If I remember correctly, this 'double track' is going to extend the current Vineyard sideing 3 miles to the north. There will still be 3 miles of single track between the north end of that siding and the American Fork station. Basically, this isn't a 'double track' project at all, it is a siding lengthening. Even after this project is completed, only one train at a time will be able to travel between American Fork and Vineyard. The whole impetus for this project was that the Vineyard station will finally be completed, and this is going to make travel times on the south end even longer - so much longer that trains will no longer meet up at the passing sidings anymore.
This whole thing bugs me in the extreme. This is UTA being given an opportunity to add some real fluidity to the Utah Valley segment of FrontRunner, and an opportunity to construct infrastructure that will be needed in the future at a far cheaper cost (costs always go up - building it now is always cheaper than waiting to do it later). Instead, UTA is being as absolutely cheap as it can get, and extending a siding instead of adding a true second track between Vineyard and American Fork.
Specifically, my complaints are as follows:
1)There is no segment along the entire FrontRunner line that would be easier to double-track. UTA owns the ROW, it is perfectly flat, and the foundations for the one bridge that would be needed (crossing the American Fork river) are already built and waiting for the future second track.
2) By adding a switch into the main line between Vineyard and American Fork, UTA will have to shut down the line south of American Fork for about a week. They would not need to do this if they were adding a switch into the American Fork siding. Then, when the real double-track project comes along in the future, UTA will have to close the line for another week while this switch and all the communication and mechanical systems are torn out, since no crossover will be needed so far from a station. Why spend so much money on something that is going to get ripped out later? I say spend money on things we know will be permanent, so that taxpayer money is not wasted!
3) By having a switch halfway between American Fork and Vineyard, UTA is permanently slowing the travel time between these two stations. A switch limits train speeds to 40 mph, and with Positive Train Control, 40 mph must be observed many thousands of feet in advance. And because the track speed used to be 80 mph, UTA is halving their top speed between these stations.
4) The cost of the project is $10 million. To double its length and achieve a true double track would cost about $20 million. Apparently this is too expensive. At the same time, though, UDOT is reconstructing the '
Technology Corridor' on I-15 for over $400 million. This sort of funding disparity for two projects that are trying to achieve the same goal (moving people north-south in northern Utah County) makes me seriously depressed.
As much as I hated the S-Line 'double track' project completed earlier this year for being both too little and also unnecessary, at least that project really is a true 'double track.' There are stations at both ends, and trains can travel independently between stations. So far on the FrontRunner there are only two sections of 'double track,' and those are between North Temple and Salt Lake Central Station (less than a mile in length) and between Provo and Orem (I count this despite the small section of single-track in downtown Provo because it would not affect train operations).
This new 'double track' project will not change that.
PS: I'm sorry if this post is especially grumpy. I really am optimistic on transit's potential in the long-term, but these sort of near-sighted projects make me doubt that UTA is really interested in improving itself at any level. It is especially disheartening when I felt like I had a chance to influence the project in the right direction, but was ignored. Eventually FrontRunner will be double-tracked, but until funding for it is found we will have to fight harder.