Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[bob rulz]

Let's get electronic signage and better seating at bus stops, too! The bus stops as currently constructed are usually ugly and uncomfortable, and highly-used bus stops should get electronic signage like TRAX (but not looking like they're from the turn of the century).

[jubguy3]

Electronic signage is actually very expensive to install. I would rather that they made the stops covered with that money so I can check bus times from my phone without getting snowed on With the advent of smartphones and the ridetime feature, I think I would find electronic signage increasingly useless.

[bob rulz]

Or we could have the electronic signage so we wouldn't have to look at our phones at all to see when the next one is arriving.

And as far as the expense goes, that's why I say only the most-used stops. I know it's not practical at every stop.

[jubguy3]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

Or we could have the electronic signage so we wouldn't have to look at our phones at all to see when the next one is arriving.

And as far as the expense goes, that's why I say only the most-used stops. I know it's not practical at every stop.

You have to deploy servers, communications infrastructure, etc for each stop that uses it. It's only useful for permanently-fixed route services like trains where the system doesn't have to work around a billion exceptions like "what if the bus is rerouted to the street over?"

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Hatman

Yep. No doubt about it.

If I were emperor of UTA/UDOT (since I hope the funding will soon be the same thing), my spending would have three priority levels:

1) Free transit. Spend the money necessary to rearrange-the UTA organization away from collecting fares and towards being able to handle the large influx of non-paying passengers

2) Upgrading existing infrastructure and services. This includes double-tracking and electrifying FrontRunner, as well as making serious investments to Salt Lake Central Station so that it isn't an embarrassment to our city. Buy enough TRAX cars and upgrade the signaling system to run much higher frequencies of trains than they do now. Upgrade bus route not by building brand new 'flashy' BRT lines, but by upgrading existing bus routes to BRT routes piecemeal, like adding exclusive lanes only on 2nd South and state street while letting the buses run as regular (or express) buses in the rest of the valley. Put bus lanes only where congestion actually slows the buses - they don't need to be everywhere.
Do a few things well rather than do many things poorly. Consolidate if necessary, but get transit to the point where people trust it to be fast, frequent, and reliable.

(I might make an exception for my no-new-projects rule for the 4th south TRAX alignment since that would be crucial to increasing rail service in downtown Salt Lake, but otherwise I am totally for upgrading existing stuff before we move onto new stuff.)

3) Preserve ROW for future projects. Projects like the east-west commuter rail line(s), the TRAX extensions through Utah County, and FrontRunner to Logan. We know in the long-term that these transit lines will be necessary and that the ROW isn't going to sit empty and wait for us unless we go out and buy it and preserve it ourselves. By giving these projects a real and tangible ROW, it can influence development around future station locations even if the stations themselves won't be built for another decade or two. The important thing is to get very specific plans made and to give those plans 'teeth' by actively preserving the ROW. Otherwise they will be nothing more than colorful lines on a map that will get ignored and built-over.

I think I've reached my word limit on this forum for one day. I've got to get some real work done now.

For me number 2 is priority number one except that I don't agree on the piecemeal bus upgrades thing. I think branding is important. I think we do need flashy new brt lines. Bunches of them. We also need a lot of Bus Plus. Bus stops need to be a heck of a lot more than a pole. In places where dedicated Lanes and stations aren't appropriate we should still upgrade the curb to feel like a station(Level boarding,Non-slip surface, yellow paint). There should be some Shelter From the elements and I wouldn't mind a little artwork.

[bob rulz]

Originally Posted by jubguy3

You have to deploy servers, communications infrastructure, etc for each stop that uses it. It's only useful for permanently-fixed route services like trains where the system doesn't have to work around a billion exceptions like "what if the bus is rerouted to the street over?"

Maybe you're right and it wouldn't be worth the expense. I still think it would be worth it at critical junctions, or maybe at least at routes destined to be upgraded to BRT. It would at least be nice to see the bus schedule posted at major bus stops - maybe integrated into a bus shelter. You and me may be fine with using our smartphones, but a lot of people using the bus don't have smartphones. And frankly sometimes I just don't want to pull out my phone, especially if it's cold, or raining, or snowing.

