Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[Makid]

Duplicate post...

[Makid]

Originally Posted by 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?

I think the plans were put on hold. UTA decided they wanted to focus on developing the SW corner of 6th West and 2nd South first while preserving the historic buildings first and leave the plaza open as a phase 2 of development for the station.

Phase 1 was/is also to include a parking structure just west of the planned building on the corner. The parking structure is planned for both the commercial developments and for area commuters. Entry to the garage would be from 2nd South.

I think that the Central Station will see some development in the next few years. The main holdup is the proximity to the homeless shelter. Many people don't feel overly safe in the area and that is holding back development.

[Dogwata]

Originally Posted by 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.

I chose arbitrary names for each station based on what's close by. They aren't the official station names, thank goodness. I'm a BYU student so I naturally associated that station with the Harmon Building as I've used the bus stop there before, but yeah, I should have probably named it MTC for clarity.

And yeah, from what I can tell the NIMBYs in that neighborhood are absolutely horrific. The university has been in the area long before the majority of people in those neighborhoods. It's sad that there won't be an easily-accessible station near that part of campus as it would be such a boost to ridership.

[Makid]

Update on the UTA / Transportation bill:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/9000...l-would-hike-state-sales-tax-to-485.html

Revised transportation task force bill would hike state sales tax to 4.85%

A sweeping transportation bill that overhauls how UTA is managed now would raise the state sales tax by 0.15 percent starting in 2019 to raise $80 million annually for mass transit projects.

The latest version of SB136, sponsored by Sen. Wayne Harper, R-Taylorsville, the co-chairman of the Legislature's Transportation Governance and Funding Task Force, is expected to be heard in the Senate Monday.

"It really needs to pass because it creates the form and the structure for how the state deals with transportation over the next 40 years. It’s transformational," Harper said Friday.

Harper said he's "externally optimistic" the bill can pass but said there may be changes.

His House sponsor and tax force co-chairman, Rep. Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, said the bill "has been a moving target. Let's see what passes the Senate and then we can have a conversation about it in the House."

Besides increasing the sales tax statewide for a new transit fund administered by the Utah Transportation Commission, the revised bill also would give every county the option of imposing a quarter-cent local option sales tax for transportation.

Counties that already have mass transit would have three years to go to voters for approval of the entire 1.05 percent local option sales tax before they could seek the extra quarter-cent.

A provision in the original bill that would have automatically imposed whatever was remaining of the 1.05 percent local option tax in 2022 has been removed, Harper said.

While the revised bill doesn't change plans to replace the UTA board of trustees with three, full-time trustees charged with running the agency, there is a name change. UTA would become the Transit District of Utah.

"What we’re saying here is we’re starting a new era for transportation and transit," Harper said. A new name is recognition that the transit agency is going to improve, he said.

The bill no longer boosts taxes on hotel rooms and rental cars, after Harper ran into opposition.

It does, however, still hike registration fees on electric and hybrid vehicles. In addition to the current $44 fee, owners of electric cars would pay another $150; hybrids, another $20; and plug-in hybrids, $120.

"It's really an equity issue. We want everybody to pay for the use of the roads," Harper said. He acknowledged that, along with the sales tax hike, the fee hikes were the most controversial portions of the bill.

Overall, lots of changes.

Some good:
Increasing the State Sales tax rate for transportation projects.
Changing the name of UTA also is good (It makes it sound like it could eventually be the State level equivalent of UDoT).
Removing tax increases on TRT and Rental Cars
Reducing the registration fees on Electric and Hybrid vehicles.

Some Bad:
Removing the automatic increase of sales taxes to 1.05% in 2022.
Removing the ability for County Councils to implement the increase directly as opposed to voter approval.
Not any real overhaul (yet) of UTA.

Overall, I can see that this would be a good first step, the State stepping up to the plate with $80 Million for just transit projects each year from the tax increase. A 30 year bond on that would allow the double tracking on FrontRunner (at least enough to get 15 minute frequencies) and Blue line Trax extention to Lehi.

