Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[Makid]

Very cool Hatman.

I do think that it would be worthwhile to add the route to the near term projects.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/201...-to-fund-housing-transit-and-road-plans/

Salt Lake City Mayor Jackie Biskupski proposes half-penny hike in sales tax to fund housing, transit and road plans

I am not sure how many saw the above article or not but there is one item that I thought was interesting:

Salt Lake City Mayor Jackie Biskupski proposed a half-penny city sales tax increase to help fund initiatives on housing, transportation, road repair, public safety and the environment in her third State of the City address Wednesday.

The $35 million in projected additional revenue from the half-percentage-point increase, which the mayor noted was equal to a nickel for every $10 spent, could be paired with $87 million in new capital investment if voters approve a bond this year. The mayor said borrowing of that size would cost about $5 annually per household.

This got me thinking. I looked through the SL Transit Master Plan and found that on page 7-4 it states that the annual costs to support the Frequent Transportation Network (FTN), Phases 1 and 2, including weekend schedules, comes out to: $7,700,000 annually.

UTA in the past stated that it would cost $2 Million annually for the Black Line.

So, for less than 1/3 of the estimated revenue from the proposed sales tax increase ($35 Million annually), SLC could completely implement their FTN.

If SLC also used 1/3 of the revenue for the extension of the S-Line to the Plaza and then for the Downtown and Granary streetcars (could be bonded for with a total cost of approximately $200 Million (20 year bond). Some funds could be combined with the State to perhaps begin work on the State Street BRT/future Street Car line.

The additional bond discussed would be used for roads and can be combined with the remaining 1/3 of the sales tax increase for supporting affordable housing.

James Rogers (my City Councilman isn't sure he supports the sales tax increase as he would like the money be used to help the West Side of the city.

With the thought above of implementing the FTN and the Black Line, this would dramatically increase the transit options of the West Side residents. Additionally, if it was passed soon, some of the funds could be used to build the original (elevated) Trax station at the Airport.

As population increases and additional funds become available, the money from the sales tax could be used to add additional transit coverage.

My initial thought when I saw the amounts was that SLC could basically implement Free Fares for UTA and do phase 1 of the FTN and the Black Line indefinitely. But, I would rather the State provide funds for Free UTA and that SLC should use funds to improve transit within its boundaries.

I will be sending information similar to this to not only my City Councilman but to the others as well. If anyone else wants to also contact and submit information to the city, please do as this may be a once in a lifetime opportunity for changes within just SLC for transit.

[Liberty Wellsian]

@Hatman

Is 30 feet assuming double tracking the full length? Would it be that big of a deal to have a pinch point of a single track in the mouth of the canyon?

[Wasatch Wasteland]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

@Hatman

Is 30 feet assuming double tracking the full length? Would it be that big of a deal to have a pinch point of a single track in the mouth of the canyon?

My thoughts exactly. Cut that in half and you only need an additional 15 feet of ROW. I can’t see trains ever running more than every half hour during the ski season, and the rest of the year it’d probably be every hour or more.

So the the narrow stretch of parleys could be single track, and it could double once the canyon opens up at the reservoir. That section takes 5 minutes to traverse, I don’t think that would be any problem at all to have a pinch point. Even if trains had 15 minutes frequencies it wouldn’t be a problem.

[Liberty Wellsian]

I was thinking Hatman should forward this stuff to UTA/State politicians but I'm leaning more towards him sending it to Vail resorts. Special interests is how things really get done...right?

I can imagine the commercial. Young dude waddles through an airline aisle with a snowboard strapped to his feet. Sits down next to a man wearing skis. They get on a train and everybody is ready to hit the slopes.

Why Rent a Car? SKI SLC

[Hatman]

Single track sections...

Everything has trade-offs, and the significance of those trade-offs are highly dependent on the assumptions you make at the beginning of the design process.
If 15 minute frequencies are the end goal, then a short section of single track seems like a positive trade-off. I think that in the future, 15 minute frequencies will be prohibitively low. When trains don't need drivers and can run as often as demand allows, I think shorter trains will run much more frequently. Nobody would wait 15 minutes for an elevator, so I can't see people being patient enough for a 15 minute wait for public transit, even if it is free.
If the freeway is going to need to be reconstructed, do it once to allow for two tracks, rather than twice to allow for one track each time. Measure twice, cut once, and all that wisdom stuff.

