Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[Paniolo Man]

Here is some more information on the different Charger variants.

Metro North (NGEC Meeting)


Amtrak DM (Service and Asset Line Plan)


Amtrak Battery (Service and Asset Line Plan)

[Hatman]

Very good information. Thank you!

I agree, it's very strange that Amtrak is opting for an auxiliary car with a Pantagraph and powered truck (can it even be called a car at that point, rather than a B unit?) while for Metro North, Siemens is able to pack everything into one package. All I can think is that Amtrak wants only one type of locomotive to maintain and so that locomotives can be swapped between trainsets.

(Also, not to get too foamer on everyone, but I think an auxiliary battery car with traction motors would be ideal for steam trains, such as when Union Pacific runs their heritage fleet on tours. Ditch the diesel locomotive that they usually haul along to provide extra braking, and let the battery car convert that kinetic energy into charged batteries for future HEP or whatever. That use would be ideal. Running on battery power when the 3rd rail is available is very silly.)

I don't know what internal modifications are needed to convert a standard diesel Charger to a dual-power locomotive, or how those changes differ from 3rd rail to catenary, but I suspect it would be easier to upgrade a locomotive that was intended to be upgraded. Again, I really wish there were long term plans in place so that short term improvements wouldn't (potentially) preclude long-term improvements.

Then again, with the fancy electronics already standard in the Charger, perhaps it really could be as simple as installing a Pantagraph and an extra electronics cabinet. If so, there is plenty of space on the roof, near the back. If this bump in height could be kept low enough to match the height of a standard bilevel car, it wouldn't even look out of place, especially compared to the silly faring thing they installed on the Surfliner Chargers in California.

But now I'm just rambling. Even standard diesel Charger locomotives, or any Tier-4 locomotive, would be an improvement over what we've got now (and would all be compatible with the Rio Grande Plan train box). It's fun to dream, but we don't need to make the Good Enough become the enemy of the Better.

[Makid]

Got an email from UTA about their Future of Light Rail study:

https://stories.opengov.com/utahtransita...?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

Help us finalize the plan for future Light Rail improvements

There is a study currently underway to help prepare for the future of light rail and recommend a plan for needed enhancements in the years to come. UTA's light rail network is a key component of the region's transportation system. Building on its success, the system must adapt to growth and evolving travel patterns in the area, to maintain and improve upon its role in the overall transportation network. The team has been working to develop a final future scenario that best meets the needs and priorities of the region. We're almost there, but want to hear from the public again to understand the priorities for investment to make future Light Rail improvements.

Visit rideuta.com/FOLR for more information.
Considering Priorities

A. Extend TRAX to University of Utah's Research Park, on the new Orange Line
B. Offer all night service on the new Orange Line from downtown to the Salt Lake International Airport
C. Offer all night service on the new Orange Line from downtown to the University of Utah
D. Reroute the Blue Line to the Salt Lake International Airport and the Green Line to Salt Lake Central
E. Direct service from the University of Utah to Research Park
F. Direct service from the University of Utah to Salt Lake Central
G. Route the Red Line along 400 West to 900 South, to service SLC's Granary District

It does appear that the Black Line is gone and the Orange Line has replaced it.

I do like the focus on all night service (nearly 24 hour) between the Airport and the University. I think it would be great to have Trax service running nearly 24/7 through downtown. This would move SLC into a nice group of Cities that have nearly 24/7 rail service. With a future downtown loop, having 2 lines run 24/7 would be amazing for a City our size.

The Blue Line was already one of the longest LRT lines, this reroute would push it further. Imagine an extension of the Blue Line into Utah County, one could do a single seat ride from say American Fork to the Airport. The Blue Line reroute also does make more sense from a potential ridership perspective anyway. WVC to the Airport never made much sense for riders. Draper/Sandy to the Airport can help reduce traffic while also providing a real public service.

