Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by i-215

This is nonsense we're dealing with on the Our Provo Facebook group:



Names blurred to protect the ... annoying.

Someone needs to tell that person that the best way to become under served and ignored is to constantly stand in the way of progress. Srsly, at some point you've earned it.

[(Eco)nomy_404]

Originally Posted by i-215

This is nonsense we're dealing with on the Our Provo Facebook group:



Names blurred to protect the ... annoying.

So residents want traffic that gridlocks for several hours of the day, heavy traffic even during off-peak times/days, would rather cross the busiest streets in town with unnecessarily larger traffic volumes, more urban pollution, etc, etc. It sounds like s/he wants to keep things as they are, which is clearly not working and only getting worse. Don't like the price tag? How about all the lost commuter hours and gas spent idling in traffic jams that back up through multiple lights? If you don't like the cost of BRT, let me show you how much light-rail would cost. It's absolutely ridiculous that it takes as long to drive across the city of Provo as it does from Provo to Draper on I-15!

Opposing something just to oppose it is petty. The community is clogged with traffic and plagued with dilapidated pedestrian infrastructure, creating a vicious cycle of even more traffic. You don't like BRT, great. So what's your plan? Keep things the way they are? That's clearly not an acceptable option.

It's funny how people have no problem with eminent domain if it's a football stadium, but if it's an not-so-— infrastructure project that we needed ten years ago, that's just not important enough (heaven forbid they put in bus and bike lanes!) There are actually a lot of cyclists in Provo who nearly run over pedestrians (and just as nearly get run over by mindless motorists) on a daily basis that could really use protected lanes. I bet a lot more people would bike if such lanes were in place, not to mention ride the bus if it were faster and more efficient (less stops, transfers, etc).

What's with all this corruption talk? Way to underscore your already-weak point by making a red harring argument.

I know I'm speaking to the choir here. Pardon my rant. *Steps down from soapbox*

[(Eco)nomy_404]

Good news on those who want to block BRT in Provo. It's too late for them! Apparently the project is married to a UDOT project already in the pipeline that would have expanded the road anyway. It's actually cheaper this way to piggy back on the existing project. Work is set to begin this summer and we are now so far beyond the public input phase there is absolutely nothing anyone can do to stop it at this point. The train (err..bus) has already left the station!

Provo Mayor Addresses Concerns with Bus Rapid Transit System
By FELICIA MARTINEZ | [email protected]
Published 05/11 2016 11:31AMUpdated

UTAH COUNTY, Utah (Good4Utah)- Wednesday morning Provo City Mayor John Curtis met with the Exchange Club to discuss the Provo-Orem Bus Rapid Transit system.

The 150 Million dollar system, also referred to as "BRT" will connect the major destinations between the two cities.

"We're going to double in size in the county in 20 years. Do we want to build twice as many roads? Do we want to build twice as many parking lots? The answer is no," Mayor Curtis said.

Instead, Mayor Curtis explained to Exchange Club members BRT can help accommodate the growing population. In fact, Mayor Curtis says if you look at the demographics for Provo and Orem it's close to where Salt Lake was when they first started TRAX, but some people are against BRT arguing it will change the city.

I lived in Salt Lake County at the time TRAX came in and every argument you hear against BRT we heard against TRAX. It's change and change is difficult, but if you think about Salt Lake City without TRAX today you understand why this is so important to many of us?" the mayor said.

This raised the question "Then why not just have TRAX?" Mayor Curtis says TRAX will be twice as expensive.
BRT is more like the baby sister to TRAX.
That also raised another question by Exchange member Jim Proctor who asked Exchange "How is this going to be better than the Taylorsville mess?"

Mayor Curtis says in Taylorsville their BRT is really just a bus. The Provo-Orem BRT system offers amenities such as side doors, pre-boarding fair and a limited number of stops, between BYU, Utah valley University, downtown Provo, University Mall and high density student housing.

"People look at this and say 'this is largely for students' and this is probably true and if we can get those students in buses and out of automobiles that's a win for everybody", said Mayor Curtis.

