Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[TedBell]

Originally Posted by tygr

I'm sure the FrontRunner engines use the same amount of fuel per trip whether they pull three cars (as they do now) or five or six cars. I doubt the engine would even feel the difference. UTA doesn't necessarily need to increase the number of trips, just capacity on bad air days.

According to UTA, "The addition of a fourth car on some trains, while helping meet our capacity needs, have slightly slowed down our ability to accelerate and decelerate." (http://www.letsrideuta.com/2012/12/12/frontrunner-opens-to-provo/)

You are probably right, it wouldn't burn much more fuel. Maybe if they adjusted their schedule for additional cars they would actually be able to meet their schedule when they only run 3 cars!

Unfortunately, I don't think the stations can accommodate more than 4 cars. But I like the idea.

[CountyLemonade]

I think once the updated FrontRunner schedules take effect on February 18 they'll be able to look at adding cars. Right now they're trying to squeeze every possible second out of the December 2012 schedule.

I am so bummed that punctuality has been such an enormous issue with the FrontRunner extension.

[Makid]

Some possible movement soon regarding increasing transit ridership:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/55727559-90/clear-discussed-employees-herbert.html.csp


Utah Gov. Gary Herbert, transportation officials seek ways to clear air
Air quality »Leaders discuss possible solutions for getting more cars off the road, people into trains and buses.

"Governor Herbert recognizes that air quality is indeed a problem and is something he wants to focus on," said Allyson Isom, Herbert’s deputy chief of staff, after his meeting with officials from the Utah Transit Authority and the Utah Department of Transportation.

"We need to get people out of their cars and onto mass transit," she said. So the group discussed possibilities ranging from better education to persuading more employers to buy passes for employees. She said they also discussed several innovative solutions to make mass transit more affordable or to encourage carpooling, but are not yet ready to discuss them publicly without more research.

But, "It comes down to two primary elements: education and financial incentives" to get people to use mass transit, Isom said.

"One day ridership [on bad air days] is an attractive solution to us," Allegra said. "But frankly they are looking for long-term impacts on our ridership," and improving ridership on all days.

Hopefully they do something to increase daily transit ridership. This may be a legislative increase of 0.25% to the sales tax for the UTA tax districts to lower the fares by 1/3 to 1/2. Doing this would definitely increase transit usage. If there is money available after a fare cut, increasing bus service frequency would also increase ridership.

Hopefully we hear more about movement on this soon.

[Orlando]

Like I mentioned before, the bigger issue is land development policy. No matter how inexpensive mass transit is, it will not work effectively until land development policies have incentives and penalties that encourage more urban/pedestrian type of development closer to mass transit nodes and public utilities. Our current sprawl happy policies are the problem.

[Future Mayor]

I say raise the local gas tax, in counties that UTA serves, just a tiny bit more. This could go towards increased service, expanded service or lower fares. Vehicle emissions are said to be about a third of the total pollution, so taxing that should be part of the solution as well.

People may complain that we already have one of the highest local gas taxes and we shouldn't have to pay more. My response to that would be, not every state has geographic issues like Utah does, thus demanding different solutions ie higher gas taxes than other places. Currently Utah has a gas tax rate of 42.9 and 48.9 (Diesel). I say raise it a little on both, even if just a cent or a half cent.

[SLC Projects]

Hell no to higher gas tax! Gas is already a rip off as is. You know there are some of us who can't ride UTA due to hours.
And why are we always blaming the drivers when companies such as Rio Tinto and Chevon who are the leading cause of our bad air. When are we going to crack down on them?
For many of us who work grave yards nothing runs past midnight so a car is all we have. At least for me I only live ten mins out from my work and I only drive a car so I try to drive as little as I can. But don't higher tax the people because they Have no other way to get around. Tax Rio Tinto, they do far more damage to our air then people like me would ever do.

[Makid]

Projects, over 50% of the pollution in the SL Valley is caused by vehicles. 30% is caused by Rio Tinto. The remaining 20% is from other industrial companies, wood fires and aerosol products.

Rio Tinto has already cut 50% of their pollution in the last 10 years and are working to cut it another 50% in the next 5 years.

Even with their cuts, the majority of the pollution is caused by vehicles. Now, not all vehicles are created equal and transit doesn't work for everyone due to location and hours. The idea is to get people who transit would work for to use it.

A gas tax increase is already on the legislative agenda as it is failing to cover 35% of current road construction let alone any repairs and maintenance.