With the talk about extra revenue that has become available, I think it would be wise for the State to put some towards Transit, be it for fares (look we are helping to clear the air) or projects.

I do think that the automatic tax increases for the 1.05% isn't completely gone. It is gone mostly because it is an election year, I would expect them to come back next year (if there isn't an update in the House version to re-add them).

The exciting thing about the numbers provided is that it does give more information about what would be expected if Utah and SL Counties were to both pass the 0.25% increase from Prop 1. The values collected would be nearly $70 - $75 Million yearly. Bringing current UTA counties up to 1.05% from the current levels would bring in roughly $100 Million yearly.

I would expect that 2/3 of the funds from the State sales tax increase would be spent along the Wasatch Front as that would be nearly equal to the population layout.

Imagine what could be done for Transit along the Wasatch Front with a dedicated increase of roughly $150 Million yearly (State plus local options) over what is currently collected. This of course wouldn't count any increase from any individual city, such as Salt Lake City, in their Transit Master Plan implementation ($7 Million yearly).

While it is currently a dream, it is getting a lot closer to reality and the funding increases may start as early as next year.

[bob rulz]

Originally Posted by Makid

Update on the UTA / Transportation bill:
Not any real overhaul (yet) of UTA.

Doesn't it say that the overhaul of UTA is still in the bill?

I think it says that there are no changes to the proposal to implement a 3-member full-time trusteeship, not that the proposal isn't in there.

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by Dogwata

I chose arbitrary names for each station based on what's close by. They aren't the official station names, thank goodness. I'm a BYU student so I naturally associated that station with the Harmon Building as I've used the bus stop there before, but yeah, I should have probably named it MTC for clarity.

And yeah, from what I can tell the NIMBYs in that neighborhood are absolutely horrific. The university has been in the area long before the majority of people in those neighborhoods. It's sad that there won't be an easily-accessible station near that part of campus as it would be such a boost to ridership.

I read your original post too quickly and didn't realize you had made the map yourself. Awesome work! I thought I was familiar with all the BYU buildings, but I've still never heard of the Harmon building before. I like learning new things.

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by 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?

I hope that was just a visionary placeholder. For one that picture doesn't include TRAX at all and completely bulldozes the plaza between TRAX and FrontRunner. Honestly, that plaza is the best thing about Salt Lake Central Station, and anything that gets rid of it would be a step backwards.

Another thing I really dislike about this plan and how Salt Lake Central is currently laid out is the drop-off circle protruding into the property from 300 South. That is so much wasted space that could be used for a much nicer building - which is why in my conceptual plans I put the head house on that area and have it face the plaza (and the mountain views to the Southeast). If you're getting dropped off in a car, there is a big long curb along 600 West that is ideal for that use.

Salt Lake Central Station has enormous potential, I hope our leaders shoot higher than this plan.

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by Orlando

I'm in a little disbelief. I've done some studies for this area, and this is almost exactly what i and our team have come up with. Great minds think alike?

I'm a little confused as to whether you're referring to my picture or Liberty Wellsian's constructive critique. Either way it's cool that there's studies being done of the 9th south exit and potential redevelopment. I hope any redevelopment uses and re-purposes as much of the existing ROW's as possible. Square uniform blocks are nice and all, but its the exceptions that really make a place unique and fun.

I think that using the existing infrastructure to its maximum potential is sort of like the Michelangelo quote about sculpting:

“The sculpture is already complete within the marble block, before I start my work. It is already there, I just have to chisel away the superfluous material.”

The lines on the map are already there, we just need to chisel away the restrictions that keep the public from enjoying what is already there.

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by Makid

Update on the UTA / Transportation bill:

Some good:
Increasing the State Sales tax rate for transportation projects.
Changing the name of UTA also is good (It makes it sound like it could eventually be the State level equivalent of UDoT).
Removing tax increases on TRT and Rental Cars
Reducing the registration fees on Electric and Hybrid vehicles.