However, as far as stopping the project, the mayor says that's not even an option.

"The time to stop it was years ago. This project has been moving forward for 13 years and is so far through the process that the opportunity to change it was actually years ago," said Mayor Curits.

In addition to the 150 million dollars for BRT, 40 million dollars is also going toward UDOT improvements that would happen even without BRT.

http://www.good4utah.com/news/local-news...s-concerns-with-bus-rapid-transit-system

[Future Mayor]

I'm glad the Mayor Curtis was straight to the point. The biggest point I think he made was asking and then answering the question "Do we want to build twice as many roads and twice as many parking lots? No."

I just don't get the mindset of, we'd rather have thousands of students and sports fans coming in thousands of cars than on the bus.

Sometimes people just don't understand that just because they want things to stay the same doesn't mean they will, so it's the job of cities, county, and other agencies to look ahead to accommodate those needs.

The outcome will be just the same as Trax was, the first BRT line will get built and the rest of the communities and neighborhoods will be clamoring to get the next BRT brought to them.

[(Eco)nomy_404]

People can really be short-sighted. They hate change, but they don't realize that change will happen either way. This is managing that change in a constructive way through preemptive planning. I found it interesting how he pointed out how UT County is in a similar demographic situation as SL County was at th beginning stages of TRAX. In 1990, SL County had just over 700,000 residents. UT County is nearing 600,000. I'm glad UT County is even getting a bit of a head start.

So I have a few questions about the following map (I marked them on the map with stars): 1) Why does it appear they are going to build a BRT out to the airport along the current TRAX route? Is this out-dated from before they built the TRAX line? Are they really going to have both a TRAX line and a BRT go to the airport? 2) What is that little couple-block blip of streetcar that runs north-south at approximately 2100 S and 1100 East? I assume that is going to connect with the S-line, but where? Is it going to move from the current terminus to the north or to the south? Along what road? 3) What is bus-plus?

[Hatman]

Let me take a shot at these questions:

1) I don't think there is anything official about this apparent BRT line between SLC and the airport. I think it is an effort to make the 5600 W BRT line look more relevant. The 5600W BRT line, you may recall, is something that UDOT will have to (help) pay for as part of a mitigation from constructing the Mountain View Corridor. Anyone with a map can see that this road is not in an urban environment and does not connect urban environments, and without the mountain view corridor would probably be the last place to construct a higher capacity transit line. But politics being what they are, UDOT will pay for (some of) the construction, and UTA will spend its limited operating budget running it. It is all very silly, and I hope that it isn't actually built for many years (though having it planned now for ROW preservation purposes actually a really good idea).
Anyway, if there is a route from nowhere to nowhere, it makes sens for planners to want to connect it into a larger system, so that it only goes from somewhere to somewhere through nowhere. So why not connect the 5600 W route via the airport to downtown and the planned South Davis BRT line?

2) This is a proposed extension of the S-Line. If the world had unlimited resources and all proposed transit projects stood an independent chance of being built on their own individual merits, I would be totally in favor of this extension. However, since this project would likely take millions of construction and operating dollars away from other bigger-impact projects (such as BRT down State Street or to South Davis County), I'm not in favor of extending the S-Line all the way to Westminster. There's been some debates about various proposed extensions on this thread, such as this page.