[Atlas]

Thanks for sharing, Makid. Here was my comment that I submitted to the UTA study:

I would like to see all of these priorities implemented at some level along with Sunday FrontRunner service. The new Orange line from the U to the airport via SL Central seems like an excellent idea, particularly with the all-night service. Perhaps phase I of the Orange line could be the 400S extension and service between University Medical and the airport (interlined with Red in the eastern portion) with phase II being an extension/diversion to Research Park. Or, if the funding is there, do it all at once. If direct service between the U and Research Park is part of the vision, Orange should probably split from Red at Mario Capecchi and not farther west.

Re-routing Blue doesn't make as much sense to me considering it's largely parallel to the FrontRunner. Destinations farther afield, such as South Jordan/Sandy or Lehi, already have time-comparable airport service with a single transfer to Green at North Temple. Speaking of Lehi, I think extending Blue to Lehi (as promised years ago) should be pretty high on the priority list too.

Regardless of which line goes through the Granary District (Red seems like a smart choice), there is a golden opportunity to run rails along 400 W that should be prioritized. The area is booming and is underserved by transit, resulting in some truly massive parking structures in development. Stops at 550 S (between the urban freeways) and 850 S (Fleet Block) would be absolutely catalytic for TOD in the area.

I also can't help but think that the entire network would be better centralized at the Rio Grande Depot (as in the Rio Grande Plan!), with the rails continuing straight south after the Gateway station and across 400 S with a stop at Pioneer Park. A Pioneer Park TRAX station would only be half of a block away from the Rio Grande Depot, where FrontRunner and Amtrak would stop underground. Greektown and SL Central could be repurposed for an eventual 200 S streetcar line. Please consider the underground train box idea seriously! It would be absolutely transformative for SLC!

[Paniolo Man]

Full KSL article here.

Looks like the deal between SLC and Boise to seek restoration of the Pioneer is getting pretty serious. I assume that if Amtrak ever does decide to restore this segment Oregon will get on board and they'll take it at least to Portland. I do think the idea of running Desert Wind and Pioneer as one route seems like a good idea. The article also mentions the possibility of a link to Moab, something we have all wanted for ages. UTA is a part of these discussions, probably not by choice.

More info to be released next month.

[Paniolo Man]

Could Amtrak return to Boise? Idaho leaders want rail service to Salt Lake City, Seattle - Idaho Statesman

Boise may lure Amtrak back – with a lot of help from Salt Lake City
- Boise State Public Radio

Both articles have very interesting info. I assume if they just go through with the Boise - Pocatello - SLC route they would need equipment and a place to maintain it. I wonder if the article from last week mentioning UTA being in on this has anything to do with that. UTA has lots of wiggle room at Warm Springs, Regional Amtrak service could benefit from a consolidated shop shared with Frontrunner. New equipment would be needed if it was ran as a National Network train because Amtrak does not have enough cars. Since the Superliners entered service they've lost between 50 and 80 to accidents and irreparable wear, they cancelled a Zephyr last week for a lack of equipment, they have been reducing the cars on trains despite record demand. Amtrak wouldn't have equipment available until they have a Superliner replacement ready in 5-10 years. Even with a complete restoration of Pioneer and Desert wind they would likely want space for maintenance in SLC, Warm Springs is an ideal place for that.

We can base equipment for a train to Moab there as well!

[Atlas]

Very cool. Looks like Boise has a nice little historic train station that they can utilize for this revived line to SLC.

Now if only SLC had one of those to use for the same purpose...

[Paniolo Man]

I know I'm a little late with this, but here is the actual letter.

[Hatman]

It's amateur hour on the You-Tubes! Did you know they'll let anyone post videos on their site?

So anyway, we made 2 videos about the Rio Grande Plan. The first is a short (2 minutes) overview meant to introduce the public to the concept: https://youtu.be/XYUH1d-2WLM
• Video Link

The second is a more comprehensive look at what the plan means for Salt Lake City: https://youtu.be/Xz0V1XCmRKc
• Video Link

Thank you to everyone who provided feedback during the editing process. Now it's time to share and enjoy! Please post these to whatever social media net you are a part of, and help spread the word to the public. You have my full blessing to reformat or clip the videos to whatever suits this purpose.