However, I think more priority should definitely be given to bus shelters and just making the general design of bus stops better (as Liberty Wellsian brought up). The SLC Transit Master Plan mentions some of those elements - let's hope they're serious about it.

[bob rulz]

I think a lot of people here will find this interesting.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/201...legalize-self-driving-cars-on-its-roads/

[RC14]

^
Great!!

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

We also need a lot of Bus Plus. Bus stops need to be a heck of a lot more than a pole. In places where dedicated Lanes and stations aren't appropriate we should still upgrade the curb to feel like a station(Level boarding,Non-slip surface, yellow paint). There should be some Shelter From the elements and I wouldn't mind a little artwork.

I agree.

Below is a screenshot of a streetcar station (Tacoma)



It looks like a nice place to wait for transit. It's got the nice roof, it's got a map, and it's got a clear platform where boarding is easy. Also notice it requires transit vehicles (in this case streetcars) to stop in the middle of the street so that once the station stop is done, the vehicle can just go - it won't need to wait for an opening in traffic.

This is a common design for streetcars; the only streetcar stop on the S-Line actually in a street is built this way:


Bus stops never get this much attention or funding. I think this is a fundamental reason why people prefer streetcars - because in building a complete system, money gets spent on building nice stations. For a bus line there is no route to build because the street is already there - so just throw up a few signs and you're good to go (so goes the conventional thinking).

It doesn't need to be this way. Bus stops can be built up to the same nice standards as streetcar stops:





Improvements like these could do wonders for making the bus feel like an established way to get around. Ridership would certainly increase, and I have a feeling that many of the same benefits of a streetcar line would also be reaped by the community. The biggest argument in favor of streetcars is that they are permanent - the bus routes may change but the tracks can't go anywhere. So the solution to making a bus route as attractive as a streetcar should clearly be to build permanent infrastructure, like established bus stations. It is after all the stations that people care about. Trains travel down tracks without stopping - you can only get on at the stations. Tracks in the street are not what developers care about - it's the stations, and buses can have nice stations too!

But who should pay for this - the local cities, or UTA? UTA currenlty has a policy that no city will get special treatment - that it will pay for a basic "one size fits all" bus stop for all stops, and that if the city wants an upgrade, they have to pay for it.


NOTES:
1) Notice the Tacoma Streetcar Station does not have a fare machine. Their streetcar line is free to ride.

2) Also notice how these stations have electrical cabinets. You will need to have an electrical connection for the lighting and a water connection for cleaning the platform. It would be extremely easy to add an electric message sign to one of these stations by running off the electrical power already used for the lighting, and then use wifi or cell data to get information to the station. Each UTA bus is already connected to UTA's network via wireless connection, so adding bus stops that will only need to be updated every minute or so won't add much strain to their data plan.

3) Stopping the bus in traffic is only a viable solution if you have a raised platform like these stations have and also do not require people to pay fares upon boarding the bus. The level boarding is needed to get people onto and off of the bus really quickly, espeically ADA passengers who need a ramp (the ramp works much faster if the bus doesn't have to kneel). Paying upon entering the bus takes time, so you either need to eliminate the fare altogether or pay for expensive ticket vending machines on the platforms. The goal is to make station stops as short as possible - only a few seconds - so that drivers will tolerate having to stop and wait behind a bus while it stops.

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

I think a lot of people here will find this interesting.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/201...legalize-self-driving-cars-on-its-roads/

Also, I wonder how things are going on the UTA reform bill - I haven't heard any updates from Makid in a while...

[Makid]

Originally Posted by Hatman

Also, I wonder how things are going on the UTA reform bill - I haven't heard any updates from Makid in a while...

For the bill, there hasn't been many updates. The bill has 1 pending amendment to vote on from the committee. It would reduce/remove the increased registration fees for Hybrid/Electric vehicles.

I would expect that the bill will be put the the full Senate early next week and then the House by the end of the week.

