Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[Paniolo Man]

Transportation news more than transit:

Here's the list of EV Fast Chargers that will be installed by the end of next year with NEVI funds. The rural chargers will really be game changers for EV owners.

[Paniolo Man]

The Utah Transportation Commission was briefed on the SLC Connecting Communities Study this morning.

There was no news, but several members of the commission expressed enthusiasm for the study.



Good that UDOT is engaged, should the Rio Grande Plan or anything resembling it receive state funds it would become a UDOT project.

[kickback256]

Been seeing some signs pop up at downtown TRAX stations to solicit feedback about the TechLink Study. If you haven’t already seen it, it’s a chance to see what UTA is looking to do with the future Orange line and realignment of the Blue line out to the airport. I know a good chunk of us are still holding out hopes for some form of the Rio Grande plan, but in case that doesn’t come to fruition, leaving feedback here would help shape any other result.

https://www.techlinkstudy.com/

[Atlas]

The Rio Grande Plan is very compatible and complimentary with TechLink. Both should happen. Just reroute Green/Orange down 4th West and put a new stop at Pioneer Park (and pedestrianize 300 S in between). That would remove the unnecessary jaunt out to SL Central and improve efficiency. Then the Greektown station can be repurposed as a future 200 S streetcar station.

Or it can be like Denver, where the LRT station is kept where it is and is only a short walk west from the heavy rail station at the Depot.

[Paniolo Man]

Originally Posted by Atlas

The Rio Grande Plan is very compatible and complimentary with TechLink. Both should happen. Just reroute Green/Orange down 4th West and put a new stop at Pioneer Park (and pedestrianize 300 S in between). That would remove the unnecessary jaunt out to SL Central and improve efficiency. Then the Greektown station can be repurposed as a future 200 S streetcar station.

Or it can be like Denver, where the LRT station is kept where it is and is only a short walk west from the heavy rail station at the Depot.

Route the loop onto 4th but keep the existing Blue Line station at SL Central to serve the new development brought on by the Rio Grande Plan.

[kickback256]

Visited with a friend at UTA and was able to grab a pic of the exact locations for the upcoming FrontRunner double track. Tried to clean it up for you folks who like details. He stressed that this is the general plan, not the final lengths or mileposts - and if the image is weird, click on it for the full scope.

[Hatman]

Thank you for finding/posting!

Leaving that 1-mile gap of single track just south of Lehi annoys more than it should. Value engineering at its finest. Hopefully none of this makes it more difficult to actually double track the entire line at a future date.

[kickback256]

Happy to help! From the way it looks to me, that early transition to single track right before Lehi Station is to accommodate the bridges at 2100 N and 2300 W, which are only built for single track. I could be wrong, though. The thing that caught my eye was their intent to remove the S-curve around the Warm Springs shop and potentially route the mainline west of the shop, which to my understanding would require a purchase from UP. Guess we’ll see how it all shakes out.

[Paniolo Man]

Originally Posted by kickback256

Happy to help! From the way it looks to me, that early transition to single track right before Lehi Station is to accommodate the bridges at 2100 N and 2300 W, which are only built for single track. I could be wrong, though. The thing that caught my eye was their intent to remove the S-curve around the Warm Springs shop and potentially route the mainline west of the shop, which to my understanding would require a purchase from UP. Guess we’ll see how it all shakes out.

When I chatted with UDOT about it they seemed assured that space needed for the track would be easily sorted. Realigning the track is something they have wanted to do for a while. Doing so would allow them to take trains through the yard much faster. To my knowledge, this is the only part of Frontrunner Forward that is specifically intended to improve travel time, everything other project in Phase 0 is aimed at increased capacity.

[Hatman]

I am impressed with the Warm Springs improvement. Doubling speeds from 30 mph to 60 mph is a welcome change.

Also, my previous comments are not intended to show dissatisfaction with UTA planning staff or personnel - I understand there is only so much money available and a goal of 15 minute service is what that limited money is meant to address.

I wish the people funding the expansion (the legislature/UDOT) could have a longer-term goal of capacity rather than a nearer-term goal of increased service. Double tracking the entire line is such an obvious good, and sidestepping it in favor of 'strategic doubletracking' makes the whole process seem cheaper and less competent.

[Hatman]

Also, for those who haven't heard yet:

[Orlando]

Anybody know what the latest is? I heard from someone working on the intermodal hub/ UTA's office building, that it's in the works.
So, how does that affect the Rio Grande Plan?

This article from BSL last year addresses it from last year's context.
Is there new news?

https://buildingsaltlake.com/utas-new-of...at-600-west-is-the-rio-grande-plan-dead/

[Atlas]

Originally Posted by Orlando

Anybody know what the latest is? I heard from someone working on the intermodal hub/ UTA's office building, that it's in the works.
So, how does that affect the Rio Grande Plan?

This article from BSL last year addresses it from last year's context.
Is there new news?

https://buildingsaltlake.com/utas-new-of...at-600-west-is-the-rio-grande-plan-dead/

UTA is ignoring the RGP publicly and trying to ram through their new office tower and central station rebuild instead. The top UTA people think the RGP is more trouble than its worth and it feels like they want to kill the idea by undermining one of its main benefits. Carlton Christensen has said as much. There was an opinion piece awhile back talking about this.

