cheap and Hard/Costly for double tracking.

If there is a full $100 Million available, I would love for 1/2 to 2/3 of the funds be spent on the hardest/costliest sections for double tracking. Outside of this, I would hope that money could be spent on linking as many station pairs as possible.

Perhaps link 2 station pairs and buy additional ROW and do prep in preparation of the next round of funding.

I do expect the State wants to have the full line double tracked as soon as possible so that it can make better use of the prison site. So I would expect there to be more money coming down the pipeline soon.

[Old&New]

Originally Posted by hatman

now this is just crazy talk.

They actually remind me of this:

Make S.L.C. great again!

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by Makid

Perhaps link 2 station pairs and buy additional ROW and do prep in preparation of the next round of funding.

You make a good point.

My priority with any new money is as follows:

1. Additional funding to the Vineyard station double-track project, because that project is already moving forward and I hate the lengthened-siding part of that project so much...
2. Draw up engineering plans for double-tracking the entire line. Complete 100% plans as if the line was fully funded.
3. Preserve ROW, which honestly shouldn't be a very big step. So much of the needed additional ROW is owned by UDOT or Union Pacific Railroad, or is in private back yards, none of which needs to be purchased now (future purchase agreements will suffice). But there are several places where it would be most cost-effective to buy the land now, so this must be done ASAP.
4. Add a second track between station pairs as funding becomes available. For political/fairness reasons, alternate between northern segment and southern segment.
5. I would be totally cool with some money being spent to shift existing tracks over to where they will need to be to accommodate a second track even if there is no money yet to actually build the second track. The intent being that if electrification funding comes before the line is fully double-tracked, it will be necessary to have everything in its permanent place before the poles go up. Otherwise double-tracking will cost many multiples of what it would have cost without electrification. This sort of planning ahead is why step 1 is so necessary, because without it things may get built entirely on assumptions, which may prove to be incorrect as time goes on.

I guess I'm already failing my earlier resolution to not get my hopes up, because clearly I am getting my hopes up...

[Makid]

I know we have talked about this in the past a bit but here is some more information:

https://www.progressiverailroading.c...Qj2Q_gNZrJ-W2M

Utah DOT considers rail, other transit options for Little Cottonwood Canyon

The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) is studying transit options that include rail for reducing traffic congestion in Little Cottonwood Canyon.

The department is working with the Utah Transit Authority and the U.S. Forest Service on a plan for an integrated transportation system that would improve the reliability, mobility and safety for residents, visitors, and commuters who use State Route 210 into Little Cottonwood Canyon.

"Ultimately, the partners seek to deliver transportation options that meet the needs of the community while preserving the value of the Central Wasatch Mountains," UDOT officials said in a statement posted on the agency's website.

Department officials are working on a draft environmental impact statement slated for completion in the summer.

"[We're] looking at different transit options including rail, seeing what the implications are of having rail go up and down the canyon," UDOT Project Manager John Thomas said yesterday in a FOX 13 news report.

Other options being considered are enhanced bus service and aerial systems such as gondolas and tramways.

I am anxious to read the report when it comes out.

I think in the end, there will be rail up LCC as I think there was some discussion with Stadler about it and that is what ultimately lead them to build their NA HQ in SLC. They have the expertise that will be needed for the project and the trains would all be built locally.

Then once the line in LCC is opened, it would be a demonstration line that Stadler could use to show off as part of their sales campaigns. I think it would also help with an Olympics drive and could show a commitment to sustainability as well as venue upkeep if/when the Olympic Committee decide to go down to just a few rotating host cities.

[Hatman]

I am far less certain of the need for rail in the cottonwood canyons. It would be super cool, and I would probably have to quit my job to be a train operator for that line, but I don't think it is the most economical way to solve the current traffic problem.

