Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[Hatman]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure UTA is up to some improvements to TRAX. Hopefully we'll hear about an announcement soon. Probably another way UTA will tease tax payers into wanting to support the sales tax measure: "vote yes, and get extra rush hour trains! Vote no, and be crowded and late FOREVER!"
__________________

On a separate note, one of my favorite rail-related blogs did a cost-estimate analysis on electrification. Electrifying a line can save an agency a lot of money in terms of operating costs, equipment maintenance costs, and environmental costs (especially in cap-and-trade areas, where one must pay to pollute). According to him, it takes between 21-29 bi-directional frequencies in order for the initial capital investment of electrification to pay off financially. This means 42-58 trains a day pass a single point on a line.

FrontRunner runs 56 trains a day (counted between North Temple and Woods Cross on the published schedule). That makes FrontRunner a prime target for electrification, even before hypothetical frequencies are added. FrontRunner would run so much cheaper under electrified power than under diesel power that the savings should be able to pay for the capital investment itself.
This is similar to how Amtrak is paying for the brand-new electric locomotives it has on order from Siemens:

An ACS-64 on the Northeast Corridor
These new locomotives are so much more energy efficient than the older electrics they are replacing (the older ones didn't even have regenerative breaking!) that the energy savings alone are enough to pay for the new locomotives, with the help of a low-interest loan from the Federal Government (through the railroad rehabilitation and investment financing program, a program available all railroads, including UTA).

So, my thoughts are: has UTA looked into this option? If UTA is committed to spending money on FrontRunner diesel fuel for the next forever (because I assume they don't plan on ceasing FrontRunner operation), why not apply for the same type of federal loan? For the duration of the loan, it will cost just as much as running diesel trains, but once the loan is up UTA will have a much cheaper system to run.
UTA's estimate of $12 million per track mile cost for electrification seems very high to me. Other projects in Connecticut were able to complete their electrification for $4 million per route mile. That number would place the total cost of electrifying FrontRunner from Provo to Ogden at $356 million, which is less than Amtrak's loan amount. How long it would take for this to become cost effective would depend on the price of diesel fuel, of which UTA burns between 1-2 gallons for every train mile traveled (UTA is paying for thousands of gallons per day, which can't be cheap!)

Then there is the cost of electric locomotives. UTA has sold 3 of it's locomotives (#12, and #13 & #14) to Minnesota and Boston respectively, and could probably get a good price on the locos it has left. That would partially offset the cost of new electric locomotives, or even EMU's (which would require the sale of all UTA's passenger cars as well, but that's a different discussion entirely!). An ACS-64, the type Amtrak is buying, costs just over $6 million per unit, as compared to the diesels UTA currently runs which were $3.5 million each when brand new. One of the reasons these locomotives are so much more expensive is because they are much more powerful. The ACS-64 can produce 8,600 hp, whereas the MP36PH units UTA uses can produce only 3,600. What this means is that an electric train, even one with locomotives and cars (as opposed to an EMU, which would be even faster), would be able to accelerate much faster than the diesel train. With all of FrontRunner's station stops (there are 15 in 89 miles, so lots of starting and stopping) this will make a significant difference in the schedule. Based on another analyisis, I'd guess that 10-15% improvement in travel time could be expected, which is enough to shorten the SLC-Provo times by 6-9 minutes. It's a small improvement, but would certainly be a welcome one.

Electric locomotives also cost less to maintain. See the blog post I referenced for the specifics.

I think UTA should at least investigate this option, of getting a loan from the Federal railroad investment program, building cost-effective improvements, then using the savings to pay off the loan. These back-of-the-envelope calculations show that it could be possible for UTA to electrify FrontRunner without needing to raise any outside money. That makes me very excited - that without any additional funding we could get a faster, cleaner, and quieter commuter rail system!

The next question is 'who can I contact at UTA to pitch this idea to?'

[i-215]

Would electrification allow them to exceed the 79 mph train speed limit?