3) Bus Plus is a great idea that needs to be implemented ASAP. It is basically a BRT line without the dedicated lanes. Buses would use stations on the sides of the road, like a normal bus, but would have ticket machines, raised platforms for level boarding (or at least a smaller step) a better canopy, a message board with accurate arrival information, etc. And the buses would come more frequently, at least every 15 minutes. In more advanced versions, buses would have signal priority at traffic lights so that they wouldn't need to wait at red lights. This type of system makes sense where well-used buses are traveling on low-traffic roads that don't see much traffic congestion. The wonderful thing about Bus Plus would be that stations can come on-line one at a time, meaning that turning a normal bus route into a bus-plus route is something that can be done incrementally. And since it is usually the city that pays for bus stop amenities, individual cities can make bus routes through their jurisdictions bus-plus routes without needing to get other jurisdictions involved at the same time. This is something I wish UTA would be pushing for more, as it is something that the individual cities that want better UTA service can already do on their own, without having to wait for big improvement projects.
Like, the city would say "Hey, UTA, we want better service!" and UTA could be like "Totally. We'll increase service along this bus route from 30 minutes to 10 minutes if you pay for the bus stops to be turned into bus-plus stations" and the city would be like "Okay, we'll improve two stations a year until we get it all done!" and UTA would be like "Deal, baby!" and all the taxpayers would be like "Dude, the bus is cool now. It's like clean and safe and frequent and easy to understand. I've got to get me some bus plus commute!"

Etc.

Does that answer your questions?
BTW, you have good eyes to spot that stuff on that map.

[Future Mayor]

Hatman beat me to it.

[Makid]

For #1, the 5600 BRT Phase 1 will go East on 2700 South to Bangerter > 201 > West Temple > Hub. Phase 2 will take a similar alignment as the TRAX line that will later replace it. It will go to the airport but will then continue to Hub. The airport while a transfer station will not be the final location of the line. Once the BRT line is converted to Trax (When MVC is a full freeway around 2045/2050) the line will be a western Trax loop from the current Green Line Terminus at the Airport to meeting with the existing Red Line Terminus in Daybreak. These may be extended south through Herriman and eventually to create a Northern Utah County link or through Draper - through the prison redevelopment land.

#2 and 3 have been covered above.

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

Hatman beat me to it.

Always nice to hear your answers anyway!

Originally Posted by Makid

For #1, the 5600 BRT Phase 1 will go East on 2700 South to Bangerter > 201 > West Temple > Hub.

Now that's interesting. I hadn't heard about this route. If we get a BRT line on West Temple, that changes my stance significantly.
But then again, West Temple is only a block east of the existing TRAX line, and what would that do the the odds of putting a BRT line down State Street (two blocks further east) in the near future?
Is there anything more you can tell us about Phase 1?

[(Eco)nomy_404]

Originally Posted by Hatman

Let me take a shot at these questions:

1) I don't think there is anything official about this apparent BRT line between SLC and the airport. I think it is an effort to make the 5600 W BRT line look more relevant. The 5600W BRT line, you may recall, is something that UDOT will have to (help) pay for as part of a mitigation from constructing the Mountain View Corridor. Anyone with a map can see that this road is not in an urban environment and does not connect urban environments, and without the mountain view corridor would probably be the last place to construct a higher capacity transit line. But politics being what they are, UDOT will pay for (some of) the construction, and UTA will spend its limited operating budget running it. It is all very silly, and I hope that it isn't actually built for many years (though having it planned now for ROW preservation purposes actually a really good idea).

Does that answer your questions?
BTW, you have good eyes to spot that stuff on that map.

Yeah I am familiar with the Mtn View alignment, and I very much approve of starting smaller with the BRT, which could very easily be upgraded to TRAX down the road. As for how it connects at the airport and moves into downtown, that's where it's all new to me. I think California would make more sense than 201 so that it's far enough away from the Green Line's West Valley alignment and N. Temple alignment to not be redundant. I never thought of this as a high growth area, but I can see how it very well could be in the future. I suppose somewhere in N. Salt Lake, like 2100 N, could be useful as well (which is already a higher growth area.)

Thanks for the bus plus info. I guess I never realized there was a more watered-down version of BRT. I can see how it could be effective in certain areas, but it would really depend on the corridor.

As for my "good eye," I'd say it's more of an "innate sense of di-rec-tion" (pardon the Emperor's New Groove reference lol)

Originally Posted by Makid

For #1, the 5600 BRT Phase 1 will go East on 2700 South to Bangerter > 201 > West Temple > Hub. Phase 2 will take a similar alignment as the TRAX line that will later replace it. It will go to the airport but will then continue to Hub. The airport while a transfer station will not be the final location of the line. Once the BRT line is converted to Trax (When MVC is a full freeway around 2045/2050) the line will be a western Trax loop from the current Green Line Terminus at the Airport to meeting with the existing Red Line Terminus in Daybreak. These may be extended south through Herriman and eventually to create a Northern Utah County link or through Draper - through the prison redevelopment land.

