Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[Hatman]

It's not just trains jumping the tracks and hitting children either. The UVX line was supposed to get a stop by the BYU Creamery next to all the student housing on 9th East, and ridership projections shows this station would twice as busy as any other station on the line. For all the success of UVX it is amazing to think that we are still missing out on a lot of potential use because a station is missing.
Why wasn't it built? Neighborhood opposition. Officially people were worried that the dangerous undesirable people who use public transit would be made to wait for their bus in close proximity to the elementary school just down the street. This reason hurts my head for so many reasons, and I think it is quite clearly a knee-jerk answer that doesn't get to the root of the issue.
When people are opposed to a thing, they don't usually give the main reason of their opposition as their first answer. Either we aren't brave enough, honest enough, or (most likely) we don't really understand our internal reasoning ourselves. So we create layers of answers that must be peeled back to expose the true sticking points.

I think for the people in the tree streets one of the main issues was property values. Having a run-down beat-up horrible bus station filled with homeless transients near your house would obviously make your house lose some of its value, while even the most pristine bus stop with all the amenities and excellent service doesn't add all that much value. When things change in that neighborhood, the property owners stood more to lose than they did to gain, so of course there was opposition.

And would they even begin to articulate these concerns without sounding like selfish scrooges? "We don't want a bus stop because we will lose money on our houses!" So instead you get other reasons, like elementary school kids needing to see people waiting for a bus.

Thankfully things turned out better than than the tree-street people predicted. The bus stops are excellent, service is great, and the buses are free for everyone to use. I don't think a bus stop (when they eventually add one in as an in-fill station) will add value to the properties, but I don't think it will detract much from the values either.

I think eliminating transit fares will go a long way to eliminating transit opposition. The phrase 'I will never use it so why should I pay for it?' is often used for transit when it never is for even the farthest-flung road in the state, and I think that is because there is always the possibility that you could drive your car out there, and if you do it is free to do so. If people saw that they could ride the train for free there would be a lot less opposition to riding it and a lot less opposition to building more of it.

Makid, do you know what is the status of any free-transit bills in the legislature this year?

[Makid]

Originally Posted by Hatman

Makid, do you know what is the status of any free-transit bills in the legislature this year?

I know there are a few bills planned regarding transit.

1 deals exclusively with Trax to Utah County. The primary idea currently is to use extra general fund revenue to help pay for it. -As the SL County EIS is complete using the existing UTA Right of Way, they could begin work this year if funding is provided while waiting for the Utah County EIS to be completed.-

1 deals with directly adding a 0.10% to 0.25% sales tax in the UTA district to cover FrontRunner upgrades and Rail up LCC to Park City.

1 deals with the Governors clean air package to put funds towards severely reducing or eliminating transit fares along the Wasatch Front. By expanding the sales tax to cover additional services, this will increase money going to UTA that may cover the majority of providing free fares without an actual tax increase. Any reduction in the States Sales Tax percentage won't impact UTA's.

It is estimated that the expansion of the Sales Tax to cover additional services will bring in nearly $300 Million for the State annually. UTA would potentially bring in $35 to $45 Million annually with the additional coverage. This would be more than enough to provide free transit and either increasing transit coverage or reducing the overall debt.

There may be others but they aren't as fleshed out yet. With it being a non-election year, the Legislature is more apt to act directly for allocating funds and tax increases than they would be during an election year.

As time allows, I will try to keep an eye on the bills and post links and a summary if and when they are officially submitted.

[Hatman]

That is an amazing set of bills! Thanks Makid - what would we ever do without you?

[Hatman]

UTA’s Midvalley Connector To Reshape 4500 South Communities
http://www.murrayjournal.com/2019/01/29/...nector-to-reshape-4500-south-communities



Construction on this project could begin next year. I like this project. It uses bus lanes only in the most important places and makes good use of its 'iconic' stations with all the amenities of a BRT route without actually being a BRT.

