Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[Future Mayor]

Originally Posted by CountyLemonade

The Black Line wouldn't be better just because of the airport. It's because it connects a big chunk of Salt Lake City proper, a chunk that is walkable and somewhat dense (downtown and Central City in particular) and very conducive to taking transit. And let's not forget about the Hive Pass, too. I think having something like the Black Line would convince quite a few people to sign up.

I'd just rather provide service to urban stations than to stations surrounded by park-and-rides, if I had to choose.

I can completely understand that train of thought, and I don't disagree with the concept.

[Makid]

The following are snips from the bill itself:

This bill: provides that a county, city, or town option sales and use tax for airports, highways, and systems for public transit may be used for additional purposes; provides that certain uses of a county, city, or town option sales and use tax for airports, highways, and systems for public transit shall be recommended by a metropolitan planning organization or council of governments; and makes technical and conforming changes.

1- Subject to the other provisions of this part, the following may impose a sales and use tax under this section:
A- within the county, including the cities and towns within the county, if on the date the county legislative body provides the notice described in Section 59-12-2209 to the commission stating that the county will enact a sales and use tax under this section, no city or town within that county:
Aa- imposes a sales and use tax under this section[;] or
Bb- has provided the notice described in Section 59-12-2209 to the commission stating that the city or town will enact a sales and use tax under this section; or (B) within the county, except for within a city or town within that county, if, on the date the county legislative body provides the notice described in Section 59-12-2209 to the commission stating that the county will enact a sales and use tax under this section, that city or town[: (Aa)] imposes a sales and use tax under this section[;] or [(Bb)] has provided the notice described in Section 59-12-2209 to the commission stating that the city or town will enact a sales and use tax under this section.

(2) For purposes of Subsection (1)[(a)] and subject to the other provisions of this section, a county, city, or town legislative body that imposes a sales and use tax under this section may impose the tax at a rate of:
[(i)] (a) .10%[, to be:]; or
(b) .25%.

(4) Subject to Subsections (5) through (7), a sales and use tax imposed at a rate described in Subsection (2)(b) shall be expended as determined by the county, city, or town legislative body as follows:

(c) expended for a project or service relating to a system for public transit for the portion of the project or service that is performed within the county, city, or town within which the sales and use tax is imposed;

(5) A county, city, or town legislative body may not expend revenue collected within a county, city, or town from a tax under this part for a purpose described in Subsections (4)(b) through (f) unless the purpose is recommended by:
(a) for a county that is part of a metropolitan planning organization, the metropolitan planning organization of which the county is a part; or
(b) for a county that is not part of a metropolitan planning organization, the council of governments of which the county is a part.

(6) (a) (i) Except as provided in Subsection (6)(b), a county, city, or town that imposes a tax described in Subsection (2)(b) shall deposit the revenue collected from a tax rate of .05% as provided in Subsection (9)(b)(i) into the Local Transportation Corridor Preservation Fund created by Section 72-2-117.5 .
(ii) Revenue deposited in accordance with Subsection (6)(a)(i) shall be expended and distributed in accordance with Section 72-2-117.5 .
(b) A county, city, or town is not required to make the deposit required by Subsection (6)(a)(i) if the county, city, or town:
(i) imposed a tax described in Subsection (2)(b) on July 1, 2010; or
(ii) has continuously imposed a tax described in Subsection (2)(b):
(A) beginning after July 1, 2010; and
(B) for a five year period.

(7) (a) Subject to the other provisions of this Subsection [(1)(c)] (7), a city or town within which a sales and use tax is imposed at the tax rate described in Subsection [(1)(b)(ii)] (2)(b) may:
[(A)] (i) expend the revenues in accordance with Subsection [(1)(b)(ii)] (4);

Section 2. Effective date.
This bill takes effect on July 1, 2014.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Reading this and the bill as a whole, this appears to allow an increase of .25% to the sales and use tax for transit provided that it is on the approved planning organizations list.

Now it is possible that I am not reading the bill correctly but it does look like this allows the increase to go through.

If I am mistaken, please let me know.

