Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[Wasatch Wasteland]

Originally Posted by Hatman

In other news, UTA has also returned all the unused comet cars back to the beck street yard. They had been at Warm Springs yard with the chance that they were being repaired in order to add a second comet car to FrontRunner consists, but now it appears that goal is dead. Whatever UTA decides to do to increase FrontRunner capacity, it for now does not involve more cars to its trains.

I really do not see what the big issue with adding capacity is. ALL Frontrunner stations have the area at the end of the platforms prepped for expansion, which would double the length it is currently. Even if they do not lengthen them that much, say just one car length, all they would have to do would be to pour the concrete. It could happen within a week.

[Hatman]

It's true that all FrontRunner platforms are designed to be expanded to a total length of 10 cars. In the south section the footings have already been poured for the future work so that it can go faster, and on the north end Salt Lake Central, Ogden, Farmington, and Layton are all built to the full length (Roy is also extended, but not full length). Clearfield and Woods Cross are the shortest platforms on the system, able to handle only the 3 bombardier cars on its high block and the comet and locomotive on its low block section.
The high block section is 25 inches tall, and the low block section is 8 inches tall (same as TRAX). ADA laws say that the maximum slope of a ramp can be 1:12, meaning for every inch you increase the height of your ramp, you need to go one foot forward. Also, the pedestrian crossings are 18 feet wide and 9 feet across (made of two 9'x9' squares).
Should UTA want to lengthen its FrontRunner trains, it will need to add either a comet car or a bombardier car. Another Comet car (UTA already owns plenty of those) and it will fit at SLC, Ogden, Farmington, Layton, and Roy, but at every other platform the north door will lead into the ballast and locomotive will hang into the crosswalk (or railroad crossing, depending on the station). Add another Bombardier car and it will work just fine at all the south stations and North Temple (all of which were built to handle 4 bombardiers) but all the other stations would require some work. SLC, Ogden, Layton, Farmington, and Roy would just need the high block extended into the full-length low block section; Clearfield and Woods Cross would need to be lengthened with new footings poured, new crosswalks placed, new sidewalks (along with lighting, grading, and drainage) leading from the parking lot/bus bays to the station. The mid-platform pedestrian crossings at Salt Lake Central and at Farmington would need to be moved or removed entirely.
That seems like the best thing to do because it only involves lengthening two platforms, but will still cost $$$. Anything near an active rail line will cost $$$. Its certainly better than extending the low block sections when UTA has long term plans to retire the comet cars and go for Bombardier-only consists - why spend money on them now when they'll only last a few more years? The platforms will cost more and last longer than the cars they're meant to serve!
The question then becomes how long to make those two platforms? extend them the full length now and save everyone the trouble of extending them again in the future? Or will UTA start running 15-minute frequencies soon and not need longer trains? What is the likelyhood of UTA being able to purchase more bombardier cars in the future, when each cost ~$2 million a piece? UTA will need at least 12 of these cars (9 trains in service +two backup trains in the yard + 1 car in the maintenance rotation), meaning lengthening the trains by one Bombardier will cost at least $24 million. Should UTA want to extend the Clearfield and Woods Cross stations to their full length, the project could easily cost ~$30 million. Just to add 1 car per train.

All of this is just me thinking aloud, but it's the only logical and liability-free way way I can see for UTA to increase the length of their trains. The far better solution, I think, would be to added extra rush-hour trains on 15 minute headways. Two extra departures during the busiest 1-hour block would alleviate the need for longer trains, and would use the two stand-by trains in the yard that normally just sit (except for emergencies). That seems much cheaper (and better service) to me.

[asies1981]

There have been a lot of good ideas on this forum to improve transit, and now the City wants to hear them.

[Hatman]

If we petition really hard, do you think UTA would add this sort of key to its maps, like they did in Omaha? (Ideally some destination locations would be included too, so that people can see what destinations can be reached on foot or on bike).

As a reference, here's the map the key goes to:

[i-215]

Word on the street: One of Utah County's commissioners is spreading petition for a referendum for November to allow county residents to approve or kill the Bus Rapid Transit line.

[Makid]

That is crazy. If they vote to kill it, this would be a major setback for transit in Utah County.

It may also affect grants for the rest of the Counties which UTA serves.

With money for the line already in the budget as well as the money for the project projected to be approved by Congress, what would happen to the money? Could it be redirected or would it just be sent back?

Also, if all of the Counties add the transit tax increase on the ballot this year, Utah County would be potentially voting to increase the transit tax as well as if the BRT line should stay or go.

