Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[Urban_logic]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

We are ahead of some much larger cities such as Phoenix and Minneapolis as far as developing rail mass transit.

I do have to say that while the masses were very much opposed to Light Rail for many years that once it finally was approved that this very conservative population really has grasped the concept and supported it with tax increases and very impressive ridership numbers.

SLC (19) currently has about half the miles that Denver(36) does and a little less than a third of Portland (44), once the remained or our lines that are currently under construction, (airport, WJ, and WVC) are completed we will have a pretty good system considering our population in comparison to those two cities. If we then implement a trolley system that would be even more impressive. (all mileage data taken from Wikipedia)

I'm not saying it is a perfect system, but we are making huge strides in my opinion.

I deffinatley agree to that point. Comparing the WF to the BA wasn't the best, I did so simply because that's where I'm from. Phoenix, Vegas, and Denver are much better comparisons. That 19 mile figure is probably just TRAX, right? FrontRunner North is 40 miles, is it not? So that's about 60 miles in the system currently. With another 40 miles south to Provo, that's 100 miles. West Valley line is probably 5 miles, then the Airport line is probably yet another 5 miles. I think the mid-Jordan line is 10 miles - that's an extra 20 miles, which would make 120 miles of total rail (40 of light and 80 of commuter). *I hope I did my math correctly because I just added all that up in my head* If you add a Sugar House line, Foothill line, and Draper extension, that could be another potential 15-20 miles, bringing the total to about 150 miles. Add in some trollies, and that would be a very impressive and enviable rail system! I'm sure the SLC area will eclipse and fly light-years ahead of cities such as Denver, Phoenix, and Vegas.

[delts145]

I'm thinking that as enamored with the trolleys as are political leaders are, we're going to be in for a major commuter buildup as soon as the economy stabilizes. I think we'll easily have more miles laid down than most of the cities within the same metro size range such as Denver and Sacramento, or especiallly cities such as Phoenix and Minneapolis.

[urbanboy]

Let's just hope the rails are first and foremost laid in neighborhoods in which the demographic depends on public transportation, and then move on to the wealthier neighborhoods who just want "options." Eventually I hope all neighborhoods have a public transit rail line.

[Urban_logic]

Originally Posted by urbanboy

With the majority of our State Legislators being Mormon, and since it is they who control where the funding for transportation goes, and since many make decisions based on their values, and since their faith shapes those values, their faith is actually relevant to this discussion. If the LDS Church says jump, an overwhelming majority of its membership jumps. You can't say the same about the Catholic Church. This gives the LDS church a lot of political power since the majority of our State Legislators are Mormon. Mormon values run very closely with the 1950's version of "The American Dream." There's really no place for mass transit in this type of ideology. Or perhaps Mormons are a controlling people and like the control the automobile gives them to trap their children into a dependent lifestyle. Naw, that's just going too far... or is it? Mass transit frees people: children, the elderly, and those who don't want to be a slave to their automobile. I don't want to get anyone upset, I just want to give all of you something to think about. In the end you might agree or disagree. but it's a valid point of view.

You are stereotyping again. Mormons "controling" and "trapping" their children I take it you had a rough childhood. But don't let that shape your world view!

If a TRAX ticket costs $2, to a family with 3-4 kids (that's being a bit conservative to general Mormon demographics), that would cost $6-$8 for all the kids to take one trip. If the parents came with, that's $10-$12. If they went to a movie, that would mean that they would have to pay that amount twice. So that's $20-$25 just for one trip! That's a tank of gas! If the same family had a van, it would only cost the amount of maybe a 5th or 6th of a tank. That would be a fraction of the cost! In the Bay Area, a family is on the larger side if they had 2 kids. Traffic is terrible and triples the travel time. Don't you see how different modes of transportation would make better financial sense to different demographics?

You are correct, your point of view is valid - though I question its accuracy on this particular topic - but you are more than welcome to have it. I say we end this sub-topic now. Yes, the LDS Church is relevent, as a culture. I don't agree that the way you are using it as context to this discussion is necessary.

[Urban_logic]

Originally Posted by delts145

I think I developed a childhood crush on the elevated rail, (monorail) This is probably as a result of childhood trips to Seattle and Disneyland. That said, you're 100% right Cololi. While fanciful and futuristic, it is a proven money pit like no other. I would much prefer the track we're on, with the trolleys added in as quickly as possible.

Equating Monorail and elevated rail is quite a stretch. Mono (means 'one') rail is a one-way loop that goes in a continuous circle. Though quite fun for amusment parks, it makes no practical sense from a public transportation stand point. Elevated rail, on the other hand, is simpy rail that is like a freeway - up off of traffic - but still goes both directions and branches outward to strategically move people around to vital parts of the metro.

I think that the WF most certainly will need elevated rail at some point, but Future Mayor is correct, we must develop our surface mass-transit infrastructure before we look to the skies. The points were brought up in posts past that Utah has excellently planned wide roads and a wide array of existing rails on the ground as is. We most certainly should utilize these exsisting rail lines and wide roads for light rail, BRT, and commuter rail.