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by CountyLemonade

They aren't tarped—they're sitting in the Lovendahl yard along with the SD-100s and -160s. I was going by there today and saw a few of the UTDCs with "Draper" on the headsigns. An employee was even in one of the cabs doing something. So it seems the UTDCs, peace be upon them, are ready to enter service when needed.

Some foamer info I forgot to include:
Some of the UTDC's are being put back into service to help fill in for the classics. This week or next they will begin running at least two trainsets at night along the Draper line in order to meet the federal rule of having a thousand operating miles before carrying passengers.
Some cars will still remain under tarps. UTA would like to get rid of them, because they have a longer wheel base, so they cause more wear to the track on the sharp curves downtown. But because they were purchased with grant money, UTA is obligated to maintain them all in operating condition for several more years... 2017, I think I remember?
The refurbished consists (three cars max, due to length) might eventually help with the shorter headways and longer operating ours mentioned before. 12 minute headways will require two additional consists for both the red and blue lines - UTDC's for blue, S70's for red. The green line is short enough and has long enough layovers at each end not to need more trains.
The black line, when it happens, will use 4 consists of S70's, two cars each. (There had been tests to sandwhich a UTDC between them, but those failed.) Four consists would give them enough trains to run at 20 minute headways between the airport and the stadium, weekdays and weekends. The green line would also be limited to two cars each, while the red line would rarely see more than three cars.
Again, this is all speculation, but speculation from someone who runs these trains.

[Scraperdude801]

I rode the S train yesterday, but couldn't help but think how painfully slow it was.

Part of what made the ride so slow.

1. It wasn't synced w/ Trax. I, along with a handful of other riders had to wait 15 minutes for the train to come after hopping off of trax.

2. The driver didn't seem to have the power, or desire to change the lights at the intersections before he approached them. It seemed like every street crossing was another stop where the train would completely halt for 30 seconds or longer.

3. The driver would stop and wait at each individual stop for far too long, even when there was no approaching passenger in sight.


I was, and am still very grateful for the S line, but it is facing some real issues of practicality. It shouldn't take 40 + minutes to go from Fairmont Park to Best Buy, that just isn't reasonable.

Also, I know that phase 2 will travel down 1100 E and everything, but it is odd that we call paase 1 a streetcar considering it traverses mostly through an alley. With the lack of destinations between Best Buy/Trax, and the Sugarmont/Fairmont stops, streetcar seems like Trax would have been the better option for that route. The S line park and path idea are a nice idea, but there are some areas where the alley is rather narrow. Which makes me wonder how the adjoining bike path, etc is going to work.


I've heard that the line's early numbers are below what was projected, and I hope the lesson that UTA takes away from this is not that streetcar can't/won't work in SLC, but that they can't just keep putting trains wherever they want and expect people to come to them. A streetcar in a rundown manufacturing alley with no businesses or high density residential around it isn' really a streetcar. UTA seems to have this philosophy of putting trains where people don't go, and then expecting the people and developers to come. It seems like they'd be better served by having faster transit options through blah areas, and streetcars through established ones.

[stayinginformed]

Originally Posted by Makid

The following are snips from the bill itself:

This bill: provides that a county, city, or town option sales and use tax for airports, highways, and systems for public transit may be used for additional purposes; provides that certain uses of a county, city, or town option sales and use tax for airports, highways, and systems for public transit shall be recommended by a metropolitan planning organization or council of governments; and makes technical and conforming changes.

1- Subject to the other provisions of this part, the following may impose a sales and use tax under this section:
A- within the county, including the cities and towns within the county, if on the date the county legislative body provides the notice described in Section 59-12-2209 to the commission stating that the county will enact a sales and use tax under this section, no city or town within that county:
Aa- imposes a sales and use tax under this section[;] or
Bb- has provided the notice described in Section 59-12-2209 to the commission stating that the city or town will enact a sales and use tax under this section; or (B) within the county, except for within a city or town within that county, if, on the date the county legislative body provides the notice described in Section 59-12-2209 to the commission stating that the county will enact a sales and use tax under this section, that city or town[: (Aa)] imposes a sales and use tax under this section[;] or [(Bb)] has provided the notice described in Section 59-12-2209 to the commission stating that the city or town will enact a sales and use tax under this section.