I see way to many negative issues with this type of vote. The cities involved have already voted to support the line, money is already allocated based on previous tax increases and Federal funding. I would honestly hate for someone in Eagle Mountain or another unaffected city to kill the BRT line on a County level when it really is a City level issue (Orem/Provo).

[Hatman]

This little article says the issue would be on the ballot in 2016. Because the project is a design-build project (starting from the south end and moving north, as I understand it) there will be many spots in Provo where the project will probably be finished by that point. And yes, as someone involved with this project, I can say that UTA is committed to moving forward on it even if the referendum succeeds in getting its signatures. Which it probably won't anyway. And even if it did, I've got the impression that most people are in favor of the BRT plan anyway, as demonstrated by last year's Facebook campaign when the Provo City council was not supporting the project.
I see this whole referendum thing as a non-issue at this point. BRT is happening. There are too many people (UTA, John Curtis, MAG) who are too determined to see this thing through for it to fail at this point. This is going to be the demonstration project that will hopefully launch a whole network of BRT routes in Utah, Salt Lake, Davis, and Weber counties. Imagine a Frontlines-like project for BRT, where there is a mass build-out of BRT routes done all at once. This is what UTA and other local governments are wanting, and they all know it depends on the success of this one BRT route in Provo.
So, just to put you all at ease, this thing is happening, referendum or not.

[Makid]

I have been looking forward to the Frontlines for BRT. I know there are 4 or 5 lines in SL County alone (not counting the SLC to Centerville BRT line).

That on top of the expansion of normal bus routes and frequency will greatly change the transit dynamic along the Wasatch Front.

To many people see things either as they are now or as they were before Trax and can't see even a few years in the future to look at what we will have once these projects are completed.

SL County in particular has some of the best transit coverage in the Country. As we increase frequency and service, this will expand outwards and will change from transit coverage to transit options.

By this I mean a bus going by hourly is coverage, a bus going by every 15 minutes or less is a transit option.

And to think we are either 1 small tax increase (either 2015/2016) for faster delivery or 25 years away (with current funding).

This also equates to a slow 3 to 5% year over year transit ridership increase (current funding) or 25 to 50% year over year transit ridership increase (tax increase).

I know I may show my bias but I, my family, and my friends will all be voting for the increase whenever it comes up for a vote. There isn't a better way to clear the air than to reduce driving and we need better transit options for that to happen.

Also, I really want to see ridership for Trax top 100k and bus top 150k daily riders faster than waiting 20 years. If the tax passes and UTA manages to hit their 2020 goal on ridership, Trax and bus service would both top 125K daily riders. Bus service I would expect to go higher but UTA's goal is only to double the existing ridership levels.

Frontrunner would be over 30K as well.

That would put us in a different league for transit ridership. Especially without or with minimal Trax rail expansion (streetcar and 4th south extension being the possible exceptions).

Lastly, we are between 3 and 4% transit usage per capita. Doubling ridership will push us closer to 8% if not higher due to expanded routes.

Also from the following: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/how-your-citys-public-transit-stacks-up/

If we double, we would go from 42.2 trips per capita to 84.4 trips per capita which would put us at #9. I think we would be lower though and closer to 60 trips per capita which would put us at #13 ahead of Portland and behind Seattle. But only time will tell where we end up on the list and of course how fast we move up.

[Hatman]

^^^
I didn't know that the goal was to double ridership by service type. That changes things significantly from simply double total service. I expected most of the ridership gains to happen on the bus side as BRT and more frequent bus service was rolled out with rail providing only minimal assistance. It seems to me that the rail lines are already strained in capacity, and unless some serious investment is made in how frequently the rail lines can operate, they won't be able to carry many more people. (An expansion for FrontRunner would be more double-track to allow 15 minute service, and a TRAX expansion would be a signaling/switching upgrade to allow 12, 10, or even higher frequencies.)
The only costs of expanding bus service involve bus and operator availability. No new infrastructure needed - which is why I thought UTA would go that route if they wanted to quickly double their ridership before 2020. I'm all in favor of new infrastructure, don't get me wrong, but if ridership is the end goal right now, the regular bus service is what needs improvement, can handle the huge increase in ridership, and would give an instant return on the invested money.
It will be interesting to see how UTA balances the need to complete the ridership goal with the need to build out new infrastructure.

[Makid]

My understanding is that the doubling was across the board. This was meaning that all methods would need to increase and that total transit rides would need to double.

In total, UTA is nearly 150K currently when counting Bus, Trax and Frontrunner. 300K is what would be needed to double ridership at the macro level.

I know that Frontrunner can expand a bit in ridership without too much spending and Trax can go down to 12 minute frequencies without much on the expense side. Anything faster though I would expect more cost outlays.