The push for rail in Little Cottonwood Canyon is often justified with the fact that there was an abandoned ROW for an old mining railroad that went all the way up to Alta. This is true, but in the years since removal the ROW was largely used by UDOT as the road up the canyon, and where the ROW wasn't eaten up by the road it became a trail surrounded by rich people's cabins:

UTAH RAILS GOOGLE MAP

More maps from UTAH RAILS:
https://utahrails.net/utahrails/utahrails-maps.php

So any rail line up either canyon would be basically parallel to the road, which is a less effective position for a rail line to function in. For instance, managing all the new railroad crossings from the side-streets and driveways, especially in ski-season snow levels, seems like a tough job. The road is already pretty wide, so I imagine the line would be built like FrontRunner is now - single-track with passing sidings. This would severely limit capacity. For example, a similar mountain-climbing railway to a ski-area in Switzerland, the Gornergrat Railway, has a capacity of 2,500 people per hour per direction (using EMU narrow-gauge vehicles on a single-track system with passing tracks). This is pretty good, but not any better than a road with mixed-traffic and frequent buses:
https://nacto.org/publication/transi...g-move-people/

I think electric buses on the existing roads are the right way to go. Here is a very basic, straight-forward, and obvious plan:

1) Charge a modest toll for access into the Cottonwood Canyons. Residents and employees are obviously exempt, at least at first. If a toll works at Millcreek Canyon, it ought to work on the next canyons over too.

2) Use the toll income to buy the quarry between Big Cottonwood Canyon and I-215. This land has already been leveled and will make for a fantastic Park-and-Ride lot for basically all visitors to the canyon. Perhaps in the future a Visitors' Center and Ranger Station and whatever else can be built there like a real tourist destination, but at first all we care about is building a large parking area and nice bus-loading area.

3) Use the toll income to make bus service into the canyons free for everyone - then run a stupidly large amount of buses into the canyons. I'm talking a bus every 5 minutes at least so that there is never the overcrowding issues that everyone is always scared of.

4) Use the toll income to buy a fleet of electric buses designed for the mountainous environment. Electric buses generate power on the way down, so they will only need charging infrastructure at the Park-and-Ride lot at the quarry site.

5) Use the toll income to make the bus stops in the canyons AWESOME:

• Nice level bus-pads for easy boarding
• Cool rustic shelters that blend into the environment
• Heaters for the winter
• Platforms for faster boarding
• Maps and information on the surroundings and when the next bus is arriving

None of this requires a lot of planning and studies. If people could just work together on this issue and make the incremental changes needed, we could eliminate traffic in the canyons for both summer and winter.
Perhaps it is time for UDOT to step aside on this issue and create a special Cottonwoods Canyons Transportation District that can address its own problems.

[bob rulz]

I like that solution a lot and I hope it's considered. I agree that rail may not be the best solution in this instance.

Now rail up Parley's Canyon, that's something I could get behind.

[Makid]

Upcoming Legislative session information:

https://fox13now.com/2020/01/20/hous...e-legislature/

he 2020 Utah State Legislature kicks off next week with more than 1,100 bills already requested. In a recent interview with FOX 13, the Speaker outlined priorities the Republican majority has this year.

"The things we heard the most were number one: education," he said. "The second thing our members told us is transportation. We’re seeing continued congestion up and down the state and how do we make wise investments, and the other concern is housing affordability. It’s a big concern, growing concern."

Mass transit could see additional attention during the legislative session. Governor Gary Herbert proposed spending $100 million on air quality this year, including funding for expansion of the grid for electric vehicles and investments in transit.

The Speaker said transportation and connectivity to transit is a big issue for the House to tackle.

"Mass transit has already taken off what we think is between a lane and a half and two lanes on I-15," he said.

[Utaaah!]

Originally Posted by Hatman

I am far less certain of the need for rail in the cottonwood canyons. It would be super cool, and I would probably have to quit my job to be a train operator for that line, but I don't think it is the most economical way to solve the current traffic problem.

The push for rail in Little Cottonwood Canyon is often justified with the fact that there was an abandoned ROW for an old mining railroad that went all the way up to Alta. This is true, but in the years since removal the ROW was largely used by UDOT as the road up the canyon, and where the ROW wasn't eaten up by the road it became a trail surrounded by rich people's cabins:

UTAH RAILS GOOGLE MAP

More maps from UTAH RAILS:
https://utahrails.net/utahrails/utahrails-maps.php

So any rail line up either canyon would be basically parallel to the road, which is a less effective position for a rail line to function in. For instance, managing all the new railroad crossings from the side-streets and driveways, especially in ski-season snow levels, seems like a tough job. The road is already pretty wide, so I imagine the line would be built like FrontRunner is now - single-track with passing sidings. This would severely limit capacity. For example, a similar mountain-climbing railway to a ski-area in Switzerland, the Gornergrat Railway, has a capacity of 2,500 people per hour per direction (using EMU narrow-gauge vehicles on a single-track system with passing tracks). This is pretty good, but not any better than a road with mixed-traffic and frequent buses:
https://nacto.org/publication/transi...g-move-people/

I think electric buses on the existing roads are the right way to go. Here is a very basic, straight-forward, and obvious plan:

1) Charge a modest toll for access into the Cottonwood Canyons. Residents and employees are obviously exempt, at least at first. If a toll works at Millcreek Canyon, it ought to work on the next canyons over too.

