Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[Atlas]

Originally Posted by locolife

No, not I have seen

Did you see Transit4Utah's post?

[i-215]

Originally Posted by Transit4Utah

While there is talk of expanding rail infrastructure, here is a sneak peak at something in the works. Eagle eyed transit enthusiasts might recognize what this means. Much more to come soon... shhh...

LIGHT RAIL ONTO THE SOUTH BELT!
LIGHT RAIL ONTO THE SOUTH BELT!
LIGHT RAIL ONTO THE SOUTH BELT!

I'm all for it, but... why?

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by i-215

I'm all for it, but... why?

Not to spoil anyone's surprise, but my guess is that this (hypothetical) TRAX extension in the I-215 ROW would serve two purposes:

1) There are several adjacent population centers, such as Fashion Place, Ft Union, & Cottonwood Heights that merit better transit connections

2) This line would presumably terminate close to the mouth of Big Cottonwood Canyon, where there would be an easy transfer to shuttle buses into both Cottonwood Canyons. I've thought for a long time that the quarry just north of Big Cottonwood Canyon would make an excellent park-and-ride, for visitors to the canyons to leave their vehicles and transfer to the shuttle buses, sort of like the visitor center at Zion National Park. It would make sense to extend TRAX to this transfer point/visitor center, so that the canyons would have a direct link to downtown (and the airport).

I suppose you could also extend the tracks up into the canyons eventually; there is no technical reason why a standard-gauge cog train from the Cottonwood Canyons couldn't continue operating down this new TRAX line into downtown. I question how popular such a service would be without some sort of express track, since the ride from Main Street to Fashion Place already takes over half an hour, and from Fashion Place to the top of one of the canyons would take at least another hour... I mean, I would certainly ride it, but I don't know how many others would agree that it is a good investment - at least at this time.

I'm still very curious to hear more on this project! Is it a student project? A passion project? Some secret UDOT planning doc? Probably not the last one, but it does look really professional. I am impressed.

[locolife]

Originally Posted by Atlas

Did you see Transit4Utah's post?

Yes, if you're asking if anything is official as in funded and moving ahead, I still believe that answer is no. But there's talk of it and some studies getting going.

[Hatman]

Salt Lake City is getting serious about closing Main Street to cars:
https://www.abc4.com/news/wasatch-front/...pedestrian-only-main-street-in-downtown/

This would obviously have some major implications for TRAX, which has 2 stations on this section of Main Street.

The bad implications are that speeds downtown are probably going to have to get even slower, depending on how well TRAX is separated from pedestrians. Some sort of fence is probably not allowed, at least for long stretches, because it would obstruct emergency access to TRAX vehicles. Perhaps curbs and bollards can be used, but even then I think TRAX will have to drop its max speed from 25 mph to 15 like the S-Line, or even 10. The Main Street section already has the slowest average speed on the network, including the S-Line, and slowing trains even further will make through trips (such as U of U to the airport) even longer.
Speaking of the U of U/airport line, there may be new scheduling issues if new restrictions are added on how many trains per hour UTA is allowed to run down Main Street. But on the other hand, with fewer cars to share space with at the 4th South interlocking, it may become easier to schedule a new line. I understand that UTA wants to run this line down 400 South, and though I do support that extension for a downtown circulator route, I think Main Street needs the direct connection to the U more than 4th South does.

On the positive side, having more pedestrian-oriented development and business on the TRAX corridor will be excellent for ridership. I think it would be cool if more platforms were built at the two stations, so that trains could open all their doors and passengers could exit directly onto the plaza.

Ultimately I am definitely in favor of this concept, I only hope that consideration is given to transit functionality and not just pedestrian and visual features.

[Atlas]

There's a lot of transit information in this article but this was new information to me:

Lawmakers approved roughly $2 billion in transportation spending, with the bulk of that going to highway projects but a significant cut directed at commuter rail and the buildout of a statewide trails network.

A $200 million line item will pay for the construction of a new FrontRunner station near the former State Prison site in Draper—set to become a so-called "15-minute" community where cars are not required for daily needs—and the ongoing double-tracking of the FrontRunner line.

Some other FrontRunner quotes:

Over 2022 and now 2023, the state has directed more than $500 million toward the double-tracking of FrontRunner, which could be completed in 2029 if the state is awarded matching grant funding from the federal government. And John Gleason, spokesman for the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) said that "complete" refers to when trains would be able to run on a 15-minute frequency during peak hours, instead of the 30- and even 60-minute intervals currently in use.