I personally feel they will go with a small sales tax increase to help lower the cost of transit to encourage more use.

[Future Mayor]

I wasn't saying that was the one and only part of the solution, or even the cause. I was simply stating that it could be one item of a large plan. With increased taxes service could possibly be extended to help serve the needs of those that don't currently have the option.

I do agree though, that Rio Tinto needs to be held accountable as wel, and continue their efforts to reduce their impact. They are in the process of converting a large furnace into natural gas, to reduce their emissions, and have recently started using larger trucks in the mine, allowing for more capacity per truck and less truck miles driven, reducing emissions by some. If they could convert even more of their operations to natural gas that would be a substantial reduction in emissions.

[SLC Projects]

Originally Posted by Makid

Projects, over 50% of the pollution in the SL Valley is caused by vehicles. 30% is caused by Rio Tinto. The remaining 20% is from other industrial companies, wood fires and aerosol products.

Rio Tinto has already cut 50% of their pollution in the last 10 years and are working to cut it another 50% in the next 5 years.

Even with their cuts, the majority of the pollution is caused by vehicles. Now, not all vehicles are created equal and transit doesn't work for everyone due to location and hours. The idea is to get people who transit would work for to use it.

A gas tax increase is already on the legislative agenda as it is failing to cover 35% of current road construction let alone any repairs and maintenance.

I personally feel they will go with a small sales tax increase to help lower the cost of transit to encourage more use.

But According to data from the Utah Division of Air Quality, RTK is by far the largest single source of air pollution along the Wasatch Front, emitting 10 times more pollution overall than the next largest industrial source, the Chevron refinery. Inversions or no inversions, the raw data simply show that RTK is responsible for nearly one-third of the overall pollution released into the air over Salt Lake County.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/53600999-82/rtk-pollution-utah-mining.html.csp

That's where I got that info from.

[jtrent77]

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

But According to data from the Utah Division of Air Quality, RTK is by far the largest single source of air pollution along the Wasatch Front, emitting 10 times more pollution overall than the next largest industrial source, the Chevron refinery. Inversions or no inversions, the raw data simply show that RTK is responsible for nearly one-third of the overall pollution released into the air over Salt Lake County.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/53600999-82/rtk-pollution-utah-mining.html.csp

That's where I got that info from.

"Single" being the key word here, thousands of drivers are thousands of sources. What was said before still falls in line here, as it states, one third of the overall pollution just as said above roughly 30%.

[joscar]

edit

[SLC Projects]

There's enough blame to go around but why should I be taxed the same for driving a small car living 10 miles out of my work as those who drive big o SUVs and F350s living at least 40 miles out of their work? You'd think there should be tax breaks for those who at least try to drive less.
Part of the issue is we have a lot of stuck ups who work up north but believe that anything north of 9000 south is the ghetto so there for they all live in Riverton and South Jordan. I know this for a fact since I think I'm the only person in my family who doesn't own a pickup truck/SUV and lives south of the valley.
Point is we can't get everybody off the roads no matter how many Trax lines UTA builts but if we can get more people living closer to their jobs ( part of the reason why I don't mind seeing business parks develop on the south end of the valley ) and drive smaller vehicles our air would be a lot better then it is now.

[billbillbillbill]

There's enough blame to go around but why should I be taxed the same for driving a small car living 10 miles out of my work as those who drive big o SUVs and F350s living at least 40 miles out of their work? You'd think there should be tax breaks for those who at least try to drive less.

That is precisely what the gas tax does. You use less gas on a daily basis so you pay less tax than the suburban getting 12 mpg driving in from Eagle Mountain and filling up every 3 days.

I agree that we need to do better. I live in Riverton and just get frustrated with the lack of transit options to get me to Trax or Frontrunner. I am hoping that the sales tax revenues start going up so they can increase some of the cut service to allow more to leave the car in the garage instead of having to drive to a parking lot half way to work.

[SLC Projects]

Maybe instead of increasing taxes in everything maybe UDOT, UTA and others can learn to budget their money a bit better. We have CEO's, presidents and other leaders making far more per year then I think they are worth. They spend 100's of thousands of dollars just to do studies. I mean really?....does it cost millions just to say yes this road needs to be widen or expanded? I just see alot of wasted money spent and it's always the tax payers who have to bail these guys out when they fail to spend under their budgets.

[bob rulz]

I really hope this sales tax proposal comes to fruition! Increased service and reduced fairs on our transit services is something that's desperately needed! The overall geographical extent of our transit coverage is impressive, but the prices are high compared to almost any other transit system, and the frequency of service is disappointing.

