Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[RC14]

^
Last I noticed the 3600 west station was caution taped off.

[Hatman]

Huh. I hope that is only temporary. Perhaps there is some road construction in the area preventing the use of the lanes? Perhaps UTA is upgrading the signal priority of their MAX buses to use the same system as the Provo-Orem line? Now that I think about it, a few days ago I did see a MAX bus running a completely different route and was a little confused by it.
I'll try to get some answers. I have a very bad record when it comes to UTA insider information, so I won't mind making it even worse.

[Makid]

I am hoping that after the UVX is complete and running that they adjust the dedicated lanes on 3500 South so that the MAX dedicated lanes and stations match UVX.

This would require the loss of a lane or 2 but 3500 S could really use a lane diet. The updates would allow better frequencies which would give better transit incentives and assist with actually getting some TODs built along the route.

--------

After reading the Denver Transit thread, I got to thinking about the ridership levels of the various rail lines and decided to do an educated guess for ridership.

Commuter Rail
FrontRunner: 18,000

Light Rail
Blue Line: 24,500
Red Line: 33,000
Green Line: 7,500
S Line: 2,000

The numbers are just estimates based on an annual average of 63K weekday riders. The only lines I am not certain of are the Red and Blue. I think these are close though.

I think a breakdown of ridership by route should be encouraged by UTA / TDU so that investments made and along the routes. This could help to show that frequency changes and other service point upgrades can and do affect ridership. It would also help to show the impact that TODs have on ridership.

With the upcoming extension of the Blue line to at least Lehi, we would be able to see how the extension impacts ridership not just on the Blue line but also on the other lines.

The ridership numbers per line shouldn't be difficult to get. Currently the riders are counted by automatic sensors on the trains and should be able to be put into a breakdown on a per train level. This then allows the trains to be grouped into lines and then ridership totaled there.

I can think of many ways that this type of breakdown would be beneficial.

[Hatman]

That's cool, Makid. I didn't realize the Red Line carried so many more people than the Blue line. It makes sense though. This break-down is very useful.

Originally Posted by Makid

After reading the Denver Transit thread [..]

In the spirit of controversy and competition, I'll save everyone the need to go the Denver thread by copying Cirrus's breakdown here:



SE corridor: 35,900 [A collection of 3 separate LRT lines]
Airport corridor: 22,600 [Commuter Rail]
SW corridor: 22,100 [A collection of 2 LRT lines]
225 corridor: 14,300 [1 1/2 LRT lines (?)]
W corridor: 12,000 [Light Rail]
5 Points corridor: 3,800 [Presumably 5 lines]
NW corridor: 1,400 [Commuter Rail]

Clearly comparing these with Makid's numbers would be one of the most incomparable comparisons ever to be posted on this thread. So here it goes:

UTA's rail network overall gets more riders per line than Denver's. I think this is because of 1) UTA running a much more spartan network (not running two services on the same line) and 2) so much of Denver's rail network is new and hasn't had time to induce TOD's along the newest sections.

A comparison I like is between Denver's A Line to their airport and FrontRunner. Both are commuter rail lines, and Denver's line carries about 4,000 more daily riders. But the A Line only goes to the airport, while FrontRunner goes between the Wasatch Front's 3 main 'downtowns'. I think the reason the A Line carries more people is because it is electrified and double-tracked (mostly). It gives me confidence that FrontRunner could certainly carry 30,000+ daily riders if it were similarly upgraded to the A-Line's standard.

And then there's the comparison between the infamous S-Line Streetcar vs the B-Line Commuter Rail:

S-Line: 2,000
B-Line: 1,400



I think that's enough controversy for now...

[Makid]

Hatman,

I do agree that it wouldn't be good to compare lines between cities. I just like the thought of getting breakdowns per line so that we could see how TODs and such change ridership.