There are so many reasons to be hopeful about this plan. Nearly every who has come in contact with it has had only good things to say. Now it's time to get the public on board and put pressure on the state legislature to fund a study,at least.
Also, keep watch for an in-person supporters event sometime this fall. No firm plans yet, but where there is a will, there is a way!

[Rileybo]

Hatman, sir.
Neat videos. Thanks for sharing. *cheers*

Downtown Salt Lake’s current transit situation breaks my heart. How alienating everything is to both visitors and residents alike… yeesh. From our past and current leaders, I expect nothing more and nothing less than what the city currently has. It’s beautiful really, when you think about it. In a “so bad it’s good” kinda way. There’s just enough logic in your thinking to make me skeptical of anything meaningful coming to fruition. Don’t take that the wrong way. I’d like to be proven wrong.

I don’t check this particular thread often, so if I need extra context or just need to be put in my place, please help.

[Hatman]

I'm glad you liked the video! I agree, the downtown situation could be a lot better - and that is the aim of the plan. Better transit and road connections (because more than just cars use the roads!) are absolutely critical to keep downtown growing. You sound skeptical that planners and leaders can be led by logic, and you may have a point. But I will point out that we are really lucky to have had visionary leadership to help build out the TRAX network - which is by far the best LRT network for a medium-tier city like ours - and the FrontRunner commuter rail line - which is one of the very, very few commuter trains that runs on its own tracks! That is an incredible achievement on its own, and to have our system currently in the top 10 commute rail systems in the country, beating out the likes of Dallas, Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis, and others is one of the things that motivates me in pursuing this Rio Grande plan. I'm not acting from a place of distain; hopefully my love for SLC transit as it currently exists was able to shine through in the video. Someday the forces of development will force the next steps of growth - I just want to make sure there is plan in place so that the next steps are the best ones.

[Hatman]

Another thing:

Did anybody else realize that in this latest 'change day,' UTA axed the MAX line to Magna? I rode the 35 bus the other day and was please to see that it still uses the median bus lanes, complete with the platforms in the middle of the street, but beyond that 1 mile section there is no other priority or express features. The fare machines have been completely removed.
I am still holding out hope that the future Taylorsville 'BRT' line between WVC and Murray Central can somehow be extended to Magna, so that once again there can be some express service - but that might have to wait for a 'phase 2' of that line.

On the one hand, I am pretty bummed that UTA seems to be giving up on the 'MAX' branding for its BRT lines (MAX and TRAX just go so well together, as does UVX and OGX!). But on the other hand, I am sort of happy that a regular bus route gets to use the special bus lanes and platforms. Hopefully this goes to show that bus lanes and platforms can be built for other bus routes in congested areas, no expensive and long-delayed BRT branding necessary!

Lastly, UDOT is still taking comments for the future Bangerter interchange at 3500 South. I've contacted them to let them know I want the bus lanes extended at least through the interchange, and if you'd like to let them know that as well, here is the link: https://udot.utah.gov/bangerter4100tocalifornia/#/

[Paniolo Man]

Originally Posted by Hatman

I am pretty bummed that UTA seems to be giving up on the 'MAX' branding for its BRT lines (MAX and TRAX just go so well together, as does UVX and OGX!). But on the other hand, I am sort of happy that a regular bus route gets to use the special bus lanes and platforms. Hopefully this goes to show that bus lanes and platforms can be built for other bus routes in congested areas, no expensive and long-delayed BRT branding necessary!

I know they sold a lot of the buses with the MAX branding. Saw one on a private lot in Provo all wrapped in black, MAX branding still visible underneath. Extremely unfortunate.

[i-215]

Pardon my French, but the whole 3500 project was a s***show.

At first it was supposed to be a TOTAL rebuild of 3500 from U-111 to Redwood. Likely with either LRT or legit BRT in the middle for the entire route. But then they lost out of a federal grant they anticipated, so they cheapened the crap out of it. The dedicated lanes were one mile. There was no signal timing adjustments to give the bus priority. There was no coordination with the future TRAX station across from Valley Fair Mall, so the bus ended up going in a wacky route that was very indirect.

