HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #7861  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2018, 3:26 AM
Hatman's Avatar
Hatman Hatman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,434
Sorry for teasing you guys. They should show up now. Turns out there is no easy shortcut to posting pictures on this forum after all.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7862  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2018, 3:19 AM
Makid Makid is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,106
Cities support Salt Lake County transit tax, clearing way for it to take effect

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46346007&nid=14...t-tax-clearing-way-for-it-to-take-effect

Quote:
SANDY — Two Salt Lake County communities have announced they are supporting a .25 percent tax hike that would support transportation projects across the county, allowing the tax to take effect.

Sandy and Draper city council members approved resolutions supporting the tax at their meetings Tuesday.

SB136, the transportation bill Gov. Gary Herbert signed into law in March, allows counties to enact a tax hike of up to .25 percent to use for transportation needs.

In April, the Salt Lake County Council approved an ordinance that allows the tax to automatically take effect if cities and towns representing 67 percent of the county’s population enact resolutions supporting the tax.

The ordinance allowed cities and towns until June 22 to determine whether or not they support the tax.

Proposition 1 proposed a similar tax hike in 2015, but Salt Lake County voters defeated it with a 51 percent to 49 percent vote.

Prior to Tuesday, about 56 percent of the population of Salt Lake County supported the tax, according to Wasatch Front Regional Council Executive Director Andrew Gruber.

That meant 11 percent of the county’s population, or about 125,000 people, needed to support the tax through their city councils in order for it to take effect.

Sandy City Council members narrowly approved a resolution to send a letter supporting the tax to the County Council by a vote of 4-3. Sandy’s population is about 96,000, according to U.S. Census data.

Draper’s population is about 47,000, which puts support for the tax over the threshold needed for it to take effect.

Riverton City Council members briefly discussed the ordinance at their meeting Tuesday, but did not take action. Riverton’s population is about 43,000.

Under Salt Lake County’s ordinance, the county will keep all of the .25 percent tax until July 1, 2019, according to Riverton city documents. After that, .1 percent of the tax will be given to cities or towns for transportation and maintenance projects, .1 percent will be given to Utah Transit Authority and the remaining .05 percent will be given to the county.
Surprisingly West Valley City wasn't the city that pushed it over the needed threshold. They, more than most cities need more transit options and better bus frequency.

The sales tax increase should go into effect around October 1, 2018. July 1, 2019, the 40/40/20 split will happen and we should see plans starting to come out towards the end of this year or early next year for what each city plans to do with their share of the split. Hopefully we will see some cities put some funds towards transit as well as roads.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7863  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2018, 8:32 PM
Makid Makid is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,106
More info on the Transit Sales Tax and Transit Projects:

Salt Lake County residents will pay more taxes this fall; Sandy mayor still opposed but says he won’t veto

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/201...pposed-to-the-levy-says-he-wont-veto-it/

Quote:
Sandy City Mayor Kurt Bradburn remains opposed to a $58 million countywide sales tax hike for roads and transit but won’t veto the City Council’s approval, his deputy said Wednesday.

After a close 4-3 council vote Tuesday night, Bradburn huddled with legal advisers and concluded he probably doesn’t have veto power on the resolution, said Evelyn Everton, deputy mayor.

“After doing some due diligence with our attorneys, we’re not convinced that a veto on a resolution would be upheld in court and so the resolution would stand as is,” Everton told The Tribune on Wednesday.

“The [Utah] code basically says a mayor can veto an ordinance, a tax levy or an appropriation. The resolution doesn’t really fall under this,” she said.

Bradburn, elected last year, has opposed the sales tax hike because Sandy voters rejected the proposal in 2015 by a 57-43 percent margin. (Everton at the time of the vote was state director of Americans for Prosperity, which led the campaign against the ballot measure.)

The approval of the city councils of Sandy and Draper Tuesday triggers imposition of the 0.25 percent tax increase (2.5 cents per $10 purchase) because of the way Salt Lake County officials structured the plan.