"We're about 25% double-tracked right now and this would take it to 50% double-tracked in those strategic locations," Gleason said.

"The way FrontRunner currently operates, I don't get on it, I wouldn't get on it," Schultz said. "But you start talking about [moving] 150 mph and getting from Ogden to Salt Lake in 10 minutes and Provo to Salt Lake in 10 minutes, 15 minutes, that's what's going to get people on FrontRunner."

Free fare talk:

But a proposal by Gov. Spencer Cox to fund free transit fares for a year was dead on arrival, made all the more glaring by 2022's Free Fare February experiment being reduced in 2023 to only a 10-day stretch that coincided with the NBA All-Star Game.

Cox argued that removing the cost of transit fares would help families struggling with inflation and the high costs of gasoline, help to clean up the state's poor air quality and, potentially, help to reduce the need for perpetual highway expansion.

"We need to get more people off of the roads and onto transit, and there sometimes needs to be some incentives for people to change behavior," Cox said. "We saw it during Free Fare February last year—a significant increase in ridership. If we could do that for a year, we could change behavior, potentially, and get people used to transit for a longer period of time."

Schultz, the House majority leader, is a vocal critic of free transit fares. But he agreed with the need for transit to be more competitive with the private automobile.

And about the gondola:

The Legislature also appropriated $150 million for transportation in the Cottonwood canyons, which will kick off Phase 1 of what will eventually become the controversial gondola to Alta and Snowbird. Schultz said that money will fund the construction of the planned "intermodal hub" at the mouth of the canyon—an artful UDOT phrase that means, in essence, a park-and-ride garage—to serve the "enhanced busing" that will run up to the ski resorts until the gondola is built.

Schultz said he would prefer to build a train up Little Cottonwood instead of a gondola, and joked that "we can't have good things because of environmentalists." A canyon "ski train" was considered—it would better allow for additional stops beyond the ski resorts and would make car-free skiing considerably more practical—but wasn't pursued due, in part, to objections over the assumed need for road widening in some recreationally and environmentally sensitive locations.

"Sooner or later the gondola has to happen; buses aren't going to solve the problem," Schultz said. "The goal, long-term, is to be able to get off of a plane at the airport and get to skiing and never have to get in a car."

[airhero]

Wait are we talking another Frontrunner station in Draper or relocating the existing one? Also 200 million? What kind of station is this? Are they planning on rerouting the line?

About the comment of getting to Ogden or Provo from SLC in ten minutes…what? I think that person is confused. That would require speeds much greater than 150 mph, state of the art maglev lines without other stops. Double tracking plus electrification could accomplish trips around 40 minutes with stops but that’s probably the best we could do.

[Atlas]

Originally Posted by airhero

Wait are we talking another Frontrunner station in Draper or relocating the existing one? Also 200 million? What kind of station is this? Are they planning on rerouting the line?

About the comment of getting to Ogden or Provo from SLC in ten minutes…what? I think that person is confused. That would require speeds much greater than 150 mph, state of the art maglev lines without other stops. Double tracking plus electrification could accomplish trips around 40 minutes with stops but that’s probably the best we could do.

That sentence is a bit confusingly written. I think it means $200 million for the new station and double tracking. But the idea of a prison site FR station is new to me and I have no idea what they have in mind. Simply adding another station seems counterproductive if we care about travel times.

Ten minutes from Ogden to SLC is a bit optimistic lol

[Utahn]

Big funding news today on the transit front. Alongside the federal budget announcement today, the Federal Transit Administration recommended grants to nine new transit capital projects. Among the number were grants for Frontrunner Strategic Double Track and the Midvalley Connector BRT. Both are funded out of the infrastructure bill passed in 2021.

FTA Announcement:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/about/news/b...dvancing-eighteen-major-transit-projects

In Utah, the Utah Department of Transportation FrontRunner Strategic Double Track project will include double-tracking sections of the current FrontRunner system, and purchasing 10 new train sets, increasing capacity. ($316.8 million)

In Utah, the Utah Transit Authority Midvalley Connector Bus Rapid Transit project will build 1.4 miles of dedicated bus lanes and serve residents across Salt Lake City, including students at Salt Lake Community College. ($54.7 million)

That's almost the full amount requested for the Midvalley Connector project. Only half of the requested amount for the Frontrunner Doubletrack project was recommended, but it could very receive funds in subsequent years. Adding the map from the Frontrunne submission!