(2) For purposes of Subsection (1)[(a)] and subject to the other provisions of this section, a county, city, or town legislative body that imposes a sales and use tax under this section may impose the tax at a rate of:
[(i)] (a) .10%[, to be:]; or
(b) .25%.

(4) Subject to Subsections (5) through (7), a sales and use tax imposed at a rate described in Subsection (2)(b) shall be expended as determined by the county, city, or town legislative body as follows:

(c) expended for a project or service relating to a system for public transit for the portion of the project or service that is performed within the county, city, or town within which the sales and use tax is imposed;

(5) A county, city, or town legislative body may not expend revenue collected within a county, city, or town from a tax under this part for a purpose described in Subsections (4)(b) through (f) unless the purpose is recommended by:
(a) for a county that is part of a metropolitan planning organization, the metropolitan planning organization of which the county is a part; or
(b) for a county that is not part of a metropolitan planning organization, the council of governments of which the county is a part.

(6) (a) (i) Except as provided in Subsection (6)(b), a county, city, or town that imposes a tax described in Subsection (2)(b) shall deposit the revenue collected from a tax rate of .05% as provided in Subsection (9)(b)(i) into the Local Transportation Corridor Preservation Fund created by Section 72-2-117.5 .
(ii) Revenue deposited in accordance with Subsection (6)(a)(i) shall be expended and distributed in accordance with Section 72-2-117.5 .
(b) A county, city, or town is not required to make the deposit required by Subsection (6)(a)(i) if the county, city, or town:
(i) imposed a tax described in Subsection (2)(b) on July 1, 2010; or
(ii) has continuously imposed a tax described in Subsection (2)(b):
(A) beginning after July 1, 2010; and
(B) for a five year period.

(7) (a) Subject to the other provisions of this Subsection [(1)(c)] (7), a city or town within which a sales and use tax is imposed at the tax rate described in Subsection [(1)(b)(ii)] (2)(b) may:
[(A)] (i) expend the revenues in accordance with Subsection [(1)(b)(ii)] (4);

Section 2. Effective date.
This bill takes effect on July 1, 2014.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Reading this and the bill as a whole, this appears to allow an increase of .25% to the sales and use tax for transit provided that it is on the approved planning organizations list.

Now it is possible that I am not reading the bill correctly but it does look like this allows the increase to go through.

If I am mistaken, please let me know.

I believe this bill changed the local option tax that is already in place, and that Salt Lake County passed to pay for Frontlines 2015 a few years back. I don't think this allows the county or cities to pass additional taxes, whereas bill 388 would have.

[Makid]

Originally Posted by stayinginformed

I believe this bill changed the local option tax that is already in place, and that Salt Lake County passed to pay for Frontlines 2015 a few years back. I don't think this allows the county or cities to pass additional taxes, whereas bill 388 would have.

Ah, that does make sense.

I don't think we need to worry to much about the increase in sales tax for transit yet.

I do think that the Governor will be calling a special session to take care of a few things and I would expect that HB388 would be on the list.

One other thing is that if the bill is passed either this year or next year, that is still ahead of the WFRC time frame in their 30 year planning documents. The last time I read it completely, I think it said that another increase in the sales tax wasn't expected until 2016 to help fund additional transit expansion and frequency of service.

I am hopeful that it can still pass this year though as I do think it would be beneficial to get some more bus lines, BRT lines, Black Trax line, increased frequency and faster service going as soon as possible.

Also, does any one know the status of any of the impact statements for the future State Street and Redwood Road BRT lines?

[Hatman]

The Future:

[SLC Projects]

The future?

[CountyLemonade]

Five-car trains! What a fantastic sight. Thanks for getting those photos Hatman.

[Future Mayor]

The fact that they need five car trains is such encouraging news for the entire metro, but especially for downtown. It means more people are coming downtown via transit and prefer to take the train over driving their car, which means more people are spreading the word about the train, meaning more people riding, bringing more people downtown, making downtown an even bigger magnet for office development.

Seems like that purchase of old NJ cars was a wise investment for UTA.

