Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[Paniolo Man]

I'm a little upset about this.

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

As the saying goes, you had one job to do...

Report: Federal government never received Salt Lake City-Boise rail application


The Federal Rail Administration announced several grants to transportation agencies across the U.S. late last year, an effort to study possible expansion of the country’s passenger rail network as part of its Corridor Identification and Development (Corridor ID) program.

KPCW
By Parker Malatesta
February 1, 2024

"A grant application to study a connection between Salt Lake City and Boise was rejected, and according to Idaho-based local news site Boise Dev, we now know why.

The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) was responsible for submitting the application on behalf of numerous partners, including the Utah Department of Transportation and Salt Lake City government.

The agency mistakenly applied for a separate program.

“Inadvertently, one of our staff members submitted the application for this Corridor ID to the wrong link, ” ITD spokesperson John Tomlinson told BoiseDev..."

https://www.kpcw.org/state-regional/...il-application

[rockies]

IDOT and maybe UDOT should put up the funding. To my understanding, the initial grant is $500k for studying and coming up with a proposal, right?

[Nebula3lem123]

Yep, the corridor id grant is $500k. Especially with UDOT's budget, I don't think it would be too hard for them to study the routes themselves, though I'm not sure how a self-funded study would work out with Amtrak.

[bob rulz]

Originally Posted by Paniolo Man

I'm a little upset about this.

That's really sad and frustrating, but on the other hand kind of funny.

[kickback256]

Sidebar question: does anybody here have any clue why the Farmington Station platform is much longer than all the others? The low block extends underneath the pedestrian bridge and then some, and I’ve got genuinely no idea why.

[Nebula3lem123]

I decided to measure platform lengths for every Frontrunner station platform because why not. Used google maps to measure distances so could be off by ~10 feet

Provo: ~930 ft
Orem: ~550 ft
Vineyard: ~580 ft
American Fork: ~580 ft
Lehi: ~530 ft
Draper: ~580 ft
South Jordan: ~580 ft
Murray: ~580 ft
Salt Lake Central: ~910 ft
North Temple: ~670 ft
Woods Cross: ~550 ft
Farmington: ~910 ft
Layton: ~900 ft (this platform is noticeably curved so could be off by more)
Clearfield: ~550 ft
Roy: ~580 ft
Ogden: ~910 ft
(bonus) Pleasant View: ~550 ft

Couple of notes:
Frontrunner north platforms are typically longer than Frontrunner south platforms.
Extra long platforms seem to be for central cities and significant destinations (such as lagoon for Farmington station, not sure about Layton though).
Lehi platform is (likely) shorter because there are stairs to get under the tracks as opposed to ramping down to track level.
Assuming no platforms are extended (but some get more sections ~24" tall) the longest a Frontrunner train can be is 1 MPI MPXpress locomotive and 5 bi-level cars long.

[locolife]

Originally Posted by Nebula3lem123

I decided to measure platform lengths for every Frontrunner station platform because why not. Used google maps to measure distances so could be off by ~10 feet

Provo: ~930 ft
Orem: ~550 ft
Vineyard: ~580 ft
American Fork: ~580 ft
Lehi: ~530 ft
Draper: ~580 ft
South Jordan: ~580 ft
Murray: ~580 ft
Salt Lake Central: ~910 ft
North Temple: ~670 ft
Woods Cross: ~550 ft
Farmington: ~910 ft
Layton: ~900 ft (this platform is noticeably curved so could be off by more)
Clearfield: ~550 ft
Roy: ~580 ft
Ogden: ~910 ft
(bonus) Pleasant View: ~550 ft

Couple of notes:
Frontrunner north platforms are typically longer than Frontrunner south platforms.
Extra long platforms seem to be for central cities and significant destinations (such as lagoon for Farmington station, not sure about Layton though).
Lehi platform is (likely) shorter because there are stairs to get under the tracks as opposed to ramping down to track level.
Assuming no platforms are extended (but some get more sections ~24" tall) the longest a Frontrunner train can be is 1 MPI MPXpress locomotive and 5 bi-level cars long.

Things I never thought I'd think about... for $1000 Alex.

[Paniolo Man]

Originally Posted by Nebula3lem123

I decided to measure platform lengths for every Frontrunner station platform because why not. Used google maps to measure distances so could be off by ~10 feet

Provo: ~930 ft
Orem: ~550 ft
Vineyard: ~580 ft
American Fork: ~580 ft
Lehi: ~530 ft
Draper: ~580 ft
South Jordan: ~580 ft
Murray: ~580 ft
Salt Lake Central: ~910 ft
North Temple: ~670 ft
Woods Cross: ~550 ft
Farmington: ~910 ft
Layton: ~900 ft (this platform is noticeably curved so could be off by more)
Clearfield: ~550 ft
Roy: ~580 ft
Ogden: ~910 ft
(bonus) Pleasant View: ~550 ft

Couple of notes:
Frontrunner north platforms are typically longer than Frontrunner south platforms.
Extra long platforms seem to be for central cities and significant destinations (such as lagoon for Farmington station, not sure about Layton though).
Lehi platform is (likely) shorter because there are stairs to get under the tracks as opposed to ramping down to track level.
Assuming no platforms are extended (but some get more sections ~24" tall) the longest a Frontrunner train can be is 1 MPI MPXpress locomotive and 5 bi-level cars long.