2) Use the toll income to buy the quarry between Big Cottonwood Canyon and I-215. This land has already been leveled and will make for a fantastic Park-and-Ride lot for basically all visitors to the canyon. Perhaps in the future a Visitors' Center and Ranger Station and whatever else can be built there like a real tourist destination, but at first all we care about is building a large parking area and nice bus-loading area.

3) Use the toll income to make bus service into the canyons free for everyone - then run a stupidly large amount of buses into the canyons. I'm talking a bus every 5 minutes at least so that there is never the overcrowding issues that everyone is always scared of.

4) Use the toll income to buy a fleet of electric buses designed for the mountainous environment. Electric buses generate power on the way down, so they will only need charging infrastructure at the Park-and-Ride lot at the quarry site.

5) Use the toll income to make the bus stops in the canyons AWESOME:

• Nice level bus-pads for easy boarding
• Cool rustic shelters that blend into the environment
• Heaters for the winter
• Platforms for faster boarding
• Maps and information on the surroundings and when the next bus is arriving

None of this requires a lot of planning and studies. If people could just work together on this issue and make the incremental changes needed, we could eliminate traffic in the canyons for both summer and winter.
Perhaps it is time for UDOT to step aside on this issue and create a special Cottonwoods Canyons Transportation District that can address its own problems.

Your proposal sounds very reasonable and economical, Hatman. One concern that it doesn't address, however, is the avalanche danger. In a prior life, I had a girlfriend who worked at Snowbird. She regularly had to stay overnight in a makeshift shelter because an avalanche had closed the road. Maybe the frequency of road closures wouldn't justify the increased expense, but I've always thought that an elevated solution -- monorail, gondola, etc. -- would be the best solution for canyon mobility.

[Atlas]

A gondola going all the way up Little Cottonwood Canyon with multiple stations would be really cool. The views would be awesome. It would probably be a year-round tourist attraction and would definitely ease congestion if it was reasonably priced.

[Hatman]

Aerial structures are not always immune to avalanches either. If an avalanche or rock slide takes out a pylon or support structure, the results are catastrophic. For a road it is an inconvenience (same for a train).

However, I think a gondola is the cheapest solution to avalanches - but not in the way we're all thinking. Just run a gondola between the two canyons, and if one canyon is closed from a slide you can at least get everyone out of the closed canyon through the open one. Depending on the capacity of the gondola, maybe you could even keep the resorts open.

A tunnel between the two canyons would also work, and may even be better. I've heard rumors that some old mining tunnels either already connect the two canyons, or are very close to connecting with each other, and that a sort of mini-subway could be created. Has anyone else heard about this?

[Orlando]

I would love it if they did monorail up Little Cottonwood Canyon. Can you imagine it docking into the Snowbird Center at the upper plaza level. Get off the monorail and walk a few steps to get right on to the tram. That would be killer!

[Makid]

Originally Posted by Hatman

A tunnel between the two canyons would also work, and may even be better. I've heard rumors that some old mining tunnels either already connect the two canyons, or are very close to connecting with each other, and that a sort of mini-subway could be created. Has anyone else heard about this?

I have heard this. It is a tunnel that fully connects the 2 canyons. It is however only wide enough to support a single train.

I have heard that if they do get Trax up LCC, they would expand the tunnel to allow bi-directional traffic for when Trax extends to BCC from LCC.

The only issue outside of cost of rail up LCC is the final destination. There have been 2 camps. The First that wants it to go up LCC, into BCC and eventually down BCC creating a canyon loop. The Second would like it to go up LCC and connect into Park City to help increase potential ridership.

The Park City option would be around $5 Billion while the BCC loop is $7 Billion. The BCC Connection is around $3.5 Billion.