Originally Posted by tygr

I was being conservative, and I like the way you break it out based on transit mode.

In a way, I was offering smaller discounts to possibly discover where the ticket price "sweet spot" would be where ridership is at a maximum, while operational costs are still covered at the same rate.

Red Air Days should be free. They occur only a few days out of the year (some years never have a red air day) and I doubt it would make any sort of significant dent in the ticket profits, especially considering how many people already ride TRAX for free and don't get caught.

[CountyLemonade]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

Red Air Days should be free. They occur only a few days out of the year (some years never have a red air day) and I doubt it would make any sort of significant dent in the ticket profits, especially considering how many people already ride TRAX for free and don't get caught.

Two percent of riders. Not too many.

[stayinginformed]

Video of the Airport Line testing West and Eastbound.

• Video Link

[Orlando]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-c6MU1HwENs

Now check out Calgary's LRT. Compare how much more urban Calgary is in comparison to SLC. Calgary's metro is smaller than SLC's, and it's because of Canada's tougher more strict rules about development. Canada in general is more socialistic, and therefore the government has much more control on public infrastructure and its directly related land development policies.

[UtahProjects]

At 1,214,839, Calgary's metro area is slightly larger than the Salt Lake MSA, but overall smaller than the Wasatch Front population. It's definitely more urban and feels much like Denver.

[delts145]

I had posted this over on the MSA thread, but it would seem like the discussion is also happening here, and this is probably the more appropriate thread for it.

Okay, so let's do the obvious, no brainer math here. If 57 percent of the problem is coming from vehicles, then the quickest way to make a dramatic impact would be to convert the average car along the Wasatch to natural gas. So, if Natural Gas is 90% cleaner than the traditional gas powered engine, we can see how dramatic an impact just the conversion of say 20% of the vehicles along the Wasatch would be. Perhaps, Natural Gas is not the final answer, but it is DEFINITELY the most effective, quickest, and cleanest bridge for the Wasatch Front right now. A bridge that would carry the Wasatch toward a much cleaner environment for many years to come. All avenues of Federal and State aid should be pushed to ease consumers along the Wasatch into the latest CNG conversions for their commuter and family vehicles.

While improved Urban Planning is essential, in the real world CNG conversion is infinitely quicker and resulting in far more dramatic results in a very short period of time.

The discussion should be how to build the conversion infrastructure and number of fueling stations. Undoubtedly, it would cost billions to gear the Wasatch Front up for this major undertaking. The Wasatch Front is the perfect metro for the EPA and the White House to use as a lab for this undertaking. Even if just a small fraction of the wasted White House/EPA monies were used to further build a CNG infrastructure for the Wasatch Metro, the beneficial outcome to a major Metro, millions of people, and ultimately the nation as a whole would be enormous. Billions upon billions have been spent on local highways and mass transit these past five years. Isn't it time now to build a Natural Gas infrastructure. Also, Utah and the surrounding States are a Saudi Arabia of Natural Gas resource.

The average auto per gallon effiency of CNG is approximately the same per mile as conventional gasoline, and the cost of CNG per gallon is a fraction of conventional gasoline. I imagine as demand increases cost will go up, but at least for now, the savings are enormous for the average commuter, and would go a long way toward paying for the initial conversion very quickly.

As a side note here. Future Mayor posted an article recently regarding the French and the new Citroen, which runs on air/water. It will soon be unveiled. Now, until the average driver can afford to go out and buy these latest auto offerings, can Wasatch Fronters not afford to convert their personal/family vehicles to relatively inexpensive Natural Gas?

I have noticed that virtually every bus here in L.A. has been converted to CNG. What is the percentage of UTA's fleet that has been converted?

Govenor Huntsman set the Wasatch Front on an excellent course with CNG. However, the current trend of political talking points regarding CNG are not nearly loud enough. If Gov. Herbert fails to bring this issue of conversion to the top of the list of talking points as Huntsman did, then IMO he is a much diminished leader.

Tempest swirls around Utah's dirty air problem

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/86557...around-Utahs-dirty-air-problem.html?pg=1

...Smith remained firm that everyone has a part to play. She passed out statistics from her department that she said shows 57 percent of the air pollution is caused by vehicles, 32 percent comes from area sources such as small businesses, homes and other sources and 11 percent comes from industry.

Shutting down all industry, she said, won’t solve the overall air quality problem.

“We wish it were that easy. It is all of us.”...