But I guess it's good that they feel threatened enough to actually do something about SL Central.

As others have pointed out, the RGP still works even if they build their new station. It will make a nice bus depot with direct access to I-15.

[Paniolo Man]

Ahead of Via Rio Grande's event next month, Building Salt Lake has released Salt Lake City's Rio Grande Plan Screening Analysis.

SLC contracted Kimley-Horn to study the feasibility of The Rio Grande Plan and draw up their own plans based on stakeholder feedback and technical feasibility. Salt Lake City's plan comes with a higher price tag and several added benefits, making it a perfect project leading up to the Olympics in SLC. Salt Lake City's Rio Grande Plan removes several more railroad crossings than the first Rio Grande Plan, It is designed in a way that Union Pacific sees suitable, and it is perfectly integrated with TRAX.









Many of the changes are due to stricter design requirements by railroads. Even with this increased cost the Rio Grande Plan will be a massive improvement for our city and save countless lives.

[Atlas]

Originally Posted by Paniolo Man

Many of the changes are due to stricter design requirements by railroads. Even with this increased cost the Rio Grande Plan will be a massive improvement for our city and save countless lives.

I love this map.

Expensive but worth it. Lots of public good for less cost than widening the freeway.

Edit: I just want to point out how remarkable all of this is given that this idea was first proposed on this very website. SSP weirdos are making a difference in the world @Dylan Leblanc.

[RC14]

The improvements made are a welcome surprise. I really hope this happens.

[ucsbgaucho]

Originally Posted by Paniolo Man

Ahead of Via Rio Grande's event next month, Building Salt Lake has released Salt Lake City's Rio Grande Plan Screening Analysis.

It is designed in a way that Union Pacific sees suitable, and it is perfectly integrated with TRAX.

Not sure where you get the idea that UP sees this as "suitable". The article from BSL says quite the opposite:

"Union Pacific, a private company operating in the area for over 150 years, remains a significant impediment.

While the company’s rail yard at 400 South is being used far less than it used to as the company favors sending trains to the Roper yard five miles south, it would still need to find a replacement yard if the one at 400 South was removed.

The plan also envisions spacing UPRR’s train box tracks 25 feet apart from other transit tracks, whereas the company prefers its tracks to be 50 feet away.

Moving Union Pacific tracks underground would go a long way to preventing the at times hour-long backups its trains create on a daily basis, blocking residents from getting to the east or west sides while they wait for the trains to clear from at-grade crossings.

While the company appears to have conceded moving its operations underground would help minimize the east-west divide, it doesn’t see an upside in cooperating with the RGP.

“UPRR stated that they do not foresee significant benefit to UPRR from the RGP concept,” the report said. “They consider their current right-of-way alignments to be in the ideal location and do not have plans to incur costs associated with relocating track and yard areas.”

While it's a plan that SHOULD be implemented and federal Olympic money could make it a reality, it's got a TON of huge hurdles to overcome.

[Atlas]

It's more suitable than the old plan because the grades are shallower and there's more natural ventilation. The track spacing seems like a preference rather than a hard limitation, and the UP rails would be separated from transit by a wall in the places that it matters.

But it makes sense that they prefer the status quo. Why wouldn't they?

[Paniolo Man]

Originally Posted by ucsbgaucho

Not sure where you get the idea that UP sees this as "suitable". The article from BSL says quite the opposite:

"Union Pacific, a private company operating in the area for over 150 years, remains a significant impediment.

While the company’s rail yard at 400 South is being used far less than it used to as the company favors sending trains to the Roper yard five miles south, it would still need to find a replacement yard if the one at 400 South was removed.

The plan also envisions spacing UPRR’s train box tracks 25 feet apart from other transit tracks, whereas the company prefers its tracks to be 50 feet away.

Moving Union Pacific tracks underground would go a long way to preventing the at times hour-long backups its trains create on a daily basis, blocking residents from getting to the east or west sides while they wait for the trains to clear from at-grade crossings.

While the company appears to have conceded moving its operations underground would help minimize the east-west divide, it doesn’t see an upside in cooperating with the RGP.

“UPRR stated that they do not foresee significant benefit to UPRR from the RGP concept,” the report said. “They consider their current right-of-way alignments to be in the ideal location and do not have plans to incur costs associated with relocating track and yard areas.”

While it's a plan that SHOULD be implemented and federal Olympic money could make it a reality, it's got a TON of huge hurdles to overcome.

It is my interpretation that UPRR is playing hard to get as many concessions as possible. Salt Lake City is getting hard about trains blocking crossings, It's a PR hurt that UPRR can't seem to shake. Rio Grande plan trades curves for slight grades and the ability to stop trains for as long as they please.

They just want to make sure that they seem opposed since a hard stance will likely get them the best deal.

[Paniolo Man]

Originally Posted by Atlas

It's more suitable than the old plan because the grades are shallower and there's more natural ventilation. The track spacing seems like a preference rather than a hard limitation, and the UP rails would be separated from transit by a wall in the places that it matters.

But it makes sense that they prefer the status quo. Why wouldn't they?

Interestingly UPRR's required spacing for the Frontrunner Payson extension is only 25'.