Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[bob rulz]

Originally Posted by ajiuO

99% of the people out there could care less about any scandal.

The Prop 1 failure says otherwise.

[Makid]

Overhaul update:

Passed House and Senate - To Governor to Sign/Veto.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/201...-be-equalized-and-raised-among-counties/

2 major changes/additions to the final bill and a relatively minor addition.

Minor addition - Changes legal council from in house to the State's Attorney General's office.

Major Change 1 - A new, additional sales tax increase has been added to the bill that lets Counties increase the sales tax:

Lawmakers agreed to allow counties to raise sales taxes by up to another 0.2 cents per dollar — or 2 cents per $10 — beyond current maximum amounts allowed by law.

This is above the current max of 1.05%. This increase cannot be instituted until after the next Legislative General session (next year).

Additional information/clarification from DNews: https://www.deseretnews.com/article/9000...tion-sales-tax-increase-for-transit.html

Now, the bill's sponsor, Sen. Wayne Harper, R-Taylorsville, said the new 0.2 percent sales tax option, available after July 2019, could raise at least $30 million in Salt Lake County for transit projects that would go to UTA.

"They're screaming for buses in Salt Lake County," Harper told reporters.

Before the new tax could be imposed, counties would have to be collecting all four of the quarter-cent increases for transportation already allowed. Voters in some counties, including Salt Lake, rejected a 2015 increase known as Proposition 1.

Major change 2 - The transportation reform commission is being extended 1 additional year with the primary goal to review and look at making the Sales Tax for transit equalized between the Counties:

For example, Salt Lake County residents now pay 0.69 cents per dollar for transit; Weber and Davis counties pay 0.65 percent; Utah and Box Elder counties pay 0.55 percent; and Tooele County pays 0.4 percent.

There is 1 item on the equalization point:

Sen. Wayne Harper, R-Taylorsville, sponsor of the bill, also said changes and future work will aim to give local counties more say over how they use such taxes, including how much should go for transit or local roads.

“I think the real concept is we’re going to deconstruct, and say, ‘Here’s your allocation counties. The state’s not going to give you rules on how you spend it. You determine the best use,’” Harper said.

By the end of next year it may be possible that all counties in the TDU could be at 1.25% or 12.5 cents for every $10.00. It would be great if SL County enacted the tax increases as quickly as possible. The additional services would be great as well as help speed up projects all around the County. It also makes it better when the equalization bill comes out next year as I would expect that all DTU Counties would need to match SL County. I would expect that Tooele and Utah Counties would want to use some funds for roads but SL County and Davis Counties would use the increase for primarily transit. Weber, would probably be between the allotments of Utah and SL Counties for roads to transit.

All other items in the bill remain the same, including the ability for County Councils to add the .25% increase without voter approval, Transit projects would be able to compete with Road projects from the same funding pool, and the Major overhaul is still in place.

One note, the article states that the name change will be to Transit District of UTA. I think this is a typo based on previous articles and bill texts.

I still haven't seen any movement on updating transit fares. While there are still a few hours of the session remaining, I am not sure there is time to get a new bill passed at this point.

[Hatman]

That is fantastic that it passed! Hopefully this is the beginning of many great projects.

Originally Posted by Makid

I still haven't seen any movement on updating transit fares. While there are still a few hours of the session remaining, I am not sure there is time to get a new bill passed at this point.

[Hatman]

I've made another update to my East-West Commuter Rail idea. I've changed the portion just west of the airport so that it follows the Salt Lake Garfield and Western Railway alignment (near I-80) rather than the Union Pacific, which goes farther south.

I've done this for two reasons:
1) With all the talk of the Inland Port, I didn't want to cut off freight rail access to Union Pacific Railroad. By following the more northerly alignment no one needs to get blocked and the Inland Port can develop around industrial rail spurs free of constraints.
2) The station at 5600 West can now be renamed the 'International Center Station', and with the help of a new bridge at 5300 West can give direct rail transit access to vehicles and pedestrians:


I've heard many people expressing their desire to have the TRAX green line extend beyond the airport to the International Center, which - in my opinion - is kind of crazy. The station at the airport is clearly an end-of-line terminal-style station, and to extend it out would require a light-rail branch, which would make operations much more complicated.
Also, the International Center never really impressed me much. Sure there are lots of hotels and some offices, but that whole area is so unfriendly to pedestrians... no sidewalks, no curbs or gutters (just open ditches) and all the buildings are hiding behind massive sprawling parking lots. It reminds me of when I lived in suburban Orlando, FL; it really is not the sort of place you'd want to connect by Light Rail unless you plan to completely overhaul the area very soon.

