Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[i-215]

Originally Posted by jubguy3

TOLL ROAD TOLL ROAD TOLL ROAD!

Tolling was on the table from the project was first explored in 2003. Part of the reason why the freeway is called "Mountain View Corridor" (and not "freeway") is because UDOT and the State Transportation Commission kind of figured that tolling was likely to happen.

I sat in a lot of MVC meetings, including the one in 2007 where Goldman Sachs (yes, that Goldman Sachs) presented their tolling analysis. They would have to be involved, because no other investors were willing to arrange that sort of capital. Even they were skeptical that Utahns would drive the road enough to justify the cost. Projections showed continued use of Bangerter and U-111, but little to no use of the road.

Worse yet, Goldman said they could make it work if they tricked drivers into paying an initial toll which was "artificially low," inducing families to purchase homes and form commuting patterns that required use of the toll road, and then "incrementally increase the toll over 10 years" to squeeze the money out of west-siders. It felt really shady. (Goldman never did anything shady, right?)

The late State Sen. Ed Mayne (D-West Valley) stood up. He was one of the last old time Democrats, who really cared about the working family. He saying something to the effect of, "I have a tool box at home. I don't use a Sawzall to pound in a nail. So a lot of the tools are dusty and never get used. I think tolling should stay dusty."

He described toll roads vs. "prole" roads (a reference to the novel "1984") and how working families, including himself, couldn't afford to use the new road, while the wealthy could.

From then on, the tone of the commission changed. Tolling was dead.

Bless the late Sen. Ed Mayne. He understood that keeping the road free would subsidize working families in West Valley.

[justiny]

Originally Posted by i-215

Worse yet, Goldman said they could make it work if they tricked drivers into paying an initial toll which was "artificially low," inducing families to purchase homes and form commuting patterns that required use of the toll road, and then "incrementally increase the toll over 10 years" to squeeze the money out of west-siders. It felt really shady. (Goldman never did anything shady, right?)

Virtually every dedicated toll road and toll bridge in this country (not HOT lanes) operate this way. I agree with you that it's shady as —, but it's nothing new.

[jubguy3]

God, i hate the MAG so much...

http://gomb.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2013/08/Subcounty-Pop-Projections-2013.xlsx

Crazies include a 15000 foot tunnel thru the mountains and 3 freeways.

[Hatman]

This is very small news, but sometimes the small things really impress me. I was at the Ogden FrontRunner station the other night and I saw they had completely re-arranged the bike-locker boxes in order to create a sort of 'public bike servicing area.' I really like it, and I love that it is placed so prominently at the entrance to the platform so that all passengers can see it and know its there.

1) The whole remodel:


2) The ticket kiosk got a new bulletin board which, if I had a better camera, would clearly display "Tickets and Information" on top with the UTA logo. Small touches, but it makes the place seem so much more professional and established.


3) The bike service station is a tall metal stand with two rubber-covered prongs to suspend the bike on while you work on it. Tools attached to the station with metal cables hang within the hollow stand, including wrenches and screw drivers to help with any repair. Also on the ground is a hand pump bolted to the sidewalk, as well as a stand that holds your wheel still while you pump.


4) New bike racks with the UTA logo on them. These are designed to lock the wheel and the frame to the ground, making them theoretically more secure.


I wonder who is responsible for these upgrades, UTA or Ogden or some other pro-bicycle group? I ask this because I want these service areas at all UTA stations, FrontRUnner, Trax, BRT, or otherwise. This will really encourage people to use their bikes because it shows them that they are safe to use their bikes anywhere without fear of getting stuck if the bike breaks. Good work whoever did this!

[RC14]

Originally Posted by jubguy3

Every time I am at the intermodal hub I feel like whoever designed the main building and warehouse got a description of early deconstructivism that Sandy or Draper approved.