I haven't seen any movement on the possible bills to remove the requirement that UTA charge fares. I do think that the bills are waiting for the UTA overhaul bill to be passed first.

[Hatman]

Thanks Makid!

Originally Posted by Makid

I haven't seen any movement on the possible bills to remove the requirement that UTA charge fares.

I wasn't aware that there was an actual requirement; somehow I am not surprised. I hope you're right that a bill lifting this requirement is just waiting on the other one to go through.

[Makid]

Originally Posted by Hatman

Thanks Makid!



I wasn't aware that there was an actual requirement; somehow I am not surprised. I hope you're right that a bill lifting this requirement is just waiting on the other one to go through.

The requirement dates back to when service was first instituted in the 60's.

The options presented were either - provide free but limited service or charge fares and provide service in a larger area.

At the time, the larger coverage area with fares was selected as it would help slow the need to expand the roads.

This also locked the system into requiring fares. Only a bill from the legislature can change the requirement for UTA to charge fares. Now, there is an alternative to a bill making the adjustment. It would require the fares to be compensated by another source. This would be similar to what happened shortly before the Christmas holiday when SL County covered the fares.

The Counties within the service area can dedicate funds to cover fares but the funds cannot come from any tax that supports UTA and its services. But with changes from the Legislature, this would open the sales tax option.

I would prefer that the Legislature remove the fare requirement for UTA but also cover the fare loss from the Transportation fund. This lets the State provide direct and a real impact to air quality. Additionally, this should also help with future Environmental Impact Statements as the State would be funding and providing alternatives already.

[Liberty Wellsian]

@Hatman

The question of who should is less important than the question who will. Who wants it more? I think SLC should fund dramatic improvements to either the 205 or the 209(the portion within thecity). The lines are similar enough that it would be a good experiment and control to see just how much these improvements would increase ridership. Further they are both already used enough that the upgrades would be justifiable and there is little risk of the bus being rerouted away from the new stations.

Perhaps if UTA sees a sizeable increase in ridership they will upgrade other lines in a similar manner.

[Dogwata]

Even though this thread is probably specifically for the Salt Lake MSA, I figure I might as well share the satellite map I constructed of Provo BRT since some of the station locations were previously unclear.

Any areas you think might make better station locations? I think the most glaring one that's missing is a University Parkway/Avenue intersection station.

[bob rulz]

I think that anything UTA-related is relevant here.

[Hatman]

Are those the official names for the stations? I wonder how the MTC station got renamed to 'Harmon.'

As far as more stations, there used to be in the planing phases a stop at the BYU creamery on 900 East. This station was projected to have twice the amount of ridership as any other station on the line. It was nixed due to neighborhood opposition. I hope we get it back as an 'infill' station before too long.

[Hatman]

I was doing some research into the Salt Lake City Department of Airports, thinking that a similar 'department of train stations' could be created to develop Salt Lake Central Station. My thoughts were that since the airport is able to operate without the assistance of local tax dollars - getting its money through user fees and grants from the FAA - Salt Lake Central Station should also be able to operate with user fees. But where would these user fees come from?

I thought at first that perhaps the 'department of train stations' should use the existing land around Salt Lake Central Station to build commercial and hotel space and then lease those out. UTA would retain ownership of their platforms, but everything else - the pedestrian connections between platforms, the 'head house,' and the commercial space would be owned and operated by the city department:



Building 1 is the most obvious choice for a commercial development.
Building 2 is long and thin and would built above the Intermodal Hub building, possibly replacing it. The dimensions are perfect for a hotel tower.
Building 3 is the 'head house' or open space people associate with grand train stations. My inspiration is the Anaheim Artic building which is just so beautifully functional. Ticketing on the bottom floor with a grand staircase (with escalators) up to the second floor - a balcony with commercial areas and food options with seating and waiting areas - that leads to an elevated pathway to the platform. It is possible for this setup to be included into the base of a larger tower and include more revenue sources in the head-house, but that isn't strictly necessary.
Building 4 would be the most interesting, since it would be built in the space between railroad tracks and have no direct street access. You'd need to access it via the pedestrian walkways between platforms. But it would certainly be an interesting space for a commercial tower.