Instead of the County Council approving the tax hike — which the state Legislature authorized earlier this year — the council decided that it would impose the tax if cities representing 67 percent of the county’s 1.1 million population endorsed the proposal.

Council members for Salt Lake City, the largest, with a population of about 200,000, approved the resolution last week. Previously, councils of Millcreek, Midvale, South Salt Lake, Murray, South Jordan and Holladay had given their endorsements, along with the town of Alta and several townships.

Salt Lake County voters narrowly rejected the tax hike in 2015, mostly due to public distrust of the Utah Transit Authority, which had been mired in a number of scandals over the years over high executive pay, sweetheart deals with developers and closed-door decision-making.

UTA will get 40 percent of the new revenue beginning July 1, 2019. Cities will get 40 percent and the county will receive the remaining 20 percent.

However, under the resolution, the new tax will start to be collected Oct. 1 and all of that revenue will go to the county to decide how best to spend and divvy up.

County Council Chairwoman Aimee Winder Newton said those decisions haven’t yet been made but she believes some will going down to paying down countywide bond debt for transportation and some will go to cities based strictly on need.

She rejects any notion that cities that approved the tax increase should be rewarded and those that defeated the resolution punished.

“I don’t believe anybody is looking to pick on those who didn’t pass the resolution or punish those who didn’t. i don’t believe that our council has that mindset,” Newton said.

Allegations aired in some of the city council debates suggested there would be a rewards-or-punishment consequence for cities, depending on their vote on the tax resolution.
Additionally, what we already expected regarding additional bigger projects:

UTA says just-approved tax hike will improve bus service, but more money is needed for envisioned major projects

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/201...is-needed-for-envisioned-major-projects/

Quote:
A sales tax hike just passed by Salt Lake and Tooele counties will help improve bus service, but its far from enough to build future hoped-for rail expansions and other major projects, Utah Transit Authority officials told state lawmakers Wednesday.

In short, they say they still need more money for the sort of system envisioned in long-term plans with more TRAX lines, double-tracked and electrified FrontRunner trains and 200 more miles of so-far unfunded bus rapid transit.

However, UTA promised legislators that all of its share of the just-approved tax increase will go to improve services — and is not needed to keep up payments on its $2.1 billion debt incurred to build TRAX, FrontRunner and streetcar lines in recent years.

The Legislature’s Interim Transportation Committee sought such information Wednesday because, as its House Chairman, Rep. Kay Christofferson, R-Lehi, said, UTA now spends about $85 million a year in interest on its debts, “which is almost the same as [it spends on] bus service or rail service.”

The discussion came after city councils in Sandy and Draper gave the final approvals needed Tuesday to trigger a $58 million Salt Lake countywide sales tax hike for transit and roads.

The Salt Lake County Council earlier said it would enact the tax if cities representing 67 percent of the county’s population endorsed it. That threshold was met Tuesday after previous approvals by Salt Lake City, Millcreek, Midvale, South Salt Lake Holladay and South Jordan.

County voters rejected that tax in 2015 as they voted down Proposition 1, largely because of scandals at UTA. However, the Legislature this year allowed counties to enact that tax without voter approval, as part of a larger bill to restructure UTA.

The tax will add 2.5 cents to a $10 purchase (or 0.25 cents per $1).

The county will receive all of the revenue for the first nine months of the new tax — but said it would work with cities to approve how and where it is spent. After that, 40 percent of ongoing revenue would go to UTA, 40 percent to cities and 20 percent to the county.

Also on Tuesday, the Tooele County Commission approved a similar quarter-cent sales tax hike there.

Matt Sibul, UTA governmental affairs director, said the new Salt Lake County tax will provide UTA about $23 million annually. He told lawmakers it will allow improving bus service — including more routes, extra frequency and running more buses at nights and on weekends.

“That’s what we’re hearing that the public wants,” said Steve Meyer, interim executive director of UTA, adding the agency plans to work closely with cities and the public to develop plans for how to use the money.

However, Sibul said, “Can we do rail expansions and bus rapid transit projects with the additional revenues that were realized last night? No, we can’t.”