I was thinking about this the other day. I almost think we should give up on SLC Central and move the hub to North Temple Bridge. The location is better, it would directly serve the gateway and the airport line. We could run the blue line to the airport and create a downtown circulator that would serve SLC Central and a future 400 South extension. Although, Amtrak probably wouldn't work as well at that location

[jubguy3]

I am really confused as to why the city hasn't removed parking on 200 W south of the 900 S station... It technically operates as a streetcar through there. Why? Because the parking pushes cars in to the LRT lane almost entirely... If you put a median on 200 W, the drive lane would be 2 feet wide. That's not really safe. Just remove the parking and give 200 W an actual drive lane so TRAX can go 45 or 55 through there.

Also, I went to west valley on trax for the first time. It's nice! I hadn't realized how much earth works had been done, even southwest of the Roper Yard / Spaghetti Bowl crossing. I got a really nice view of the Oquirrhs and was thinking of how pretty they look during my morning commute on University, with the Orange glow they get in the mornings and the rugged snow caps forming, when some tatted lady in a tank top and pajama bottoms walked in yelling to her white trash boy friend (all decked out in DC stuff) about child protection services... Oh, West Valley. I am so glad I don't live in you. Or Glendale either.

[Hatman]

^^^
TRAX must follow the speed limits for an established right-of-way, even if operating conditions would safely allow for higher speeds. I agree that mixed traffic is not ideal, especially for a part of the network where all three lines share the track, but that area receives so little vehicle traffic that it hardly matters - whereas the economic benefit of roadside parking does matter a lot for the homes/business along the road. That section will be upgraded to exclusive lanes one day when mixed traffic begins to cause problems, but don't expect to see the speed limit increase through there. That's not how it works.

On a completely separate and unrelated note, I would like to post a link to a blog some engineering buddies and I have been collaborating on. We were curious as to the effect that autonomous vehicle technology (self-driving cars) will have on transportation use and infrastructure - especially public transit and UTA. After some research, this is what we are coming up with. It isn't nearly finished yet, but we're slowly working our way through describing the various ideas we've come up with. If you are interested have a look - and if you think of something we've missed, leave a comment.

http://futureuta.blogspot.com/

[jubguy3]

Ok, I disagree with you about three things mostly - Provo, Ogden, and MVC (please oh please can we get it renamed to something nice like Oquirrh Hills Freeway... Mountain View could be — anywhere).

1. The Provo TRAX line, upon completion around when it's needed in 2030, would be ~2.5 billion dollars. We do not need light rail to the South Utah County Corridor. It is already well served crosscounty by FrontRunner South and the BRT proposed to span Draper to Payson will serve local needs well. Light Rail won't work well for the proposed alignment because there is no ridership to capture. I don't even like the Orem Line. We could serve Shithole Springs and Enema Mountain maybe in an unlikely attempt to convert Mia Love's homeland to scary scary liberal transit riders in an attempt to promote smart growth which needs to happen instead of the 7 freeways they want to build. That's a better use of the money because it would allow for a much larger potential ridership than duplicating service.

2. Davis Weber TRAX - again, too expensive for something easily done by BRT, and duplicating service.

3. The reason they want the 5600 West TRAX is because of the smart growth expected to happen along the corridor. It's plains right now so we have an opportunity to do growth right and that's why we need it along or west of 5600 W. However, I agree that the line SHOULD NOT BE EMBEDDED! While the freeway is unbuilt, UTA should have UDOT include the line in the freeway because then we can have fast and responsible transit, not fast transit or responsible transit. If we wanted a happy dandy walkable street with light rail, we would get light rail that goes 25 and if you look at all of the other factors going in you might expect to get to downtown from Daybreak in like 2 hours. University Boulevard is not really friendly and main is really friendly but slow. So, just have semi-local BRT for 5600 W and fast light rail for the freeway. Additionally, UTA and the SLCo needs to come up with a comprehensive local bus plan for a west side that hopefully doesn't have an arterial road that bus can efficiently run on every 12 blocks... Looking at you, West Jordan.