That's right, this isn't a true BRT project. It's an 'Enhanced Bus' line (like the one I proposed between Sandy and Draper), because the exclusive lanes do not make up more than 50% of its route. I don't mind UTA calling it a BRT in order to differentiate it from other bus routes, but for planning purposes this is ought to be a good example of using side-streets where possible, signal priority where side streets are not possible, and exclusive lanes only where absolutely necessary.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Hatman

UTA’s Midvalley Connector To Reshape 4500 South Communities
http://www.murrayjournal.com/2019/01/29/...nector-to-reshape-4500-south-communities



Construction on this project could begin next year. I like this project. It uses bus lanes only in the most important places and makes good use of its 'iconic' stations with all the amenities of a BRT route without actually being a BRT.

That's right, this isn't a true BRT project. It's an 'Enhanced Bus' line (like the one I proposed between Sandy and Draper), because the exclusive lanes do not make up more than 50% of its route. I don't mind UTA calling it a BRT in order to differentiate it from other bus routes, but for planning purposes this is ought to be a good example of using side-streets where possible, signal priority where side streets are not possible, and exclusive lanes only where absolutely necessary.

Cool but they should take this opportunity to move the buses at Murray Central so that they are between Trax and Frontrunner. Currently there is parking there. I think we would end up with something that felt a lot more like a "Central Station".

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

Cool but they should take this opportunity to move the buses at Murray Central so that they are between Trax and Frontrunner. Currently there is parking there. I think we would end up with something that felt a lot more like a "Central Station".

I think they ought to widen the platforms here to put in concessions/restrooms, using the space between TRAX and Frontrunner to widen them.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Stenar

I think they ought to widen the platforms here to put in concessions/restrooms, using the space between TRAX and Frontrunner to widen them.

They certainly should. There is a lot of ground. Between the rail station platforms. There is plenty to both better integrate buses and provide leasable space between the platforms.

[Hatman]

Murray Central Station has so many possibilities. Here's my basic requirements:

1) Grade separate all rail lines from vine street. The road will go below the rail lines.
2) Grade separate the pedestrian access to each platform. The Lehi FrontRunner platform is an excellent station design, even if it could stand to be a bit wider. Have a long ramp go one way and have stairs (with bike ramps on the edges!) on the other. No elevators to maintain, but also no possibility of trains hitting pedestrians. This will be extremely important considering this is a massive transfer point.
3) A pedestrian plaza where all three modes - TRAX, FrontRunner, and Buses, are easily visible is preferable. There should not need to be wayfinding signs - things should be obviously visible.

Something like this:



Current, for reference:

[Hatman]

I rode FrontRunner to Provo again this last weekend for the first time since the schedule was changed for PTC reasons. I was very interested in how trains now pass each other at Murray, Draper, Lehi, and Vineyard. Previously it was 1700 South siding, South Jordan, Lehi, and Vineyard. The original intent of the system was to have trains pass at Murray, Draper, American Fork, and the double-track section between Provo and Orem.

As you can see, the way the line operates now has departed significantly from what the line was designed for. I can't speak for the north section, but I imagine it is suffering from a similar issue. Trains are being forced to pass each other at awkward locations that make the whole process slower than things were on opening day. Particularly aggravating are the two meets at Lehi and Draper, since that is just one station apart!

Double-tracking the line needs to begin in earnest. Here is how I think it should be rolled-out:

1. Orem-Vineyard-American Fork: 7.1 miles. This is the lowest-hanging fruit of them all. The bridge foundations are already in place, the ROW is already there, and this would eliminate the awkward meets at Vineyard. Once stopping at American Fork, trains could go all the way to Provo without any more interference from late trains. (A section of UP track about 1 mile long would need to be relocated to the east, but this would be easy to do since this line is so underutilized by UP.)
2. North Temple to Farmington, 11.5 miles. This section would eliminate the embarrassing meets at the Centerville Siding. While I-15 travels past the FrontRunner trains have to come to a complete stop to pass each other! What's worse, is that Northbound trains that have left Salt Lake on time are often made to wait for late Southbound trains, making everything late. Again, this is low-hanging fruit since there is space for a second track along this entire length, and this is one of the areas where FrontRunner really has a chance to sell itself by zooming past stopped cars.
3. Draper-South Jordan, 2.5 miles. A very easy section to double-track, with only one bridge required. Trains that used to have to wait at Draper could now proceed north to South Jordan, eliminating delays at Draper in both directions.
4. Farmington-Layton, 4.3 miles. A very easy section to double-track. Only 1 grade crossing and plenty of space available for a second track. More low-hanging fruit with very visible results, since this section is also beside I-15.
5. Lehi-Draper, 6.9 miles. UTA has the ROW available for a second track in this area, and the bridge over Bangerter Highway is ready to accept a second track. Much earthwork would be needed to make space for a second track, but there is also the possibility that UTA and the quarry could work together to eliminate the low-speed curves in the narrow areas. By cutting down the mountain in between (one side is already been excavated, so why not get rid of it?) UTA could cut out the 45 mph section completely by building a 1.2 mile straight section of track through where the hill once was. This would cut several minutes out of the total travel time and save much pollution and maintenance costs.
6. Clearfield-Roy, 6.5 miles. Room can be made for a second FrontRunner track here by relocating the Union Pacific tracks a little farther west. No other ROW changes would be needed.