I don't understand the 201 alignment as the Green Line is already there. Where would they put a BRT? Or would it just continue on 201 where the Green Line swings south? I could see a possible transfer station between River Trail and Redwood Station.

[Makid]

Originally Posted by Hatman

Always nice to hear your answers anyway!



Now that's interesting. I hadn't heard about this route. If we get a BRT line on West Temple, that changes my stance significantly.
But then again, West Temple is only a block east of the existing TRAX line, and what would that do the the odds of putting a BRT line down State Street (two blocks further east) in the near future?
Is there anything more you can tell us about Phase 1?

Phase 1 is fixed alignment between 6200 South and 2700 South (2 lanes, 1 each direction, center running configuration and curb separated from the remaining traffic lanes).

Once at 2700 South, it will go East towards Bangerter highway. From there, north to the 201 and then would take the interchange to 13th or 9th South. From there it will make its way to the hub. That alignment is loose and not final as it is expected to be temporary. I don't think there will be any stops outside of the Hub itself. I also don't expect there to be any stops along 2700 South either. As it is a temporary alignment there anyway.

Phase 2, while it will follow the Trax line, there aren't any planned stops between the airport and the Hub. This is why the Airport will be the transfer point.

Phase 2 is tentatively scheduled for 5 to 7 years after phase 1 is complete. The alignment isn't fully known yet due to the 5600/201 interchange as well as the vast industrial land between 201 and I-80.

Originally, the line would go to I-80 and then towards the airport and then downtown. I think this is changing and the route will go into the international center before going to the airport due to the increase in employment in the area.

One thought for those that like to think to the far future...

35M will eventually be upgraded to Streetcar/Trax. This will be done after the 5600 Line is also upgraded to Trax. This does mean that there will be another Trax loop. The Green Line will eventually be a loop.

It is possible that there would be a Green Loop (current and Western edge) and an Orange Loop (New and probably 50+ years out). Orange would be 5600 West to Airport through downtown along the current N/S line and then heading West through the Prison Redevelopment and then connecting to the 5600 West alignment around Herriman.

There needs to be at least 1 more line planned for the East side outside of the Mountain Accord as that doesn't allow for a loop currently.

Just imagine the access and service it would create when completed (2075 est.). Of course, it could also be done sooner but would cost about $3 Billion alone currently due to the bridges and ROW that would be needed. This doesn't even take into consideration the Mountain Accord nor any other potential East Side routes (as there aren't any planned yet).

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by Makid

Phase 1 is fixed alignment between 6200 South and 2700 South (2 lanes, 1 each direction, center running configuration and curb separated from the remaining traffic lanes).

Once at 2700 South, it will go East towards Bangerter highway. From there, north to the 201 and then would take the interchange to 13th or 9th South. From there it will make its way to the hub. That alignment is loose and not final as it is expected to be temporary. I don't think there will be any stops outside of the Hub itself. I also don't expect there to be any stops along 2700 South either. As it is a temporary alignment there anyway.

That is an interesting service proposal. I like it in concept - a bus with local stops in a residential area then no stops at all until it reaches the downtown hub. I think there should be more bus routes that do that.
The location, however, of 6200 South to 2700 South on 5600 West still confuses me. That stretch of road is lined with single-family homes, usually in subdivisions that front the street with walls. Such an odd location for BRT. 2700 South (Lake Park Boulevard?) has more potential, but it still isn't close to the top of my list of "best and most urgent BRT routes."