But he said the new law restructuring his agency, SB136, provides tools that could provide such extra funding. It allows counties to raise taxes even higher for transportation, and allows state funds to be used for transit — instead of just for highways.

If they are used in the future along with winning federal grants, “You can start to do some more projects,” Sibul said.

Some such projects, Meyer said, include 200 miles of proposed BRT projects, sort of a “TRAX on rubber wheels” where extra-long buses have their own lane on roads, sell tickets by machine and have the ability to control traffic signals. Meyer said they are efficient, and cheaper than TRAX expansions.

Another example is improving FrontRunner. It now uses a single track, which limits frequency. Sibul said plans call for having double tracks — to allow trains to more easily pass each other — and to electrify the system, which would improve frequency and lower operation costs.

Amid questions from lawmakers about UTA’s $2.1 billion in debt, Meyer said it comes from what he called wise investments to build rail projects after voter approval.

“We basically took out a mortgage, similar to buying a house,” Meyer said. “So you could enjoy that facility while you are paying for it.”

Bob Biles, UTA vice president of finance, said UTA has carefully planned to ensure that it can cover bond payments without any use of the new tax hikes. He added that UTA believes it can handle regular maintenance and operations without the need of bonds for them.

Sales taxes and federal funding provides the vast majority of UTA’s revenue, with just 14 percent coming from passenger fares.
Going forward, any increase in funding for UTA can go to funding projects. This can be from local sources, part of the 40/40/20 split or from the now unlocked new sales tax that is opened from the same law that allowed the County to enact the Sales Tax that was passed last night for SL County and Tooele County. It is only available to those Counties that have matched what SL County is now at for Sales Taxes for Transit. That tax can only be used for Transit as well.

UTA may be able to have some funds available for projects, if Salt Lake County does put the bulk of the revenue from the initial 9 months towards paying down some of the debt from the FrontLines projects. This, with the additional saving from the debt service payments can help to pay the debt down faster, which can help to speed up some of the projects.

I do feel that the FrontRunner Upgrades are going to be pushed by most of the Wasatch Front Counties that have raised the transit tax, Utah County may be left out, again. The State will be the main driver pushing for Trax to Utah County and will probably force the tax on Utah County to pay for it.

I do hope that we will start to hear of some plans though over the next few months of what the various cities and SL County plan to do with regards to their 40/40/20 split as well as UTA for how it will impact routes and frequencies.

While it hasn't been stated, should these changes be expected in August of 2019 or December of 2019? Since they are primarily going to be frequency upgrades and some weekend updates for now at least. If cities want to improve local transit, I can see that taking longer to get setup and running.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7864  
Old Posted Jun 21, 2018, 12:13 AM
asies1981 asies1981 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 1,173
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7865  
Old Posted Jun 22, 2018, 12:53 AM
s.p.hansen's Avatar
s.p.hansen s.p.hansen is offline
Exurb Enjoyer
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: The Great Salt Lake, Utah
Posts: 2,261
One of the most important rulings for public transit along the Wasatch Front was just issued. A wide spectrum of E Commece can now be hit with sales tax. Amazon moved in that direction already, but much of E Commerce was allowing customers to buy without paying sales tax which is really the foundation for most of our public transit projects. Utah is a super young and tech savvy state. E Commerce has not only killed a lot brick and mortar here, but it ruined projections for sales tax revenue that was supposed to help pay for FrontRunner and TRAX expansions. Not anymore!

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...-sales-taxes-online-purchases/699556002/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7866  
Old Posted Jun 22, 2018, 5:06 PM
Hatman's Avatar
Hatman Hatman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,434
More money for transit always makes me happy. I hope the service expansion happens quickly, and takes the form of increased frequency. 15 minute service is still poor service compared to what people are expecting - Hopefully the 6-7 minute frequency of the Provo-Orem BRT line creates demand for this type of requency on more routes.