That's my biggest draw. At 79 mph, I can almost "break even" with driving time. If I could go 20-50% faster, then I (and many, many other car-loving commuters) would switch because Frontrunner would beat I-15 even under free-flow conditions.

[Palladio]

The 79 MPH speed limit is federally imposed. You have to do a lot of infrastructure improvements and federal red tape to get that lifted. That is currently happening along the Amtrak Cascade Route in Washington and parts of the Acela Express in the New England.

I totally agree with everything you are saying, Hatman. No question about it, electrification is definitely a possibility and almost a likely hood for Frontrunner. That being said, I think double tracking/extensions are still going to take priority. There is a lot of public pressure for UTA right now to dramatically increase the amount of service, as we saw in the survey results. I would guess that the next few years we are going to see most improvements in buses, and for frontrunner, most of the financial capital is going to be used for frequency improvement. It definitely won't be done until UTA owns 100% of the tracks it uses, which is still not a possibility since they are sharing with Union Pacific north of Ogden. I don't think we'll see the Brigham City extension any time soon, but Springville/Spanish Fork/Payson are much more likely.

[Hatman]

For the top speed, UTA may very well raise the speed limit in certain, very limited segments. The whole system was designed for an operational speed of 79 mph, but the safe speed is listed as 95 mph. I would guess that on certain very straight segments, such as between Woods Cross and Farmington (along I-15), could be upgraded to 90 mph. If the red tape could be cut through.

Raising the speed limit beyond 79 mph would require UTA to maintain the track and equipment to a higher standard than they do, which would make maintenance cost go up. So it becomes a cost-benefit sort of thing. Raising the speed limit 10 mph for short segments of track would probably not make FrontRunner significantly faster than it is now, but should UTA want to invest in the higher maintenance regime, speeds of 110 mph (the fastest speed allowed where there are grade crossings) could be achieved, and a 31 mph increase in speed would be significant in speeding up commute times.
And why not? If UTA were to use electric locomotives (or even emu's) the maintenance budget could go down, as electric equipment cost less to maintain. If UTA were to switch to electric, and keep the maintenance budget the same as with diesel, you could probably raise the speed limits in the areas where trains could hit the high speeds for the longest and most significant amount of time. Which would be (again) a case of a large improvement made for essentially no extra spending, just by switching from diesel to electric.

I do have to admit, though, that double-tracking should probably come before electrification. Or at least the final design and alignment of a second track. That way the single track can be put in the proper place so as to leave enough space for a second track - meaning that a second track wouldn't need to relocate the single track AND the catenary poles.
Operationally speaking, anywhere where speeds higher than 79 would be used, that place ought to be double-tracked. After all, the benefits of higher speeds only come when those high speeds can be sustained for a long amount of time. It would be no good for a train to hit 100 mph, then go into the siding at Centerville and wait for the opposing train. So realistically speaking, electrification would logically come with an incentive to double-track the whole line, at which time, since work is already being done on the track, it would be easier and cheaper to add in the catenary poles and wires.

Still, though, it is intriguing to me that a rail system could be upgraded for essentially no money - by letting the savings of the upgrade pay for the cost of the upgrade itself. And that is the strategy that UTA ought to be looking at as it improves service over its systems - let the upgrades pay for themselves, it can be done!

[s.p.hansen]

Salt Lake City Hall report: Protected bike lanes on 300 South grow riders and sales



Broadway — or 300 South — in downtown Salt Lake City has a new vibrancy, no doubt.

A new progress report from City Hall, however, touts the $900,000 bike-lane project as an unqualified success.

It shows that sales-tax receipts along the route from 600 East to 300 West are up an impressive 8.75 percent when comparing the first six months of 2013 (before construction) with the first six months of 2015 (after completion).

The raw sales-tax data were supplied to the city Finance Department by the Utah Tax Commission, said commission spokesman Charlie Roberts. Those numbers then were analyzed by location, said Robin Hutcheson, city transportation director.