Then, when we have a well-developed and mature surface mass-transit infrastructure 30-40 years from now, we can focus on building elevated rail.

And, no, I don't think that it shadding pedestrians and keeping snow and ice from melting is an issue at all. The elevated rail doesn't have to go over pedestrians heads. It could be build along side 1-15 or in the middle of it (like they've don'e in the BA). What would make sense to me would be to build and elevated rail between the North/South or East/West bound lanes of traffic along the freeways. The stations would be indoor and below the freeway. Parking would be under the freeway as well, to conserve space. There would be a drop-off zone for cars, buses, and taxis adjacent to the station below the freeway or beside it. Once you would enter the station, you would buy your tickets at the bottom platform, then stuff your ticket into automated gates. Once you pass through the gates, you would go up the escalator to the top, where you would be outside but covered with a roof structure (open air). The tracks would be beside you, with the freeway traffic behind them.

Here is what the structure of the platform would look like:



Notice half the freeway to the left:



This is what it would look like beneath the freeway:

[urbanboy]

Originally Posted by Urban_logic

If a TRAX ticket costs $2, to a family with 3-4 kids (that's being a bit conservative to general Mormon demographics), that would cost $6-$8 for all the kids to take one trip. If the parents came with, that's $10-$12. If they went to a movie, that would mean that they would have to pay that amount twice. So that's $20-$25 just for one trip! That's a tank of gas! If the same family had a van, it would only cost the amount of maybe a 5th or 6th of a tank. That would be a fraction of the cost! In the Bay Area, a family is on the larger side if they had 2 kids. Traffic is terrible and triples the travel time. Don't you see how different modes of transportation would make better financial sense to different demographics?

Are you already forgetting that gas was around $4.50 a gallon? Yes, sadly we are a society based on the price of gas, but your argument is based on gas prices today, what happens to your argument if gas prices jump back to $4.50 tomorrow?

[i-215]

Originally Posted by urbanboy

Are you already forgetting that gas was around $4.50 a gallon? Yes, sadly we are a society based on the price of gas, but your argument is based on gas prices today, what happens to your argument if gas prices jump back to $4.50 tomorrow?

Only if the hedge funds start gambling again.

[WASDEN]

I think the Wasatch Front is surprisingly progressive as far as transit goes. But I think we have the Olympics to thank for that. Without the games it might have been impossibile to secure federal funding for TRAX, and there is NO WAY local leaders would have paid for TRAX with Utah taxpayer dollars. (didn't the feds cover like, an astonomical 80% of the cost??) But thanks to the games, TRAX was built, the naysayers were silenced, and transit had enough momentum that voters even elected to raise their own taxes for more transit! I would have never predicted back in the day, that the Wasatch Front would have so many awesome rail projects going on. I can't wait to ride TRAX to catch my next flight!

[Urban_logic]

Originally Posted by urbanboy

Are you already forgetting that gas was around $4.50 a gallon? Yes, sadly we are a society based on the price of gas, but your argument is based on gas prices today, what happens to your argument if gas prices jump back to $4.50 tomorrow?

Then there will be a greater economical need for this demographic to move toward mass transit. Remember that I said the transportation mode of choice by a particular demographic is based on the economic sense for it. My argument still stands true. Have you realized that gas prices have always been below $2/gallon until not even half a decade ago? It was under a dollar just 8 years ago. My point was that it has made perfect economic sense for this demographic to perfer the automobile over mass-transit in recent decades. That is why there wasn't a big push to change. Now that people realize just how easily gas prices go up, there is a region-wide push for mass-transit. The paradigm has truley shifted from not even a decade ago. Communities are now clamoring over who gets the next line. That means that my argument is 100% correct - the market incentive for a demographic to move over to a more economical mode of transportation is what pushes people within that demographic to do so, not a Church mandate or evil parent's desire to lock up his or her kids to keep them from having fun. The market-incentive in the Bay Area has traditionally been mass-transit. Now, there may be more of a push there for it, but not a very significant paradigm shift from before. The WF, however, now has a tramendous market incentive to switch its perfered mode of transit.

[i-215]

Originally Posted by WASDEN

I think the Wasatch Front is surprisingly progressive as far as transit goes. But I think we have the Olympics to thank for that. Without the games it might have been impossibile to secure federal funding for TRAX, and there is NO WAY local leaders would have paid for TRAX with Utah taxpayer dollars. (didn't the feds cover like, an astonomical 80% of the cost??) But thanks to the games, TRAX was built, the naysayers were silenced, and transit had enough momentum that voters even elected to raise their own taxes for more transit! I would have never predicted back in the day, that the Wasatch Front would have so many awesome rail projects going on. I can't wait to ride TRAX to catch my next flight!

Part of it too is the all-too-human tendency to "never have enough."

No matter how many train lines we are planning, it's still never enough. Heck, we're planning a rebuild of I-15 in Utah County and the Mountain View Corridor, and it's still "not enough" for me!

But if we step back and look: We're going to build 50+ miles of freeway and 50+ miles of new rail. With or without a federal bail-out.

I'd say Utah is in REALLY great shape. These will be the visionary days future generations will thank us for.

