Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[asies1981]

Good news for S-Line riders. Double track is funded for 300 East to 500 East, meaning shorter wait times.

[Makid]

I am happy about this expansion and service increase but I am curious about why the long delay in getting the 2 block extension up and running.

When there were objections to the 11th East route, UTA and their main contractor stated it would take 1 to 2 weeks for construction on each block. This is a 2 block section with switches for passing.

Based on the estimate before, this should take at most 2 months, plus potentially 6 months of testing.

Why is it taking until 2019 for rail to be installed?

From DesNews:

UTA officials said preliminary construction will begin as early as the end of this year and actual rail installation will finish in early 2019.

From BuildingSaltLake:

While the funding is in place, it will take UTA several months to go through the permitting process before construction can begin. Once construction is underway, Benson anticipates it will only take 12-18 months to install the new track. Officials anticipate that the double track will be in operation by 2019.

Can the permitting take so long that only minor work can begin by the end of the year and that rail can't be laid form nearly 18 months from now? For a locally funded project?

I think this is part of the problem with Transit costs and timing.

Also, With a $6.5 Million for the 2 block extension, I think SLC should see if they can create a TIF area along their section of the line to double track and extend to 11th East and 21st South. If they can use Impact Fees near the line, this could be a 10 year bond to expand and extend the line.

SSL could do something similar to get their section double tracked. They could even use the funds to landscape their section so it matches SLC.

I am really happy that we are expanding transit frequencies on the line and that it is a nice price. I hope that this is the start of additional transit increases be it rail or bus.

[Hatman]

It's a step forward, so I'll be happy about it. But I'm still going to complain:

1) I doubt this upgrade is necessary for 15 minute service. Look at the current S-Line schedule, and you will see that the cars have a 10-minute layover on each end of the line. Why not have a 5-minute layover? If you did, you'd have 15 minute service already, no new investment required. Zero. Do the TRAX operators need union-approved smoke-breaks? I honestly cannot think of any other reason why a 10-minute layover is needed. What makes this even more aggravating is that the entire trip-time of the S-Line is also 10 minutes, meaning that the streetcars are laying-over for the same amount of time as they are in revenue service. Only 50% utilized! Ugh! Just cut the layover time to 5 minutes, and that jumps to 66% utilized!

2) This investment is for 2 blocks. It isn't just the length of track to be build parallel to the existing one, it is also for the old switch on the west end of the 500 East station to be ripped out, and for a new switch to be 'cut-in' just west of 300 east. That's probably a big part of why it costs a whole $6.5 million to build 2 blocks of tracks that have already gone through an engineering review. This is not a sustainable way to eventually double-track the line, because each time you do a 2-block extension you have to tear out and install brand new switching infrastructure, which is much more expensive than the straight double tracks. You have to at some point ask when the incremental approach becomes more expensive than just building the whole thing out at once.

3) What this says to me is that the UTA, SLC, and SSLC have no intention of fully double-tracking the S-Line anytime soon, if ever. If they did, they would just double-track the whole thing now (see previous argument). And if they don't want to double-track the line, it will never run more frequently than every 15 minutes. If you double-track the line, you build in the ability to run trains as often as you like; you also add in flexibility to your line if something were to go wrong on one of the tracks - such as maintenance.

So if I were king of transportation, I cut 5 minutes from the layovers and offer 15-minute service now. then I would NOT build this 2 block extension, but instead would save this money away for an eventual full double-tracking of the entire line.
/fantasy.
I realize this isn't how political money works, so I'll take what I can get. With politics, planning, and transportation involved, I'm mostly glad that the S-Line is getting as much attention as it is getting now.