But for bus service to go from 72K daily to just over 200K I don't think is plausible without expecting an increase on rail as well.

I think for every increase of 10,000 riders for buses, there would be an increase of 3,000 on rail. It may be less it may be more but a 30% cross over sounds right.

This means that if bus service adds 100K, rail would increase by 30K. That gets us to about 270K daily transit riders. To top 300K daily transit riders we would see rail at about 125K and bus at 175K plus or minus a little.

We would see some of the rail increase with the S-Line expansion and double tracking and an increase in Frontrunner 30 minute frequencies. Trax going to 12 minutes would help expand capacity as well as running 4 cars along all lines all day rather than only at peak hours. Plus the Black line should add capacity without causing to much congestion.

I think 130K is the limit though for rail without spending on additional rails and switches. This is Trax + Frontrunner though. Currently we are nearing 90K daily rail riders (Trax + Frontrunner again). So that isn't to much more to go (40K or just under a 50% increase).

I do think though that once we are at the 300K ridership threshold, rail expansion will be an easy sell.

Of that, I saw something a few years ago about the WFRC having a planned schedule to ask for transit tax increases. It came out after the 2007 vote and it had 2016 as the next (planned currently) and after that it was 2022/2023 and then 2030 (and then stating every 7 to 8 years through 2045.

That was based on a .25 or less increase in 2016. As UTA would be getting .10, I would think that the 2022/2023 would still be in play. That would be right in line for timing to focus again on rail expansion (Frontrunner expanded double tracking, streetcars, Mountain Accord and further Trax expansions, maybe including the Lehi and International Center?).

After those, I wouldn't expect Trax expansions until 2030/2035 with the latter being more realistic. And then that being the 5600 BRT to Trax conversion and maybe from the U to the Cottonwood Canyons (Mountain Accord connection).

[Hatman]

I agree with your 30%. A 3:1 bus-to-train ridership growth model makes sense in my mind. Add in an expansion of BRT along the busiest routes, and I would hope the buses could carry much, much more.
Do you think the Black Line would add substantial new TRAX riders, or would it mostly cannibalize other TRAX or bus service?
Also, all these increases in UTA funding seem sort of small - as in, they're all fractions of a penny. How much does this actually increase UTA funding when we include things like inflation?
This article mentions that funding increased would be spent on buses and FrontRunner capacity. So they must have some plan, whether it be 15 minute peak service or adding an extra car. I'm really interested in how they would do that. My feelings are that 15 minute frequency, even for just the busiest hour, would cause such an induced demand that it wouldn't solve their problem for long. I support the measure as an intermediary thing to justify spending more money on double tracks sooner rather than later.

[Makid]

Originally Posted by Hatman

I agree with your 30%. A 3:1 bus-to-train ridership growth model makes sense in my mind. Add in an expansion of BRT along the busiest routes, and I would hope the buses could carry much, much more.
Do you think the Black Line would add substantial new TRAX riders, or would it mostly cannibalize other TRAX or bus service?

I think the black line will actually add to the total transit rider numbers. There will be some cannibalization from some Trax and bus lines but that will be minimal.

There are numerous people that don't take transit to the U because of no direct Frontrunner to a University Trax line (excluding the 5400 Medical center stop). That is to far south for those at the north end so they will generally drive.

So by adding the Black line, I would expect ridership to increase on Frontrunner and Trax overall with minimal decrease in bus service.

Also, all these increases in UTA funding seem sort of small - as in, they're all fractions of a penny. How much does this actually increase UTA funding when we include things like inflation?
This article mentions that funding increased would be spent on buses and FrontRunner capacity. So they must have some plan, whether it be 15 minute peak service or adding an extra car. I'm really interested in how they would do that. My feelings are that 15 minute frequency, even for just the busiest hour, would cause such an induced demand that it wouldn't solve their problem for long. I support the measure as an intermediary thing to justify spending more money on double tracks sooner rather than later.

With the increases, the current plan of .10% is the lowest direct increase for UTA. But with an increasing population and increasing sales, the .10 will have a decent effect on the overall UTA budget.

If each applicable County approves their increase, UTA would be able to add roughly a bit over $1 Billion to bonding capacity (my estimates only but is based on the estimated $3 Billion that was available from the last .25% increase in 2007.).

The BRT lines that I have heard about that are planned would total approximately $700 to $800 Million (based on initial phasing) The increases in frequency and bus routes would be approximately $100 million (includes additional buses).

