Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[joscar]

A few news items:

UTA held the groundbreaking (today) for the rehabilitation of the old locomotive shop across the tracks from Salt Lake Central. It will house the Depot District Clean Fuels Technology Center. https://www.facebook.com/RideUTA/posts/2349869488375818

The Timpanogos Transit Center at the mall in Orem is up for sale: https://www.rideuta.com/-/media/Files/Do...mber/OREM_TRANSFER_FACT-SHEET.ashx?la=en

Vineyard City signed an agreement with Union Pacific, so the Provo Industrial Lead track along Geneva Road is definitely going to be removed. The city is now looking for the funding. This means if TRAX runs through the area it will have to share the UP/FrontRunner rail corridor. Dumb, but hey I guess the city council gets their Walmart now! http://www.vineyard.utah.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_09262018-476

[asies1981]

More on the UTA facility.

[RC14]

Originally Posted by Hatman

Given the money and the space I'm sure we could make something like that work.

Right now I think UDOT is focusing more on expansion rather than improvements - ie, building new MVC miles and connections. The only urban grade separation I've heard of was State Street - University Parkway in Orem, but as far as I know that got dropped after a study said it would cost far too much.

I think it would also be worthwhile to include the Timpanogos Highway Commuter Lanes in this discussion, since it is basically this exact idea (using grade-separations to turn a street into a freeway-like corridor), only in a more rural area. If the geometry of that road could be tightened up for a more urban setting I think we would get a good idea of what Sunny's idea would look like if built today.

I remember attending one of the meetings for public input about the WVC city center project, circa 2003, that eventually became Fairbourne station. At the meeting I heard a proposal to construct an intersection at 2700 w and 3650 s that I thought was called an "urban diamond" (could be mistaken). My understanding was that this design would have through traffic on 2700 W travel below grade on the outer lanes and the the middle lanes would continue at grade and connect to a roundabout at the intersection of 3650.
I thought it was an interesting idea but obviously it never materialized.

[Makid]

Just going back to the E/W movement of traffic in the SL Valley a bit.

Originally, there was supposed to be an E/W connector around 6200 South. It would have been connected to I-215 and had an interchange with Bangerter Highway. The current UDoT property there (just east of Bangerter and North of 6200 South) is in the process of being sold for a possible commercial development.

This E/W connection would have been the extent at this location for an E/W highway due to the Airport #2 location. It was ultimately scrapped due to delays with Bangerter Highway funding which caused the possible ROW's to fill in with homes, businesses and schools.

UDoT had brought up a second option of a stacked highway over 6200 South in the mid to late 90's to over the same route and limit the number of homes and businesses that would need to be removed. This was rejected due to possible pollution concerns from the schools near the proposed alignment.

This ultimately ended the ability for UDoT to have another E/W highway connection north of the Bangerter Highway / I-15 interchange. There they have the ability to eventually connect and extend a connector between Bangerter Highway to Mountain View completing another full E/W highway connection in the SL valley outside of I-80 and the 201.

UDoT however is working on improving intersections along Bangerter Highway before moving onto Mountain Views Intersections and working with UTA to improve transit connections in areas north of 70th South.

UDoT's longer range plans are to work with UTA and add BRT lines with possible fly over bridges on State roads. They are also looking at adding carpool lanes next to the BRT lanes that would be included in the fly over bridges. These fly over bridges would go over intersections allowing those taking the BRT lines or in the carpool lanes to avoid the intersections. BRT lines are expected to be added to State Street, Redwood Road, 5600 West, and 5400 South.

The fly over bridges are discussed in the 2050 UTA/UDoT plan but are only mentioned as being included on a few streets (State Street and Redwood Road) and all the fly over intersections are south of 30th South. They are also in the High Expense model.

[Liberty Wellsian]

I believe in left hand turn tunnels, especially for freeway on ramps or where two lane left hand turns are needed for capacity(no stop means 2 lanes can be one).

[Hatman]

Current conditions at the 9th south Exit:


Proposal:


Sorry for the idiot-level quality of my paint skills. I don't have much time.

What if...
1) The freeway ramps were relocated to 5th West as part of an urban reunification effort/revitalization of 5th West?