[Hatman]

Time for the last mile from Kearns Boulevard into Park City!

I've selected the Park City Old Town Transit Center for my End-of-Line. This is Park City's transit hub, and it is a thing of beauty:



Waiting Room:


It is proof of what can be done in a city that values public transportation as an integral part of what keeps a city livable - a first-class transit hub at the center of a completely fare-free transit system.

In order to get there, the rail line will turn east off of Park Avenue and onto Deer Valley Drive, which is a four-lane road that wraps around the east of Park City toward the Deer Valley Resort. At this point, there is little point in keeping the rail line separated from car traffic, as Deer Valley Drive is a far less busy street than Park Avenue, and the distance that needs to be covered is only a mile. So, for this last mile, I have my trains running in mixed traffic on the outside edges of Deer Valley Drive. This is very similar to New Jersey Transit's River Line, which runs 34 miles from Trenton to Camden, NJ, and ends with a similar distance in mixed traffic in that city's downtown:





My new line switches from exclusive median ROW to shared lanes at the intersection of Park Avenue and Deer Valley Drive, where the two tracks make the sharpest curves of the line. These will be a minimum of an 85-foot radius, like the River Line uses, which will at least fit between the existing buildings:



From there the trains will operate as if they were cars for the 1 mile until reaching Heber Avenue. At that intersection the two tracks will exit the road and enter the station area. I've attached my platforms to the north side of the transit center in a space that is currently a parking lot. These will be stub-end tracks, so the center platform will merge right into the existing boarding areas of the transit center:



The train platforms will tie in on the left side of this image:



And there you go! A one-seat rail connection from Salt Lake Central Station to Park City! The total length of the line would be 31.75 miles, with most of that built within the ROW of roads and freeways. I estimate a total travel time of 45-ish minutes for the entire line, including all the station stops, which would be highly competitive with driving currently. If the line were to be electrified, it could be possible to cut the travel time down to 35 minutes, which would make the train faster than the car.

If built this line would be a major boost in connectivity between the two cities. It would be invaluable during events such as winter sporting events, conventions, or film/art festivals, as visitors would be able to stay in one city and take the train to the events in the other. In times of bad weather the trains would be able to operate in far worse conditions than the adjacent road-based traffic, as trains are far less affected by winds, ice, and snow. And of course, this line would allow for a much easier option for commuters between the two cities.

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Thanks Hatman for taking so much time to create these really interesting posts. These are the kinds of posts that make this forum compelling to me and are educational.

[Makid]

The bill to re-organize UTA, increase taxes on Car Rentals and the Transient Room Tax to pay for transportation, allow Gas Taxes to be used for Transit, as well as the automatic increase of Sales Tax has been submitted:

https://le.utah.gov/~2018/bills/static/SB0136.html

There are few things to note. The sales tax increase for transit, while still being automatic if it isn't approved by 2022, is changed to allow County Councils/Commissioners to approve the increases outright rather than requiring the public to vote on it.

The TRT jumps from 0.32% to a full 3%. Rental Car tax doubles.

While no total is given on the amount this would generate, the majority of the TRT and all of the Rental Car tax would most likely be allocated to Roads.

The Sales tax increases are known to be to the point that it would allow UTA to complete all 3 phases of the Transit projects for the WFRC and MAG. It also would allow for some funding for most of the currently unfunded projects.

It should be noted that while this would allow UTA to build all 3+ phases of projects for transit, ideally, UTA (through the restructured format) should work on going straight to Phase 3 level of projects rather than ramping through the levels (this will cost less overall). They should also phase the projects in based on the ROI of each project.

This could allow some extra tax revenue to be used to pay off or pay down existing bonds while also reducing the need to bond as much for some projects.

Lastly, this bill doesn't change the fare structure for transit to the riders. There are still 2 bills that are being finalized but should be introduced in the next week or so that will deal with fares. Both bills are slated to revamp UTA's fare requirements to allow for fares to be free.