This does leave approximately $100 million for Frontrunner capacity. I would expect that they will improve and increase the double tracking sections to allow for 15 minute frequencies and if there is enough money left over they will add an additional car (increase to 4 cars).

The reason for this is that multiple studies have concluded that operating at 15 minute frequencies would roughly double ridership. That type of increase for such a little spend would be very well worth it for everyone. It may be enough for a Federal Grant to complete the double tracking or at least push it closer to 90% double tracked.

I do think that 15 minute frequencies on Frontrunner all day would be a bit much currently but having it there for 4 hours in the morning and 4 hours in the evening and then running 30 minute frequencies the rest of the day would meet the most pressing needs as well as setting it up to grow quickly with little investment.

[Hatman]

I like your math. I hope you are some sort of time traveler come back from the future to provide us with hope in our transit system. By which I mean, I hope everything you said happens!

Assuming that the Provo-Orem BRT is built on schedule and is the roaring success we all know it will be, what would be the next immediate steps? I know there has been a lot of planning done for a south Davis-SLC line, and State Street is mentioned often - in both Utah and Salt Lake Counties. A Weber State-Ogden FrontRunner route has also been mentioned. And then there's the Taylorsville project. 5600 West BRT would be paid for by the Mountain View Corridor project. What other BRT projects would be immediately ready to go for a Frontlines-style BRT mega-build-out?

[Makid]

Originally Posted by Hatman

I like your math. I hope you are some sort of time traveler come back from the future to provide us with hope in our transit system. By which I mean, I hope everything you said happens!

Assuming that the Provo-Orem BRT is built on schedule and is the roaring success we all know it will be, what would be the next immediate steps? I know there has been a lot of planning done for a south Davis-SLC line, and State Street is mentioned often - in both Utah and Salt Lake Counties. A Weber State-Ogden FrontRunner route has also been mentioned. And then there's the Taylorsville project. 5600 West BRT would be paid for by the Mountain View Corridor project. What other BRT projects would be immediately ready to go for a Frontlines-style BRT mega-build-out?

Sadly, I am not from the future but do a lot with researching and planning. So I do come close to reality when planning things.

Regarding the BRT frontlines style projects that would be able to go if approved:

SL-Davis BRT
Murray-Taylorsville BRT
3500 BRT Extension to Magna from Bangerter
South Valley BRT (Red line terminus to Frontrunner - maybe Draper Trax as well)
Redwood Road BRT (this was/is in the maybe category still, might be dropped down a level)

Other BRT projects that may also be able to go.
SL County
State Street
Highland Drive
5400 South
4700 South
90th South
7th East
Bangerter Highway BRT (not sure if this is still on the board anymore with it transitioning to a limited access highway without stoplights)

Utah County
Lehi-Eagle Mountain
Lehi-Orem/Provo extension (precursor to Trax extension)

There may be more but these are all of the ones that I am aware of that are listed somewhere on the next 30 year time table. I would expect each one comes online that there would be a desire to add additional BRT Lines.


Then there is the Odgen Streetcar (Frontrunner to Weber St.) that may also happen with the funding as it has been planned for a while now.

The only other Streetcar lines that I know of are the S-Line extension to 2100 South (double tracking as well) and then the 2nd South downtown and the 9th South extension from 2nd South (possible phase 2 if pushed out of the initial construction).

[Hatman]

I hope the Bangerter route is still considered for BRT. In fact, why not consider all freeways for BRT? It occurred to me the other day that the development around freeway exits are a primitive form of transit-oriented development, in that they often include convenience stores at gas stations, hotels, office space, and sometimes even residential units, depending on the exit. Basically all the types of commercial development that requires excellent transportation access, just like traditional Transit Oriented Development is trying to create.
So why not develop infrastructure to allow buses to use the interstates and highways like bangerter by putting in special bus exits, stations, and even park-and-rides at these locations. I've noticed on my trips to China and Brazil that these sort of projects are popular in these two countries:
Bus stop on a highway via special bus on/off-ramps, in Hong Kong (left hand drive)
They have this sort of thing in the US as well, even though I dislike the median placement:


It seems to me like this sort of thing, either using car-pool lanes or special on/off ramps on the sides of the highways, would be placing transit where people already travel, are already familiar, and have already built development.
Is there any chance we might see this sort of thing anytime in Utah's future?

[Hatman]

Yesterday I got on TRAX and noticed something different about my car. Not only did I finally get to ride in one of the S70's with the all-blue seats (blue is a much better color than red), but I also found that one of the single seats by the door had been replaced by this:


Yes, that is my very dirty bike on a wall-hanger in TRAX. It worked very nicely, and din't scratch up the car at all, as compared to those careless people who shove their bikes over the handicapped railing by the window.