[TonyAnderson]

Originally Posted by Hatman

It's a step forward, so I'll be happy about it. But I'm still going to complain:

1) I doubt this upgrade is necessary for 15 minute service. Look at the current S-Line schedule, and you will see that the cars have a 10-minute layover on each end of the line. Why not have a 5-minute layover? If you did, you'd have 15 minute service already, no new investment required. Zero. Do the TRAX operators need union-approved smoke-breaks? I honestly cannot think of any other reason why a 10-minute layover is needed. What makes this even more aggravating is that the entire trip-time of the S-Line is also 10 minutes, meaning that the streetcars are laying-over for the same amount of time as they are in revenue service. Only 50% utilized! Ugh! Just cut the layover time to 5 minutes, and that jumps to 66% utilized!
.

Do they need it so they can coordinate the switch over as there's only one place with double tracks now?

[bob rulz]

I'm more concerned with when we're going to get that streetcar to Westminster up and going. I'm still salivating at the thought of a streetcar through the heart of Sugarhouse.

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by TonyAnderson

Do they need it so they can coordinate the switch over as there's only one place with double tracks now?

That is exactly what UTA will say.

So the S-Line cars pass each other at the 500 East station. They have to arrive at exactly the same time, otherwise one delays the other. By extending the passing siding to include a 2 block stretch as well as the 300 East station, the cars won't need to be so exact anymore. It's a way of building some 'padding' into their schedule.

Without this physical infrastructure 'padding', UTA puts padding into their schedules. FrontRunner, the other rail system on a single track with passing sidings, had padding time like crazy, since those trains also need to arrive at the stations at exactly the same times. There are long layovers at both ends of FrontRunner, and the scheduled time between most stations is longer than it really needs to be in order compensate for unexpected delays.

But here's the thing: The S Line is not FrontRunner. It is not 89 miles long, it is less than 2 miles. Instead of needing to meet up with 8 other trains, the S Line needs to meet only 1. If the S-Line gets delayed, it will only be in a single-digit number of minutes, not the 20-30 minute-delays FrontRunner routinely suffers. The S Line is so much more simple - when things go wrong they can't go very wrong.

So a 5-minute layover is almost always enough time, even to include 'padding.' The probability that the added passing siding length will make the S-Line statistically more reliable is pretty low. You could say they are chasing a 'corner condition,' or that they are chasing the bell-curve's tail. They're spending money on a diminishing return.

TRAX, by the way, does pretty tight layovers already. Trains at Draper and West Valley already do 6 minute layovers, and the Airport has a 7-minute layover. I realize that neither of those are 5-minutes or shorter, but they show that even with the need to coordinate switching (from northbound to southbound track or visa versa), TRAX is already amazingly close to achieving a 5 minute layover on lines much longer than the S-Line. The Blue line is 19.3 miles long - approximately 10x longer than the S-Line - and yet has a shorter layover time, even though the probability of delay is approximately 10x more.

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

I'm more concerned with when we're going to get that streetcar to Westminster up and going. I'm still salivating at the thought of a streetcar through the heart of Sugarhouse.

No kidding. The S-Line won't be 'complete' without an extension to at least the monument plaza:



Beyond the plaza, I'm less enthusiastic. The plans used to show the line going as far north as 17th street and Highland drive.

I can see why they want to do this - Westminster College is only a block away from that intersection; on a map it looks very good. But I invite people to go to that intersection themselves, or at least look at it on Google Streetview. As you can see, it's just a gas station, a pharmacy, and other single-level low density buildings surrounded by single-family homes. This is NOT a great environment to have a streetcar line, let alone a terminus. Furthermore, this extension would be in mixed traffic, which just makes the whole system worse. For example, when a car parallel parks badly, the streetcar can't swerve around it. If streetcars have their own ROW like TRAX, there are curbs placed on the sides of the tracks to make sure cars don't block the trains.


My hope is that they go back to alternative D from the old extension study: (PDF LINK)

This is better for so many reasons:
1) It's shorter, and therefore cheaper
2) It has its own ROW, so it won't be delayed by cars.
3) It makes a loop so there is no need for layovers while the cars switch directions, loosing valuable time. By making a loop, no revenue-time is lost.