2) A new 'shortcut' route for TRAX was created in the old curve of the freeway. This would allow trains to run faster into downtown. I calculated the radius of such a curve at 380 feet, rather than the 110 feet of the hard right-hand turns TRAX makes on 700 South. This means trains could run at about 20 mph, vs the 5 on current corners.

This would allow for TRAX to extended two blocks farther south along Main Street, allowing the creation of a "800 South and Main" station.

The current line up to 700 South would be extended to 400 South (and join the future 400 South line between Main Street and Salt Lake Central), so that University-bound trains could be expedited by making only 1 hard-right turn, as opposed to the current 2 rights and 1 left.

The 700 South line could be used as a circulator route.

An east-west line along 900 South could be created as a sort of streetcar line, running from the Jordan River Parkway to Liberty Park, or even to 9th/9th and up to 400 South, creating another loop.

Why not go totally nuts?!?

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Hatman

Current conditions at the 9th south Exit:


Proposal:


Sorry for the idiot-level quality of my paint skills. I don't have much time.

What if...
1) The freeway ramps were relocated to 5th West as part of an urban reunification effort/revitalization of 5th West?

2) A new 'shortcut' route for TRAX was created in the old curve of the freeway. This would allow trains to run faster into downtown. I calculated the radius of such a curve at 380 feet, rather than the 110 feet of the hard right-hand turns TRAX makes on 700 South. This means trains could run at about 20 mph, vs the 5 on current corners.

This would allow for TRAX to extended two blocks farther south along Main Street, allowing the creation of a "800 South and Main" station.

The current line up to 700 South would be extended to 400 South (and join the future 400 South line between Main Street and Salt Lake Central), so that University-bound trains could be expedited by making only 1 hard-right turn, as opposed to the current 2 rights and 1 left.

The 700 South line could be used as a circulator route.

An east-west line along 900 South could be created as a sort of streetcar line, running from the Jordan River Parkway to Liberty Park, or even to 9th/9th and up to 400 South, creating another loop.

Why not go totally nuts?!?

This is exactly what I want to see happen

TOD at Indiana and about 1400 west (Glendale core)
Central ninth has the infrastructure to become a tech center
The line down Indiana can eventually be extended to the inland port/new warehouse district to get labor where it is needed

[i-215]

I've seen a number of proposals for the 900 South viaduct (on this thread), and this is the first one that made me blurt out "okay, that could work."

Really my only gripe is that traffic on 500 W dead-ends at the 6th S viaduct (existing problem). Perhaps it could connect to 400 W instead? Oh, I see there is light rail on that street -- nevermind

Overall, I could live with this. Cheers, man.

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Originally Posted by i-215

I've seen a number of proposals for the 900 South viaduct (on this thread), and this is the first one that made me blurt out "okay, that could work."

Really my only gripe is that traffic on 500 W dead-ends at the 6th S viaduct (existing problem). Perhaps it could connect to 400 W instead? Oh, I see there is light rail on that street -- nevermind

Overall, I could live with this. Cheers, man.

I agree this is a nice compromise where road access is maintained but doesn’t make the neighborhood suffer. In fact this would improve the neighborhood and pedestrian experience.

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by i-215

[T]raffic on 500 W dead-ends at the 6th S viaduct (existing problem).

As far as I can tell from Google Streetview, traffic along 500 W is blocked by temporary Jersey barriers, and that the permanent structure ties in with the road surface just before the intersection. This arrangement works great for the current levels of traffic - so not a problem. But it looks to me like it is future-proofed so that the intersection could be fully signalized at a future date.
I have no idea how this would impact the traffic along the viaduct and exit ramps. I think they ought to be long enough to allow sight distances and traffic queues, but I'm not sure.

You're gonna have to second-check my assumptions, as I'm not strictly a roadway guy.

[StevenF]

The flex lanes are active again on 54th as of last week.

[i-215]

Originally Posted by Hatman

As far as I can tell from Google Streetview, traffic along 500 W is blocked by temporary Jersey barriers, and that the permanent structure ties in with the road surface just before the intersection.

You are correct.

Yeah, signalizing that shouldn't be a problem. I guess I never noticed it was already at grade (at 5th West) because I'm usually flying about 55 miles per hour down the viaduct trying to get a green at 4th.

