Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[jubguy3]

Originally Posted by tygr

I find little I can agree with of your designations. I really prefer the simpleness of the number designations and don't like giving them arbitrary "memorial/geographical names. Some of your names are not even tied to an existing geographical reference that the mass public would even understand (South Bayshore Freeway).

I-15 in California has countless different names and I feel that it only adds to confusion. In the San Diego area it is known as the Escondido Freeway, the Tuskegee Airmen Highway, then it's the Avocado Highway just south of Escondido while still designated as the Escondido Freeway... I could go on.

If we applied California's principles of designation to I-15 here...
I-15 would be

• Wasatch Front Expressway from Nephi to Brigham City (for obvious reasons)
• Peach Freeway in Box Elder County (for their delicious peaches)
• Fort Buenaventura Freeway in Weber County (for the first permanent [white] settlement in Ogden)
• Bedroom Community Freeway in Davis County (cause that's really what DC is filled with; I was raised there—CHS '93)
• Deedee Corradini Freeway in Salt Lake County (she was a major factor in being awarded the olympics and obtaining funding for the freeway's expansion in time for the olympics, and of course the capitol city's first female mayor)
• Happy Valley (or Prozac) Freeway in Utah County (no explanation needed).

If we are adding names, the only ones I can agree with would be

• "The 201"/SR 201/2100 South Freeway as the Magna Freeway (since that's really where it ends)
• SR 67/Legacy Highway really is a good name but if it were renamed, it should be the West Davis Freeway since that is it's geographical location
• SR 85/Mountain View Corridor sounds like a temporary name—could be renamed Oquirrh Hills Freeway
• SR 145/Pioneer Crossing could be renamed Pony Expressway since the Pony Express went through that general area and it looks like if it expands west and southwest then it will likely follow a similar route

And we don't want to do it like SoCal. Their endless freeway names are too complicated and the only freeway that would be signed with two names is I-80 (215 would too if it wasn't split). I was considering Airport Freeway or Kennecott (though that is a private company). Pony Expressway sounds dumb because it's like you just added way at the end "like lincolnway in Wyoming... One word?) and I think there might be a conflict with a road somewhere either in Utah County or the road that goes by IKEA. I never go down there so that's not something I would remember. I don't like west Davis freeway because the freeway is not conflicting based on geography and it's a very "Davis county" kind of thing so Davis freeway, while more boring, is a little simpler. I'd like to see Davis-Weber Parkway or Expwy adopted if it ever reaches Weber Co because that's exactly what it is - it goes from the extreme southern part of Davis county to possibly weber county ( id only like to see the extension if it's a toll road, it doesn't take from UDOT funds, and it's also heavily stunted by the Sierra club).

I still don't understand why you bring up SoCal's endless names. The only freeways that have been double-signed are I-80 as the canyon freeway and South Bay freeway (even though it's a small change it makes it feel much more in place) and 215/515 as the Jordan Expressway and Olympic Freeway (how about Mt, Olympus Expressway (if the water company charges for a trademark they can go burn themselves) , Cottonwood Expressway, Wasatch Bench expressway, Twin Peaks Expressway, etc. but just pick one.

[asies1981]

Post looking at all the press on the bus vs. rail debate and what are the merits of streetcars.

[jubguy3]

Big issue : no direct local service on north and south temple. This is especially problematic on north temple in revitalizing it.

South Temple Local and Limited service :


North Temple Local and Limited




Thoughts? I would give funding to routes in the following order: 1,0, and then both 0L and 1L at the same time for downtown to airport and downtown to univ connections.

[Hatman]

^^^
I like that route. I think something like that is needed.
This gets back to the debate, though, of how much local vs regional transit UTA is obligated to provide. So many cities are paying into the UTA pot and each want their fair return out of it. SLC residents pay the most compared to others, but they already arguably get the most from it, as all rail lines run through downtown SLC. If UTA were to chase high-ridership local routes, it folks would argue (and be justified in doing so) that UTA should offer similar service in their communities too, even though the ridership could never be justified.
In the end politics rather than ridership governs how UTA gets run. Exceptions exist, and we ought to fight for them, because they benefit everyone who uses them, regardless of which city they are from.