Some Bad:
Removing the automatic increase of sales taxes to 1.05% in 2022.
Removing the ability for County Councils to implement the increase directly as opposed to voter approval.
Not any real overhaul (yet) of UTA.

Overall, I can see that this would be a good first step, the State stepping up to the plate with $80 Million for just transit projects each year from the tax increase. A 30 year bond on that would allow the double tracking on FrontRunner (at least enough to get 15 minute frequencies) and Blue line Trax extention to Lehi.

With the talk about extra revenue that has become available, I think it would be wise for the State to put some towards Transit, be it for fares (look we are helping to clear the air) or projects.

...

Imagine what could be done for Transit along the Wasatch Front with a dedicated increase of roughly $150 Million yearly (State plus local options) over what is currently collected. This of course wouldn't count any increase from any individual city, such as Salt Lake City, in their Transit Master Plan implementation ($7 Million yearly).

While it is currently a dream, it is getting a lot closer to reality and the funding increases may start as early as next year.

Makid, your posts make me so happy I don't even know where to start.
Keep us updates coming! If even half of this stuff becomes law we're set for some really good changes.

[Hatman]

I've been doing some more research into baggage handling systems. The end goal is to allow passengers arriving at Salt Lake Central Station (via TRAX, FrontRunner, Bus, or whatever) to be able to check in their bags for their flight from the Salt Lake City international airport. At that point they wouldn't need to deal with their checked bags again until arriving at their destination airport.

Two airports do this already, as far as I have been able to find: Hong Kong in China and Taoyuan in Taiwan. In both cities you can check your bag in at the central subway station, and they will take it directly to your plane. In order to do this, they have a baggage car on one end of the subway train:

Hong Kong:


Taoyuan:


I just can't get over how cool this is. It is a subway train, but its got a freakin' baggage car on the end of it. And the absolute best part of all this: The baggage system is completely automated. Here's a video from Taoyuan:
• Video Link

The idea is that the train is just one node in the larger baggage handling system. This allows these airports to 'outsource' the check-in, security, and retrieval parts of the bag-handling to an off-site location. With Salt Lake City's airport expected to grow in coming years - perhaps even outgrowing their new single-terminal design - a system like this could become extremely useful.

Salt Lake Central is the obvious choice for one of these outsourced baggage systems - but since I've proposed continuing that train up to Park City, why not include Park City as well? Or the Cottonwood Canyons Transportation Center? How cool would it be to get off your plane, catch a train up to the Cottonwood Canyons, get your pick up your bags at the mouth of the canyons, then board a shuttle bus up to the resorts at the bus platform? That would be seriously impressive.


The check-in process is also completely automated:
• Video Link

EDIT: or perhaps only mostly automated - though I think that most of the jobs we see people doing could be replaced by robots in the very near future:
• Video Link

[ucsbgaucho]

Originally Posted by Hatman

I've been doing some more research into baggage handling systems. The end goal is to allow passengers arriving at Salt Lake Central Station (via TRAX, FrontRunner, Bus, or whatever) to be able to check in their bags for their flight from the Salt Lake City international airport. At that point they wouldn't need to deal with their checked bags again until arriving at their destination airport.

Only problem is this would have to be a completely dedicated train to the airport with no stops. If you're doing security at the train station, you can't let anyone else on or off as presumably those on the train would not have to go through security again at the airport, there'd be a dedicated indoor station for this train only, etc. Plus, if you're dealing with baggage, you'll have to decide before your flight that you'll be taking the train upon arrival, so your bags get delivered to the train. And you'd have to know exactly which train you'll be taking, so you know your bags are on the same train that you're riding on. A lot of logistics. These asian airports have them I would assume because access to the airport itself is limited; many of them are built on man-made islands due to lack of space, so they are forced to get creative. SLC doesn't have that problem, and this would be incredibly expensive, plus really unnecessary as you'd have a dedicated "baggage train" double-tracked next to a TRAX train going from the same place to the same place. It'd be nice to be able to remotely go through security in another location but the cost wouldn't make any sense.