That would really spur on development along that area with TRAX on 4th and a new freeway-connected road on 5th. That said, I'm not sure about how I feel about TRAX crossing at-grade at 5th and 6th (that close to the freeways). Maybe TRAX could go subgrade for that block?

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Hatman

Current conditions at the 9th south Exit:


Proposal:


Sorry for the idiot-level quality of my paint skills. I don't have much time.

What if...
1) The freeway ramps were relocated to 5th West as part of an urban reunification effort/revitalization of 5th West?

2) A new 'shortcut' route for TRAX was created in the old curve of the freeway. This would allow trains to run faster into downtown. I calculated the radius of such a curve at 380 feet, rather than the 110 feet of the hard right-hand turns TRAX makes on 700 South. This means trains could run at about 20 mph, vs the 5 on current corners.

This would allow for TRAX to extended two blocks farther south along Main Street, allowing the creation of a "800 South and Main" station.

The current line up to 700 South would be extended to 400 South (and join the future 400 South line between Main Street and Salt Lake Central), so that University-bound trains could be expedited by making only 1 hard-right turn, as opposed to the current 2 rights and 1 left.

The 700 South line could be used as a circulator route.

An east-west line along 900 South could be created as a sort of streetcar line, running from the Jordan River Parkway to Liberty Park, or even to 9th/9th and up to 400 South, creating another loop.

Why not go totally nuts?!?

My dream for that Viaduct has been to use part of it for a proper Olympic Park. Put the Hoberman arch there and the cauldron and rename the neighborhood Olympic Park.

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by i-215

I'm not sure about how I feel about TRAX crossing at-grade at 5th and 6th (that close to the freeways). Maybe TRAX could go subgrade for that block?

Yeah, or maybe the road should go subgrade for those blocks.

Here's a case where Salt Lake City's huge blocks (meaning long distances between intersections) and wide streets could be put to a nice advantage. What if the through-lanes of 500 and 600 South could be below-grade for major intersections? This would clear up the intersections and make it better for pedestrians on the surface.

I'm thinking of going subgrade at 400 West, and then having a longer section for Main and State Streets. TRAX could go subgrade under State Street on 400 South.

Let's assume a road cross-section similar to the ramps at the western ends of 5th and 6th souths. These have 6-foot shoulders on each side and 4' for barriers/walls.

600 South at 4th West has 5 through lanes and 2 turn lanes. This makes the road over 90' wide, making for a scary cross walk. But what if we put the through-lanes underground? You'd have 2 12' crosswalks and a large landscaped median under the traffic lanes. The width of the median would be 75' (5 lanes *11 feet + 2 shoulders *6 feet + 2 walls/barriers *4 feet). At every other location I listed, there are only 4 through lanes, so the median width would be 66 feet wide.

In every case this makes the road wider, ie, the existing grassy park strips would be narrowed by a few feet, but in every case there would be a significant amount of green added to the center of the road, where the center through-lanes would be placed essentially underground in short cut-and-cover tunnels. It would look something like this:



And here is an idiot-level pain schematic of the main/state street underpasses:


As you can see, I've placed a roof over the trenched road so that we could create parks and green space where there used to be only roads.

I like the big landscaped median that can be produced when the center 4 lanes go underground. I like how we get two short crosswalks rather than one nasty one. I like how cross-traffic no longer stops TRAX trains on 400 S, 400 West, and on Main Street. And I like how State Street (and its future BRT line!) is similarly decongested.

This would likely be expensive, but not unprecedented. Here are some real-world examples:
https://www.google.com/search?q=narrow+u...ZBuC_AQ9C96BAgBEBs#imgrc=-TKzxJG16SczZM:


I think it is worth putting on the long-term calendar. What do y'all think?

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

My dream for that Viaduct has been to use part of it for a proper Olympic Park. Put the Hoberman arch there and the cauldron and rename the neighborhood Olympic Park.

I love this idea. Did this area have any Olympic connections? Even if no, we still need to create an 'Olympic Park', and the newly vacant freeway ramp area is as good a location as any.

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Hatman, your post is exactly what was trying to talk about several pages back about making many of the East-West roads like this to improve traffic flow since we don’t have much in the way of freeways going E-W. That picture is what I was looking for. Glad to see there is precedence for it. FYI, love your idea.