When comparing those same periods, overall sales-tax receipts were up 7 percent across Salt Lake City.

The progress report also reveals that bicycle traffic along the route rose about 30 percent after the protected bike lanes were installed.

Similar increases have been seen across the country when such bike lanes become available, Hutcheson said.

She noted, however, that the new dynamic of 300 South may also be due to street medians, planters and public art that add to the pedestrian experience.

John Mueller, the owner of Paradise Palm, 307 E. Broadway, said his business shot up when the automobile speed limit was reduced to 20 mph as part of the bike project.

"When the 20 mph sign went up," he said, "our business increased 20 percent, just like that."

continued...

http://www.sltrib.com/news/2966055-155/salt-lake-city-hall-report-protected

[asies1981]

Potential impacts if Prop 1 passes.

[bob rulz]

I recently got hired at the Harmons at City Creek and noticed the transit open house that occurred there. Did anybody here attend that? I wish I would've had the time to check it out. I was only able to walk through and glance.

[Makid]

Some ridership news that may have been missed:

http://www.sltrib.com/home/2984477-155/uta-finally-catches-up-to-last

The Utah Transit Authority had been playing catch-up all year, unable to match record ridership numbers set in 2014, but the agency finally overtook them slightly in August — although UTA is still well-short of its goal to increase ridership by 3.3 percent for the year.

Preliminary data released Wednesday showed that at the end of August, UTA had 30.16 million boardings on trains and buses for the year — 0.03 percent more than the 30.13 million it had at the same point last year.

Sibul said the other main reason for ridership increases is the extra service that the agency started offering in August, including expanded Sunday hours on all TRAX lines and the Sugar House streetcar.

"People are really using it," Sibul said of expanded hours on rail and some bus routes.

Initial data shows that for some of the improved routes, ridership is up by more than 30 percent on weekdays and 20 percent on weekends. UTA said official numbers will be released in coming weeks.

Sibul said the recent service expansion, funded in part from savings in lower fuel costs, "is a slice of our baseline proposal" for how UTA plans to use revenue from higher sales tax if voters approve Proposition 1 on Nov. 3.

This is good news that ridership is now ahead of last years levels and hopefully the bolded part above holds true and ridership on the expanded routes continues to increase.

With Ridership down 1.8% through May, I would expect that this would have continued through June and into July. There, promotions on fares came out to start the increase in riders and then August when they expanded some hours and frequencies on specific routes.

Seeing some routes with greater than 30% ridership increases is good news. This also bodes well for further frequency and hour adjustments on other medium to high ridership routes.

I am curious about the numbers for July and August though. To have ridership go from a decline of 1.8% YoY to an increase of 0.03% in just over a 1 month time frame would mean that ridership was dramatically higher on a monthly level.

With SL Comic Con setting another attendance record, State Fair attendance up and other events all seeing increasing amount of attendance, this should mean that September will also continue this ridership trend.

I don't know if we will get to UTA's goal of 3.3% ridership YoY increase but if ridership does continue to increase based on the hidden July/August numbers, we could be close to a 2% YoY increase for 2015.

If Proposition 1 passes, we should expect to see 2016 continue with the ridership increases and 5% to 7% increase could be possible.

It might be even higher if UTA advertised that specific routes are upgraded with frequencies and hours. The more people know about this, the more people would be able to use them.

[urban.cyclist]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

Salt Lake City Hall report: Protected bike lanes on 300 South grow riders and sales

They need to add speed bumps where curb cuts exist to slow down drivers more and add protected intersections. As built they may benefit the local economy, but I'm doubtful if they are really safe based on my experiences.

[Hatman]

For those of you sick of sitting in traffic, this video of Tesla Motor's new Autpilot feature (features that automatically control the steering and speed of your car in certain conditions) in action in and around Lehi/point of the mountain, should be encouraging:

• Video Link

(He doesn't begin actually using the autopilot until after 1:40-ish.)

Of course, if you're like me and get really sick of sitting in traffic (or rather, causing traffic!), Salt Lake City's bike lanes are rarely backed up!