Here is a photo update on the S-Line double-track project:




Clearing of the site is complete, and so is the small amount of earthwork that was needed. It's hard to see in my pictures, but behind the yellow excavator is a pile of rails, all ready to be laid out. This project is moving right along!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7867  
Old Posted Jun 26, 2018, 7:01 PM
Makid Makid is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,106
I have noticed that APTA has been slower on reporting the Transit Ridership Quarterly Reports lately as the overall ridership numbers have been showing ridership declines. They state that they will report numbers 45 to 60 days following the end of the quarters but they have been getting slower and slower the last few years.

By law, transit agencies that receive Federal funding are required to report ridership numbers monthly. APTA uses this information to provide the Quarterly reports. You can find the information here. While the data isn't yet refined down the average weekday ridership numbers, you are able to find out if there has been any increase or decrease.

In looking at the data for UTA, it looks like FrontRunner saw its first decrease in ridership in Q1 2018 over Q1 2017. It was down 3,672 total riders for the quarter. Trax was down 241,920 and Bus ridership was down 223,872 from Q1 2017.

But, There is also some good news in this, FrontRunner in April 2018 was up 17,917 riders over April 2017. What is better is that it is also nearly 40K more riders than April 2016. With Gas prices going up a bit and Construction on I-15 in Utah County, it might account for the rise in ridership.

It would be nice to see some gains in ridership again or at least a leveling out where population and ridership aren't conflicting with each other.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7868  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2018, 4:10 PM
Hatman's Avatar
Hatman Hatman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,434
It isn't surprising that UTA's ridership isn't growing - they haven't added significant capacity to their systems beyond adding an additional FrontRunner departure with the last change. Hopefully the increased bus service that's coming with the increased funding will address this.

Speaking of increasing capacity, here is an S-Line update - this time from 400 East. This will become the most interesting crossing on the S-Line, since there will now be 2 tracks but no station (so trains won't stop or slow down), and also no crossing arms.



The power and utility poles that had been in the way have been moved, clearing the way for track construction. I guess I shouldn't be impressed how quickly things are moving along on this project since it is such dinky little thing, but it's still cool to see things happening.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7869  
Old Posted Jun 30, 2018, 5:06 PM
Merewether's Avatar
Merewether Merewether is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: 8410*
Posts: 201
Dockless electric scooters

Saw my first Bird dockless scooter yesterday parked by Crandall bldg. Starbucks. Walking across town today to Farmers Market we saw about a half dozen parked and three in use.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7870  
Old Posted Jul 2, 2018, 4:56 PM
Always Sunny in SLC Always Sunny in SLC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merewether View Post
Saw my first Bird dockless scooter yesterday parked by Crandall bldg. Starbucks. Walking across town today to Farmers Market we saw about a half dozen parked and three in use.
Hopefully their acceptance is better here than in SF. To me it seems like a great idea if people are responsible to put them in reasonable places.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7871  
Old Posted Jul 4, 2018, 2:22 PM
Makid Makid is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,106
It's that time again:

Officials seek public comment on how to spend $4 billion on Wasatch Front transportation over the next 5 years
https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2018/07/03/officials-seek-public/

Quote:

Do you applaud or hate the proposal to add to regional transportation plans $10.8 million for the West Davis Corridor freeway in Kaysville and Farmington — which some resident groups fought but state officials are pushing forward?

How about a new $75 million bus rapid transit route from downtown Ogden to Weber State University — sort of a TRAX on rubber wheels where buses often have their own lanes?

They are among projects that the Wasatch Front Regional Council is proposing to add to its new 2019-24 Transportation Improvement Program, a step needed for projects to qualify for federal funding.

The council is seeking public comment through Aug. 4 on that five-year plan, which is updated annually. The plan sets priorities on how to spend about $4 billion on roads and transit in Salt Lake, Davis, Weber, Tooele, Morgan and Box Elder counties.

A complete list of projects is available online at wfrc.org/tip, and residents may comment on it through that website.

The regional council has also scheduled two open houses to answer questions about the plan. One is scheduled for July 10 at the Ogden Intermodal Center, 2350 Wall Ave. in Ogden, and on July 12 at the Salt Lake Central Station, 250 S. 600 West in Salt Lake City. Both events will run from 4:30 to 6:30 p.m.