I think placing a station on the south side of I-80 along an existing railroad ROW is the best rail transit connection that place can hope fore. Most of the hotels and offices would be within a mile's walk from the station, with about a quarter of that distance being on the new 5300 West bridge. Also, with direct access to 5600 West and the planned transit improvements on that street, this station is perfectly positioned to do double-duty.

[Makid]

Originally Posted by Hatman

That is fantastic that it passed! Hopefully this is the beginning of many great projects.

Very much agreed. I am looking forward to the equalization bill for next year.

I just can't wait to see the first transit project funded by what used to be dedicated road funds. Of course, this is most likely going to be Trax to Utah County but I am hoping it is Double Tracking and (fingers crossed ) Electrifing as well.

I do feel that FrontRunner would have a best impact on commuting patterns and more. I think Utah County should be the primary funding center for Trax to Utah County. I would be happy with Salt Lake, Davis and Weber Counties taking the bigger hit for FrontRunner upgrades.

We are 1 signature away from the start of major changes along the Wasatch Front for Roads and Transit.

[Makid]

Update on Transit/Transportation Overhaul.

The Gov will sign but he is against the name change. He wants to put off the name change and at a minimum research it for the next year. Everything else he is fine with.

I think avoiding the name change would be great. Now hopefully he vetoes the Inland Port bill as it sits currently.

I would be fine with a special session to address the Inland Port and making all transit free.

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by Makid

Update on Transit/Transportation Overhaul.

The Gov will sign but he is against the name change. He wants to put off the name change and at a minimum research it for the next year. Everything else he is fine with.

I think avoiding the name change would be great.

Does he have the power to selectively veto parts of the bill? I know US presidents do not, but I haven't learned enough about Utah governance yet to be sure.

Also, how strict is the law as written regarding the name change? Is it "You can change the name if you want to" or more of a "THOU SHALT BECOME THE TDU!"?

Now hopefully he vetoes the Inland Port bill as it sits currently.

I would be fine with a special session to address the Inland Port and making all transit free.

I would be fine with that too.

[Hatman]

And, since Tesla is a topic that's been bounced around on this thread before, this:

Tesla takes a win for direct sales in Utah, bill to allow operating its own stores goes to the governor
https://electrek.co/2018/03/09/tesla-direct-sales-win-utah-bill/

Basically, Tesla will be designated a 'direct-sales manufacturer,' allowing it to be the one exception to the larger dealership laws, which would remain unchanged.
This makes me very happy - all new gas cars will have to be bought through a car dealership, with the associated extra costs and extra stress, while Tesla customers can avoid all of that.

[Makid]

The Governor can't selectively Veto anything but the way it is written wouldn't require UTA to have a name change.

The governing body is slated to become TDU but the services could still run as UTA.

So basically, all employees would shift to TDU from UTA but services could still run as UTA. So it would be an update without a name change. This would be legal under the new law.

As for Tesla, all I can say is... About Time. Especially since Utah is basically the center of the "Direct Sales" universe.

[Makid]

Should we take guesses on how fast the Sales tax increases are implemented?

It wouldn't surprise me if SL County at least looked into implementing them fully before the November elections. However, since no politician wants to raise taxes before an election, I can see SL County voting after the election to implement the sales tax increases.

I can see Weber County also enacting the increases quickly. With the drive to find funding for the Ogden BRT line, the increase would provide funding for the project and some extra funding for other upgrades and enhancements.

Davis County, I think they will follow both Weber and SL Counties.

Utah County may be forced to enact the increases next legislative session. I think the Utah County Council is just too much Anti-Transit. However, if the increases could all go to roads, Utah County would enact the increases fully before the election.

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Originally Posted by Makid

Should we take guesses on how fast the Sales tax increases are implemented?

It wouldn't surprise me if SL County at least looked into implementing them fully before the November elections. However, since no politician wants to raise taxes before an election, I can see SL County voting after the election to implement the sales tax increases.

I can see Weber County also enacting the increases quickly. With the drive to find funding for the Ogden BRT line, the increase would provide funding for the project and some extra funding for other upgrades and enhancements.