The tracks would be elevated in a new ROW. This would ensure that people would be able to access the canyon even if an avalanche happens.

The motivation behind the Park City option is that it would eventually lead to Trax coming down Parley's Canyon near I-80 and then following Foothill and connecting to the existing University line near the Stadium. That full loop though is nearly $10 Billion.

Some of the people I talked too thought that Trax in the canyons was dead until SLC was named the U.S. choice city for hosting the Winter Olympics. This designation makes it easier in many minds to justify the spending as it could possibly secure SLC as the permanent U.S. Winter Olympics nominee city as well as increase the number of international events at the resorts.

[Makid]

More fares being reduced:

UTA to offer free fares to more low-income people, with help from schools and social agencies

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics...ee-fares-more/

Beginning Feb. 1, UTA will offer electronic fare cards at a 75% percent discount to such groups — as long as they give the cards to the low-income (which they can define themselves) for free. They will be good for varying lengths of time chosen by agencies — a day, three days or a month — and are good beginning at first use.

The UTA pilot program is scheduled to operate through May 2021 to see how many people might be served, how many agencies are interested and the possible effects on the transit agency.

When he arrived at UTA just over a year ago, Christensen thought maybe the agency should convert to free fare for everyone (fares now provide about 11% of UTA’s total revenue). “But the more I studied and looked at it,” he said, “I think free fair is problematic in the long term.”

It could force cancellation of service and prevent expansion unless other funding sources are found. Another problem, he said, is free fares may make it difficult to remove people who might try to ride all day.

[Makid]

UTA Board orders $400K study on potential TRAX, streetcar expansion

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics...rders-k-study/

The Utah Transit Authority Board is taking a big step toward planning how, when and where to expand its TRAX and streetcar systems — even though it had promised in recent years to focus most expansion efforts instead on buses after amassing $2 billion in debt for train systems.

The board approved a $399,673 contract Wednesday with LTK Engineering for what documents call a comprehensive analysis of the future of UTA’s light rail network “to determine which improvements UTA should pursue in both the near and long term.”

Loose long-range plans through 2050 developed by the Wasatch Front Regional Council include many possible TRAX and streetcar projects. Among them are:

• Extending the current Sugar House streetcar line, called the S-Line, so that it forms a loop toward the University of Utah and into downtown Salt Lake City.

• Extending the S-Line to Millcreek.

• Extending TRAX west of the Salt Lake City International Airport down the west side of the valley south to the Daybreak area of South Jordan.

• Also extending TRAX from Daybreak south to Herriman and then looping eastward to Draper.

• Extending TRAX from its Salt Lake City Central Station eastward along 400 South to Main Street, which would end up creating a TRAX loop around the downtown area when combined with existing lines.

• Creating a Black Line TRAX, mostly using existing facilities, directly between the Salt Lake City International Airport and the University of Utah.

[bob rulz]

If UTA did all of that - while improving bus service and hopefully continuing to develop BRT lines - then we could really be a model for mid-sized American cities.

[Hatman]

Unsurprisingly, I am not impressed by UTA's method of small separated projects. I would rather have a single grand, unified vision of what could be done to maximize our existing infrastructure... and obviously I think this unified plan should center on the Rio Grande depot...

It is interesting how many of the downtown projects are also addressed by my Rio Grande option:

• UTA wants to create a downtown TRAX loop by finishing the 4th south TRAX line. My proposal uses 4th south as well to create a loop, but my loop is smaller than theirs and therefore cheaper and more cost effective to run.
• UTA wants a downtown streetcar - presumably between 2nd South and the Granary District. My proposal has tracks down both 2nd South and 4th West through the Granary District. These would be part of the downtown 'loop', and would get far higher usage than by a streetcar alone.
• UTA wants to create a 2nd TRAX ROW through downtown, presumably on 4th West, so that the Green Line can be rerouted and free up capacity for other lines. 1) This won't solve the capacity problem at all because the tracks between 21st South and 13th South would still be shared 2) This would create really bad customer service, because people arriving from West Valley and the Airport do not want to go to 4th West, they want to go to Main Street 3) My proposal would create a similar 4th West line, but it would have trains use this new line as a loop, not as a bypass. The airport line would be detached from the West Valley Line. West Valley trains could proceed around the 4th West/Main Street loop clockwise, and Blue Line trains could proceed around the loop counter clockwise. This way both capacity and customer service are satisfied without compromises.
• UTA wants to FINALLY run the Black Line. About time! Just do it. But as described in the last point, if a 4th West/Main Street loop were completed, TRAX trains would not go 'through' the downtown core between destinations anymore, but would circle through the loop before returning to their origins. There would always be a separate University Line (red) and Airport Line (sky-blue) and Draper Line (Navy blue) and Mid-Jordan Line (yellow) and so on and on. Each would enter the downtown loop, circle around either clockwise or counter-clockwise, and then return to their starting place. The Chicago "L" is a good example of this system at work.