[Hatman]

I should have clarified. The bags go through security, but the people do not. That's why the bags are in the secured car cordoned off from the public. Once arriving at the airport the bags are kept in a secure area, but the people go through the regular entrance to the airport and go straight to the security line (they would have already been checked-in for the flights).

I'm not advocating that something like this get built right now, but I am advocating that we build our infrastructure in a way to be expandable in the future. Sort of like Amazon building extra doors in their warehouses above the existing doors, with the idea that these will one day be used by drones. The doors are non-working now, but it will be much easier to install a working door in an existing hole than it would be to poke a new hole in the wall when the time comes.

Baggage systems need all kinds of advanced planning due to the separation of infrastructure; it would be in everyone's interest to at least have plans drawn out for this type of service so that when the airport is crushed for capacity, expansion will be quick and easy.

[Makid]

Update on Transportation/UTA overhaul bill:

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46270453&nid=148

Utah Senate proposes hike in vehicle registration fees instead of sales tax increase

Vehicle registration fees would jump from $44 to $72 but there would no longer be a statewide sales tax increase under the latest version of the Legislature's Transportation Governance and Funding Task Force bill.

Senates voted 18-9 to give SB136 preliminary approval Tuesday night. A final vote in that chamber could come as soon as Wednesday.


But Harper, the co-chairman of the task force that met throughout last year to plan for the state's transportation needs, substituted the bill to eliminate a proposed 0.15 percent statewide sales tax hike to raise $80 million for mass transit projects.

The bill, which kept the option of local sales tax increases for transportation, dumped the statewide sales tax increase in favor of adding $28 to all vehicle registration fees.

The increased fees, which would include charging electric car owners an additional $122 and those who drive plug-in hybrid vehicles, another $52, are expected to raise $85 million annually for the new transit fund created in the legislation.

But Sen. Lyle Hillyard, R-Logan, said Harper "chose probably the lesser of several evils, but I think it’s a major step and we have to be united in doing this."

He did, however, raise a question about UTA salaries under the new management structure.

Harper assured him the three-member management team's earnings were "not going to be exorbitant wages seen in past," but closer to $130,000 each while the new general manager's pay would be in line with "acceptable state standards."

Overall, net positive $5 Million for State transit projects from the vehicle registration fee increase.

Additionally, more information regarding the restructuring of the UTA board and Executives. It does seem that the salaries will be coming into line with State levels as opposed to industry levels.

The bill still includes the local options for transit sales tax increases.

The House submitted a bill yesterday that would allow for more transit/road expansions by a sales tax increase. https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46270262&nid=148 If it doesn't include a sunset option, it should be included in the max value that the sales tax can be increased to over and above the current 1.05% bringing it to 1.30%, if all increases are passed. While the bill is listed as a backup for the Senate's reform bill, the primary purpose of the bill is to increase funds for transit and roads as opposed to any real reform. It does however include:

Sen. Jake Anderegg, R-Lehi, joined Gibson in presenting the bill to the committee and said he was "aware of some other entities that might want to bid to compete with UTA."

Those entities could include Swiss-owned Stadler Rail, currently building an assembly facility in Salt Lake City, Gibson said later. Anderegg was part of a delegation that traveled to Switzerland in 2015 to meet with Stadler officials.

This could lead to some funds being directed to the Little Cottonwood Canyon Trax/Cog railway to Park City. With Stadler building a HQ and Manufacturing plant in SLC, they could provide the vehicles and possibly track for the route at a sever discount. While we could end up with 2 direct competitors for Rail transit along the Wasatch Front, I would doubt there would be any duplication of services excluding bus and rail competition. I would doubt that Stadler would build another N/S LRT line or Commuter Rail line in close proximity to Trax and FrontRunner. Additionally, with the good chance that Fares will be removed in the next few years, the main incentive for Stadler would be in vehicle sales rather than in possible fare revenue.