Now you may argue that this option is worse because it doesn't go as close to Westminster College. True, it does not. But the plaza is plenty close to the college. It is half a mile away, which is considered a reasonable walking distance for access to transit. In fact, there are areas of the U of U farther away from a TRAX station than Winchester College is from the monument plaza, and this isn't considered a problem. Furthermore, Winchester College has about 3000 students and staff. If we assume that a quarter of them will take the streetcar (a similar amount of U of U students take TRAX), then we get about 750 riders from Winchester College.
That's tiny. I cannot think of any way to justify a 4 block extension of a streetcar line for a ridership target so low. Those 750 people can walk the half-mile to their college, just like many people at the U do - and while they do it they can increase the street-life of the sugar house area.

tl;dr Please extend the S-Line to the Monument Plaza, but please stop there.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Hatman

No kidding. The S-Line won't be 'complete' without an extension to at least the monument plaza:



Beyond the plaza, I'm less enthusiastic. The plans used to show the line going as far north as 17th street and Highland drive.

I can see why they want to do this - Westminster College is only a block away from that intersection; on a map it looks very good. But I invite people to go to that intersection themselves, or at least look at it on Google Streetview. As you can see, it's just a gas station, a pharmacy, and other single-level low density buildings surrounded by single-family homes. This is NOT a great environment to have a streetcar line, let alone a terminus. Furthermore, this extension would be in mixed traffic, which just makes the whole system worse. For example, when a car parallel parks badly, the streetcar can't swerve around it. If streetcars have their own ROW like TRAX, there are curbs placed on the sides of the tracks to make sure cars don't block the trains.


My hope is that they go back to alternative D from the old extension study: (PDF LINK)

This is better for so many reasons:
1) It's shorter, and therefore cheaper
2) It has its own ROW, so it won't be delayed by cars.
3) It makes a loop so there is no need for layovers while the cars switch directions, loosing valuable time. By making a loop, no revenue-time is lost.

Now you may argue that this option is worse because it doesn't go as close to Westminster College. True, it does not. But the plaza is plenty close to the college. It is half a mile away, which is considered a reasonable walking distance for access to transit. In fact, there are areas of the U of U farther away from a TRAX station than Winchester College is from the monument plaza, and this isn't considered a problem. Furthermore, Winchester College has about 3000 students and staff. If we assume that a quarter of them will take the streetcar (a similar amount of U of U students take TRAX), then we get about 750 riders from Winchester College.
That's tiny. I cannot think of any way to justify a 4 block extension of a streetcar line for a ridership target so low. Those 750 people can walk the half-mile to their college, just like many people at the U do - and while they do it they can increase the street-life of the sugar house area.

tl;dr Please extend the S-Line to the Monument Plaza, but please stop there.

I have never liked the idea of the S-line going to Westminster. I have always thought that it would be better for the line to head south and terminate in Brickyard. I'm not sure how feasible it would be to do that. I would be interested in your thoughts.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by Hatman

...
Beyond the plaza, I'm less enthusiastic. The plans used to show the line going as far north as 17th street and Highland drive.

I think it should go to the originally planned destination by Westminster, 1700 S and 1100 East.

Streetcars are supposed to go in traffic, that's why they're called streetcars.

[ThePusherMan]

I wouldn't mind the S Line eventually running by Westminster 9th & 9th and eventually meeting up with the University Line. Wouldn't be a double tracked Trax loop but it would be super useful. Also how is there not at least BRT on Foothill? Take out those giant medians and run Trax or BRT down it!

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Stenar

I think it should go to the originally planned destination by Westminster, 1700 S and 1100 East.

Streetcars are supposed to go in traffic, that's why they're called streetcars.

Maybe but 1300 East north of 21st is a rare thin Street with little room for A Streetcar in Salt Lake City. It is already overly congested as is. Most of that street is single-family homes and there isn't much that could be easily redeveloped. I see the plan to head north on 1300 East being an underutilized line that causes more problems than it solves.
That's why I think it should head south. I understand that it would more than double the length of the line but brickyard would be a much busier terminus, there are many more opportunities for higher density new dwvelopment, and the ROWs could accommodate it easier.