And no, University Boulevard isn't really all that bad. The picture there encompassed the entirety of University Boulevard between Washington Square Park and the curve, and it's not like riding on a snake... It feels really fast when you are on it, especially between 11th and 13th WB. It's so fun in the morning because it's usually the fastest I'll ever be on TRAX that day - seriously those suburban scum have to deal with the blue train rocking around and spilling their glass of warm milk with sugar hahahahaha

[Future Mayor]

While a including a Trax line in the Mtn View corridor would make the line run much faster it would do nothing to promote more urban walkable growth along the line. People don't mind living with a few hundred feet from a Trax line, but you aren't going to accomplish that if the light rail line is built in the middle of the freeway. That will simply create the need for huge park and ride lots, and increasing the traffic headed toward the freeway and the Trax line that much more.

[Makid]

The planned 5600 LRT line, if built right, can be faster than vehicle travel along the corridor.

By this I mean that they should have longer station spacing in the first phase (from BRT). As density increases, plan for additional stops until it is the near standard of 1 stop for every 2 blocks.

Of course, it will be a very long time before the line has consistent 2 block stop between 2700 South and 90th South. It could be 4 - 5 stops between 2700 South and 3500 South and maybe 3 - 4 stops between 4100 South and 5400 South in the 10 years after the LRT conversion is complete.

If the speed of the LRT was allowed to go up to 40mph while vehicle speed was limited to 30 to 35, this would increase service and pedestrian activity along the line.

LRT in this configuration could effectively run faster than vehicle traffic along the road to provide a meaningful alternative. This is already happening along North Temple. It is roughly 80% of the time that I can have a train pass me at the 6th West intersection and I will never pass them, in fact by Redwood Rd, I am generally 1 or 2 lights back. The same happens on the Eastbound direction.

Now, the above is done because of the higher speed for Trax but also a lower speed for vehicles. I do think that this should be made the minimum status for Trax within the street ROW.

I would love for SLC and UTA to revisit 4th South. Reduce a lane in each direction and straighten the tracks. This could possibly be done with the 4th South extension to the SL Central Station. They could always work on this sooner by doing it in the overnight hours.

Go 1 intersection at a time with placing the track first. Restructuring the traffic lanes and left hand turns second. Placing the concrete medians between the inner most lane/left turn lane and Trax third. Widening the sidewalks/adding bicycle lanes and plants (beautification) last.

In this order, traffic would know before hand that the lanes would be reconfigured and traffic would be reduced slightly. By phase 3, ridership would increase due to the decreased travel time. Phase 4 would further assist with increasing development along the line and increase pedestrian safety.

This is why I think North Temple should be the standard for Trax implementation within a street ROW. The transformation processes along the line would be greatly heightened.

Even in a world of driverless vehicles, the need for mass transit will be there and encouraging this now, the less congested existing roads will become now and in the future (until there is teleportation at least).

If speed of commutes is the primary concern along the MVC, I still think a Western FrontRunner extension would work. The line could branch off of the current line north of the Airport, run west and then South around 70th West. It could go to Saratoga Springs and then connect to the existing line near Payson. This line could further branch to the west to extend to Tooele. Maybe even extend it to Wendover (maybe get the casino's to help pay for some of the construction/operation costs) and run it at 110+ mph once passed Grantsville.

Even with this idea for a Western FrontRunner, it wouldn't remove the need for future LRT along 5600 West as the service types are different.

[i-215]

Originally Posted by jubguy3

I agree that the line SHOULD NOT BE EMBEDDED! While the freeway is unbuilt, UTA should have UDOT include the line in the freeway because then we can have fast and responsible transit, not fast transit or responsible transit.

I prefer a dedicated rail ROW, too. I opposed TRAX on North Temple and preferred it on a parallel train track. Now I see that with signal spacing, it's actually not too bad. And it really has fixed up the corridor to promote new commercial and condo growth.

That said, the 56th corridor would probably be better served with dedicated rail ROW. But it was never included in UDOT's purchase of right of way for the MVC. The 56th line will be center-run down 5600 West proper. But I do agree with the previous post, if stations are spaced father apart, the line (both BRT and LRT) could go as fast as the posted speed limit (45 mph).