Personally, I would like all of the bills to pass so that maybe as early as this July, we could get UTA Free for all transit modes. I would also hope that the other taxes could be implemented by July 1 if not May 1 to allow UTA to begin vehicle purchase and hiring of drivers to increase capacity before the start of the Fall semesters.

[Hatman]

I am so happy to hear of reform bills making their way through the legislature. Hopefully something gets passed this year. I can't afford another heartbreak like the Ranked Ballot Vote bill last year.

So, to keep me give me something to do other than be nervous, here is the rest of my East-West commuter rail idea. We've gone from Tooele to Salt Lake Central to Park City, but I think there is more utility that can be wrung out from such an alignment. By making it an X, with Salt Lake Central in the middle, we could add two more locations: the Airport and the Cottonwood Canyons.

For the airport segment I got lazy. In the Google Map I show an elevated line crossing overtop of the spaghetti bowl and parking lots, ending up near the Welcome Center in the parking structure like the old elevated TRAX line would have, except on the west side rather than the east. I took licence to do this from Toronto's Union-Pearson Express, a 'light commuter rail' that runs to the airport in a traditional railroad ROW, with the last 2 miles being on a double-track elevated structure.




There's probably a better way to do it - such as potentially sharing some of the TRAX line into the airport property - but with the airport still under construction and so much up in the air I didn't bother to think too hard about the actual alignment. Instead, here are some arguments in favor of building another rail line to the airport:

• One-seat ride to Salt Lake Central Station, Sugarhouse, and Foothill Drive
• One-seat ride to Park City
• One-seat ride to the Cottonwood Canyons
• A faster express service between FrontRunner and the airport. (10-ish minutes vs 20-ish minute trip times)
• Contingency route in case something blocks the street-running North Temple TRAX line.
• Capacity, as two lines can move more people per hour than a single line.
• Division of local use vs express use

*-*-*-*-*-

The final leg of the 'X' will go out to the Cottonwood Canyons. This line will branch off of the main I-80 line just beyond the Foothill Drive station, so that both the Park City and Cottonwood trains can stop at that BRT station.

I've drawn my junction between the two lines like this:


At that location, the elevation difference between I-80 and I-215 is enough to allow the branch lines to sink down below I-80, cross underneath the eastbound side, then enter a bridge over the northbound lanes of I-215 before descending into the median of that freeway. All in all, it'll cost about the same as a normal freeway junction.

From here the line runs south, making two intermediate stops. The first I've drawn in at 39th South:


The second will be at about 62nd South. At this point the line will have crossed over to the east side of I-215 on some sort of grade-separation, either a bridge or tunnel over or under the northbound lanes of I-215. The station itself will be built on the north side of Big Cottonwood Road, right across from the business park:



The line will then proceed for the last half-mile along the north and east side of Big Cottonwood Road until reaching the Quarry site, which is where the Cottonwood Canyons Transportation Center will be built:



This is a facility for people to park their cars or arrive by transit, then cross through a plaza that connects them to shuttle buses to either Big or Little Cottonwood Canyons. There will be visitor's centers on either side of the plaza, like a national park, and perhaps event spaces and whatnot.
The inspiration for this is, of course, Zion National Park, where visitors can park their cars or ride the free public buses from their hotels to the visitors center, then board the shuttle buses into the park:



The shuttle buses up the Cottonwood Canyons can be paid for by a small toll for regular vehicles in the canyons. Banning private vehicles from the Cottonwood Canyons is a bad idea; in fact banning anything is probably a bad idea, just price it so that it becomes a manageable problem. A toll appears to be in the works anyway, so why not use it to pay for something that will actually be a useful alternative to sitting in traffic? Shuttle buses are needed, and in order for them to work, they need to have a place where people can park their cars or transfer from public transit and get on board. Hence the Cottonwood Canyons Transportation Center.

I've also drawn in some commercial areas in the back of the center, because I don't think that the construction and upkeep of the Transportation Center can or should be paid for on its own. This would be a public-private partnership, where the fees paid by the hotel/commercial developers and operators would pay for the construction and upkeep of the public facilities.