The longer northern platforms are a relic of when UTA intended to run 10-car trains. Several were cut back before being built as UTA scaled back those plans.

As we know more recently UTA made a whole scene of retiring the comets so they could raise the platforms to accommodate longer bilevel trains. Once the comets were retired UTA ditched the idea and plans to continue 3-car trains indefinitely. They believe added frequency will eliminate the need for longer trains.

[Nebula3lem123]

I think 4 car trains would be very nice, but I would understand if they just don't have enough bi-levels for it

[Paniolo Man]

Originally Posted by Nebula3lem123

I think 4 car trains would be very nice, but I would understand if they just don't have enough bi-levels for it

[kickback256]

Well a massive thanks to you all for the help in getting that answered! I’m glad to hear I wasn’t completely out of my mind in thinking Farmington was longer than the others, though I definitely did discount the major stops in my head. Much appreciated, all!

[Nebula3lem123]

Originally Posted by Paniolo Man

wait til you hear about UTA's debt problem (and the road expans- I MEAN brt projects)

[Nebula3lem123]

Originally Posted by kickback256

Well a massive thanks to you all for the help in getting that answered! I’m glad to hear I wasn’t completely out of my mind in thinking Farmington was longer than the others, though I definitely did discount the major stops in my head. Much appreciated, all!

One thing that is interesting for me at least is that (complete assumption) the Farmington platform seems newer than most others. Was it reconstructed recently? In that case, why did they keep the length? Was it just easier since it was originally designed to be that long?

[Paniolo Man]

The Techlink Study website has been updated with some interesting alternatives.

Alternative 1:



Alternative 2:



Alternative 3:



Alternative 4:



Alternative 3 is my pick, as it is the most Rio Grande Plan friendly. I am of the strong belief that the Rio Grande Plan is a necessity and planning should be planned around it. The baseline has added a 400 West alignment making it more Rio Grande Plan adaptable though the line is oddly non-revenue. Alternative 2 has that odd elevated segment that would absolutely improve travel times, though the 400 W alignment is still present and non-revenue. Go leave some Rio Grande Plan support in the comments.

[Nebula3lem123]

As a university student, the current trax alignment is already bad enough. With this in mind, alternative 4 causes physical pain to see. Not only would this new statium station be further away from where students go, it's also less visible from the stadium, which is (in my opinion) it's biggest strength.
In terms of alternative 2, why? theres street running on both sides of the elevated portion, so what does this accomplish? If we elevate trax, it won't be super helpful unless entire lines, sections, or routes have their street-running removed.

[RC14]

The elevated portion would reduce travel times because the train would not have to wait at the long lights at 500 and 600 South. I would prefer option 3 but with the elevated portion. But why not bury it insted of elevate it?

[Atlas]

I'm actually cool with all 3 of the central station alternatives. The fact that they included the "non-revenue tracks" on 400W next to Pioneer Park leaves the door open for a station there if the central station is moved to the Depot. That would be my main comment: that that portion is configured such that a station could be added at 300S/400W in the future. The inclusion of the non-revenue portion is 100% a response to the RGP.

The elevated portion sounds a little goofy but it would make sense and help connect the city across UDOT's "grand boulevards".

Originally Posted by Nebula3lem123

As a university student, the current trax alignment is already bad enough. With this in mind, alternative 4 causes physical pain to see. Not only would this new statium station be further away from where students go, it's also less visible from the stadium, which is (in my opinion) it's biggest strength.

Aesthetics aside, the new stadium stop is higher elevation so I think it's not that much more inconvenient for students than the current station. Removing the tracks from the north side of the stadium would allow the university to expand the north concourse which is currently very narrow and potentially dangerous in an emergency.

That said, I don't think they should change the stadium alignment unless they change the route of Orange to Research Park. Why not make it go straight up Foothill and have a stop at the VA before Research Park? Then you could eventually just continue the line down Foothill to Parleys.

[Paniolo Man]

RPA has released the list of "preferred routes" identified by the Long-Distance Study. It includes 2 Utah routes:

Los Angeles to Denver, via Barstow, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, and Cheyenne.

Seattle to Denver, via Portland, Boise, Pocatello, Salt Lake City, and Grand Junction.

[Nebula3lem123]

Originally Posted by Atlas

Aesthetics aside, the new stadium stop is higher elevation so I think it's not that much more inc
onvenient for students than the current station.

The inconvenience comes from the distance, not the elevation. Especially at the U, elevation is gonna be a problem no matter what. The problem with the new station is 1. Is further from presidents circle and 2. It's too close to south campus to really get any more walkshed area.

[RC14]

Alternative 4 would be a more direct route through the University and thus reduce travel times. It's interesting that they didn't go that route in the first place. This alternative would also make that part of campus safer and more pedestrian friendly as pedestrians wouldn't have to navigate around TRAX norh of the stadium.