Some other interesting new projects proposed for addition to new plan — beyond what was proposed previously — include:

• Spending more than $4 million to rebuild Utah Transit Authority train engines to reduce emissions and better comply with clean-air standards.

• Spending $637,000 to expand the GREENbike-share program in Salt Lake City by adding more stations and bicycles.

• Spending $4.3 million to reconstruct 1300 East in Salt Lake City from 2100 South to the southern city border.

• Reconstruct and widen 3900 South, including a center turn lane, in Millcreek from 2300 East to Wasatch Boulevard at a cost of $8.7 million.

• Improving congested intersections including State Street and 5300 South in Murray, Highland Drive and 4500 South in Holladay, and 9000 South and Monroe Street in Sandy
While there is more than the $4 Billion available over the 5 year span, WFRC can only allocate what is known from Gas tax, grants and funds available from bond repayments.

Funds that are not included but could be available with agreements:

Newly created State Transit Improvement Fund
State Funding
City portion of SL County 40/40/20 Sales Tax
County portion of SL County 40/40/20 Sales Tax
Any potential increase from online sales taxes now deemed collectable by SCOTUS.

It is possible that some of the City funds from the 40/40/20 will go to roads, I would hope that some will go towards transit. Like Holladay could improve transit around the Cottonwood Mall redevelopment, Sandy and South Jordan can improve transit between FrontRunner and Trax with a dedicated Shuttle service, Herriman can to a road and transit study to see what people actually want and would use to reduce traffic, etc..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7872  
Old Posted Jul 4, 2018, 4:25 PM
Liberty Wellsian Liberty Wellsian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 810
I wanted to bump this now that the sales tax increase is back on

East Side Trunk & Spur BRT

Combined frequency
200 S 600 W to 7th E - 10 min or better
7th E 200 S to ~4800 S - 10 min
9th E ~4800 S to 6600 S - 15 min
9400 S 700 E to S.J. station - 15 min

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7873  
Old Posted Jul 5, 2018, 8:40 PM
Always Sunny in SLC Always Sunny in SLC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian View Post
I wanted to bump this now that the sales tax increase is back on

East Side Trunk & Spur BRT

Combined frequency
200 S 600 W to 7th E - 10 min or better
7th E 200 S to ~4800 S - 10 min
9th E ~4800 S to 6600 S - 15 min
9400 S 700 E to S.J. station - 15 min

I like this except it would seem to me that 200 South should be a streetcar.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7874  
Old Posted Jul 5, 2018, 9:12 PM
Makid Makid is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,106
I think 200s will be a streetcar for part of it, to West Temple or 2nd East. The streetcar line will route northward to South Temple for its eastward route. The only unknown is still how it will connect at 2nd East and South Temple. The initial plan had it coming from 200s to West Temple, North to 1st South, East to 2nd East and then North.

I think that it would be faster and cheaper to avoid that many turns and just go straight on 2nd South to 2nd East, turn north to South Temple, turn east and head towards the U.

For the western edge, it would head South down 4th West to the Granary District 9th south terminus (currently planned). Trax is planned to share the 4th South portion of the of the line through 7th South as part of the Outer Loop.

Downtown Streetcar is in the 2023 to 2026 and granary extension is 2026 to 2030 time frame I think. The 4th South Trax extension is also around 2030.

The Salt Lake City transit master plan did look at moving the downtown transit location from 2nd south and State closer to 5th East but still on 2nd South. That would be a good starting point for the BRT lines shown. The routes could start at the Central Station and gather at the bus hub at 5th East. From there, they could fan Southward.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7875  
Old Posted Jul 6, 2018, 2:04 AM
Liberty Wellsian Liberty Wellsian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 810
Quote:
Originally Posted by Always Sunny in SLC View Post
I like this except it would seem to me that 200 South should be a streetcar.