There are also several projects I do not care for:
Extending the S-Line beyond Westminster college seems like a mismanagement of money. A streetcar is not a fast way to get around, even if it has its own exclusive ROW, which any extension will not have. If your goal is connecting Sugarhouse to the U of U, a BRT line is a far better option - both for speed and in cost.
A west-side TRAX suffers from the same problem. There is no rail ROW for TRAX to run at high-speeds. The entire thing would be street running, and if that is the case a BRT line is the obvious answer. It would have been nice for UDOT to leave a rail ROW when they planned for the Mountain View Corridor, but they did not, and so there is no good way to implement TRAX on the west side north of 54th South. South of 54th there is an existing rail ROW, but that would still mean 54 blocks of running in mixed-traffic on surface streets, and it's just not worth it.

In unrelated news, I'm going to type up a more comprehensive description of my plan and its justifications, and create a PDF that can be sent to planners/government officials and the like. It won't be done anytime soon, but I really think I'm on to something with this Rio Grande scheme. Other than the PDF, I really don't know what my next steps will be.

[Makid]

Faster Frontrunner and rail from SLC to Moab envisioned in new bill in the Utah legislature

https://www.fox13now.com/faster-fron...ah-legislature

SALT LAKE CITY — How’d you like to go from Salt Lake City to Moab by train? Or St. George? Or even have Frontrunner trains running along the Wasatch Front every 15 minutes?

A new bill introduced in the Utah State Legislature begins to lay the groundwork for a statewide rail system. Senate Bill 92, sponsored by Sen. Jake Anderegg, R-Lehi, would conduct a study on ways to speed up trains, expand service and utilize commuter and freight rail systems.

“We can get more people off the roads on to trains,” Sen. Anderegg told reporters on Monday.

Among the concepts Sen. Anderegg envisions: “double-tracking” Frontrunner along the Wasatch Front. That would allow the trains to run faster -- almost every 15 minutes. He also wants to see rail lines expanded throughout the Salt Lake Valley and in Davis, Weber, Utah and Tooele counties.

“Ridership will never go where it needs to go in the state for commuter ridership without those things: frequency, reliability, dependability,” he said.

Senate President J. Stuart Adams, R-Layton, has pushed the concept of “double tracking.” It has the support of Governor Gary Herbert, who mentioned it in his State of the State address last week, arguing for more mass transit in the Salt Lake City metro area.

Sen. Adams said the trains need to run faster.

“Trains in Europe? I doubt if there’s any that go under 150 miles per hour. Frontrunner is 79. We don’t even compete with third world countries with the speed,” he said.

Sen. Anderegg said Utah needs to emulate Europe and Asia when it comes to rail service. He would not rule out the idea of high-speed rail from Salt Lake City to Moab or St. George, or even up to the ski resorts.

“Those are pie in the sky a little bit,” he acknowledged. “None of that makes any sense if people that are on the west side of Salt Lake County can’t get to work.”

Sen. Andregg’s bill does include studying enhanced freight service to the Inland Port, a massive import/export center being proposed in Salt Lake City’s Northwest Quadrant.

I love that the Legislature is really wanting to look at improved rail travel including High Speed Rail.

This is also the first time I have heard of any Triple Tracking plans for some routes.

It also seems that they are really wanting Trax not just extended to Utah County but also along the west side of SL County and the Canyons.

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by Makid

[B]
Sen. Adams said the trains need to run faster.

“Trains in Europe? I doubt if there’s any that go under 150 miles per hour. Frontrunner is 79. We don’t even compete with third world countries with the speed,” he said.

Sen. Anderegg said Utah needs to emulate Europe and Asia when it comes to rail service.