I look forward to the day far in the future when autonomous cars have changed car ownership from a must to a luxury. Ride-sharing and dirt-cheap taxis will be cheaper than owning a car. Transit will be even cheaper than either owning or ride-sharing, owing to economies of scale and a much higher ridership than is seen today. I look forward to the day with UTA is able to be restructured so that only capital costs (stations and vehicle upkeep and purchases) are subsidized and operational costs are paid for entirely by fares. Then the politics of the situation go away, and ridership is all that justifies the existence of a route. This could happen in our lifetimes, if we are willing to work towards it as a goal.

[asies1981]

Post on the possible ramifications of the state audit on UTA's practices released yesterday.

[RyanD]

Originally Posted by jubguy3

... ...

Hey we all know where you live!!!

[jubguy3]

Originally Posted by RyanD

Hey we all know where you live!!! ]

mommy weird man on internet scare me

help mommy

[jubguy3]

I really hope UTA purchases these 60' buses for all BRT projects and just keeps the VanHools (which are no longer available in the United States). Even routes like 220 are in dire need of 60' buses, and these seem to be a great choice (they are not CNG, but if they were it would be an extra 20000 pounds to haul up the bench as opposed to the Gillig LF BRTPlus (egg busses, the styling isn't exclusively present on CNG though) meaning a difficult time for the buses - especially if the planned BRT is introduced on East Second... climbing up the 12th hill is already a challenge for the diesel Gillig BRT.

Articukation will definitely be needed for the Provo-Orem project and the State Street project, as well as the 4700 S MAX (the bus on West 47th is already one of the busiest, behind the "major trunk" routes, being 200, 603, and 830). The South 56th project will also be a (hopefully) good alternitive to the future Mountain View so they should definitely start with Articulation.

The NABI BRT does not come in an 80/75 foot variant, but if I did, I would recommend it exlusively for the Provo-Orem MAX and State Street MAX, as well as the 2nd south one if streetcar has bad headways and people continue to use the 2/2M/2X to get in to campus, as opposed to S 5th (which is why I support the streetcar either extending to the Medical Center TRAX, or to the Olpin Union and the University Medical extended to Central Campus Drive on 282.

http://www.nabusind.com/products/brt-42

On the topic of transit, I was late 35 min to school because of the delay this morning. 3 empty red trains EB (15 minutes apart) were allowed to pass through before they let the WB through.

Bonuses for everyone!

[jubguy3]

OK, so with New Flyer's purchase of NABI, NABI is no longer taking orders. This means that UTA would have to choose the New Flyer Excelsior 60', which is what is in use on RTD MetroRide.

[Zmapper]

Originally Posted by jubguy3

OK, so with New Flyer's purchase of NABI, NABI is no longer taking orders. This means that UTA would have to choose the New Flyer Excelsior 60', which is what is in use on RTD MetroRide.

Source?

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Zmapper

Source?

http://business.financialpost.com/2014/0...es-bus-manufacturing-to-single-platform/

[Zmapper]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

http://business.financialpost.com/2014/0...es-bus-manufacturing-to-single-platform/

I heard New Flyer acquired NABI, but was not aware of any product discontinuance until now. Thank you!

[delts145]

Salt Lake City Council poised to seek more streetcar funding

Transit » Federal funds would help extend Sugar House line to 2100 South and Highland.

Christopher Smart, The Salt Lake Tribune

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/58352295-90/2100-construction-drive-funding.html.csp


...The so-called S Line now runs from TRAX Central Station at 2100 South and 200 West to 2250 S. McClelland Ave. (1050 East) in Sugar House. The 2-mile line cost $37 million.