The 2017 Q4 ridership information is available - APTA just needs to update their site:

http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/Ridership/2017-q4-ridership-APTA.pdf

Bus: 68.3K average weekday riders. Down 1.32% from 2016.
Trax: 63.0K average weekday riders. Down 2.06% from 2016.
FrontRunner: 17.9K average weekday riders. Up 6.78% from 2016.

Total: 157.1K average weekday riders. Down 0.99% from 2016.

Overall, FrontRunner continues to gain ridership each quarter. I am looking forward to the Q4 2018 ridership numbers as those will include UVX.

I would expect that both Bus and FrontRunner will be higher. Based on the rough estimates, Bus should be close to 90K for a daily ridership. FrontRunner could possibly be pushing closer to 20K. Based on growth rates, FrontRunner could be pushing close to 19K daily without UVX.

Outside of the UVX, the only thing in the direct pipeline that is projected to increase ridership is the SLC Transit Master Plan which I am hoping will be implemented later this year.

Outside of these, we are needing to have the various counties implement the sales tax increases up to 1.05%. The only other item is the pending update to allow for free fares.

[RC14]

Another thing that could contribute to the A line's high ridership is the distance between DIA and downtown Denver. It is much cheaper to take the train than a cab or even Uber. ($9 vs $31-41 for Uber X)

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Originally Posted by Makid

Hatman,

I do agree that it wouldn't be good to compare lines between cities. I just like the thought of getting breakdowns per line so that we could see how TODs and such change ridership.

The 2017 Q4 ridership information is available - APTA just needs to update their site:

http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Documents/Ridership/2017-q4-ridership-APTA.pdf

Bus: 68.3K average weekday riders. Down 1.32% from 2016.
Trax: 63.0K average weekday riders. Down 2.06% from 2016.
FrontRunner: 17.9K average weekday riders. Up 6.78% from 2016.

Total: 157.1K average weekday riders. Down 0.99% from 2016.

Overall, FrontRunner continues to gain ridership each quarter. I am looking forward to the Q4 2018 ridership numbers as those will include UVX.

I would expect that both Bus and FrontRunner will be higher. Based on the rough estimates, Bus should be close to 90K for a daily ridership. FrontRunner could possibly be pushing closer to 20K. Based on growth rates, FrontRunner could be pushing close to 19K daily without UVX.

Outside of the UVX, the only thing in the direct pipeline that is projected to increase ridership is the SLC Transit Master Plan which I am hoping will be implemented later this year.

Outside of these, we are needing to have the various counties implement the sales tax increases up to 1.05%. The only other item is the pending update to allow for free fares.

What do you think are the factors leading to loss of ridership? I would think the largest factor is the strong economy. When people have more money in their pockets they probably choose more car trips than transit. I am surprised that all the construction along the valley around transit stops has not made more of an impact, then again it is hard to know if it would have dropped even more if not for the build up around stations. This seems to be a good case for fare free transit. It will act as a bullwark against a strong economy.

[Makid]

Some of the drop in ridership is due to the gas prices still being relatively low.

Another item is that some companies that used to be near transit have moved/expanded to areas with less transit (Lehi in particular). I think this is 1 aspect that is allowing FrontRunner to keep growing in ridership. These changes do impact bus and Trax though.

I also think it is 1 aspect that has the State pushing for Trax to Lehi. With Adobe expanding and adding 1,000 employees soon and another 1,500 or more shortly afterwards. This doesn't even count the numerous companies that are already relocating to the area and already causing a transit reduction.

I do think that some of the pending development projects (Patrinely and Held) may help increase ridership as well as possibly help shift some more tech expansions towards downtown or at least closer to transit.

[bob rulz]

In addition to low gas prices, there also haven't been any new TRAX lines in nearly 5 years (unless you count the S-Line), or any increase in frequency, not to mention late-night service still sucks. So while TOD is increasing (slowly), there hasn't been enough new TOD to make up for the fact that there hasn't been much expansion of the system and gas prices have stayed low.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by Makid

Some of the drop in ridership is due to the gas prices still being relatively low.