The slower the speed limit, of course, the slower the train. But I don't foresee UDOT lowering the speed below 40.

[jubguy3]

I rode MAX today. It was the most depressing bus ride I've ever had

The Buses

The bus I got on broke down. The doors wouldn't close, and then eventually the bus just shut off and wouldn't move. The next one also had wheelchair ramp issue but I got to Millcreek from WVCS on time. The buses themselves feel very cluttered and old. There are strange squares of padding placed all throughout the bus. The bus has like 60 — stop request buttons. They smell really bad, like they haven't been cleaned well in a looong time. The doors are slow. And the maps inside still show the old Constitution MAX (Now Lehman Ave) as the Valley Fair MAX - because they also show the termini of the TRAX system at 10000 S, SLCS, and university medical. The same maps since 2008... How lazy can they be?

The People
People of West Valley are weird. I feel like a rich — saying this about the lower class but it's sadly somewhat true (maybe the rushhour is better when all of the weirdos are still at home having mashed potatoes for breakfast?) -- one guy catcalled some girl who looked 15. I was informed that someone had stolen the 1200 W Eastbound MAX stop. Yes, it was stolen. And some guy screamed when the bus driver let him off across the street because there was no MAX stop because someone also smashed everything at the 1200 W stop. Some guy told me that Obama had granted Satan's Homosexual Wish.

The Ride
It felt okay. Less giggly and a little faster than the regular bus but I didn't see much of an improvement. No TPS which slowed it down.

Final comments: it feels dirty and very bus like... If UTA wants to convince people that BRT is good, they need new branding and a better experience. I was underwhelmed. 5/10.

[Hatman]

Wow, what a response! . Didn't think so many people would be interested in speculating about an autonomous future (though I'm glad so many of you are!)

I don't mean to hijack this thread, so this is the last time I will post anything about our blog here. But first:
1) The routes we came up with for the latest post were certainly a result of blue-sky thinking, so don't get too hung up on those. The main point was to show that a more complicated network of routes can exist, not just a hub-and-spoke layout like we currently have. I think the first post on Trax demonstrates this idea better - that drawing colored lines is an archaic way to construct a transit system, and that the future is designating major destinations throughout the network and letting autonomous vehicles, be they trains, buses, or even taxis, handle the complex traffic patterns.
2) We put such a large emphasis on exclusive right-of-way for Trax because from an operational point of view, it is much cheaper to let trains be trains and buses be buses. Rail vehicles of all types operate most economically when they are allowed to accelerate to a design cruising speed and then slow down only once. Trax in the street, crawling at slower speeds and stopping for red lights and pedestrians, is not cost effective.
3)In an autonomous future, traffic control devices designed for human drivers will not be needed - such as lanes or speed limits. Bus Rapid Transit lines will not need special lanes because the other autonomous vehicles will give them priority (sort of like how we give priority now to fire trucks, only without stopping traffic). This means that in a road environment, BRT will have some MAJOR operating advantages over LRT. We haven't posted anything about autonomous BRT on the blog yet, but it's comming soon enough.
4)The autonomous landscape will be very different than the one we have now. Self-driving cars are also self-parking cars, so parking lots can be consolidated, hidden away, or even eliminated entirely. Ride-sharing will be both more convenient and cheaper than owning and maintaining your own personal vehicle, so many people will chose never to own a car. Autonomous delivery vans will make small neighborhood grocery stores economically competitive with their big-box rivals. Road-space for cars can be reduced, giving more space for dedicated bike lanes and wider sidewalks, and even 'linear parks'. In short, dense areas will be allowed to become much more dense while still increasing the standard of living. Urban areas stand to benefit much more from this change than sprawled-out areas.
While you cannot officially plan for such a future, someone should have A plan for how transit can and should adapt to such a different landscape. That is what our blog is about.