My thoughts are that by earning revenue from these developments (and charging a higher rate due to the very close proximity to transit), Salt Lake Central Station could operate without local taxpayer assistance, like the airport does. However, unlike the airport, it wouldn't need to charge passengers or the UTA or Amtrak or any private bus company for use of the facility. I think it is very important to make access to the public train station free to both passengers and carriers. That way organizations like the 'Salt Lake Express' won't need to use the curb beside the LDS Conference Center their main downtown stop. They would be able to use the same major downtown hub as the main carriers, and the commercial developments at Salt Lake Central Station would benefit from the added traffic.

But then I got thinking even farther. What if instead of creating a new city department to oversee the train station... what if we made the train station part of the Department of Airports?

The idea here is to view Salt Lake Central Station as downtown extension of the International Airport.
Suppose the airport segment of the east-west commuter rail line gets built. We then have a train that will take you from the airport to Salt Lake Central Station in about 10-15 minutes. This train could be managed in the same way as Hong Kong's Airport Express subway line, which is famous for allowing you to check in your bag at the subway station, and not get the bag back until you get to your destination airport:

As you'd expect with a name like in-town check-in, Airport Express travelers can check their luggage in town then proceed to the airport bag-free, or spend the day in the city, or do whatever travelers who aren't carrying bags like to do.

The service is even better than that brief description suggests. Say, for instance, you have a 4 p.m. flight and have to leave your hotel by noon. That's a very common problem that typically requires keeping a bag at the hotel all day and coming back to get it before heading to the airport. Not the ideal scenario.

With in-town check-in, you could take a 10 a.m. shuttle to one of the two Airport Express stations with check-in service (Hong Kong or Kowloon), drop off your bags and get your boarding pass (the service is essentially a satellite version of a typical airline counter), then spend the next several hours touring the city or taking a meeting. Some airlines allow in-town check-in up to a full day in advance, so there's no intricate time-management required. There are even bag porters at the Hong Kong and Kowloon stations.

Here's the best part: The next time you see your bag is when you land. It's not like you pick up the bag at Hong Kong airport and do the whole thing again—the bag checks all the way through to your final destination. When you do finally arrive at the Hong Kong airport, you just go straight to security.

Another example would be Vienna's City Airport Train, which offers the same service. Their train is a 16-minute ride, and would be very comparable to a Salt Lake City system.

So imagine this: You are a FrontRunner passenger headed to the airport. You arrive in Salt Lake Central Station with your bags. You go into the Head-House and find a check-in desk just like what you would find at other airports and stations. You see ticket counters for Amtrak, several bus lines, and also several airlines. You go over to the airline of your flight, check your bag in and get your boarding pass, and from that point on you don't need to worry about your bags again. You go up the stairs and across the bridges to the East-West Commuter rail platform, catch the next train to the airport, arrive at the TRAX station, and make your way directly to the security check without needing to bother with whatever other lines may exist at the airport.

If you're arriving in Salt Lake City, specify that you'd like to pick up your bag at Salt Lake Central Station. Instead of using the baggage claim area in the airport your bag will meet you at the baggage claim in Salt Lake Central Station, at the same area that Amtrak and bus passengers retrieve their bags.

With all the talk of the new airport terminal building being too small for anticipated demand in coming years/decades, I think something like this could do wonders to alleviate crowding at the airport. It would also be a real incentive to use public transit to get to the airport.

None of this is revolutionary; many cities already have amenities like this. Can you imagine a system like this in place for the Olympics? It would really make a good impression.

[RC14]

Hatman, your concept is closer to what I would like to see TRAX and Front runner stations become. I have wonder if it would be possible to fund rail lines by leasing the station land to developers and having them design the stations. In my vision the rail stations would be mixed use developments with rail platforms built into them.

I love the idea of being able to check bags at SLC central station.

[arkhitektor]

Are there still (or were there ever really) plans to finish the build-out of the intermodal hub per this old rendering? Or was this just a sort of placeholder / visionary idea of what it could become?