[StevenF]

Now that they are adding a 5th car my question is how much more capacity can the Frontrunner line take before there is a need for the 2nd set of tracks to be added?

[Makid]

From what I understand, the second tracking the entire route would only be needed for increased frequency.

[StevenF]

let me rephrase my question.

I understand the 2nd track would be for increased frequency as the trains can pass each other without being timed just right. I guess the real question I should have asked is how much more can they increase frequency on the single track before the need for the 2nd set of tracks?

Adding a 5th car adds to the capacity of how many can ride on a single train and this can only add to the capacity of the line so much.

[utenation]

Originally Posted by SLC Projects

The future?

Now this is the future.

[brankrom]

I rode Frontrunner from SLC to Ogden on SATURDAY and I can attest the train was packed standing room only in the Bombardier cars. I was surprised to see how full the train was on a Saturday afternoon. But I had the comet car in all its nagahide 1970s splendor nearly all to myself. Next step is Sunday service.

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by utenation

Now this is the future.

Ha! Maybe I should have been more specific... The immediate future, or maybe Utah's future...

Last summer, I had the opportunity to ride this

from Beijing to Tianjin. Top speed 180 miles per hour. We covered the 90 miles between the two downtowns in 35 minutes, including the time we spent stopped at station in the middle. The ride was so smooth we balanced a pencil on its eraser and it didn't fall.
Imagine that! Salt Lake to either Provo or Ogden in aprox. 17 minutes without the sensation of moving at all!
And then it got better. In Shanghai we rode this:

The Maglev had a top speed of 300+ miles per hour (we only went 267) and was much bumpier than the high speed train, but with the faster acceleration we calculated that you could do the same trip - Salt Lake to either Provo or Ogden - in about 13 minutes.

I don't think either of those will ever be built here. Not even close.
In Utah's rosiest future is a double-tracked and electrified FrontRunner. Double tracking, in my estimation, would remove about 30 minutes from Provo to Ogden trip times, and using electric trains with faster acceleration and braking might take another 15-20 minutes off.
Electric Multiple Units such as this, from Austria:


What you'd have is Provo to Ogden in 80 minutes - 45 minutes from Provo to Salt Lake, then 35 minutes Salt Lake to Ogden. Give or take a few minutes, this is just me approximating in my head. Perhaps not as exciting as bullet trains, but still very cool!

[Future Mayor]

I agree I don't see the high speed, maglev type trains in Utah's future as our commuter rail. I could see us having a piece of a larger regional/national high speed train in the future though. I see the high speed trains connecting major areas/large cities in different states, then the local (FrontRunner) system takes people to the other cities within the local region.

Example, for Maglev. LA to Vegas, Vegas to Phx, Vegas to SLC, SLC to Denver etc.

[Hatman]

From what I've gathered from my conversations with the operations personel, the 5 car frontrunner train worked well enough at most stations - but caused all kinds of problems in at Warm Springs yard. I was really surprised to learn that most of the storage and servicing tracks are just barely long enough for the 4 car trains they currently run. Any longer train needs to be broken up or reassembled every time it enters or leaves the yard. So, as I was told, unless upper management forces a decision on the operating management, we aren't going to see longer trains any time soon.

[Hatman]

April change-day info:

http://www.rideuta.com/mc/?page=RidingUTA-RouteChanges

The biggest change this time is two shuttle routes from the Clearfield FrontRunner station to Hill Airforce Base. I had no idea so many people worked there (20,000!) and it's high time something like this gets done.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/86559...-bus-service-to-Hill-Air-Force-Base.html

Also, all TRAX lines have new departure times and FrontRunner gets one new Ogden departure time (increasing half-hour service by one run...)
And speaking of FrontRunner, on my commute yesterday I saw they had moved more comet cars from blue-tarp storage to Warm Springs yard. Maybe this means something about the 5-car consists - but then again maybe it doesn't.

[brankrom]

Well, no later service this time.

Hopefully the Trax adjustments will make it so I'm not watching my train pull into the station in front of the bus that I'm on every day. They really screwed it up last change day, added 12 minutes to my commute which almost doubled my commute time.