Salt Lake Transit News Thread - Page 85

Stenar · #**1681** Posted **Apr 28, 2009, 8:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakman

Interesting... I thought the opposite was true.

Frontrunner commuter (heavy) rail is now expanding southward from SLC with one stop in Draper, but heading ultimately to Provo. The TRAX light rail was the first built going from Sandy to SLC... TRAX doesn't actually go to Draper, yet, but is expanding a few miles south from Sandy to Draper in the near future.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakman

Speaking of rail, I saw some documents, forgot where, that outlined various regions of U.S. relative to potentialy receiving high speed rail. Is the SLC area part of this high speed rail corridors study?

SLC is not part of the high speed rail corridors study.

Here's a map of the high speed rail corridors I found on HuffPost:

shakman · #**1682** Posted **Apr 28, 2009, 8:17 PM**

I do remember seeing your posted map.

The entire Mountain West Region is not in the study. I wonder cost if issues of constructing rail through the Rockies was a hurdle?

I also noticed that there is nothing through the Appalachians (gap between Pittsburgh and Cleveland).

Stenar · #**1683** Posted **Apr 28, 2009, 8:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakman

I do remember seeing your posted map.

The entire Mountain West Region is not in the sutdy. I wonder cost if issues of constructing rail through the Rockies was a hurdle?

I also noticed that there is nothing through the Appalachians (gap between Pittsburgh and Cleveland).

I think it has less to do with going through the Rockies than it does with the fact that they're trying to connect some of the largest cities together that are also fairly close together and/or already have higher ridership between those cities on existing Amtrak lines.

The Amtrak line from Chicago to CA mostly avoids the mountains and cuts across the Rockies through a narrow valley from the SW corner of Wyoming to Ogden that has mountains on either side, but is fairly level all the way.

John Martin · #**1684** Posted **Apr 28, 2009, 10:12 PM**

Wow, one year? I haven't even been on it yet! I still think of it as brand new.

jtrent77 · #**1685** Posted **Apr 29, 2009, 2:39 AM**

Quote:

SLC is not part of the high speed rail corridors study.

Here's a map of the high speed rail corridors I found on HuffPost:

Yeah I wouldn't hold your breath on this map coming to pass soon though--from everything I have read the money they are putting into the high speed rail is a drop in the bucket compared to what it will actually cost--plus California will try and then get set back for a few years and then repeat.

cololi · #**1686** Posted **Apr 29, 2009, 2:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

I assume he was referring to the south expansion of Front Runner. If you think about it, it really is rather impressive, aggressive and progressive. Many metros are attempting to even get commuter rail mentioned in transit conversations, while little old Utah began it's second phase only several months after the first phase opened.

You are right. I also don't think most documents on LRT include the south davis streetcar, which will be operating in 5-6 years. Throw in the street car planning that is currently going on in SLC, with the goal of operating a line within 2-3 years and we are well on our way. Something that doesn't get mentioned much is that the Wasatch Front geography is ideal for a linear mass transit system due to the relative narrow (east to west) valleys.

i-215 · #**1687** Posted **Apr 29, 2009, 3:22 AM**

Quote:

How the heck do they call that a network? That's as much a network as a few spilled noodles on the floor are a spaghetti dinner.

Can you imagine how pitiful the Interstate System would be if it looked like that? Places like Wyoming still wouldn't have electricity.

How on earth can we blow TRILLIONS on stuff that doesn't buy us anything tangible, yet when we have a visionary project that actually promises us economic benefits we only toss $2.00 at it. Congress is SO messed up right now.

urbanboy · #**1688** Posted **Apr 29, 2009, 3:48 AM**

I'd like to see something like this:

or this:

i-215 · #**1689** Posted **Apr 29, 2009, 5:56 AM**

That's better, but it's still not a network.

This is a network:

The sad part: For the cost of one of the bail-outs, we could've bought one of these and been the world's envy.

Urban_logic · #**1690** Posted **Apr 29, 2009, 6:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

I'm sure with all the Trax and Frontrunner rail expansions projects going on right now I'm sure we got to be up there as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakman

I would not be surprised if it were Virginia (just my guess). Why I say this is the fact that a new subway rail line is under construction from Arlington County /Fairfax County boundary to IAD. Phase 1 by itself is $2.5 Billion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makid

I think in amount of Rail, it is Colorado for the Fastrack program. I think Utah is 2nd for the amount of rail.

For currently under construction, meaning work is happening, I think we are #1 right now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makid

I think we are at 65 miles of track under construction right now. Draper is the only line not under construction and we are supposed to have a total of 70 miles including Draper.

I figure 5 miles for the Draper extension.

I haven't seen any other rail lines that are more excluding Fastracks which is 90 miles I think when it is done.

Remember that we are talking stimulus money here, not total money spent on transit systems. The stat on Utah's ranking on road stimulus money spent was counting only the projects that were funded by the stimulus bill, not all projects in total. All of the FrontRunner and TRAX lines were started or completed before the stimulus bill passed except for the airport line, so we're probably not too high on the list as far as the most stimulus money spent on rails goes. I have to agreee with Urbanboy. I wish we had the street-car systems in Salt Lake, Weber, and Davis County in a position were they could have been funded by stimulous money, which would have upped our ranking on rail projects.