The 35M project was an ABJECT FAILURE. The sort of incompetence that other communities wouldn't tolerate — one that would lead to hearings on Utah's Capitol Hill. But it's West Valley. The dumping ground for Utah's problems. So, on top of already having to live in West Valley and battle poverty and be dependent on transit, we got this crappy excuse for BRT instead of real transit.

But it's not over...

5600 West was supposed to get LRT as part of the Mountain View project. But now it's been chopped down below BRT to just an "enhanced bus." MAX strikes again!

I may not live in Utah anymore, but I'm tired as hell of Utah's second-largest city getting third-rate transit. It's so wrong! (But hey, rich people in Draper get LRT they never use --- hooray!)

[Makid]

Originally Posted by i-215

5600 West was supposed to get LRT as part of the Mountain View project. But now it's been chopped down below BRT to just an "enhanced bus." MAX strikes again!

I may not live in Utah anymore, but I'm tired as hell of Utah's second-largest city getting third-rate transit. It's so wrong! (But hey, rich people in Draper get LRT they never use --- hooray!)

I just wanted to say that this is actually the fault of WVC. The City themselves advised UTA and UDoT that they didn't want to widen the 3500 South 5600 West intersection any more to accommodate either LRT or BRT. This was because the WVC City Manager felt that it was better to keep the current businesses at the intersection than possibly lose them due to a widened intersection.

He also though that due to the location, the chances of any redevelopment are so low that the City would actually lose revenue by having better transit. He also helped to kill better transit along 3500 South west of Bangerter.

From his perspective though, he can be seen as being right. Just look at the lack of developments along the current Green Line. WVC has seen the lowest rate of development along Trax than any other City. WVC has tried to attract development along the Trax line to really no avail.

Now though, if the City Manager would look out more than 5 or 10 years, they would see massive potential at the 3500 S 5600 W intersection. The City could buy up land and properties via their RDA and assist with developments via some minor incentives.

With the U building a medical campus just south of the intersection, the area is primed for redevelopment. It just needs better transit access and a City with vision.

I do think that UDoT and the WFRC will have to step in as the agreement with the Feds requires a separated BRT line in place shortly after MVC meets I-80. It also requires the BRT to be upgraded to LRT by the time MVC is a full freeway from I-80 to approximately 135th South. This agreement takes precedent over what WVC may want or how they feel.

I just think it would be cheaper in the long run to do LRT now than go through the phasing and later costs. It would encourage better developments along the corridor, which would help increase revenue for the various cities along the 5600 west corridor. Besides, $1 Billion today always sounds better than $5-10 Billion later (depending on phasing time frames).

[Paniolo Man]

UTA has published an auction for the Comet Cars. . Bids start at 100 bucks each. UTA's website says to "see Frontrunner Forward" about future plans. They haven't got any actual public info on Frontrunner Forward on their website aside from a test page. Hopefully this means they will publish info soon.

[Jbash]

Originally Posted by Paniolo Man

UTA has published an auction for the Comet Cars. . Bids start at 100 bucks each. UTA's website says to "see Frontrunner Forward" about future plans. They haven't got any actual public info on Frontrunner Forward on their website aside from a test page. Hopefully this means they will publish info soon.

I'm seriously considering putting down a bid, the auction has been active for several hours and nobody has bid past a hundred lol

[Paniolo Man]

Originally Posted by Jbash

I'm seriously considering putting down a bid, the auction has been active for several hours and nobody has bid past a hundred lol

If you get one, I'll pitch 20 bucks to figuring out where the hell you are going to put it.

[Paniolo Man]

My biggest takeaway here is that we could stop all the silly advertising and it wouldn't cost UTA all that much.

[Paniolo Man]

This article covers a lot of topics.

It's good to see Cox getting pestered to look into the Rio Grande Plan, I just wish there was a way to get him to watch the great video Hatman made. I'm thrilled this is getting publicity before the legislative session, having the state on board is vital.

On another note, he damn better be serious about this.