I don't think we should get too hung up on the concept of a streetcar. However best it would function should be our primary concern.

[Makid]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

I don't think we should get too hung up on the concept of a streetcar. However best it would function should be our primary concern.

This is my main thought regarding the Downtown and Granary streetcar lines.

Downtown, the streets are so wide, having it run down the center like Trax would be better for traffic flow and pedestrians (only walking to the center rather than across the street to get to the train).

2nd South would be great with center running rail, a single lane for traffic, some parking and a bit wider sidewalks.

With the Granary streetcar extension also projected to have Trax on it for some of the route, it would be center running anyway.

The only places in SLC that a streetcar running in a traffic lane does make sense is in the areas where the roads are more narrow. Downtown, they should be separated. I would say the same thing with buses as it would speed them up too.

I do think that the 11th East extension was picked due to the redevelopment possibilities as well as that it does have less traffic than 13th East.

[Stenar]

Streetcars run on streets equally as narrow in Portland and other cities.

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

Maybe but 1300 East north of 21st is a rare thin Street with little room for A Streetcar in Salt Lake City. It is already overly congested as is. Most of that street is single-family homes and there isn't much that could be easily redeveloped. I see the plan to head north on 1300 East being an underutilized line that causes more problems than it solves.
That's why I think it should head south. I understand that it would more than double the length of the line but brickyard would be a much busier terminus, there are many more opportunities for higher density new dwvelopment, and the ROWs could accommodate it easier.

I don't think we should get too hung up on the concept of a streetcar. However best it would function should be our primary concern.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by ThePusherMan

I wouldn't mind the S Line eventually running by Westminster 9th & 9th and eventually meeting up with the University Line. Wouldn't be a double tracked Trax loop but it would be super useful. Also how is there not at least BRT on Foothill? Take out those giant medians and run Trax or BRT down it!

I still want a "nines" street car. Trax at 9th east, south to ninth and ninth, West to central ninth. That would make a great loop imo. Eventually another arm could be extend into Glendale via Indiana.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Stenar

Streetcars run on streets equally as narrow in Portland and other cities.

But they have many more of them... like every 200 feet. North Sugarhouse in particular has a lack of right of ways tgat are continuous. Add in the fact that the ones that are there are more narrow than elsewhere in the city and the problem is compounded.

900 east
1200+ feet
1100 east
1200 + feet
1300 east
1200 + feet
1500 east

Compare that to the Avenues here in SLC where there is an uninterrupted road about every 300 feet.

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by Stenar

Streetcars are supposed to go in traffic, that's why they're called streetcars.

Yep. And I think this gets to the heart of the problem.

I am of the mind that we ought to let trains be trains, and let buses be buses. If you try to make a bus into a train you get weird, expensive, and generally ineffective stuff like guided buses or tram buses guided by a single center rail. These types of things aren't successful because they are trying to mix their modes too much. By trying to combine the advantages of certain modes they also combine the disadvantages - and disadvantages generally accumulate more quickly.

Now, when you try to turn a train into a bus, you get a streetcar. By placing a train in a street, you get rid of one of its main advantages - the dedicated ROW. Sure, you keep the advantage of having more people per vehicle than a bus, but it doesn't move any faster than a bus. It still gets stuck in the same traffic. But the costs of construction are just as high as if you were getting your own dedicated high(er)-speed right-of-way, because the track still costs the same. Add in the displacement of existing road infrastructure - such as the need to rebuild all the traffic signals along the route to accommodate a train - and streetcar projects often end up costing more than other types of rail transit.

Is it worth it? It depends on what your priorities are. If you are a transit advocate who wants to move people around quickly and efficiently, the answer is no. Streetcars are generally not about transit. What they are good at is making a corridor very attractive to developers. The S-Line is proof of that; no one can argue that the S-Line has encouraged development. And once that development has been build-out, I expect there will be a lot more demand for it to extend.

I like the idea of building rail transit to as many corners of the valley as we can, but I also realize we do not have infinite amount of money to work with. And I would rather that people be honest about what they are funding. If we dedicate money towards transit, it should speed up travel times and increase capacity and make using public transportation much more attractive and convenient. Money dedicated towards transit should not be spent sweetening deals for developers.