Here are some reasons for it to be brt rather than streetcar

1 Shared stations for all those lines on 2nd would make the frequency DT almost on demand while creating a convenient and interconnected system

2 Cheaper. how many of those lines could be built brt for the same cost as a streetcar on just 200 s? If it is a choice between one streetcar line or multiple brt I take multiple brt

3 BRT would be much easier to extend

Lastly I'm not sure I'm sold on the streetcar thing to begin with. They can be great to spur development but they don't seem to be a very good transportation option.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7876  
Old Posted Jul 6, 2018, 7:06 AM
RC14's Avatar
RC14 RC14 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,143
^
I agree. I use to want a 200 South street car but now I am leaning more towards BRT.
I would still like to see a South temple street car and a Granary street car along 400 W connecting to Ballpark station and the current S line via the main TRAX line between 1300 and 2100 south. A south Temple line could share ROW with TRAX between SLC Central and Temple Square (at least in my mind.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7877  
Old Posted Jul 6, 2018, 6:46 PM
Always Sunny in SLC Always Sunny in SLC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 516
I am a big fan of BRT, but 200 South seems like it would be a local route than for commuters and if so a streetcar definitely spurs more developer interest. I think BRT is best for 7th East, Foothill, State Street, 3rd West and Redwood, but streetcars on 2nd South, 9th South and 13th South.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7878  
Old Posted Jul 6, 2018, 7:28 PM
Makid Makid is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Always Sunny in SLC View Post
I am a big fan of BRT, but 200 South seems like it would be a local route than for commuters and if so a streetcar definitely spurs more developer interest. I think BRT is best for 7th East, Foothill, State Street, 3rd West and Redwood, but streetcars on 2nd South, 9th South and 13th South.
I think that on 200 South, between 4th West and 2nd East, the streetcar should be running backwards (opposite to traffic). This is to allow standard buses to use the same ROW, stations, and also travel the opposite direction compared to traffic.

Okay, I know most people feel that streetcars belong in traffic, but with SLC streets being so wide, I think that for the downtown portion (700s along 400w to 200s then along 200s to 200e then along 200e to South Temple) this whole section should be separate from traffic. The 4th West portion to 7th South will be anyway since Trax will use this portion as well.

With the 200S portion being separate from traffic and preferably running in the center of the road (because it is safer for pedestrians per Trax EIS than having to cross the street to go opposite directions), buses could enter and exit the shared ROW at 4th West and 2nd East. There could be special queue entry and exit points for buses since they primarily start at the Central Station and will go to the planned 5th East Bus Hub and they will also be driving on the wrong side of the road.

This would allow for more lighted intersections (safer for pedestrians) like on Main and could allow for wider sidewalks and dropping travel lanes down to 1 travel lane in each direction through through 2nd East.

This would allow for the Downtown Streetcar (eventually can be connected to the U along South Temple and a Busway through Downtown to 2nd East. At most, I think this only would cost the removal of the left turn options on 200 S at either end of the dedicated ROW to allow for the entry and exit queues.

The cost of this versus the cost of the planned downtown streetcar is probably between $2 and $5 Million or roughly less than 3% of the estimated budget.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7879  
Old Posted Jul 6, 2018, 9:35 PM
Hatman's Avatar
Hatman Hatman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,434
These are all great thoughts. Here are some of my own:

1) There is literally zero reason to extend a streetcar along 200 South all the way to the University. If you're trying to get to the university from Central Station, you would not want a system that is programmed to make many stops along the way for the sake of 'encouraging development.' No, you'd want an express bus that goes straight there with no or minimal stops, like the 2X does currently. The University is a big enough trip generator to warrant this type of service, so 'encouraging development' with a streetcar is not needed.

2) Without a firm eastern terminus, the streetcar's usefulness diminishes for each block it extends eastward. The area between Central Station and Main Street are pretty good for a streetcar, but that's less than a mile in distance and that is a service already offered by TRAX two blocks to the north.

3) TRAX will have its own lines on both South Temple and 4th South by the time the streetcar gets built, duplicating its service two blocks away on both sides. It will be surrounded and have very low utility. Basically, if you're in the range between 100 South and 300 South, you get your own streetcar. Otherwise TRAX is closer and more convenient.