But since its December debut, the streetcar has had significantly fewer riders than projected.

City Councilwoman Erin Mendenhall believes that will change once the S Line is extended to 2100 South and Highland Drive.

"We have to put a head on the body," she said of the streetcar line. "It makes no sense to end that where it is and not connect it to the heart of Sugar House."

Soon, about 1,000 new residential units will open in Sugar House, she said, referring to several high-density apartment and condominium projects under construction.

"When those units get open, the sooner we can provide the streetcar as a viable transportation option, the more success we will see in S-Line ridership," Mendenhall said...

.

[brankrom]

Originally Posted by jubguy3

Even routes like 220 are in dire need of 60' buses, and these seem to be a great choice .... especially if the planned BRT is introduced on East Second... climbing up the 12th hill is already a challenge for the diesel Gillig BRT.

Time to install traction wires and use electric buses like San Francisco (And what SLC USED to have for their buses after the conversion from streetcar.

Articulation will definitely be needed for the Provo-Orem project and the State Street project,......

I've wondered what happened to the articulated fleet UTA used to have about 10 years ago. UTA used to run them on the State Street bus and I saw them on the SLC YBU route.

[jubguy3]

Originally Posted by brankrom

Time to install traction wires and use electric buses like San Francisco (And what SLC USED to have for their buses after the conversion from streetcar.




I've wondered what happened to the articulated fleet UTA used to have about 10 years ago. UTA used to run them on the State Street bus and I saw them on the SLC YBU route.

They were unreliable so they deleted them.

I was on the 220 again today, jam packed. Needs articulated buses or 15 min frequency.

Also UTA needs to implement a system telling people where to board. I can talk about this for anyone who is interested.

[downtownslcresident]

Originally Posted by jubguy3

They were unreliable so they deleted them.

I was on the 220 again today, jam packed. Needs articulated buses or 15 min frequency.

Also UTA needs to implement a system telling people where to board. I can talk about this for anyone who is interested.

I am interested....i think i know what you mean, but please do tell more.

[jubguy3]

Originally Posted by downtownslcresident

I am interested....i think i know what you mean, but please do tell more.

When an operator begins a route, they notify the system of how many trains their car is. When they pull up in to a station, the (hopefully improved with the TRAX announcement voice) tickers announce how long the car is, and a series of letters. The platform is labeled with a direction and a letter A-D (for example, courthouse would be labeled with SB A - D and NB A-D, each letter representing a car length) painted on to the ground. For example, a train pulls in to Gallivan plaza. A set distance before it arrives, the speakers say (This train is a Green train to the International Airport, 2 cars. Please board at Northbound sections A or B, and then repeats it again, and again when the operator enters the station). This heavily reduces the delay and frustration of disabled people at the wrong end of the platform missing the train or delaying it 15 seconds to get people on to the train. The track in the street can also be colored with 4 different colors and the labels clearly painted in the street in addition to the platform for ease of use.

There are two major sources of delay at busy stations: people slowly boarding because they are stuck under the platform, and people running after the train. This partially solves the slow boarding and fully solves the running issue.

To fix the slow boarding issue, UTA needs to simply instal more canopies freeing up space around key boarding points.

If you've ever noticed the front cars of a EB RED morning are all completely filled and the back end emtpy. This is because UTA has made the boarding process inconsistent and stressful. We can get a lot more out of our trains, we just need people to disperse properly.

I wouldn't call the system radical at all. It simply makes everything efficient, which shouldn't be a "radical and amazing" technique to solving a simple issue. I hope UTA implements this as trains get busier.

They can just paint the stations Sunday morning and install the canopy and new tickers and speakers Sunday night. Whala!

Or they can close it for a day so people don't step on wet paint and concrete.