All these sections of track add up to 38.8 miles of new track. 24.3 miles of single track would remain in the system. But by placing the second track in these areas, UTA would be able to run FrontRunner trains every 20 minutes. This is the difference between running 3 trains an hour, vs 2 trains an hour, or a 50% increase in service.
(In order to meet every train, TRAX would have to increase its service too, to every 10 minutes, or 6 trains an hour, vs 4 trains an hour, or also a 50% increase. Both increases are warranted, IMO, and without such increases in service ridership will probably remain flat.)

With 20 minute service achieved, UTA could then begin to work on the harder sections of double-track:

• Layton-Clearfield, 3.3 miles. Some new ROW will need to be purchased, but this is otherwise a short and easy section.
• American Fork-Lehi, 5.2 miles. This section will require a second bridge over the Mountain View Corridor and much ROW acquisition in Old Lehi, which will be pricey. A bridge or a trench through the area might be needed to eliminate all the grade crossings, which will be pricier but worth it.
• South Jordan-Murray Central, 6.3 miles. 1 whole mile of this section will be the Flyover Bridge at South Jordan, which will be super expensive to double-track since it was not designed for it. Other obstacles include the I-15/I-215 junction, which has several ramps and bridges severely constricting the rail ROW, and these will need to be rebuilt to provide more space. This will be quite expensive.
• Roy-Ogden, 3.0 miles. The Flyover bridge is ready for a second track, so this section will be easy to double-track.
• Murray Central-Salt Lake Central, 5.7 miles. This is arguably the hardest section of all to double-track (South Jordan to Murray being the other), since a key I-15 bridge will need to be completely rebuilt at 9th south. ROW will need to be purchased along most of the length of this section since UP cannot be relocated (there are rail yards in the way).
• Provo, 0.8 miles. ROW will need to be purchased and 3 crossings will need to be rebuilt.

That's my 2-phase approach. Get the 'easy stuff' done first, increase frequencies to 20 minutes, then work on the hard stuff as money becomes available. Once the line is fully double-tracked FrontRunner will finally become as reliable as TRAX, and only then does electrifying the line make sense.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Hatman

I rode FrontRunner to Provo again this last weekend for the first time since the schedule was changed for PTC reasons. I was very interested in how trains now pass each other at Murray, Draper, Lehi, and Vineyard. Previously it was 1700 South siding, South Jordan, Lehi, and Vineyard. The original intent of the system was to have trains pass at Murray, Draper, American Fork, and the double-track section between Provo and Orem.

As you can see, the way the line operates now has departed significantly from what the line was designed for. I can't speak for the north section, but I imagine it is suffering from a similar issue. Trains are being forced to pass each other at awkward locations that make the whole process slower than things were on opening day. Particularly aggravating are the two meets at Lehi and Draper, since that is just one station apart!