Davis County, I think they will follow both Weber and SL Counties.

Utah County may be forced to enact the increases next legislative session. I think the Utah County Council is just too much Anti-Transit. However, if the increases could all go to roads, Utah County would enact the increases fully before the election.

Totally agree with your take. I am hoping SL County gets going fast, but never underestimate the power of an election cycle to stop all progress except for pandering and the most obviously popular of measures. I think if polling data indicates this is widely popular the election will not stand in SL Counties way, but outside of that they will wait to be safe.

[Hatman]

I guess Utah County would pay up last. They're all feeling a little salty down there over BRT construction. Perhaps, since it will be up and running in August, and supposedly will be free for all to use, everyone will have a sudden change of mind towards more transit... but I doubt it.

Also, it's a good thing that UTA will have its funding increased... FrontRunner sure could use a second track right now... direct from UTA itself:

Extensive Rail and Bus Changes Coming in April
http://rideuta.com/news/2018/03/Extensive-Rail-and-Bus-Changes-Coming-in-April

UTA is implementing Positive Train Control (PTC). This federally-required safety system ensures that trains stop at designated locations and prevents them from reaching excessive speeds or entering unauthorized portions of track. Implementing PTC means that it will take FrontRunner slightly more time to travel between Provo and Ogden. Schedules for most bus routes and all three TRAX lines will change to ensure that they still coordinate with FrontRunner schedules.

TL;DR, FrontRunner needs to be slowed down a bit due to a new safety system. This means that every connecting service to FrontRunner, which is almost every bus and TRAX line UTA has, will need to be slowed down too.

The full version:

PTC is really, really cool. If UTA upgrades to the full version of this system, they will no longer need physical signals beside the tracks. Instead, each train will be linked to a GPS tracking system that will make sure the trains stay far enough apart from each other. This system knows how fast a train is going, how long it will take for that train to stop, and when where exactly the speed restrictions are. It is a much better system than the current one which allows only one train to enter a 'block' of track; these blocks of tracks can be many miles long, which means that trains have to be spaced very far apart.

The one catch to how awesome PTC is, is that it brings with it a higher margin of safety than the previous system. This means that on a single-track system where trains are forced to share tracks and often times run towards each other on the same track, the computers are going to force the trains to be extra cautious. On a double-track system, none of these extra safety margins would matter and trains could run much more frequently than the old system ever could have allowed. If UTA gets a top-notch PTC system, a double-tracked FrontRunner could have trains come literally within minutes of each other, since their spacing would be based on their actual position, not by which blocks of track they occupy.

I've said it before, but I get so excited I have to lay it out again: If you double-track FrontRunner, you can cut 20 minutes out of the scheduled run time between Provo and Ogden, simply because trains no longer need to wait for others to clear the single-track. If you electrify FrontRunner and run faster-accelerating EMU's, you can easily cut another 20 minutes from the schedule.

We're talking about reducing a 2-hour trip by a minimum of 40 minutes... Can you imagine what a profound impact that would have on its popularity? And since all these other service - buses and TRAX - are based entirely around the FrontRunner 'skeleton', these services would be benefited as well.

I can see why some people want all funding increases to go towards better bus service, and they are mostly right. But when they say no more money should go to rail expansion or improvement, I think they are missing the point. FrontRunner needs to be improved until it can meet its full potential. Only after the skeleton is fully-functioning can the rest of the network be fully fleshed-out.

[jubguy3]

If FrontRunner was able to be certified to operate up to 91mph-125mph on the majority of it's track and it was double tracked, I think it would be a lot more attractive to commuters. If FrontRunner can zip down I-15 in 50% of the time during rush hour that a car can, door-to-door times would be comparable to using a car, and FrontRunner would be cheaper and easier to use. I want to see more out of TRAX but in the future I see FrontRunner as being the future of UTA expansion.

[bob rulz]

FrontRunner already boasts pretty impressive ridership numbers - now imagine if they double-tracked, cut down on the commute time, electrified, and added Sunday service.

[Hatman]

Speaking of our discussions about bus stops from a few pages ago, UTA and its cities should try an experiment with these:



Building Better Bus Stops Can Be a Snap
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/03/quick-easy-way-to-build-a-bus-stop-zicla/554873/

Basically they're a bunch of 6-inch tall plastic platforms that can be arranged in different patterns. These allow a city to construct a temporary curb extension out into the street to form a bus platform.