There is all kinds of demand for hotels closer to the cottonwood canyons, and these hotels would likely be high-end resorts. That's OK, so long as the public gets some benefit too. I think that free shuttles to the Cottonwood Canyons are a fair trade for allowing private companies to build so close to the canyons.

I estimate that a rail line like this could get you from Salt Lake Central Station to the Cottonwood Canyons Transportation Center in about half an hour. A train from Park City could connect to the CCTC in about 45 minutes. Imagine how friendly this would be for tourists - they could board a train at the airport, be taken in a one-seat ride to either Park City or the Cottonwood Canyons, and then take a day trip to the other side of the Wasatch Mountains all on the same train. Do I need to spell out how fantastic it would be?

This is the sort of thing, IMO, that should be in the long-range plans rather than talk of a narrow-gauge cog railway into the canyons, or tunnels under the mountains. Those projects have some merit, but by building in Freeway medians and going around the mountains, we can serve so many more destinations, and do so more conveniently, than if we focus just on tunnels.

If you're interested, check out the linked Google Map in my signature line for the entire alignment.

[bob rulz]

I love the thought you put into your proposals.

A rail line to the mouth of the Cottonwood Canyons is a good idea especially since they're considering implementing a toll for private vehicles (which I think is also a good idea).

Maybe they can finally reconstruct the awful I-215/I-80 interchange at the mouth of Parley's Canyon while they're at it. Is that still in the works? I heard about that proposal years ago.

[Makid]

Proposed transportation tax hikes raise ire — while UTA reorganization now seems settled
https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/201...le-uta-reorganization-now-seems-settled/

A major overhaul of the scandal-scarred Utah Transit Authority no longer appears controversial. But what is contentious are several tax increases in the same massive bill that seeks to plan the future of Utah transportation.

Even some taxes seemingly designed to avoid problems with local taxpayers in an election year — by instead targeting out-of-state visitors with higher taxes on hotel rooms and rental cars — brought plenty of opposition on Monday.

The bill aims to reorganize UTA to rebuild trust after past problems.

It would replace its part-time, 16-member board with a full-time, three-member commission to better watchdog the organization.

UTA Board member Bret Millburn, who is also a Davis County Commissioner, said the agency now supports that. “We want to continue to partner because we see the big picture” of what transit means to Utah’s future.

Another large change in the bill would allow state highway funds also to be spent on UTA projects. No one opposed that, while UTA, counties, cities and others said it is needed to help solve problems as Utah’s population grows.

Carlos Braceras, executive director of the Utah Department of Transportation, said, “In the next 30 to 40 years, we are going to double our population. In this urbanized area, we are not going to double the lane miles that we’re going to build,” so UTA transit will become increasingly important.

The major sticking points or complaints on the bill are not what I had thought they would be. The biggest seems to be the possible increase in registration fees for Electric and Hybrid vehicles. There is a large gap between complaints in the Senate between the registration fee increases and the Car Rental Tax and then the TRT increase.

The TRT increase could and probably should be cut down to between 1.5% and 2% from the currently planned 3% level. The registration fee increases should be removed or only be 10% over current fees so as not to significantly harm potential sales. Rental Car fees could go up 50% rather than 100%.

I was expecting some push back on the taxes but so far, the automatic tax increase doesn't have any push back in the Senate or the House from what I understand. Additionally, it seems that there is clear consensus that transit should be able to be funded from the road funds (gas tax).

[Hatman]

UTA released a video of their bus line to Park City:
• Video Link

To this I say HA! The bus is a great start, but its slower than driving, requires a transfer at Kimball Junction, and costs more than any regular UTA service. I hope ridership does well enough to justify an upgrade to a rail line, but on the UTA side they seem to be doing everything to make it less attractive (not on purpose, I know they are trying their best).

Park City, however, is doing wonderful things. Their bus line between Kimball Junction and the Park City transit center will be upgraded to an all-electric bus fleet making express runs every 10 minutes from 7 AM to Midnight.



https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865683611/Park-City-switches-to-all-electric-bus-system.html
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/9000...electric-city-buses-and-cleaner-air.html

And of course it is free to ride, because Park City is awesome.