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by urban.cyclist

They need to add speed bumps where curb cuts exist to slow down drivers more and add protected intersections. As built they may benefit the local economy, but I'm doubtful if they are really safe based on my experiences.

Having a concrete curb protecting pedestrians and bike lanes seems safer than not.

[Hatman]

A little bird from UTA told me they are going to be doing a trial on a new type of bike rack for FrontRunner. It should be installed sometime before the end of the year. It will feature 45 degree diagonal bike parking that will allow for more bikes than before with individual access to every bike. It should be much better than the system now.
I don't commute by FrontRunner (because I moved close enough to work to bike! ), but I still love that train. If anyone gets a chance to see this new setup in the coming weeks, please post a picture!

[Hatman]

I just got back from UDOT conference, and my head is spinning with all the cool stuff I learned.

1) UDOT is all in on connected/autonomous vehicles. Apparently they got a study back about traffic in the south end of the valley that indicated more widening of I-15 and other roads would be necessary, but they sent it back, and are now performing 3 studies on how "technology" can ease traffic using existing infrastructure. They talked about how, when enough vehicles have autonomous capabilities, that they are considering converting the HOV lane to 2 "platoon" lanes (one for small vehicles, one for trucks) that would be narrower and would thus fit into the space of the HOV lane. The Tesla Autopilot update was mentioned at every breakout session I went to, and the transportation planners are clearly on board with the idea that someday in the not so distant future (the longest any of them said was 2035), driving on UDOT roads will be a thing done mostly by computers, not by humans. (No one has yet suggested that certain roads be autonomous-only, but I think it's only a matter of time.)
On the one hand, I shouldn't be so surprised about this. The biggest delays on UDOT roads are caused by road accidents, and autonomous driving is the best way to prevent accidents. Autonomous driving also needs less infrastructure, meaning UDOT can do more with its existing funding. UDOT has a financial incentive to adopt and promote autonomous technology, so I should be surprised to see them being so forward-thinking; but still, It's hard to overstate how thrilled I am! What a wonderful and revolutionary time to be alive!

2) UTA is really hitting the active transportation hard. They're totally pushing bike lanes and sidewalks connecting to all rail stations, and also major bus stops. They disclosed rumors that the GreenBike program in Salt Lake City is looking to be adopted by a larger governing body that could potentially cover most or all of UTA's service area. There's also a desire to integrate payment methods, so that if you have a FarePay card or any other type of UTA pass, you can simply 'tap on' and 'tap off' for a GreenBike the same as using a bus or a train. That would be huge.

Great things are coming to Utah's transportation scene. I was really impressed by how big the vision is for what the UDOT and other transportation leaders think is achievable in such a short amount of time. They get it. They're in tune with the times.

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by Hatman

I just got back from UDOT conference, and my head is spinning with all the cool stuff I learned.

1) UDOT is all in on connected/autonomous vehicles. Apparently they got a study back about traffic in the south end of the valley that indicated more widening of I-15 and other roads would be necessary, but they sent it back, and are now performing 3 studies on how "technology" can ease traffic using existing infrastructure. They talked about how, when enough vehicles have autonomous capabilities, that they are considering converting the HOV lane to 2 "platoon" lanes (one for small vehicles, one for trucks) that would be narrower and would thus fit into the space of the HOV lane. The Tesla Autopilot update was mentioned at every breakout session I went to, and the transportation planners are clearly on board with the idea that someday in the not so distant future (the longest any of them said was 2035), driving on UDOT roads will be a thing done mostly by computers, not by humans. (No one has yet suggested that certain roads be autonomous-only, but I think it's only a matter of time.)
On the one hand, I shouldn't be so surprised about this. The biggest delays on UDOT roads are caused by road accidents, and autonomous driving is the best way to prevent accidents. Autonomous driving also needs less infrastructure, meaning UDOT can do more with its existing funding. UDOT has a financial incentive to adopt and promote autonomous technology, so I should be surprised to see them being so forward-thinking; but still, It's hard to overstate how thrilled I am! What a wonderful and revolutionary time to be alive!