Gas prices are low, but even when they were high it cost me less to drive than take the train. Now if they could get on that idea of free transit or even lowering it 70%...

[ucsbgaucho]

Cost is still a big issue, I ran into this the other weekend. There was an event in downtown my family of 5 was going to, and we thought it'd be fun to take FR and then Trax, as the stops were very convenient. But from Layton station to Vivint Arena and back was over $20 total, and we would have had to leave an hour before we would if we were just driving, due to reduced FR service on Saturdays. So when it costs the equivalent of a full tank of gas, and an extra 1 1/2 - 2 hours travel time to do the same thing we could do in 30 minutes each way and a couple bucks equivalent in gas, it's not really worth it.

[Makid]

The cost is greatly reduced when using the transit pass cards. I think it also applies to digital payments from the app.

Bus is $1.00 per trip
Trax is $2.00 per trip.

FrontRunner is reduced but I am not sure how much. Even with the Family pass option, it is still too expensive for many people.

I know that there was a behind the scene push to get traction on a bill to remove fare in the last session and it will be back in the future.

The idea is that free transit will have a greater impact on improving air quality than just reduced fares. The free transit concept will be required to be in place for the planned Prison Redevelopment as a way to attract both businesses and residents.

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by Makid

The free transit concept will be required to be in place for the planned Prison Redevelopment as a way to attract both businesses and residents.

A requirement, eh? Go on...

[Makid]

Originally Posted by Hatman

A requirement, eh? Go on...

When the prison redevelopment was being discussed (planning and layout), they wanted to maximize the use of the land while also increasing transit usage within the area.

This was done to try to reduce congestion in the area (remove impacts to both SLC and Utah County from commuters through the area) as well as limit the amount of number of parking garages (land values wouldn't support below grade garages) and preferred zoning coupled with land costs wouldn't support the parking garage with 10+ story building above.

To compensate for these issues, it was deemed better to reroute the Blue Line through the development then the planned route along the existing UTA right of way into Utah County.

Doing this, increased ridership through the area but it wasn't enough to remove the amount of cars and parking structures needed to support the redevelopment project.

Next, the team looked into something similar to the Free Fare Zone in downtown SLC but that was dropped due to the lack of supporting services/structures and land values.

The idea of free transit was tossed around lightly but it gained momentum. There were discussions on what the impact would be for ridership and if it would be enough to help solve the remaining traffic and parking issues.

This helped lead to the push in December for the Free Transit day within the UTA coverage area.

The date was chosen to not have a crushing impact on the existing commuters.

Data from the free transit day showed that ridership roughly doubled on average between the modes.

This data was plugged into some models and it was able to reduce parking needs by nearly 25% above just rerouting the Blue Line. Traffic was projected to be heavier but not noticeably more than it is today.

This put the parking and traffic needs to just the line they needed for the project to be successful for the State without being in constant gridlock and the land full of parking structures.

When they plug in the Red Line extension (into Riverton) and either continuing it through the project or connecting it via a BRT line, the project is able to remove additional parking, there was minimal impact to traffic.

As the project is planned to be phased in, the parking needs will be built as needed, not as planned.

This is all from someone I talked too regarding the development. Mostly it came out of me asking why the Blue Line was shifted West outside of the existing ROW. Nothing should be confidential in that it is fairly straight forward thinking both in the impacts to Air Quality and Ridership values but also in the parking values (more ridership means less parking needed).

I should note that the planning and transit discussions were just regarding the prison redevelopment but it shouldn't come as a shock that the impacts would be felt up and down the Wasatch Front with regards to parking needs as services and ridership increase.

1 final note. FrontRunner was modeled as being doubled tracked (enough for 15 minute frequencies) within 3 years of completion of the new prison.

[i-215]

35M has become a half-assed disaster. I wish it had never been built.