Frontrunner Project Submission:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.do...-Double-Track-Project-Profile-FY24_0.pdf

Midvalley Connector Project Submission:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.do...lley-Connector-Project-Profile-Oct22.pdf

[Paniolo Man]

As I understand it they want to flip the tracks to the other side of Warm Springs to let them take trains through the north yard faster.

When I talked to a fellow from UDOT he explained that the modeling behind this plan is being done by Deutsche Bahn so hopefully they can actually achieve the frequency they are aiming for.

[downtownslcresident]

Edit: problem solved

[downtownslcresident]

Originally Posted by Transit4Utah

While there is talk of expanding rail infrastructure, here is a sneak peak at something in the works. Eagle eyed transit enthusiasts might recognize what this means. Much more to come soon... shhh...

The time is perfect to create a "Frontlines 2034" initiative, combining the various current (yet unrelated) transit initiatives under study into a single proposal/funding mechanism. For example, The Rio Grande, Frontrunner Doubletrack/Electrification, Point of the Mountain Transit, the Central Corridor Transit in Utah County, The Cottonwood Canyons Project, 4th South Trax/U of U research park branch, S-Line to Brickyard, etc. Use the Olympics as a catalyst for expediting construction, and attaining a large chunk of federal funding.

Where can I get more information or see more of these plans?

[Hatman]

All this new money for Frontrunner is really exciting! Despite my differences in philosophy on how the expansion should be handled, I will definitely enjoy 15 minute frequencies and a realignment at Warm Springs- and the 10 new train sets is super exciting news!

If I could float a sort of 'far out' idea...What if UTA purchased Stadler Flirt DMU's? The floor height range is exactly the same as the bilevel cars, the diesel engines are smaller and quieter, and the acceleration is faster due to the lighter construction.

If you couple 2 TexRail Flirt DMUs together, you get a train that is 532 feet long, seats 450 passengers (or over 900 with standees), and can hit 90 mph, which is what Frontrunner tracks are built to withstand (the bilevel trains just can't accelerate fast enough to make it worthwhile).

This way, UTA could run 15 minute service all day, but uncouple one train set during off-peak hours, like they used to do with TRAX (and I'm sure they'll go back to that old practice once this operating experiment is done...).

Frontrunner platforms are already designed to be expanded to be 800 feet long. If you needed to couple 3 DMU's together for an event train, it is 798 feet long, and could seat 680 passengers (or 1,300+ with standees).

The TexRail units cost about $12.5 million each, and were built right here in Utah, meaning that money helps grow the economy here. A Siemens Charger locomotive costs around $7 million each, and the bilevel cars cost around $3.5 million each, for a total of $17.5 million per 3 car trainset, which cannot be easily expanded for rush hour service, cannot hit the higher speeds, and is not built in Utah like Stadler.

Seriously, what am I missing here?

[Paniolo Man]

Originally Posted by Hatman

All this new money for Frontrunner is really exciting! Despite my differences in philosophy on how the expansion should be handled, I will definitely enjoy 15 minute frequencies and a realignment at Warm Springs- and the 10 new train sets is super exciting news!

If I could float a sort of 'far out' idea...What if UTA purchased Stadler Flirt DMU's? The floor height range is exactly the same as the bilevel cars, the diesel engines are smaller and quieter, and the acceleration is faster due to the lighter construction.

If you couple 2 TexRail Flirt DMUs together, you get a train that is 532 feet long, seats 450 passengers (or over 900 with standees), and can hit 90 mph, which is what Frontrunner tracks are built to withstand (the bilevel trains just can't accelerate fast enough to make it worthwhile).

This way, UTA could run 15 minute service all day, but uncouple one train set during off-peak hours, like they used to do with TRAX (and I'm sure they'll go back to that old practice once this operating experiment is done...).

Frontrunner platforms are already designed to be expanded to be 800 feet long. If you needed to couple 3 DMU's together for an event train, it is 798 feet long, and could seat 680 passengers (or 1,300+ with standees).