So, should there be a better transit connection between Sugarhouse and the Brickyard? Definitely. Should it be a streetcar? I say no; that route should be BRT, because there is no rail route between the two, only roads. Roads are the natural habitat of buses, they do well there. Roads are complex environments with many users, many variables, and high levels of uncertainty. Get a good electric bus with attractive stations along its route, and you've got a successful versatile system. Run a train down that road and you've got something rigid, inflexible, and prone to all kinds of unforeseen delays - but the developers will be happy since now all the roads and traffic signals have been rebuilt without a loss in capacity (since no lanes were lost to adding in train tracks).

So let trains be trains - in their own separated, express-service environment - and let buses be buses. Let them play to their strengths. That's why I am not supportive of extending the S-Line farther than the plaza. There are better ways to handle transit in the areas beyond the old rail corridor.

[asies1981]

Originally Posted by Makid

I am happy about this expansion and service increase but I am curious about why the long delay in getting the 2 block extension up and running.

When there were objections to the 11th East route, UTA and their main contractor stated it would take 1 to 2 weeks for construction on each block. This is a 2 block section with switches for passing.

Based on the estimate before, this should take at most 2 months, plus potentially 6 months of testing.

Why is it taking until 2019 for rail to be installed?

From DesNews:



From BuildingSaltLake:



Can the permitting take so long that only minor work can begin by the end of the year and that rail can't be laid form nearly 18 months from now? For a locally funded project?

I think this is part of the problem with Transit costs and timing.

Also, With a $6.5 Million for the 2 block extension, I think SLC should see if they can create a TIF area along their section of the line to double track and extend to 11th East and 21st South. If they can use Impact Fees near the line, this could be a 10 year bond to expand and extend the line.

SSL could do something similar to get their section double tracked. They could even use the funds to landscape their section so it matches SLC.

I am really happy that we are expanding transit frequencies on the line and that it is a nice price. I hope that this is the start of additional transit increases be it rail or bus.

2019 is when it should be finished. Construction won't start until next year.

[asies1981]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

I'm more concerned with when we're going to get that streetcar to Westminster up and going. I'm still salivating at the thought of a streetcar through the heart of Sugarhouse.

There is a reason the double track is going in South Salt Lake. It could be awhile before the line is extended. Mayor Biskupski doesn't appear to be supportive of extending the line, it might not happen until there is a new mayor and even then it would be a few years from that.

[bob rulz]

I don't think a streetcar to Brickyard would be an effective idea. Streetcars only work if there is a transit station or walkable development at BOTH ends. People don't walk to Brickyard, they drive there. Streetcars are a dead-end if the end of the route is a car-oriented shopping center. That's why the S-Line works - it's connected to TRAX at one end and Sugarhouse - a neighborhood that people actually walk around in - on the other end.

I for one enjoy taking transit out to Sugarhouse. It's an enjoyable neighborhood to walk around in. I can spend hours at Barnes & Noble, I can walk along the street and walk straight in to several great restaurants or the Wasatch Pub. There's a movie theater, Whole Foods, a couple of coffee shops (though not enough imo), numerous specialty stores, and there's more to see that's within easy walking distance. There's a huge park nearby, plus a smaller hidden park, now connected by a nice path. It's a neighborhood I could spend a whole day in without issue.

Brickyard on the other hand...sure, there's some shops. There's Harmons, Kohl's, TJ Maxx, OfficeMax, a couple of fast food joints (Little Caesars, Einstein Bagels, etc), but do I want to just take a day-trip there and walk around? Hell no. It's surrounded by a formidable sea of parking and there's not really destinations to just walk around and visit. It's not like there's a ton close either - it's surrounded by residential and more car-oriented shopping areas (including the almost totally dead strip mall just to the north, with about 5 empty storefronts and a Dollar Tree). They're all focused destinations. You go if you need clothes, if you need groceries, if you need office or school supplies, etc...it's not a place to walk around. I think it has a lot of potential to eventually be redeveloped given the huge property size and disgusting amount of surface parking lots, but as it is right now, it is NOT that place.