4) A streetcar can connect 200 South only to itself and Central Station, whereas a BRT line (or better, network) can connect 200 South to itself, Central Station, and all the rest of the Salt Lake Valley. If a map such as Liberty Wellsian's design is built, the main entrypoint for commuters into downtown SLC from 700 East, Holliday, and Union Park (etc) will be via 200 South. I think that will spur much more economic development than ripping up the streets for a short-range streetcar.

I am not against streetcars. I am very happy that we have TRAX running down our Main Street and I think we need to keep building out our rail system downtown - such as along 4th South and 4th West. But I don't think building trains in the streets should be an end-goal in itself. The question to ask is 'what is being connected?' TRAX runs on Main Street because that was the best way to connect downtown to the rest of the TRAX network, where trains act like trains by running at high speeds on their own ROW. If TRAX ran as fast everywhere as it did downtown, nobody would ride it. Main Street and the rest of TRAX's 'street running' are the exception, not the rule. For a streetcar, however, the slow-going of downtown is the rule, not the exception.

Let trains be trains, and let buses be buses. But where you can, treat the buses like trains.

Here are two screenshots from the google map of my proposed downtown improvements. Black is a bridge, in this case a bridge over the railroad tracks. Red are bus lanes, green are bike lanes, and white are stations.


The BRT line starts in the bus bays at Salt Lake Central Station. From there the buses enter 200 South on their own lanes (not via a slow bumpy driveway), since the road is elevated at that point to get over the FrontRunner/UP tracks. While TRAX is in the median, the bus lanes will take the outside lanes as their exclusive lanes, with protected bike lanes separating bus lanes from the single car lane in each direction.

Side stations at 500 West would be awesome.

At 400 West, the bus lanes will switch from the outside lanes to the median. Here bus signals will detect when a bus is present at a stop light and will let the bus have its own brief phase, allowing it to move ahead of cars. It will then cross the three lanes of traffic without needing to worry about cars, moving from the outside to the inside of the road (or visa versa).


From this point on, the buses would resemble TRAX or a Streetcar in every way except for being guided by tracks. Electric buses could be used to be smooth and quiet. Center platforms would make boarding fast and easy. A high frequency would be possible, especially if a network of fast bus lines is built down 700 East. And, when the bus lanes ended, the buses could keep going and run regular bus routes. You don't need dedicated bus lanes in order to make buses work, but you do need tracks to make a streetcar work.

But these are just my thoughts, and I enjoy reading everyone's opinions here. We have the opportunity to do something cool here, what with a mostly clean slate and lots of new money to work with.

Last edited by Hatman; Jul 6, 2018 at 9:43 PM. Reason: Clarity
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7880  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2018, 1:47 AM
Liberty Wellsian Liberty Wellsian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 810
Quote:
Originally Posted by RC14 View Post
^
I agree. I use to want a 200 South street car but now I am leaning more towards BRT.
I would still like to see a South temple street car and a Granary street car along 400 W connecting to Ballpark station and the current S line via the main TRAX line between 1300 and 2100 south. A south Temple line could share ROW with TRAX between SLC Central and Temple Square (at least in my mind.)
I wonder if brt would be better for S Temple as well. Multiple bus lines breaking off the trunk line and heading into the Avenues.
You would get higher frequency on S Temple and a greater transit coverage area. It could be done with the existing bus lines by upgrading the buses and adding dedicated row with platforms to S Temple. All of the benefits of a streetcar (and then some) minus the rail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Always Sunny in SLC View Post
I am a big fan of BRT, but 200 South seems like it would be a local route than for commuters and if so a streetcar definitely spurs more developer interest. I think BRT is best for 7th East, Foothill, State Street, 3rd West and Redwood, but streetcars on 2nd South, 9th South and 13th South.
I do like 900 S for a streetcar(one capable of running on the same rail as Trax on 200 w). I think there is a ton of development potential along 900 s and I don't think that 900 So. serves as a good line to cluster service. Further 5th, 6th, and 8th (not to mention half of 4th)are a substantial barrier between that area and the University Trax line. A Trax spur between central ninth and ninth and ninth is definitely on my wish list.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:14 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.