[downtownslcresident]

Originally Posted by jubguy3

When an operator begins a route, they notify the system of how many trains their car is. When they pull up in to a station, the (hopefully improved with the TRAX announcement voice) tickers announce how long the car is, and a series of letters. The platform is labeled with a direction and a letter A-D (for example, courthouse would be labeled with SB A - D and NB A-D, each letter representing a car length) painted on to the ground. For example, a train pulls in to Gallivan plaza. A set distance before it arrives, the speakers say (This train is a Green train to the International Airport, 2 cars. Please board at Northbound sections A or B, and then repeats it again, and again when the operator enters the station). This heavily reduces the delay and frustration of disabled people at the wrong end of the platform missing the train or delaying it 15 seconds to get people on to the train. The track in the street can also be colored with 4 different colors and the labels clearly painted in the street in addition to the platform for ease of use.

There are two major sources of delay at busy stations: people slowly boarding because they are stuck under the platform, and people running after the train. This partially solves the slow boarding and fully solves the running issue.

To fix the slow boarding issue, UTA needs to simply instal more canopies freeing up space around key boarding points.

If you've ever noticed the front cars of a EB RED morning are all completely filled and the back end emtpy. This is because UTA has made the boarding process inconsistent and stressful. We can get a lot more out of our trains, we just need people to disperse properly.

I wouldn't call the system radical at all. It simply makes everything efficient, which shouldn't be a "radical and amazing" technique to solving a simple issue. I hope UTA implements this as trains get busier.

They can just paint the stations Sunday morning and install the canopy and new tickers and speakers Sunday night. Whala!

Or they can close it for a day so people don't step on wet paint and concrete.

I actually think this is a really good idea, and shouldnt really be that expensive to impliment. I have thought about something like this before too, but a more basic version...something to the effect of "please board at south end of platform" for a southbound train. But you make a good point that I hadn't thought about reguarding the variable length of the trains, especially on the blue and red lines. It's a simple solution that could make a world of difference and certainly does wonders when it comes to increasing efficiancy.

[jtrent77]

Originally Posted by downtownslcresident

I actually think this is a really good idea, and shouldnt really be that expensive to impliment. I have thought about something like this before too, but a more basic version...something to the effect of "please board at south end of platform" for a southbound train. But you make a good point that I hadn't thought about reguarding the variable length of the trains, especially on the blue and red lines. It's a simple solution that could make a world of difference and certainly does wonders when it comes to increasing efficiancy.

I am not really sure why this would even be needed. The simpler solution is ensure that every train, no matter the length, always stops at the very end of the platform. This is what they finally incorporated in the DC metro, every train, regardless of being a 4, 6, or 8 car train stops at the 8 car distances. There are no signs on the pavement, but because the regulars know where the train stops they can make their own mental markers and wait precisely at an opening door that they know will be the opening door they need to get off once they reach their destination. Sure your first timers may have trouble, but it won't be as unsightly as paint that is wearing out and needs to be repainted. If this idea were to be implemented, I would think the better solution would be to have flashing LEDs on the platforms at exactly where the train doors should be as it approaches the station. LEDs will last longer than paint and draw the attention more.

[jubguy3]

Originally Posted by jtrent77

I am not really sure why this would even be needed. The simpler solution is ensure that every train, no matter the length, always stops at the very end of the platform. This is what they finally incorporated in the DC metro, every train, regardless of being a 4, 6, or 8 car train stops at the 8 car distances. There are no signs on the pavement, but because the regulars know where the train stops they can make their own mental markers and wait precisely at an opening door that they know will be the opening door they need to get off once they reach their destination. Sure your first timers may have trouble, but it won't be as unsightly as paint that is wearing out and needs to be repainted. If this idea were to be implemented, I would think the better solution would be to have flashing LEDs on the platforms at exactly where the train doors should be as it approaches the station. LEDs will last longer than paint and draw the attention more.

That's the problem! Everyone goes to where they know the train will open and that's why 4 car trains at maximum capacity can still have empty cars.

And how are first time riders supposed to know that? They have to run 160 feet to a train they didn't know was going to stop that far away.

I do like the LED idea.