This would allow UTA and the cities it serves to experiment with buses stopping in the traffic lanes, which can speed up bus stops significantly. It slows down traffic, which is why pro-car cities choose to make the buses pull over, but if the bus platform is done right, these delays can be minimized.

[Hatman]

New transit plan of the week: the 9th South freeway ramp.

We don't like that it extends to West Temple, that is too far east.

200 West has TRAX, and is a no-go

300 West seems to be preferred, but that could interfere with the UTA ROW immediately below the existing ramp

400 West will someday have TRAX, so also a no-go.

....500 West?



I had been resistant to this idea before, since I didn't like the idea of interrupting the 9-line trail. But what if the ramp is built with a pedestrian underpass? After all, a grade-separation is much safer and faster than any crosswalk, and they don't need to be horrible and ugly. Just look to the Murdoch Canal Trail in Utah County, which has amazing underpasses:





If you haven't ridden that trail yet, you are missing out. It really is world-class.

So assuming a cool underpass could be constructed for the pedestrian trail, I've changed this option to my preferred outcome. The 9th South exit would still dump traffic onto 9th South, but it would also direct cars onto 500 West, which could easily handle the traffic. Who knows, more cars in the area might even be a good thing (strange thing for me to say) and might help the area redevelop more quickly.

[Stenar]

I like this idea a lot.

Originally Posted by Hatman

New transit plan of the week: the 9th South freeway ramp.

We don't like that it extends to West Temple, that is too far east.

200 West has TRAX, and is a no-go

300 West seems to be preferred, but that could interfere with the UTA ROW immediately below the existing ramp

400 West will someday have TRAX, so also a no-go.

....500 West?



...

[Always Sunny in SLC]

How about closing it completely? There is already 6th N., 4th S., 6th S., 13th S. and 21st South. You could even at another right turn lane on to 13th exit. This many exits seems excessive. That could instead be a highline park or (my preference) be completely removed and because a linear park. Then again I am crazy and would like to put I-15 below grade from 6th North down to at least 4th South. Also do the same to the the rail lines. It would create a massive linear park that would transform that area really fast. Now where to find a few billion laying around...

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Always Sunny in SLC

How about closing it completely? There is already 6th N., 4th S., 6th S., 13th S. and 21st South. You could even at another right turn lane on to 13th exit. This many exits seems excessive. That could instead be a highline park or (my preference) be completely removed and because a linear park. Then again I am crazy and would like to put I-15 below grade from 6th North down to at least 4th South. Also do the same to the the rail lines. It would create a massive linear park that would transform that area really fast. Now where to find a few billion laying around...

You can have both a park(There already is one, midrise residential would be better) and the off ramp. The land the viaduct is on should be repurposed but there is still plenty of room for a freeway off ramp. The off ramp is already an important pressure release valve and will become important in its own right if the city ever gets off its ass and gets a tech district going centered on the fleet block.

Further 5th and 6th need to become grand boulevards to make the city more friendly. My preference is subgrade lanes that go uninterrupted to the freeway(a boy can dream). If we want to tame the rivers of steel that are 5th and 6th we definitely need another ramp before 13th.

clarification on the subgrade commuter lanes. 5th could have one subgrade lane from about 5th E to state, expand to 2 around state, expand to 3 somewhere after 3rd west. functionally there would be a freeway on ramp at 5th e, state, and 3rd west. The remainder of the row gets a major facelift.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Hatman

Speaking of our discussions about bus stops from a few pages ago, UTA and its cities should try an experiment with these:



Building Better Bus Stops Can Be a Snap
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/03/quick-easy-way-to-build-a-bus-stop-zicla/554873/

Basically they're a bunch of 6-inch tall plastic platforms that can be arranged in different patterns. These allow a city to construct a temporary curb extension out into the street to form a bus platform.



This would allow UTA and the cities it serves to experiment with buses stopping in the traffic lanes, which can speed up bus stops significantly. It slows down traffic, which is why pro-car cities choose to make the buses pull over, but if the bus platform is done right, these delays can be minimized.

Love this. Cheap, easily abandoned, functional. Man I would like to see them try out a few BRT lines with these. It's like the tinder of Bus stops, no commitment necessary but just maybe you will hit the jackpot.