The TexRail units cost about $12.5 million each, and were built right here in Utah, meaning that money helps grow the economy here. A Siemens Charger locomotive costs around $7 million each, and the bilevel cars cost around $3.5 million each, for a total of $17.5 million per 3 car trainset, which cannot be easily expanded for rush hour service, cannot hit the higher speeds, and is not built in Utah like Stadler.

Seriously, what am I missing here?

I think they'd do better waiting 10-15 years until they implement full electrification at which point they could buy Stadler KISS EMUs or something like them. In the mean time they'd probably stick with what they have to avoid replacing the entire fleet. They could even save money by buying second-hand refurbished locomotives like Amtrak's P42s or a freight conversion like Metra has done. I would like to see shiny new equipment as much as the next guy, but refurbished stuff with a finite lifespan may accelerate full electrification.

I think FLIRTS would be perfect for statewide service. Imagine if a short spur were made through the Pacificorp property from the existing TRAX Green Line to the UPRR Lyndyll Subdivision, you could operate a Dual-Mode FLIRT from the Airport to the Rio Grande and down to Moab with no transfers. Dual-mode FLIRTS could operate on Trax and electrified Frontrunner without pollution and switch to diesel on the remote stretches of the route. Similar implementation could be used for a Logan-St. George line. Diesel from Logan to Brigham/Ogden, electric down the Frontrunner Corridor, Diesel from Payson to St. George.

However it goes, I can't wait until UTA/UDOT orders something from Stadler. With them accelerating the retirements of the SD units on TRAX that may come sooner rather than later.

[Paniolo Man]

Looks like Stadler is planning to host a facility open house on June 24th. They will probably post a page to sign up sometime in the coming months. Seems like a great opportunity to be a massive nerd and learn more about what they have to offer.

[Hatman]

Frankly, your mention of dual-mode FLIRTs just made me like the idea even more!

Apparently, the FLIRT DEMU design is easily upgradable; the folks in Ottawa, who purchased the same design as TexRail, say their diesel units can be upgraded to electric catenary in the future:

• Video Link

I think it is important to look at what Frontrunner is becoming, and how the public actually uses it. To be honest, Frontrunner was never really a commuter rail line, not by the typical USA conventions. It had its own track, it ran all day, and it's ridership was much more diverse than the typical 9-5 crowd. The only time Frontrunner was a typical commuter train was between Ogden and Pleasantview, which proved to be more trouble than it was worth.

Currently, I would classify it as a regional rail line.

Some serious changes are in the works. UTA keeps adding infill stations, some planned like Vineyard and Draper, and others not originally planned, like North Temple, the Point, Ogden Business Park, and Centerville. These extra stops, plus the doubling of frequency to 15 minutes, fundamentally change the nature of the operation.

Using old beater diesel locomotives and long distance bilevel cars for what Frontrunner is morphing into would be kind of like using a semi truck as an Amazon delivery van. There are better tools for the job.

I think we can all agree on that point. The ultimate goal is fast, lightweight, electric trains designed for high frequency. The question is how do we get there most quickly?

This whole 'strategic double track' initiative proves to me that the decision makers at UTA and in the legislature don't care about the fundamentals - only results. By doubling the amount of trains on a line that is still mostly single track, they are doubling the potential for 1 of the twenty trains to throw everything off schedule. Don't be surprised when reliability plummets, and people start to lose trust in UTA all over again. Ultimately, taxpayers will spend more money upgrading the line multiple times (putting in switches in odd places and then tearing them out a few years later) than if they had just set the goal of full double track from the beginning.

But I accept that this strategy is based on the politics of the situation. It is what it is.

But do we think that the politics of the situation will change when it comes time to electrify the line? If we could not get one large project to double track the line in a single effort, what are the chances we will get full electrification and a complete fleet replacement all at once?

Basically, I don't think electrification is feasible to do all at once in the political environment. Switching to stadler equipment all at once is probably also infeasible. Our legislature works in many small strokes, which can be frustrating in some respects, but it also is a very stable way to govern. We need to update our strategy accordingly.

Let's say UTA does buy stadler DEMU FLIRTs for expansion. For the next few years, UTA would run both old and new equipment, just the way they do on TRAX. Through additional grants and funding allocations, UTA could continue to buy more Stadler equipment (which would be popular since it would be helping a local Utah business). The current Frontrunner locomotives and cars could sell for a decent price to other commuter rail lines, further offsetting the cost of new equipment.
Finally, after the entire fleet has been replaced, UTA can start a project of "Strategic Electrification," where short sections of track will get catenary- and hopefully full double track if it doesn't have it already.
The best part about 'Strategic Electrification' would be that all the Stadler equipment will be ready to go electric already - just add pantographs! No new expensive fleet replacement would be needed, because it already happened back when the fleet was small enough to do it in small, manageable chunks.