I've measured FrontRunner cars for this type of rack. If the flat racks were replaced with a row of hangers, UTA could fit roughly 1.8 times as many bikes in the bike car as they do now. The only issue is the air conditioning duct that runs along the edge of the roof, which would need to be either modified, moved, or removed.

Regardless, this little development made me very happy. Lots of other people seemed happy about it too. They were jealous that there was only one on the train.

[Makid]

I don't know how they were planning to run the Bangerter BRT but I do like some of the images that were posted for stations.

As transit usage increases, it would be a good way to utilize the possible extra space on the highways. It would also be better than just widening the highways that are already built as it is a more efficient way to move people.

[H4vok]

Hurry up and wait: City Council must vote to fund S-Line by Tuesday

It's time — again — for the Salt Lake City Council to hurry up and vote on approving millions of dollars in matching funds aimed at capturing a federal grant to extend the Sugar House Streetcar.

Last year, the council rushed to approve a $2.5 million match to extend the S-Line from its terminus at McClelland Street at about 2230 South to Highland Drive and then north to the intersection of 2100 South.

But in the end, the feds did not award the grant to Salt Lake City.

Now, a new Transportation Investments Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant is up for grabs. And the council must determine by Tuesday whether it will allocate an additional $3.1 million in matching funds.

That would bring Salt Lake City's total match to $5.6 million — $1.1 million of that is designated for trails. Salt Lake County already has pledged $6.5 million — all of which would go to trails.

The grant proposal, which will be submitted by the Utah Transit Authority, seeks $15 million in federal funds. The total, including local matching money, is $27.1 million.

UTA will put up no funds for the match. That is just one of the sticking points the council will hash out before it votes.

Councilwoman Erin Mendenhall said it is imperative that the streetcar be extended into the heart of Sugar House.

But she added this: "I will not consider further proposals with UTA as a partner without its funding participation."

Council Chairman Luke Garrott said he supports the concept of bringing the S-Line to the intersection of Highland Drive and 2100 South.

But he is skeptical of an outcome that would allow UTA to own the tracks that would run on city rights of way.

"That's the definition of a deal killer," he said.

The proposal just doesn't make sense, said Councilman Charlie Luke. Until the city develops a comprehensive mass-transportation plan, spending millions on one segment of track may not be a good investment.

"I was very clear last time around," he said, "that I would not be voting to fund the streetcar until we have a transit master plan in place."

Sugar House area Councilwoman Lisa Adams also has concerns about the expense of extending the line.

"I'm really torn on this," she said. "I think we didn't get it right the first time. It had to get to Highland Drive to be successful."

But this might be the right time to extend the S-Line because the water main under Highland Drive is about 100 years old and must be replaced. "I don't want to put the water line in and come back in a couple of years and tear the road up again [to extend the streetcar]."

In what could be something of a compromise, Councilman Kyle LaMalfa said he would like to fund the TIGER grant match with money that does not come out of the city's general fund...

http://www.sltrib.com/news/2566871-155/hurry-up-and-wait-city-council

[SLCdude]

The City Council will vote tomorrow on whether or not to support the TIGER Grant application.

Submit your comments to [email protected]. All comments will be read by the Council Office.

[Hatman]

With BRT proposed for Highland Drive, I *guess* I could support this small extension. As far as I can tell, the S-Line would have only one more stop, this being at the intersection of Highland and 21st South, where the plaza is. It would also double-track the thing so that it can run more frequently (streetcars ought to be more frequent than light rail, not less!).

My hope is that this station on Highland would be integrated with the future BRT station. Hopefully they could even share the same platform! I doubt it, though, as the S-Line uses TRAX standards, which is 8 inches, and the new BRT standards are 14 inches tall. However, the TRAX S-70 cars have a floor height of 14 inches. Perhaps by the time BRT comes to Highland, the old Siemens TRAX cars will be replaced by more S-70's, and TRAX can rebuild its platforms to 14 inches for fully level boarding.

Back on topic:

Do we know yet if this proposed extension would include intermediary stops between the current EOL and the proposed stop at 21st and Highland? Would this new proposal include that silliness of going around that little island bordered by Simpson Avenue? And will all of this extension be in the street, or will it have its own lane at the terminus? (After all, it will be stopping traffic for quite a while if it is in a shared lane at the terminus...)



I can support this small extension, but I would like details first. I still think that an extension down McClelland street wouldn't be a bad idea, even though it wouldn't allow a cross-platform connection with the future BRT route (a cross-plaza connection is 90% as good as a cross-platform connection, in my opinion):