[Old&New]

[Hatman]

That is a nifty bit of routing down by the 9th south exit, Old&New. Very clever.

Originally Posted by Always Sunny in SLC

Hatman, your post is exactly what was trying to talk about several pages back about making many of the East-West roads like this to improve traffic flow since we don’t have much in the way of freeways going E-W. That picture is what I was looking for. Glad to see there is precedence for it. FYI, love your idea.

Yeah, you certainly got me thinking about grade-separations. That's why I come to forums like this - to mix and match and iterate on ideas to keep them fresh. I'm glad that there are so many others who do the same.

In the news:
Utah Transit Authority marks commuter-rail ridership record
https://www.progressiverailroading.com/p...ks-commuter-rail-ridership-record--56071

Ridership on the Utah Transit Authority's (UTA) FrontRunner commuter-rail system in September reached an all-time high of 21,800 boardings each weekday.

The figure bested the previous record set in September 2017, when the agency logged 19,155 boardings each weekday.

Total September ridership this year was 464,505 boardings, up from 433,137 in the same month last year.

"September is typically a high-ridership month for UTA, as students return to school and riders use public transit to access heavily attended events," including college football games and the Utah State Fair, UTA officials said in a press release.

This year's ridership also was affected by the opening of the UVX bus rapid transit line and a new partnership with Brigham Young University and Utah Valley University. The UVX line, which opened in August, provides service to Provo and Orem FrontRunner stations, college campuses, local businesses and medical centers.

[i-215]

Originally Posted by Hatman

Yeah, or maybe the road should go subgrade for those blocks.

I like your line of thinking!

The TRAX line belongs. The pedestrians belong. The local traffic belongs.

So move the higher-speed through traffic under the intersection. Excellent!

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Hatman

Yeah, or maybe the road should go subgrade for those blocks.

Here's a case where Salt Lake City's huge blocks (meaning long distances between intersections) and wide streets could be put to a nice advantage. What if the through-lanes of 500 and 600 South could be below-grade for major intersections? This would clear up the intersections and make it better for pedestrians on the surface.

I'm thinking of going subgrade at 400 West, and then having a longer section for Main and State Streets. TRAX could go subgrade under State Street on 400 South.

Let's assume a road cross-section similar to the ramps at the western ends of 5th and 6th souths. These have 6-foot shoulders on each side and 4' for barriers/walls.

600 South at 4th West has 5 through lanes and 2 turn lanes. This makes the road over 90' wide, making for a scary cross walk. But what if we put the through-lanes underground? You'd have 2 12' crosswalks and a large landscaped median under the traffic lanes. The width of the median would be 75' (5 lanes *11 feet + 2 shoulders *6 feet + 2 walls/barriers *4 feet). At every other location I listed, there are only 4 through lanes, so the median width would be 66 feet wide.

In every case this makes the road wider, ie, the existing grassy park strips would be narrowed by a few feet, but in every case there would be a significant amount of green added to the center of the road, where the center through-lanes would be placed essentially underground in short cut-and-cover tunnels. It would look something like this:



And here is an idiot-level pain schematic of the main/state street underpasses:


As you can see, I've placed a roof over the trenched road so that we could create parks and green space where there used to be only roads.

I like the big landscaped median that can be produced when the center 4 lanes go underground. I like how we get two short crosswalks rather than one nasty one. I like how cross-traffic no longer stops TRAX trains on 400 S, 400 West, and on Main Street. And I like how State Street (and its future BRT line!) is similarly decongested.

This would likely be expensive, but not unprecedented. Here are some real-world examples:
https://www.google.com/search?q=narrow+u...ZBuC_AQ9C96BAgBEBs#imgrc=-TKzxJG16SczZM:


I think it is worth putting on the long-term calendar. What do y'all think?

Yep again.

5th and 6th should be going subgrade piecemeal with the goal of eventually having completely subgrade lanes from I-15 to 700 E .

As far as the roof it doesn't even have to be a green strip (I prefer it wasn't). Throw an acual roof over it with some architectural appeal. Hell even lease the space, recoup some costs while creating a vibrant Avenue.