Double-tracking the line needs to begin in earnest. Here is how I think it should be rolled-out:

1. Orem-Vineyard-American Fork: 7.1 miles. This is the lowest-hanging fruit of them all. The bridge foundations are already in place, the ROW is already there, and this would eliminate the awkward meets at Vineyard. Once stopping at American Fork, trains could go all the way to Provo without any more interference from late trains. (A section of UP track about 1 mile long would need to be relocated to the east, but this would be easy to do since this line is so underutilized by UP.)
2. North Temple to Farmington, 11.5 miles. This section would eliminate the embarrassing meets at the Centerville Siding. While I-15 travels past the FrontRunner trains have to come to a complete stop to pass each other! What's worse, is that Northbound trains that have left Salt Lake on time are often made to wait for late Southbound trains, making everything late. Again, this is low-hanging fruit since there is space for a second track along this entire length, and this is one of the areas where FrontRunner really has a chance to sell itself by zooming past stopped cars.
3. Draper-South Jordan, 2.5 miles. A very easy section to double-track, with only one bridge required. Trains that used to have to wait at Draper could now proceed north to South Jordan, eliminating delays at Draper in both directions.
4. Farmington-Layton, 4.3 miles. A very easy section to double-track. Only 1 grade crossing and plenty of space available for a second track. More low-hanging fruit with very visible results, since this section is also beside I-15.
5. Lehi-Draper, 6.9 miles. UTA has the ROW available for a second track in this area, and the bridge over Bangerter Highway is ready to accept a second track. Much earthwork would be needed to make space for a second track, but there is also the possibility that UTA and the quarry could work together to eliminate the low-speed curves in the narrow areas. By cutting down the mountain in between (one side is already been excavated, so why not get rid of it?) UTA could cut out the 45 mph section completely by building a 1.2 mile straight section of track through where the hill once was. This would cut several minutes out of the total travel time and save much pollution and maintenance costs.
6. Clearfield-Roy, 6.5 miles. Room can be made for a second FrontRunner track here by relocating the Union Pacific tracks a little farther west. No other ROW changes would be needed.

All these sections of track add up to 38.8 miles of new track. 24.3 miles of single track would remain in the system. But by placing the second track in these areas, UTA would be able to run FrontRunner trains every 20 minutes. This is the difference between running 3 trains an hour, vs 2 trains an hour, or a 50% increase in service.
(In order to meet every train, TRAX would have to increase its service too, to every 10 minutes, or 6 trains an hour, vs 4 trains an hour, or also a 50% increase. Both increases are warranted, IMO, and without such increases in service ridership will probably remain flat.)

With 20 minute service achieved, UTA could then begin to work on the harder sections of double-track:

• Layton-Clearfield, 3.3 miles. Some new ROW will need to be purchased, but this is otherwise a short and easy section.
• American Fork-Lehi, 5.2 miles. This section will require a second bridge over the Mountain View Corridor and much ROW acquisition in Old Lehi, which will be pricey. A bridge or a trench through the area might be needed to eliminate all the grade crossings, which will be pricier but worth it.
• South Jordan-Murray Central, 6.3 miles. 1 whole mile of this section will be the Flyover Bridge at South Jordan, which will be super expensive to double-track since it was not designed for it. Other obstacles include the I-15/I-215 junction, which has several ramps and bridges severely constricting the rail ROW, and these will need to be rebuilt to provide more space. This will be quite expensive.
• Roy-Ogden, 3.0 miles. The Flyover bridge is ready for a second track, so this section will be easy to double-track.
• Murray Central-Salt Lake Central, 5.7 miles. This is arguably the hardest section of all to double-track (South Jordan to Murray being the other), since a key I-15 bridge will need to be completely rebuilt at 9th south. ROW will need to be purchased along most of the length of this section since UP cannot be relocated (there are rail yards in the way).
• Provo, 0.8 miles. ROW will need to be purchased and 3 crossings will need to be rebuilt.

That's my 2-phase approach. Get the 'easy stuff' done first, increase frequencies to 20 minutes, then work on the hard stuff as money becomes available. Once the line is fully double-tracked FrontRunner will finally become as reliable as TRAX, and only then does electrifying the line make sense.

Awesome breakdown!

But...

I don't like the do the easy/cheap stuff first approach. That's a good way to end up with a subpar system that never reaches its potential.