Urban_logic · #**1691** Posted **Apr 29, 2009, 6:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by i-215

That's better, but it's still not a network.

This is a network:

The sad part: For the cost of one of the bail-outs, we could've bought one of these and been the world's envy.

As culturaly unpopular as the bail-outs were/are (which is perfectly understandable seeing as to what the beneficiaries did to receive them), most (if not all) were loans that must be paid back to the government at some point. If the company that recieved the bail-out fails, then that sucks for us (the taxpayers) because we just paid them billions that can not be paid back. But most of these institutions will (and are begining to) pay back the billions they recieved. AIG just paid the government back $2 billion. Not much compared to how much they got, but it's a start. Seeing as this money saved our economic system from utter collapse, the ensuing global calamity if that had happened, freed up a frozen-solid credit market that got money flowing back to us for small business loans, student loans, car loans, mortgages, etc. Plus much of this money will be paid back to the government at some point, I think it was worth the investment

DMTower · #**1692** Posted **Apr 29, 2009, 7:13 AM**

^^^ plus if you think about it we would have spent a LOT more money had the banks collapsed... how many hundreds of billions of dollars would it take to pay for the insurance on all of those federally insured bank accounts?

shakman · #**1693** Posted **Apr 29, 2009, 2:04 PM**

I understand these ideas take time to build upon. It just seems to take this Country longer to act. A high speed rail study has been ongoing for the Mid-Atlantic and NE Corridors. Then came Amtrak's Acela years later - IMO a cheap version of "high speed rail".

I am quite hopeful that part of the high speed map may start to become a reality in not too distant future. There is some conversations taking place to have high speed rail connecting Raleigh, North Carolina with Washington DC, via Richmond, VA.

UrbanBoy's second proposed system seems to be more ideal.

Future Mayor · #**1694** Posted **Apr 29, 2009, 2:30 PM**

One thing to consider that has to be done prior to the introduction of High Speed Rail is a change in federal law. There is currently a law that prohibits any land based transportation to exceed 150 mph. Thus why the Acera only travels at 150, I was watching a show about high speed travel and Acera has the capacity to travel upwards of 170-190, but due to this law it cannot. This isn't the only reason however. There are sections of newer track that would allow for Acera to reach maximum speed, but many section aren't designed for the higher speeds.

wrendog · #**1695** Posted **Apr 29, 2009, 2:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by i-215

That's better, but it's still not a network.

This is a network:

I'm excited for you network, 215. I'm especially excited for the train that goes right over the grand canyon! That'll be quite the bridge.

shakman · #**1696** Posted **Apr 29, 2009, 2:46 PM**

I was just thinking that perhaps there should be a system that connects just major metro area(s) only between each state. Then from each respective metro area, one would change to a local train system managed by the State Government that it would fall under.

Similar to a hub and spoke system for trains. Any thoughts?

Future Mayor · #**1697** Posted **Apr 29, 2009, 4:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakman

I was just thinking that perhaps there should be a system that connects just major metro area(s) only between each state. Then from each respective metro area, one would change to a local train system managed by the State Government that it would fall under.

Similar to a hub and spoke system for trains. Any thoughts?

That's the concept that I've proposed in the past. For instance you connect Boise to SLC and Portland; SLC to Boise, Reno, Vegas and Denver; Vegas to LA, SLC and Phoenix; Phoenix to Vegas, San Diego, and Albuquerque; Albq to Phoenix, Denver and somewhere in Texas. etc etc.

Future Mayor · #**1698** Posted **Apr 29, 2009, 4:08 PM**

Here's the map I posted on here last June. It's much more basic and does fewer stops and would then rely on state systems for other movement. For those concerned about me not connecting to cities east of Denver I didn't neglect them I simply only concentrated on an example of cities in the west. For eastern states that have cities much closer together such as Ohio, you could connect a couple of the bigger cities along the line.

The interesting thing about that are of the country is that most major cities are about 2-3 hours away, this isn't by coincidence either. This is due in large part based on the railroads. The larger populations grew around a trains travel time, a travel time that allowed for ice to keep things refrigerated in the cars.

shakman · #**1699** Posted **Apr 29, 2009, 5:31 PM**

What I meant was Amtrak connecting the major metro areas between each state and then the local commuter rails branching out to areas within each state.

This would also cut back on the number of stops for Amtrak since the commuter rails would take care of that aspect.

(I apologize for not being clear to begin with. I have to work on my English.

)

Future Mayor · #**1700** Posted **Apr 29, 2009, 5:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakman

What I meant was Amtrak connecting the major metro areas between each state and then the local commuter rails branching out to areas within each state.

This would also cut back on the number of stops for Amtrak since the commuter rails would take care of that aspect.

You were clear on what you meant. I wasn't questioning it, I agree.