[AllOutOfBubbleGum]

Originally Posted by Hatman

That is an interesting service proposal. I like it in concept - a bus with local stops in a residential area then no stops at all until it reaches the downtown hub. I think there should be more bus routes that do that.
The location, however, of 6200 South to 2700 South on 5600 West still confuses me. That stretch of road is lined with single-family homes, usually in subdivisions that front the street with walls. Such an odd location for BRT. 2700 South (Lake Park Boulevard?) has more potential, but it still isn't close to the top of my list of "best and most urgent BRT routes."

5600 West is odd for a BRT right now but in 30 years a large amount of the homes that line the street will be gone. From 3500 S to 4100 South those homes that face the street all have massive amounts of land behind them. Some of these homes are boarded up waiting for the eventual tear down. I remember reading that at about 3700 S they are planning a new road there and that will open up land.

From 4100 S to 4700 South it's a lot of homes a high school and a few commercial zones but that section has never matured for what is there. Then as you go up to 4700S to 5400 it's just homes but a lot of space to expand the road.

From 5400 S to 6200 it's homes but the open fields are all owned by UDOT I believe.

5600 West is a divided road with 3 to 4 cities mostly bordering it and the fact it's way and the — out there. But with BRT running down it, that might give the area a different way of developing. One more centered around mass transit.

[Hatman]

In 30 years I guess anything can be possible. TRAX is only 16 years old, and FrontRunner just turned 8. Who knows how far BRT will expand in 30 years?
And though I had been skeptical that all the single-family homes along 5600 W would ever give way to more dense neighborhoods, I hadn't seen the big scar already being cut through the housing for the Mountain View Corridor.
But my confusion still stands as to the timing. If you run two computer servers and one is at capacity while the other won't reach capacity until 30 years, why upgrade the second one first? I get that transit lines serve two purposes, of servicing developments already built and promoting denser developments along their routes, but it seems to me that there should at least be an initial demand for service before something as design and cash intensive as a BRT line can be expected to be practical. Like the Provo-Orem BRT, which is in the simplest sense a complete upgrade of the existing route 830. The 5600 W line would be something completely new; there isn't any local bus service that currently provides a similar service (5600 W is served in pieces by the F556, 47/41, and 513 routes, requiring 2/3 transfers to ride a bus along the proposed route).
My solution (because it is useless to complain without offering a suggestion) would be for UDOT not to pay for the construction of a BRT line, but instead for the construction and operation of a much more modest Bus-Plus line (the cheaper construction costs of simple, enhanced stations plus the cost of operating it for a set number of years would be roughly equivalent to the larger construction costs of a full-fledged BRT line). In this way UTA wouldn't need to pay to operate a BRT line that won't be especially useful for 30-ish years, and UDOT will still make a meaningful contribution to mitigating the sprawly effects of the MVC. Once this Bus-Plus line is used to capacity, then give it the dedicated lanes of a BRT. Also, since there is no good example of Bus-Plus currently operating (or even under construction) in Utah, this would be a good oportunity to introduce the public to the concept, to hopefully build out a network of Bus-Plus routes, which would complement the BRT routes, which would complement the rail routes, etc.

[(Eco)nomy_404]

Originally Posted by Hatman

My solution (because it is useless to complain without offering a suggestion) would be for UDOT not to pay for the construction of a BRT line, but instead for the construction and operation of a much more modest Bus-Plus line (the cheaper construction costs of simple, enhanced stations plus the cost of operating it for a set number of years would be roughly equivalent to the larger construction costs of a full-fledged BRT line). In this way UTA wouldn't need to pay to operate a BRT line that won't be especially useful for 30-ish years, and UDOT will still make a meaningful contribution to mitigating the sprawly effects of the MVC. Once this Bus-Plus line is used to capacity, then give it the dedicated lanes of a BRT. Also, since there is no good example of Bus-Plus currently operating (or even under construction) in Utah, this would be a good oportunity to introduce the public to the concept, to hopefully build out a network of Bus-Plus routes, which would complement the BRT routes, which would complement the rail routes, etc.