Time will tell what the final bill will look like but the House should receive the Senate bill later today. With the session ending next week, I expect to see a lot of bills rush through. Hopefully the rush includes the Fare changes for mass transit.

[Always Sunny in SLC]

I really am surprised at how many positive things are coming out of the legislature regarding mass transit. The body has generally been lukewarm at best about these issues, but something seems to have changed. The change in attitude is on the legislative and executive side. I am guessing that during interim committees (offseason) they have heard from enough transit experts, demographers and planners and have been moved more to the pro transit side. This bodes well for the future. While I find it silly to charge electric and hybrid vehicle owners registration fees, the rest of the policies seem really positive. It may be a bridge too far to get the most conservative legislators on board with doing away with fares I think something half way could be possible. I would propose negotiating dirt cheap passes for all businesses in the downtown area and within 1/4 mile of transit stops and then "turning off" the fare boxes from 6 pm - close every night. This would dramatically increase the commuter crowd and those using it for non work activities.

[Makid]

Originally Posted by Always Sunny in SLC

I really am surprised at how many positive things are coming out of the legislature regarding mass transit. The body has generally been lukewarm at best about these issues, but something seems to have changed. The change in attitude is on the legislative and executive side. I am guessing that during interim committees (offseason) they have heard from enough transit experts, demographers and planners and have been moved more to the pro transit side. This bodes well for the future. While I find it silly to charge electric and hybrid vehicle owners registration fees, the rest of the policies seem really positive. It may be a bridge too far to get the most conservative legislators on board with doing away with fares I think something half way could be possible. I would propose negotiating dirt cheap passes for all businesses in the downtown area and within 1/4 mile of transit stops and then "turning off" the fare boxes from 6 pm - close every night. This would dramatically increase the commuter crowd and those using it for non work activities.

The biggest thing that helped turn the tide, so to speak, in the Legislature is Economics. Improving and increasing Mass Transit improves Air Quality while also improving having a big impact of company expansions and relocations.

I think that once the State saw they weren't included in the Top 20 for Amazon, they did a hard look at why and 1 big reason is transit.

I think this is also the reason the Inland Port is a big issue this year. The port service will require additional services and people but it will primarily drive economic growth. To ensure that the growth happens quickly, having a highly developed and utilized Mass Transit system will help as it means less space will need to be dedicated to Employee parking, which means for larger and better utilized spaces.

With the prospect of large economic growth happening at both the North and South ends of SL County a transit bridge needs to be built and filled out to ensure that goods and services can move easier. Free Transit is one key to this as ridership will more than double on the existing network. Improve transit capacity (service frequencies and vehicles) and ridership goes up more. As ridership increases, air quality improves, densities are increased and space is still available for suburban office parks.

Lastly, 1 additional aspect is that space is running out for roads. With SL County being the main economic force in the State, anything they can do to keep it moving forward is needed and needed quickly. I also think this is one reason behind the push to change the MSA designations along the Wasatch Front. Change it from 3 (Ogden, Provo, and Salt Lake) down to just the Salt Lake MSA.

[i-215]

They are changing the name of UTA to TDU??? PU

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/201...le-uta-reorganization-now-seems-settled/

[Makid]

Depending on how previous contracts were written, the name change may allow for some retirement savings from previous executives.

I don't mind a name change, I don't like the name though, Transit District Utah. I would prefer something more like: Wasatch Front Transit District (WFTD).

Overall though, I would be happy with the bill going through as written. It is a large step forward for transit and transportation along the Wasatch Front.

[i-215]

TDU
TUD
TURD

I always thought UTA was clever as it almost spelled UTAH. It seems a shame to lose a 30+ year-old local brand, simply because a few corrupt executives had fat paychecks and went to Switzerland.

[RC14]

I prefer UTA

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Having a crappy name is a small price to pay for getting what appears to be a new flood of cash for years to come.