I got into a long argument at a Provo fast food restaurant about BRT. Some local yokel was complaining how Provo-Orem BRT "would never work" and pointed to 35M as a reason why. No amount of data would convince him otherwise. He'd ridden 35M a couple of times, hated it, and felt ours would also be a disaster.

At this point, I'd say just rip out the dedicated section on 3500 S and plant landscaping. Return to local only. Do it over again during some future year when the state can actually spend $200m+ doing BRT right (from Blue Line TRAX all the way to Old Magna). There's no reason why 35M couldn't see 10s of thousands of riders a day. It goes through some of the poorest sections of the valley.

[Hatman]

That is interesting stuff, Makid. Thanks for sharing!

Originally Posted by i-215

At this point, I'd say just rip out the dedicated section on 3500 S and plant landscaping. [...]

Since UTA insists on branding it as BRT, yes I think it does a poor job of setting an example of good BRT. However, I think the 35M is a perfect example of the 'bus plus' concept; it makes far fewer stops, its running times are faster, it has branded stations and ticket machines, and it is pretty well-utilized for what it is. The exclusive lanes are a little wonky, and I agree those could be re-done in light of new 'best practices' designed in the Provo-Orem BRT project.

It's important to remember that when it was new, the 35M cost $7 million. That is a tiny amount for any new transit line. I think that money was well spent, at least for that amount.

Rather than eliminate the 35M, I say rebrand it as 'bus plus,' upgrade the infrastructure (include platforms at stations, not just small but cool shelters, correct the bus-only lanes around 3600 West, etc), and increase the frequency. Then sell it to the public as upgrades that can be done to other well-used bus-lines, like along State Street. Why have just the 35M - why not have other 'M' variants of many routes?

I think we can all agree that the 35M needs help. But I don't think it should be as simple as 'high quality BRT or Nuthin'."

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by i-215

... There's no reason why 35M couldn't see 10s of thousands of riders a day....

Before the TRAX lines were built, the 37 Magna route had the highest ridership in the entire system.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Hatman

That is interesting stuff, Makid. Thanks for sharing!



Since UTA insists on branding it as BRT, yes I think it does a poor job of setting an example of good BRT. However, I think the 35M is a perfect example of the 'bus plus' concept; it makes far fewer stops, its running times are faster, it has branded stations and ticket machines, and it is pretty well-utilized for what it is. The exclusive lanes are a little wonky, and I agree those could be re-done in light of new 'best practices' designed in the Provo-Orem BRT project.

It's important to remember that when it was new, the 35M cost $7 million. That is a tiny amount for any new transit line. I think that money was well spent, at least for that amount.

Rather than eliminate the 35M, I say rebrand it as 'bus plus,' upgrade the infrastructure (include platforms at stations, not just small but cool shelters, correct the bus-only lanes around 3600 West, etc), and increase the frequency. Then sell it to the public as upgrades that can be done to other well-used bus-lines, like along State Street. Why have just the 35M - why not have other 'M' variants of many routes?

I think we can all agree that the 35M needs help. But I don't think it should be as simple as 'high quality BRT or Nuthin'."

I agree

Even as "bus plus"(not BRT) the Max brand needs to be upgraded. There is room for it and if done right I think it would increase riderahip.

If I had my way half the routes would be MAX, a quarter BRT, and a quarter just bus.

[Always Sunny in SLC]

Thanks for you comments, I appreciate you point of view. I have given my responses in bold.

Originally Posted by i-215

Ideally a street should serve all users. I do agree that in downtown, State Street under-serves the pedestrian and bicycle traffic that is prominent.

It sounds like you use the word ideally like I would say "Ideally no child would ever get cancer and all marriages would be happy." I would say we don't have to hope for an ideal world. We just need a world better planned.

It's also important to remember that some streets need to serve cars, too. State plays a very important role in meeting regional mobility goals when you get into Murray, Sandy, etc. I admit I sit on a weaker case in the central business district, though.