It's amazing what can happen when people actually care about their public transit system and take some pride and ownership in it. We could have the same thing happen here in Salt Lake City if we were to get a high enough ridership, which will come when we too make our system free to use.

***

I've put some more thought into the airport segment of my rail proposal, because I admit it was pretty terrible. I have since come up with this design:


The east-west line to Tooele and Salt Lake City runs along the bottom. A branch rises off toward the middle and crosses over I-80, then joins with the TRAX line to the airport. For the last two miles, the light commuter trains will share the tracks with TRAX light rail trains, and the two systems will share the Airport station. If railcar floor-heights become an issue, assign the TRAX to always stop at one side of the platform, then reconstruct the other side to always allow the light-commuter rail cars. The floor heights of various light-commuter rail vehicles ranges between 15-inches (TRAX) and 30 inches, so I'm sure it won't be an issue to have two types of vehicles sharing the same infrastructure.
Just be sure you get on the right train! One would be a TRAX train that goes directly to Main Street Salt Lake City in 20 minutes. The other goes to Park City in 45-ish minutes - so choose well!

This option would be much cheaper than my previous bad idea of a fully elevated 2-mile line. Compromises like this will certainly have to be made if something like this is ever going to stand a chance at getting built.

[Old&New]

These are all great! Can you put a little more thought into where the cottonwood canyons line meets up with the line going up parley's canyon, near suicide rock? It seems like that would be a very sharp curve? Perhaps the station near the BRT loop should just be a transfer station. So those coming from the cottonwood canyons and wanting to go up parley's canyon would have to transfer at the station near that BRT loop.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Even if the entire Parley's line didn't get built right away the section from Salt Lake Central to Foothill should be. connecting downtown to SH in one stop would be awesome and Foothill would be a good location for a ski bus depot. I think that that section is viable as a phase 1 of a long term transit plan.

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by Old&New

These are all great! Can you put a little more thought into where the cottonwood canyons line meets up with the line going up parley's canyon, near suicide rock? It seems like that would be a very sharp curve? Perhaps the station near the BRT loop should just be a transfer station. So those coming from the cottonwood canyons and wanting to go up parley's canyon would have to transfer at the station near that BRT loop.

Great! I love discussing this kind of stuff!

The curves the way I've drawn them would definitely be very tight. I'm thinking in the 20-25mph range:



I realize that is extremely slow. The reason I did this is because it is near a station and I didn't think the trains would have accelerated to full speed yet. I also wanted it to be a triangle junction rather than just a 'Y' junction so that trains could run directly from Park City straight to the Cottonwood Canyons. I honestly have no idea what kind of use that will get, and if that is worth the cost of slowing down all trains bound for the Cottonwood Canyons.

My reasoning for wanting direct service between Park City and the Cottonwoods was more to combat transit plans like this:


...which show something called 'mountain light rail' passing through tunnels between the Cottonwoods and under the summit to Park City. (There are a bunch of these out there and I'm not going to spend the time to get direct links.)

The point being, there is a lot of time and attention of professional planners being spent on proposals that don't make a whole lot of sense outside of lines on a map. Sure, Park City and the Cottonwood resorts are really close to each other, but there is no reason to connect them together by a 'mountain light rail' train that goes through a billion-dollar tunnel network. If such a thing were built, it would benefit mostly the tourists and skiers. By the time a tunnel is built perhaps the necessary aerial trams will be built to connect the place for skiers anyway. And then there is the idea that this 'mountain light rail' would connect to the existing light rail network - as if people arriving would ride the Green line from the airport to downtown (20 minutes) transfer to the blue line to sandy (45 minutes), then transfer to mountain light rail up to the canyons (20ish miutes) then get to park city through the tunnel (15 ish minutes). No way someone arriving from a long flight wants to spend another 100 minutes riding light rail, no matter how pretty it is. Beside the length of time, we're talking about 30 intermediate stops, which is asking far too much of anyone. (I would do it and I would love it, but that's the kind of person I am!)

It would be much better, in my opinion, to forget tunneling under the mountains altogether and to have any future transit line go around the mountains like the roads currently do. That way you can have your train between Park City and the Cottonwoods, and it can be more than a tourist-pleaser. It would have real transit potential, connecting to BRT lines, the airport, the S-Line, Salt Lake Central Station, etc.