And of course, there will have been other benefits too, such as 15 minute service all day, longer service hours, and even Sunday service, since the FLIRTs are so much cheaper to operate than locomotives and coaches.

I'm still struggling to see any downsides to this approach.

[Paniolo Man]

Originally Posted by Hatman

Frankly, your mention of dual-mode FLIRTs just made me like the idea even more!

Apparently, the FLIRT DEMU design is easily upgradable; the folks in Ottawa, who purchased the same design as TexRail, say their diesel units can be upgraded to electric catenary in the future:



I think it is important to look at what Frontrunner is becoming, and how the public actually uses it. To be honest, Frontrunner was never really a commuter rail line, not by the typical USA conventions. It had its own track, it ran all day, and it's ridership was much more diverse than the typical 9-5 crowd. The only time Frontrunner was a typical commuter train was between Ogden and Pleasantview, which proved to be more trouble than it was worth.

Currently, I would clarify it as a regional rail line.

Some serious changes are in the works. UTA keeps adding infill stations, some planned like Vineyard and Draper, and others not originally planned, like North Temple, the Point, Ogden Business Park, and Centerville. These extra stops, plus the doubling of frequency to 15 minutes, fundamentally change the nature of the operation.

Using old beater diesel locomotives and long distance bilevel cars for what Frontrunner is morphing into would be kind of like using a semi truck as an Amazon delivery van. There are better tools for the job.

I think we can all agree on that point. The ultimate goal is fast, lightweight, electric trains designed for high frequency. The question is how do we get there most quickly?

This whole 'strategic double track' initiative proves to me that the decision makers at UTA and in the legislature don't care about the fundamentals - only results. By doubling the amount of trains on a line that is still mostly single track, they are doubling the potential for 1 of the twenty trains to throw everything off schedule. Don't be surprised when reliability plummets, and people start to lose trust in UTA all over again. Ultimately, taxpayers will spend more money upgrading the line multiple times (putting in switches in odd places and then tearing them out a few years later) than if they had just set the goal of full double track from the beginning.

But I accept that this strategy is based on the politics of the situation. It is what it is.

But do we think that the politics of the situation will change when it comes time to electrify the line? If we could not get one large project to double track the line in a single effort, what are the chances we will get full electrification and a complete fleet replacement all at once?

Basically, I don't think electrification is feasible to do all at once in the political environment. Switching to stadler equipment all at once is probably also infeasible. Our legislature works in many small strokes, which can be frustrating in some respects, but it also is a very stable way to govern. We need to update our strategy accordingly.

Let's say UTA does buy stadler DEMU FLIRTs for expansion. For the next few years, UTA would run both old and new equipment, just the way they do on TRAX. Through additional grants and funding allocations, UTA could continue to buy more Stadler equipment (which would be popular since it would be helping a local Utah business). The current Frontrunner locomotives and cars could sell for a decent price to other commuter rail lines, further offsetting the cost of new equipment.
Finally, after the entire fleet has been replaced, UTA can start a project of "Strategic Electrification," where short sections of track will get catenary- and hopefully full double track if it doesn't have it already.
The best part about 'Strategic Electrification' would be that all the Stadler equipment was be ready to go electric already - just add pantographs! No new expensive fleet replacement would be needed, because it already happened back when the fleet was small enough to do it in small, manageable chunks.

And of course, there has been other benefits too, such as 15 minute service all day, longer service hours, and even Sunday service, since the FLIRTs are so much cheaper to operate than locomotives and coaches.

I'm still struggling to see any downsides to this approach.

Here's an idea:

What if they purchased FLIRTS for Frontrunner Forward. Down the road they could replace the existing Frontrunner fleet with more FLIRTS and reconfigure the Bilevels with comfier seating and more bike/luggage space for use on statewide service to Moab, Logan, and St. George.

This way statewide trains could be configured to better suit seasonal capacity. Obviously they'd want new locomotives as the MP36 locomotives based on the dated F40 platform are underperforming in regards to reliability. Someone like Metra would still buy them secondhand.