2) UTA is really hitting the active transportation hard. They're totally pushing bike lanes and sidewalks connecting to all rail stations, and also major bus stops. They disclosed rumors that the GreenBike program in Salt Lake City is looking to be adopted by a larger governing body that could potentially cover most or all of UTA's service area. There's also a desire to integrate payment methods, so that if you have a FarePay card or any other type of UTA pass, you can simply 'tap on' and 'tap off' for a GreenBike the same as using a bus or a train. That would be huge.

Great things are coming to Utah's transportation scene. I was really impressed by how big the vision is for what the UDOT and other transportation leaders think is achievable in such a short amount of time. They get it. They're in tune with the times.

Did UTA talk about the challenges it's facing at a grassroots level in SLC regarding the push for a separate bus company? And if so, did they outline any ways in which they would try to work with the city to help it secure more bus routes with SLC's own funding?

[Hatman]

^^^
Not at any of the sessions I went to. UTA only appeared at the UDOT conference in collaborative roles, such as partnering in studies. Nothing UTA specific was mentioned.

In my own opinion, UTA could do a better job serving just Salt Lake City than it already does, but forming a separate transit agency for the city is probably not the best solution. That adds confusion between the two sets of bus routes, two sets of payment systems, two locations of maintenance, two sets of bureaucrats in charge, etc. If Salt Lake City really wants its own specific service, I would suggest creating a branch of UTA to be Salt Lake City specific. Make single UTA manager in charge of the Salt Lake City division, and use the local transit funding for more local uses. That would streamline the division and specification of service significantly. But who knows what will happen.

[Palladio]

I'm going to go ahead and play the little bird role about my knowledge of UTA-SLC happenings. UTA officially can take no opinion on whether or not SLC should start its own bus company, but virtually every person from day to day planning to those on the board of directors are opposed to it. There is wide support to increase city-specific transit options, but the idea that UTA is just so incredibly removed from the needs of Salt Lake City is just silly. The good folks at UTA are more than willing to increase local service. In fact, that has been on the radar for quite a while. But it is a matter of funding and political willpower to get it off the ground. What I've heard around the office are comparisons to RDA's service in Boulder, CO. Having the transit agency run 100% of the service in the city, but on a contractual basis.

[i-215]

Originally Posted by Hatman

I just got back from UDOT conference, and my head is spinning with all the cool stuff I learned.

Sounds like we were there at the same time. I also found it interesting how much the "man on the street" people kept getting UDOT mixed up with UTA TRAX. It goes to show that our rail lines are quickly becoming as important to the Wasatch Front as I-15 is.

Overall, I think UDOT is reaching a nice balance -- always say "yes" to active transportation and mass transit (unlike LA in the 1970s) without going "full Portland" and screwing over motorists and ruining the vehicle network. If the Wasatch Front can find that perfect balance where all road users can have a good experience on the road, then we'll be a model for the entire country.

[Hatman]

^^^
It is pretty amazing how UDOT isn't the object of hatred and profanity that most other DOT's seem to be. While some projects may be unpopular (Thru-turns - or Michigan U turns, whatever they're called), overall most people I know seem pretty positive in regards to UDOT. Me included, and I've totally got a transit bias.
Sigh. If only UTA were able to get people to feel the same way.

[UrbanDesign]

During the UTA segment of the conference, was there any mention about updating their "tap on-tap off" system to include the NFC protocol in cell phones? That would be a great step forward if people could buy tickets on their phones!

[StevenF]

Originally Posted by UrbanDesign

During the UTA segment of the conference, was there any mention about updating their "tap on-tap off" system to include the NFC protocol in cell phones? That would be a great step forward if people could buy tickets on their phones!

I am extremely interested in this idea of using my phone. I have an Apple Watch and I could tap on and tap off with just that.