But, as you suggest, there is the option of indirect train service between Park City and the Cottonwoods by making a mandatory transfer at Foothill Drive. If the frequency of trains is high enough it wouldn't add too much inconvenience, and it would allow trips between the Foothill station and the Cottonwoods to be sped up a bit.

I'll be back sometime in the future with an alternate design for a high-speed Y junction, but until then I guess this is more of a judgement call, and I'm curious as to what the other transit lovers on here think!

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

Even if the entire Parley's line didn't get built right away the section from Salt Lake Central to Foothill should be. connecting downtown to SH in one stop would be awesome and Foothill would be a good location for a ski bus depot. I think that that section is viable as a phase 1 of a long term transit plan.

I agree! (surprise!)

I've fallen in love with this idea so much I want to write up a formal proposal to send to some official people. Does anyone know who the best official people would be?

[Hatman]

Since I have received no hate for extended posts of hypothetical route maps to Park City, I thought I'd share bits of my downtown TRAX and BRT map (see sig-line below). Here is what I want to see in a full build-out of the TRAX/Streetcar network downtown:

1) The 4th South line
2) the 4th West Line

The 4th West line begins at the Ballpark TRAX station, where the old Union Pacific Passenger line curves westward into the median of 4th West:


I've added drawn the crossing of 300 West as a regular grade crossing, with crossing gates and flashing lights and the works. This would speed up travel time for transit along this route.

I've also added a TRAX station on 9th South, this one to be called the "
9-Line Trail" station since "900 South" is already taken. This station will be close to the 9-line trail's current end; I propose extending the trail along the south side of the south side of 9th south for one additional block. This would require the demolition of 3 steel sheds, which will cause no one any tears. By extending the separated trail to the station, the 9-Line Trail would connect directly to the rail ROW, which is wide enough to accommodate another pedestrian trail. I've decided to call this trail the 'B-Line' trail, because the trail would go right to the ballpark, where the Bees play. Also, because it's funny.

From here the route is pretty obvious. The existing tracks in the median would be widened to two tracks, and stations would be built every two or three blocks apart.
I've added a station at 700 South, which I've called the "Granary" station:



... and another station at 500 South, which I've called the "Grand Avenues" station after the aspiration to turn 5th and 6th South streets into 'grand avenue's like the ones in Paris.



I've placed this station on the north side of 500 South, rather than between 5th and 6th South streets because if it is on the north there would be no need to accommodate a left-turn lane (since 500 South is a one-way street). This would leave more space for pedestrian/landscaping treatments along 4th west, which should be totally redeveloped to have a focus on transit and pedestrians.

The 4th West line ends at 4th South, where a half-grand union junction would be built with the 4th South TRAX line. This line would continue from Salt Lake Central under the 4th South Viaduct, then make a sharp turn to the east through the block. A 'layover yard' would be built here to replace the functions of the current tail tracks at Salt Lake Central Station, where TRAX cars are held in reserve for rush hours or emergencies.

A new station would be built immediately east of the new junction, called "Pioneer Park," for obvious reasons.

I've included only one more stop on the 4th South line, at West Temple:



I realize that this leaves the area around 200 West a little dry, but by placing the station on West Temple I've made it very easy to transfer between the West Temple station and the Courthouse station, since they would be less than a block apart. Also, by limiting the 4th South line to two stations, it will make trip times between Salt Lake Central Station and the University that much faster.

Here is how I think this new network should be operated. I've posted this before, but I'll do it again here because I really believe this is what the best end-game looks like for the rail network downtown:



This route map includes a circulator around the 4th South loop, a new line directly between Salt Lake Central Station and the University, the Black Line, and a Yellow Line from Salt Lake Central out to Daybreak (the Red Line will be shortened to end at Fashion Place West). The most controversial part would be extending the S-Line north from Central Pointe up through the Granery to Salt Lake Central, but there is no technical reason as to why this can't be done.