There is also the 'Autonomous Cars' thread on the transportation page: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=211534

There. Speculative interruption over. Back to regular SLC transit news.

[jubguy3]

I'd like to add that I think autonomous cars pose a different threat here in Utah - air quality is a major concern and as our population grows, our congestion will grow and our air quality will get worse. As such, many people still will opt for transit because it is either cheaper (transit is inherently cheaper than even autonomous cars and taxis - lower cost per mile, no upkeep) or air quality efforts become more strenuous. I don't exactly think that the combustion engine will go away because people cling to archaic technology, and with an estimated population of 4 million wedged between a list of ranges, SLC will grow to adopt transit more rapidly just like we have been for the past 10 years.

[RC14]

When I think of autonomous cars I picture Google's vision of electric cars that drive around the city like taxis waiting for someone to flag them.
Autonomous vehicles will significantly reduce traffic congestion because we will no longer have to worry about selfish, impatient drivers who make last second decisions that aggravate the problem. I read a great article in the Wall Street Journal about this the other day. I tried to link it to the forum but I think it's only available to WSJ subscribers.
Allot of traffic congestion would be eliminated if drivers simply slowed down, avoided changing lanes and used a zipper pattern when merging. With autonomous vehicles all of that will be taken care of automatically.
My personal belief is that passenger rail will, eventually, once again become obsolete. I can't imagine that we will always us technology that has barely changed since the 1800s. Just like I don't think we will always use cars that have hardly changed since the early 1900s.
I don't know if it will be autonomous vehicles that will replace them but I feel like rail is a viable option right now because of the failures in our current transit system not because it is such a great alternative. I can't imagine that the optimal transit system would be one that can only travel on a fixed right of away costing millions of dollars per mile, only departing at specific times not directly based on demand and requiring passengers to transfer several times to reach their destination. I understand that a fixed right of way has it's benefits and may always be needed in specific urban locations but I don't think rail will always be as important to transit systems of the future as it is now.

[Hatman]

The answer that is always correct is 'it depends.' Will rail become obsolete? It depends on many things. Rail can adapt to future tech in exactly the same way cars can, or how both have already adapted several times as new tech comes along. In the same way that road networks are currently held back by bad drivers and forced to operate inefficiently for the sake of human safety (extra-wide lanes, following distances, speed limits, etc), rail is also held back by driver availibility and human safety features. In the future where cars are 'on demand,' trains will operate in much the same way; why couple cars together for one operator to drive when each are driven by a computer? Don't run one train of three cars every 15 minutes, run one 'train' of one car every 5 minutes. The energy costs are the same, and you don't need to pay a driver. And that's just one example. Rail will be fine depending on if the system administrators take the expense of upgrading and adapting.
Also, It is important to remember that each mode has its own transportation 'niche', or service it is good at. Almost no one would use Trax to commute between West Valley and Draper. A car is faster and more convenient. But from West Valley to Downtown - that is a different story. With urban cores set to become more dense, not less, it's hard to imagine rail becoming obsolete. Density is rail's 'niche', and that won't change just because cars become autonomous.

[bob rulz]

I love the speculation but a world of fully autonomous cars is many decades away, if not longer.

[RC14]

I don't think so. One to two decades I believe. The technology is mostly here. Getting governments and consumers to accept it will be the challenging part.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by RC14

I don't think so. One to two decades I believe. The technology is mostly here. Getting governments and consumers to accept it will be the challenging part.

I agree that it will be within one to two decades. Tesla is delivering a 90% autonomous car next year. The only reason it won't be 100% autonomous is existing laws. It will drive completely autonomously on private property.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Stenar

I agree that it will be within one to two decades. Tesla is delivering a 90% autonomous car next year. The only reason it won't be 100% autonomous is existing laws. It will drive completely autonomously on private property.

To be fair, the only place that a Tesla can operate near autonomously is a highway (and your own driveway). Rolling around city streets is still too much of challenge for the driver assist systems that are integrated into the Model S.