How about this as a thought: They build an initial phase that connects the Airport to the 35Max route. This area includes a 2-mile strip of shopping centers that is often clogged with mall traffic. Such a route could be the catalyst for some development reorientation similar to what happened at Valley Fair (filling in old parking lots with pedestrian-oriented shops and eateries. There are a number of multi-family developments within a 3/4 to 1-mile proximity along with traditional single-family burb neighborhoods. It would be a nice transit bridge between two heavily-used transit corridors. Further down the road (say, 10 years upon completion), they could connect this phase to the Mid-Jordan line in Daybreak. After that, they could move into Harriman as the demand grows.

[(Eco)nomy_404]

Duplicate post (it happens on mobile for me a lot for some reason)

[Future Mayor]

I do like your idea of Bus Plus. I think if they do go ahead and build the BRT, that before doing so they need a commitment and action by the cities along the line of a rezone surrounding the areas that the stops will be built. This could facilitate redevelopment of land at the same time that the BRT line is getting built.

The talk of expanding 5600 W in order to add BRT is a really bad idea though. BRT need to replace a lane and Mtn View Corridor needs to alleviate much of the existing and future traffic. If 5600 W gets expanded to a wider road the effectiveness of BRT can easily be reduced. It's like the few BRT stations that are in the center of 3500 S, when someone has to cross 3 lanes on one side or 7 lanes on the other it really reduces the pedestrian friendliness of the stop and the line in General. 5600 W can't get any wider when BRT is built.

[Makid]

5600 West is at its widest point now in the section between 6200 South and 2700 South. It is slowly being expanded between 2700 South and the 201.

SL County a few years ago gauged what people near the intersection of 4700 South and 5600 West would think if a Gateway style development took over the SE corner of the intersection and went up along the Rio Tinto rail line. This is East of the NAC printing plant.

The public was in support of the project. The project however is contingent on the BRT being built and a conversion date for BRT to LRT. The property is still for sale but the County has the first option of purchase for redevelopment. This project is also one reason that they wanted to lock in City boundaries as WVC is directly N, NW and W of the project and the County didn't want the project to happen and then have WVC come in and grab the tax revenue.

There are a couple of other projects planned (loosely) for the vacant land behind the Holiday at 5600 West and 5400 South.

The hold out for the developments has been WVC though. They have fought against increased transit along 5600 West going as far as to tell both UDoT and UTA that transit in the area is fine (at nearly zero). They lost this but have pushed back against the need to block left turn access to properties along 5600 West between 3500 South and 2700 South. WVC has been aware that this blocking will occur when BRT starts in the next couple of years but they have also been telling potential business owners that access from both N/S directions will be available. Hence the multiple streets that are opened to 5600 West along this section.

One downside to the delay of the BRT line (originally supposed to open in 2015) was that 2 prime parcels have been redeveloped as shopping. These are at 5600 West and 4100 South. Both the CVS and Autozone (both under construction currently) were listed as projected higher density housing/mixed use projects to help support the line. When the BRT line was delayed (due to MVC being delayed from funding), the land was sold and the projects were abandoned. The only available land at the intersection now is owned by UTA for the Park and Ride.

Yes, the loss of 2 parcels is due to WVC being late to the concept of transit outside of 3500 South but developers are wanting to do something but without any support from either UDoT, UTA nor WVC, they aren't willing to spend the money.

The sooner that the BRT line can be started, the sooner that redevelopment can occur. As sadly, the longer it takes, the less likely meaningful, transformative projects will occur.

[Future Mayor]

As I read through your post I realized that 5600 W and 3500 S has the potential to be a major transit hub with both BRT lines converging at that intersection.

[Makid]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

As I read through your post I realized that 5600 W and 3500 S has the potential to be a major transit hub with both BRT lines converging at that intersection.

That intersection has a lot of potential in the future. With the 5600 West BRT and the extension of the 35M BRT dedicated lanes, this intersection should see a lot of redevelopment and has the potential to drastically increase in density.

The question though is if WVC will do anything to take advantage of this (preemptive zoning changes for anticipated transit) or if they will wait for developers to come to them.

This intersection could become a 2nd downtown for WVC and in all probability the economic center for the city if it gets the planning right.