All in all, this involves only 2.5 miles of new double-track through downtown. This is such low-hanging fruit it is almost painful that it hasn't been done already. If we don't get anything else done before the Olypics come to Salt Lake City (), I hope we can at least do this.

[Makid]

Hatman,

As always, I love the thought and routes.

I have 1 change/question. For your granary line, why not have it continue north on 4th West to connect to the current Trax line?

You could have the planned connection at 4th South but by filling the gap between 4th South and 2nd South, we could route the Green Line along this route.

This would leave the Yellow, Blue, Black servicing 4th West to 4th South on the existing tracks and could have the Green line operate on the new 4th West line.

My reasoning is that with the 4th South Loop and planned 7th South Loop, the current N/S tracks would be potentially over used. By moving the Green to the West Side of downtown along 4th West, this frees up space for the 2 loops.

Additionally, the Yellow and Blue lines would be able to act as loop runners:

Blue line takes its current route of today but would be able to continue from the Central Station to 4th South, then proceed south on 4th West to 7th South. From there, turn East to 2nd West and then South again to Lehi/Orem.

Yellow line would turn west at 7th South and follow the same steps but would run Clock wise while the Blue would run Counter Clockwise.

While giving us a pseudo loop around outer downtown, it only requires an additional 4 blocks of rail: 2nd West to 4th West along 7th South and 4th South to 2nd South along 4th West.

Doing this removes the need of the Granary Streetcar as it would all be built as Trax standard. The Downtown Streetcar would be able to would be able to go between the University (future end of the 2nd South line after it migrates north) and the Central Station via 4th West and 3rd South. It can either go through the Rio Grande station as once proposed, around it or even under it.

Depending on the routing of the Downtown Streetcar at the Rio Grande station, the rail itself would cost approximately $200 Million. The additional Trax and Streetcars maybe another $100 Million.

The track cost is based on the $35 Million estimate for the 4th South connector to Central Station. This cost estimate is extrapolated out for all of the downtown Trax lines to be approximately $110 Million (this would include the Trax waiting area that Hatman includes. The Downtown Streetcar has been estimated to be between $60 Million and 90 Million for phase 1. The cost included above is only for phase 1 as the routing is 90% finalized.

The Trax and Streetcar vehicles I put at $100 Million (I think UTA's order of S70s for the Red and Green lines was $70 Million). This includes the trains needed for the Black Line, Yellow, Orange, Inner Loop and the Downtown Streetcar. There will be additional trains available allow for future expansions of both Trax and Streetcar lines while maintaining schedules.

[Hatman]

You've got a lot of great ideas in there, Makid. And some great information to.

• Is there really an estimate out there of $35 million for the 4th South connector? That's insanely cheap, and makes my head hurt even more as to why it isn't in active development right now. Obviously the cost of the yard and additional LRT vehicles would make that higher - I like your estimate of $100 million - but as far as transportation projects go, $100 million is on the low end of things. For example, every new bridge and interchange going in right now on Bangerter Highway costs around $100 million each.
  
• There is a reason I didn't continue the 4th West line all the way up to 2nd South. You're free to disagree with my reasoning, but since you asked, I'll explain myself. I think that the benefit of TRAX is that it brings passengers directly to Main Street. Not just downtown, but to Main Street proper. That is one of the motivations for penciling in a Yellow Line - to give the Daybreak riders direct access to all of Main Street instead of cutting off towards the University before Gallivan Plaza and City Center stations. I think it would be less attractive for riders to have a TRAX line bypass Mainstreet in favor of 4th West. It would be a much faster trip to the airport though, so it's all a judgement call.
  
• Making the four Main Street stations the downtown 'hub-corridor' for TRAX would help spread out the transit infrastructure. FrontRunner (and my proposed East/West light commuter rail) would have its hub at Salt Lake Central Station. BRT would have two 'hub-corridors' - 2nd South and State Street. By making these sort of separate 'hub-corridors' instead of focusing on a single central station, we can avoid the hub-and-spoke model and the inconvenience/congestion those type of systems create.
  