The Lehi section in particular is only going to get more expensive. Let's order this project with the assumption that eventually the whole thing should be completed. So which sections can we afford to wait(low hanging fruit) and which ones will become much more expensive later(row purchases, bridges, etc)

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Originally Posted by Hatman

Murray Central Station has so many possibilities. Here's my basic requirements:

1) Grade separate all rail lines from vine street. The road will go below the rail lines.
2) Grade separate the pedestrian access to each platform. The Lehi FrontRunner platform is an excellent station design, even if it could stand to be a bit wider. Have a long ramp go one way and have stairs (with bike ramps on the edges!) on the other. No elevators to maintain, but also no possibility of trains hitting pedestrians. This will be extremely important considering this is a massive transfer point.
3) A pedestrian plaza where all three modes - TRAX, FrontRunner, and Buses, are easily visible is preferable. There should not need to be wayfinding signs - things should be obviously visible.

Something like this:



Current, for reference:

http://www.murrayjournal.com/2018/11/29/...tation-to-become-a-grand-central-station

This article discuss some of the planned development around this station. I agree that this station has tons of potential. This quote from the article is disconcerting though.

"Landmark presented two visions of the station, each incorporating a total buildings footprint of approximately 150,000 square feet. A third of that space will be devoted to parking, while other buildings will mainly be office space with a mix of retail and services. I am concerned with increasing density in that area. The residents of west Vine already feel that there is enough density. Also, I don’t believe that Vine Street can handle all the additional traffic that the plan would bring,” expressed Brass."

[Hatman]

Speaking of development around FrontRunner stations...

Provo council gets first look at housing plan at FrontRunner station
https://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/c...e5573df-3f63-5b6a-8aaf-4b47bcdac490.html

Just a concept, but it looks pretty neat:


I cannot wait for the day when parking becomes a complete non-concern, with frequent driverless busses, autonomous cars and other 'micro-mobility' devices (electric bikes and scooters) taking care of that demand. I hope people will look back at pictures of our day and just be astonished at all the dumb cars laying around useless all the time, taking up valuable space that could have been used for other things. Building dense urban structures near train stations should be a no-brainer, but it is made much more difficult than it should be because you have to also build a huge expensive parking garage to replace the capacity of the parking lot that just got built over. It is continually amazing to me how the Driver's Culture we live in makes trains and transit more difficult in every single way.

[StevenF]

Originally Posted by Hatman

Speaking of development around FrontRunner stations...

Provo council gets first look at housing plan at FrontRunner station
https://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/c...e5573df-3f63-5b6a-8aaf-4b47bcdac490.html

Just a concept, but it looks pretty neat:


I cannot wait for the day when parking becomes a complete non-concern, with frequent driverless busses, autonomous cars and other 'micro-mobility' devices (electric bikes and scooters) taking care of that demand. I hope people will look back at pictures of our day and just be astonished at all the dumb cars laying around useless all the time, taking up valuable space that could have been used for other things. Building dense urban structures near train stations should be a no-brainer, but it is made much more difficult than it should be because you have to also build a huge expensive parking garage to replace the capacity of the parking lot that just got built over. It is continually amazing to me how the Driver's Culture we live in makes trains and transit more difficult in every single way.

I see all of the parking garages being built and just think of what it will be used for in 10-15 years. Also, how many cities will continue requiring these structures even after level 4 and 5 autonomy with cars become normal?

[i-215]

Originally Posted by StevenF

I see all of the parking garages being built and just think of what it will be used for in 10-15 years. Also, how many cities will continue requiring these structures even after level 4 and 5 autonomy with cars become normal?

Autonomy will take longer than people expect. There's the old saying: "The last 10% is 90% of the work." We'll have very advanced cruise control and passive safety systems very soon. Full autonomy in mixed traffic is still decades out.

That aside, if new parking structures use flat decks (as opposed to inclining wrap around ones), they can be converted to occupiable space in the future.

[bob rulz]

I agree with i-215. I think all of these predictions of a fully autonomous future only 10-15 years out are unrealistically optimistic.

That's not to say I in any way agree that parking regulations are good as is. We could do with a lot less parking in most places. I just don't think this future is as close as some believe.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

I agree with i-215. I think all of these predictions of a fully autonomous future only 10-15 years out are unrealistically optimistic.

That's not to say I in any way agree that parking regulations are good as is. We could do with a lot less parking in most places. I just don't think this future is as close as some believe.

I think full autonomy will come within 5 years, but a "fully autonomous future" will take 20-25 years, because that's how long it will take to get a critical mass of autonomous cars on the roads.