They could also just sell off the existing fleet and go all Stadler, I wouldn't be entirely opposed.


In other speculation, I'd really like to see Stadler expand their facility to manufacture carbodies, as I understand that would be a significant factor in their ability to get the lucrative Amtrak LD contract. Their schedule says they'll triple the size of their campus by 2029 so they better get moving.

[Paniolo Man]

Transit4Utah's post and lack of subsequent information had me crack open UTA's original alternatives assessment. UDOT will hopefully complete their alternatives assessment sometime this month. What mostly got my attention in the shared image was the bit of text attached to the station platform stating:

INTERLINED WITH EXISTING BLUE LINE PLATFORMS SOUTH TO SANDY CIVIC CENTER STATION/P.O.M WEST LRT SEGMENT INTERCHANGE

When UTA did their analysis "Western LRT" referred to this:



What's notable here is the fact that this LRT alignment would require the creation of a new TRAX line whereas the "Eastern Alignment" saw the extension and reconvergence of the existing Red and Blue lines. If the shared plan is actually part of the analysis that gets me thinking: "If they create a new line, it wouldn't be able to run on the trunk line due to congestion." IIRC that was one of the original reasons this alternative was abandoned in UTA's analysis.

What if the South Belt LRT is an alternative to running a new route up the Trunk Line? I whipped up a couple quick maps in ArcGIS Pro to show the two routes I would be interested in seeing.



The Canyons/Gondola Alignment would be the shorter, cheaper option, it would connect to the base of the non-controversial gondola. Personally, I believe this to be the most likely to happen.

The University of Utah Alignment would be quite the undertaking, and for that I believe it to be unlikely. Though if it were built that would offer a solution to the Trunk Line overcrowding, a new line from Lehi to The U via P.O.M. This route would also bring LRT to Millcreek.

I know I'm being aspirational, this is all just speculation.

[i-215]

There are a LOT of communities in this state fighting to get transit to their city. And that's a great place to be.

It's time for the Devil's Bargain: If the taxpayers of Utah subsidize a major capital expansion of TRAX, cities must forfeit density zoning restrictions within walking distance of planned stations.

No land use change, no TRAX stop in their town. Period.

[downtownslcresident]

Originally Posted by Paniolo Man

Transit4Utah's post and lack of subsequent information had me crack open UTA's original alternatives assessment. UDOT will hopefully complete their alternatives assessment sometime this month. What mostly got my attention in the shared image was the bit of text attached to the station platform stating:


When UTA did their analysis "Western LRT" referred to this:



What's notable here is the fact that this LRT alignment would require the creation of a new TRAX line whereas the "Eastern Alignment" saw the extension and reconvergence of the existing Red and Blue lines. If the shared plan is actually part of the analysis that gets me thinking: "If they create a new line, it wouldn't be able to run on the trunk line due to congestion." IIRC that was one of the original reasons this alternative was abandoned in UTA's analysis.

What if the South Belt LRT is an alternative to running a new route up the Trunk Line? I whipped up a couple quick maps in ArcGIS Pro to show the two routes I would be interested in seeing.



The Canyons/Gondola Alignment would be the shorter cheaper option, it would connect to the base of the non-controversial gondola. Personally, I believe this to be the most likely to happen.

The University of Utah Alignment would be quite the undertaking, and for that I believe it to be unlikely. Though if it were built that would offer a solution to the Trunk Line overcrowding, a new line from Lehi to The U via P.O.M. This route would also bring LRT to Millcreek.

I know I'm being aspirational, this is all just speculation.

This is fascinating, and I really wonder if you could be onto something here.
I agree that the canyons alignment is the most likely short term, but perhaps the university alignment could still happen as its own line…the ever elusive black line we have always wanted to see. Direct from the airport, to the university via downtown, then on to research park, and from there along Foothill and Wasatch to terminate at the canyons, along with the existing terminus of the new line to lehi via 215 and the prison site.

It accomplishes soooo many of the goals that have been theorized over the years! Direct airport to university service, direct airport to canyons service, new east side line, potentially new service to research park, and new tracks into the city center without using the main trunk line. with rio grande, it could also use the 4th south alignment.

We could literally check off ALL of these proposed plans over the years with these two lines.

Do I wish the lehi line still used the Draper ROW? Yes. But I can get over it if we can manage to make this whole plan come to fruition.