I totally agree. My comments acknowledge the need for a balance which includes cars because the car is an awesome invention and has many positive externalities. This comment indicates where you and I may come from different philosophical backgrounds. I believe that "regional mobility goals" is a euphemism for subsidizing sprawl. If we spend a lot of money reducing the commute times of those who live further and further out, this is a subsidy to that person. Instead I would prioritize the local resident and their trips over the needs of the transient driver. FYI, I live in Murray so I am one of those who benefits from this subsidy when I do drive instead of TRAX.


Sort of. In the central core, I do agree that the street needs some TLC. At minimum a raised median and narrowed lanes would help. It would be interesting to look at traffic volumes to see if reducing from 6 (3 each way) down to 4 (2 each way) would be do-able. It sure would be nice to free up some space for some bicyclist facilities.

I agreed.

That's what 700 East is designed to do. Move a buttload of trips. It serves a role in keeping parallel streets quiet is because 7th East "takes one for the team."

This is where you and I may view sprawl differently.

Planners are a bit too enthusiastic in their view that a road diet will always be accommodated by a mode shift to walking, cycling, etc. I wish they were right, because we could solve all capacity issues by eliminating capacity.

In actuality, at best maybe 5-10% of travelers will shift modes. The rest simply shift to parallel routes.

Agreed, but I would argue that is because the car is still heavily benefiting from substantial subsidies that still make it attractive for people to not consider alternative forms of transport. I contend that to fully fund the transportation budget for roads and highways we need to increase the gas tax by at least $1. If you did that along with not prioritizing the commuter, you would see plenty of clamoring for BRT, LRT, bus and commuter rail.

Debatable. Commercial property along 700 East does great. But do we really want to spread the cancer out by pushing traffic off 7th onto 9th and Highland and 13th north of I-80?

I would invite you to drive along this road. The residential properties are not doing well. It is unsafe, unhealthy and negatively affects those values. While some commercial properties do well, I would argue that a road like that incentivizes bad developments because they want to move their customers away from the road as much as possible. Therefore big setbacks and terrible street engagement. The residential is properties could theorectically be converted to commercial, but that does help the individual who goes to sale their home and realizes few want to live on such a street or even within a block.

If traffic noise drops property values as you say, I'd think spreading it throughout many neighborhood streets would be a lot worse than consolidating it into one big facility.

Agreed,but I would like to unwind the system we currently have and eliminate many of those trips or have them move to other forms of transport.

I do think a few more signalized pedestrian crossings are possible, and can be meshed into the existing signal timing to activate when platoons of traffic aren't going by.



That may be true for local streets, but this is a state highway (US-89). State highways serve entire regions. A balance needs to be struck between mobility needs and local needs.

I would call it a sprawl subsidy.

Outside urban cores, not ever street can be a 20 mile-per-hour lane lined with people drinking coffees at sidewalk cafes. Even the biggest urbanite on this board will, at times, rely on regional mobility to travel outside their neighborhood.

Agreed. I also believe in a hierarchy of streets and would not want them to all be sleepy streets. With that said that is not what I envision. Curently this street serves cars period. You can have it still move a substantial amount of cars and serve other people too. I would propose no more than two lanes either direction with BRT down the center, wider sidewalks with landscaping, lanes reduced to 10' and a design speed of 30-35. Bikes lanes with physical separation so to greatly enhance the perceived and real sense of safety. As bikers increase you would give them slight signal priority. Zoning would need to be changed along the corridor to promote a mixed use type of development.

---------------

I think of the phrase, "Can't the Farmer And The Cowman be Friends?" from Oklahoma. In this case, it's can't the planner and the engineer be friends.

We are both working together to make livable, great cities. In the 20th century, I agree engineers ran away with meeting capacity and mobility and "ghettofied" many urban areas in SLC.

It can be equally bad if planners run away and damage mobility and capacity requirements.

I hope the 21st century is one that strikes a balance.

[i-215]

Thanks for your thoughtful response.