[Hatman]

Good points, all. It is good to differentiate between when the technology is technically possible and when the technology actually begins to affect societal decisions.

What I am most interested in is when will city planners and zoning laws start to scrap parking minimums based on the future promise of autonomy? If it's 2025 and there are already a small fraction of cars that can make their way from some sort of storage garage on the edge of town all the way to your apartment building, does that mean that we can not only not require parking lots at the site of residence structures? Will some minimum number of stalls still be required? Or can we even start charging extra fees for parking stalls in a design as a sort of disincentive?

To be succinct, at what point can we (or should we) assume that parking is so assuredly on its way out that we can start to act on that assumption?

As a person who uses my bicycle as much as possible, this is the question that interests me much more than when I can catch an autonomous taxi.

[Wasatch Wasteland]

It's nice to see the real-world results of Herriman and Riverton preserving the future ROW for TRAX and its stations. The first photo of the newly built 4-lane 13200 S has an island identical in proportions to downtown TRAX stations, as well as the center median to support TRAX (with shared left turn lanes). The ROW through the Herriman town center has been neatly preserved, and land adjacent to Autumn Crest Blvd is being preserved for a spur line to the new SLCC campus. It would seem they have their heart set on TRAX vs BRT, this forward planning should enable faster construction and lower costs (with the exception of 12600 S through Riverton) as opposed to other light rail projects without prior existing rail corridors.

Herriman Master Plan, note the proposed TRAX lines (have since been altered slightly):

13200 S:

Herriman Town Center

Autumn Crest Blvd:

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Hatman

Speaking of development around FrontRunner stations...

Provo council gets first look at housing plan at FrontRunner station
https://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/c...e5573df-3f63-5b6a-8aaf-4b47bcdac490.html

Just a concept, but it looks pretty neat:


I cannot wait for the day when parking becomes a complete non-concern, with frequent driverless busses, autonomous cars and other 'micro-mobility' devices (electric bikes and scooters) taking care of that demand. I hope people will look back at pictures of our day and just be astonished at all the dumb cars laying around useless all the time, taking up valuable space that could have been used for other things. Building dense urban structures near train stations should be a no-brainer, but it is made much more difficult than it should be because you have to also build a huge expensive parking garage to replace the capacity of the parking lot that just got built over. It is continually amazing to me how the Driver's Culture we live in makes trains and transit more difficult in every single way.

Parking garages are nothing when compared to driveways, regular garages, and on street parking(as opposed to linear gardens, bike lanes, wide sidewalks etc.) We so often focus on large projects on relatively small plots of land at the expense of focusing on huge swaths of our environment that are being misused to much larger consequence.

Parking garages do not trouble me that much. At least they are vertical. Strip malls, seas of homes with 2 car garages with 20 foot by 20 foot drives, acres and acres of side yards that are used for nothing other than depleting our reservoirs is so so sooooooo much bigger bur since the irrational is common we accept it as normal, defacto, acceptable. If we spent half the energy examining the everyday project as we do "larger" projects our city environment and our daily lives would be radically improved.

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Originally Posted by Stenar

I think full autonomy will come within 5 years, but a "fully autonomous future" will take 20-25 years, because that's how long it will take to get a critical mass of autonomous cars on the roads.

I think one of the reasons you get such diverse opinions on when autonomous cars arrive is because many people are answer different questions, but it isn't always apparent. You have on one end of the spectrum Elon Musk who clearly thinks it is this year or next. Then on the other end you have one of the first engineers that worked on Google's self driving tech and now runs his own company (Aurora), Chris Urmson, who said decades, "if ever". As you look into it they are answering different questions. If the question is when will level 4 autonomy arrive that will allow car fleets in predetermined urban areas to be used as "horseless carriages", but will have a human back up somewhere in the cloud to take over as needed, then I think that is about 5 years away. You need better graphics cards, mature 5G wireless rollout with low latency, much more data fed into the neural networks and then the usual software and human infrastructure. Also, the perennial wild card of government regulations and approval.

If the question is when will we get a car that can drive anywhere and under any conditions in a way that is superior to humans, than I think the answer is in the distance future and maybe never. I think this depends on if general AI can be developed which is a big question.