• The North-South line is getting a bit crowded on my map, but there's only five lines sharing tracks at the most crowded places. If a train comes every minute at those stations, then each line could have a peak frequency of 5 minutes. I like this idea a lot. I wish UTA could get rid of their time-tables and schedules and just follow this rule: during Rush Hours, all trains and buses run every 5 minutes. During daytime off-peak hours, all trains and buses run every 10 minutes. During late-evening/early-morning off-peak hours, all trains and buses run every 15 minutes. That way nobody needs to memorize any schedule, and UTA can run buses and trains at whatever frequency is required to handle the travel demand. Elevators do not run on set schedules, transit should not either.

If anyone is interested in creating their own maps, it is surprisingly easy with by following this link. I'm sure you can definitely format your map better than I did mine!

https://beno.org.uk/metromapcreator/

[Makid]

Originally Posted by Hatman

You've got a lot of great ideas in there, Makid. And some great information to.

• Is there really an estimate out there of $35 million for the 4th South connector? That's insanely cheap, and makes my head hurt even more as to why it isn't in active development right now. Obviously the cost of the yard and additional LRT vehicles would make that higher - I like your estimate of $100 million - but as far as transportation projects go, $100 million is on the low end of things. For example, every new bridge and interchange going in right now on Bangerter Highway costs around $100 million each.
  
• There is a reason I didn't continue the 4th West line all the way up to 2nd South. You're free to disagree with my reasoning, but since you asked, I'll explain myself. I think that the benefit of TRAX is that it brings passengers directly to Main Street. Not just downtown, but to Main Street proper. That is one of the motivations for penciling in a Yellow Line - to give the Daybreak riders direct access to all of Main Street instead of cutting off towards the University before Gallivan Plaza and City Center stations. I think it would be less attractive for riders to have a TRAX line bypass Mainstreet in favor of 4th West. It would be a much faster trip to the airport though, so it's all a judgement call.
  
• Making the four Main Street stations the downtown 'hub-corridor' for TRAX would help spread out the transit infrastructure. FrontRunner (and my proposed East/West light commuter rail) would have its hub at Salt Lake Central Station. BRT would have two 'hub-corridors' - 2nd South and State Street. By making these sort of separate 'hub-corridors' instead of focusing on a single central station, we can avoid the hub-and-spoke model and the inconvenience/congestion those type of systems create.
  
• The North-South line is getting a bit crowded on my map, but there's only five lines sharing tracks at the most crowded places. If a train comes every minute at those stations, then each line could have a peak frequency of 5 minutes. I like this idea a lot. I wish UTA could get rid of their time-tables and schedules and just follow this rule: during Rush Hours, all trains and buses run every 5 minutes. During daytime off-peak hours, all trains and buses run every 10 minutes. During late-evening/early-morning off-peak hours, all trains and buses run every 15 minutes. That way nobody needs to memorize any schedule, and UTA can run buses and trains at whatever frequency is required to handle the travel demand. Elevators do not run on set schedules, transit should not either.

If anyone is interested in creating their own maps, it is surprisingly easy with by following this link. I'm sure you can definitely format your map better than I did mine!

https://beno.org.uk/metromapcreator/

I was using old information. It looks like the 4th South Trax extension is now estimated to be $79 Million.

(page 138)
http://wfrc.org/VisionPlans/RegionalTran...Plan/RTP_2015_FINAL_UpdatedLinks2018.pdf

But, on a lighter side, the Downtown Streetcar is only estimated to be $78 Million. The Granary streetcar is estimated to be $54 Million (200 S/600 W to 800 S/200 W).

With some upgrades, I think the Track update I listed would be closer to $250 Million from the $200 Million I had. Vehicles may come down though so it might all even out.

The only reason for the additional 2 blocks on 4th West is for future growth. It can be built and only used as part of special routing but I think getting it built sooner ends up saving money in the long run while also encouraging development.

All in all, I think the projects could be built for $300 Million still. If the Downtown Streetcar needs to go to the University sooner, add $60 Million. Or better yet, let's bring SLC Transit costs from $360 Million to $450 Million and include a better/covered Central Station.

I do think it is good to have transit built for now but also built for the future. This is especially true when looking at the costs listed on the pages. The 2015 cost versus the YOE cost. The sooner the projects can be done, the more money is saved and can be put to other enhancements.