I agree that BRT could work there. BRT should be for areas that are busy and have potential for greater transit options, but are not a priority for rail lines. Maybe all the way down Highland Drive to the Ft. Union area? (Ok, I know Brickyard is on 1300 E., but maybe passing Brickyard and then a jog over to 3300 S?). Then again, BRT can be expensive in its own way as well. I'm not sure how profitable the 3500 South MAX has been for UTA. If it were a resounding success, wouldn't we have seen more BRT lines by now? I seem to remember UTA having plans for a lot more of them that just haven't come to fruition yet.

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

I still want a "nines" street car. Trax at 9th east, south to ninth and ninth, West to central ninth. That would make a great loop imo. Eventually another arm could be extend into Glendale via Indiana.

I think that would be an excellent idea. It covers an already dense, walkable area of the city with great potential for additional development, and the roads are plenty wide enough to accommodate it. The next TRAX priority should be the 400S loop though, imo. That would give the transit hub a much more real and tangible purpose. As of now it's a dead end that nobody wants to be stuck in at the wrong hour.

Originally Posted by asies1981

There is a reason the double track is going in South Salt Lake. It could be awhile before the line is extended. Mayor Biskupski doesn't appear to be supportive of extending the line, it might not happen until there is a new mayor and even then it would be a few years from that.

I'm not well-versed enough in how a city government runs to know this, but could Biskupski herself stop it? What mechanisms are needed to actually get it going?

I haven't been particularly satisfied with Biskupski so far...Ralph Becker was a great mayor....maybe that urban planning experience had something to do with it?

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

I don't think a streetcar to Brickyard would be an effective idea. Streetcars only work if there is a transit station or walkable development at BOTH ends.

The hope would be that it would spur redevelopment in much the same way that the s-line has done in South Salt Lake. There are already some good size condos and apartments in Brickyard and I can see much of that surface parking being redeveloped.

I agree that BRT could work there. BRT should be for areas that are busy and have potential for greater transit options, but are not a priority for rail lines. Maybe all the way down Highland Drive to the Ft. Union area? (Ok, I know Brickyard is on 1300 E., but maybe passing Brickyard and then a jog over to 3300 S?). Then again, BRT can be expensive in its own way as well. I'm not sure how profitable the 3500 South MAX has been for UTA. If it were a resounding success, wouldn't we have seen more BRT lines by now? I seem to remember UTA having plans for a lot more of them that just haven't come to fruition yet.

I wouldn't be opposed to brt but I'm not sure that it would spur the kind of development that I would be hoping for. It would need to be a quality brt. Nothing like the garbage Max on 3500 South. I think that line barely qualifies as brt. The new line going in Provo and Orem is a much better example. I suspect that it will do well.

I think that would be an excellent idea. It covers an already dense, walkable area of the city with great potential for additional development, and the roads are plenty wide enough to accommodate it. The next TRAX priority should be the 400S loop though, imo. That would give the transit hub a much more real and tangible purpose. As of now it's a dead end that nobody wants to be stuck in at the wrong hour.

400 S loop?

I'm not well-versed enough in how a city government runs to know this, but could Biskupski herself stop it? What mechanisms are needed to actually get it going?

I haven't been particularly satisfied with Biskupski so far...Ralph Becker was a great mayor....maybe that urban planning experience had something to do with it?

The line was built with a tiger Grant from the federal government. If I recall correctly, a municipality must pay for at least half of the cost of the project. Salt Lake city, while Becker was mayor, applied for a second Grant to extend the line but it was not chosen to receive a grant that year. They had plans to reapply. Jackie was elected and for whatever reason opted not to reapply. As far as I know she hasn't provided an explanation as to why. Trump wants to discontinue the tiger grant program all together. So this may have been the city's Last Chance in a long time to secure funding through the federal government.