I agree trains need to run faster, but not by comparing top speed, like he is saying. I doubt many commuter rail trains even in Europe go much faster than FrontRunner. (Granted there are some places where a bona-fide electrified double-tracked FrontRunner would certainly be capable of running at 100+ mph, but this shouldn't be a priority.)

Average speed is where it matters. FrontRunner goes from Salt Lake City to Provo, 44 miles, in just over an hour, so the average speed of FrontRunner is about 40 mph. Top speeds can raise the average speed, but not necessarily by all that much. Reducing delays is key. Double-tracking the entire route - not just strategically, but completely - is necessary to reduce these delays. Other things include straightening out kinks in the alignment, such as in the Jordan River Narrows where the train goes around a rock quarry at 45mph... this should be realigned so that the tracks go straight, allowing trains to blast through that area at full speed.

“Ridership will never go where it needs to go in the state for commuter ridership without those things: frequency, reliability, dependability,” he said.

This I agree with. These are much more important traits than top speed.

Overall, very exciting. After several years of letting things sit, I'm glad that the state government is finally talking about maybe stepping up funding a little bit. The goals are good, I hope they come through.

***

As far as a state-wide rail network goes, I can really only see two routes happening. SLC to Moab would be pretty easy to get going quickly, since there is already Amtrak's California Zephyr running on most of that route, so PTC is already in place on (most of) that route. Some new track will probably need to be laid to get the tracks the last mile or two down to the Colorado River, and if the state wants to make things awesome, they would also kick in several millions more $$ to get a rail bridge built across that river so that the station is slightly closer to downtown. Lots of wetlands in that area, so nothing is going to be cheap and uncontroversial, but perhaps the environmentalists would be more lenient if the development is for a train station.
As far as the train goes, if normal US passenger equipment is used, I calculated (based on the CZ schedule) that it would be about a 5 hour trip to Moab. This seems too long to be an attractive alternative, since a car ride takes only 3.75 hours.
A lot of the problem is that the existing tracks are very twisty, since they run along the bottoms of two very narrow canyons. The scenery is spectacular and is particularly famous among railfans, so I don't see a lot of ways the tracks can be straightened/improved without huge costs and controversy. So here is my alternative:
https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/fou...ion/951625613/

Basically, Wisconsin bought two high-speed trainsets to use for their Chicago-Milwaukee passenger service, but the Republican Governor refused to accept them because he was anti-rail, effectively killing that project. These factory-new trainsets have been sitting at Amtrak's maintenance facility for years, waiting for buyers. UDOT could potentially get a very, very good deal on them, saving millions of $$.

Talgo tainsets are awesome because they use a 'passive tilt' technology to swing the cars outwards on corners. This allows them to go ~10 mph faster on twisty rail lines than regular passenger trains. 10 mph may not seem like much, but since the current rail route is about 40 mph, it would speed things up by 25%. This would place the total travel time from 5 hours down to about 4, plus or minus a few minutes, making it essentially the same travel time as the car (but of course with a dining car and drinks and whatever).

If travel times really were ~4 hours, you could run a round-trip per day in each direction and have one train crew based in SLC and the other in Moab, each working ~ 8 hour shifts. That would be a fantastic initial service offering, and would lay a good foundation for service expansions in the future as more trains could be purchased.

****

The other route would be SLC to Cedar City. The railroads never reached St George, so there are currently no tracks there. There is a railhead in Cedar City, though, and even though it is in pretty rough shape it could easily be put back in service. A through-service bus could run the remaining distance to St. George until someday, in the far future, a passenger rail line could be built in the median of I-15 to St George.

The major issue for this route is Union Pacific Railroad, which owns all the tracks to Cedar City. There are currently no passenger trains on this route, so it is not yet under PTC control. It also is a very congested freight route, so UDOT would probably have to pay for a few sidings/double track sections in order to increase capacity on the line.

Both of these routes would likely be very popular with out-of-state tourists going to the National Parks, and would go a long way to making Utah a more visitor-friendly state. I think if a very small tax were placed on hotels near Arches and Zion national park, to be used to fund a Statewide Passenger Rail Initiative, we could get these trains rolling within the few years.

[bob rulz]

Hatman I'm consistently amazed at your knowledge of this subject and your well thought-out plans. I approve your future appointment as train czar.