[Urban_logic]

Originally Posted by i-215

Part of it too is the all-too-human tendency to "never have enough."

No matter how many train lines we are planning, it's still never enough. Heck, we're planning a rebuild of I-15 in Utah County and the Mountain View Corridor, and it's still "not enough" for me!

But if we step back and look: We're going to build 50+ miles of freeway and 50+ miles of new rail. With or without a federal bail-out.

I'd say Utah is in REALLY great shape. These will be the visionary days future generations will thank us for.

I most certainly agree! I will never be satisfied. As soon as these light rail lines are done, I want more on the east side, then commuter rail to Park City and Tooele, then mini light-rail sytems in the Provo-Orem and Ogden-Clearfield parts of the megapolitan area, then street cars in neighborhoods, then the 415 to rap around the west side of the valley and provide access to western Utah County and farther extended up north in Weber County to inter-connect the entire west side of the mega, then a LOT more BRT's throughout the mega, expressways providing more efficient east-west access to the valley, then more expressway connections to Tooele County, then bike lanes on all main roads, then bike/pedestrian trails networking and inter-linking throughout the mega. I'm not done. Then lengthening the FrontRunner routes to Logan in the north and Nephi in the south, then elevated rail. I could go on.

Utah is deffinately in an enviable position! We will look back 20 years from now and appretiate the ground work that was laid for an elite, comprehensive megapolitan transit system we will be expanding at that future time.

[WASDEN]

What you are describing does not sound like an 'enviable position,' but L.A. you sprawlmongers .

[Urban_logic]

Originally Posted by WASDEN

What you are describing does not sound like an 'enviable position'.

How so?

[WASDEN]

Just messin with ya- the way you describe the 'mega'politan Salt Lake area. Although it probably will be like that with Logan, Ogden, SLC, Tooele, the UC, and Nephi all being one continuous mass of placelessness. And you're right- if it must be that way then at least we should have good transit.

[i-215]

Population = Sprawl

Even New York City has it.
(I think they call it "Long Island")

Originally Posted by WASDEN

And you're right- if it must be that way then at least we should have good transit.

Amen to that, brotha!

[CONative]

Originally Posted by Urban_logic

I deffinatley agree to that point. Comparing the WF to the BA wasn't the best, I did so simply because that's where I'm from. Phoenix, Vegas, and Denver are much better comparisons. That 19 mile figure is probably just TRAX, right? FrontRunner North is 40 miles, is it not? So that's about 60 miles in the system currently. With another 40 miles south to Provo, that's 100 miles. West Valley line is probably 5 miles, then the Airport line is probably yet another 5 miles. I think the mid-Jordan line is 10 miles - that's an extra 20 miles, which would make 120 miles of total rail (40 of light and 80 of commuter). *I hope I did my math correctly because I just added all that up in my head* If you add a Sugar House line, Foothill line, and Draper extension, that could be another potential 15-20 miles, bringing the total to about 150 miles. Add in some trollies, and that would be a very impressive and enviable rail system! I'm sure the SLC area will eclipse and fly light-years ahead of cities such as Denver, Phoenix, and Vegas.

Hey Everyone -

I'm in town on business and thought I would check things out.

Concerning light rail miles....you must not realize that Denver has the 112 light rail and commuter rail FasTracks extension program passed by voters a few years back. That will bring Denver's total to close to 150 miles. This is already passed and in progress - not speculation or a thought. So, it's just a matter of time. We currently have another light rail line currently under construction (due to FasTracks) from Downtown to the western Suburbs.

[SLC Projects]

I notice the other day three cranes in Sandy just off of I-15 by the rail line. I'm guessing it has something to do with the Front Runner expansion. Anyways it's right by SLCC campus in Sandy.

[urbanboy]

Originally Posted by i-215

Population = Sprawl

Even New York City has it.
(I think they call it "Long Island")



Amen to that, brotha!

Sprawl is not just building out, it's inefficiently building out. Population = Population, not Sprawl. How you accommodate that population determines whether it's sprawl or not.

[Future Mayor]

I agree, population doesn't have to equal sprawl. I look at it like this, as the population increases the demographics groups will increase and each demo will prefer a different type of lifestyle. So while I see that the mega will continue to grow outward, it will also continue to grow upward.

Outward growth will continue along the spines, (I-15) (1-80) into southern Utah County and into Northern Juab county (Nephi) and up to Brigham City to the north. It will also grow outward to Tooele and Grantsville, and even some growth to the east along I-80, I-84 and US 40. These tend to be the natural growth directions. I feel that this growth can be handled in an appropriate way, with smart land use patterns and preservation corridors. The growth I fear and that many of us fear is the growth of Cedar Valley, while I would prefer it didn't grow like it is projected to, if it does have to grow I hope that it to will grow in a responsible manner.

As for the upward growth, as I mentioned as the demographic groups increase in size there will be a huge demand for urban living, (I know none of this is news to anyone I just wanted to put it out there). DT SLC will continue to boom, and the downtown as we know it will be greatly expanded in 30 - 40 years. Other urban centers and transit oriented communities will continue to be more popular and will provide more density for those desiring it.

So while the population is going to continue to grow, I don't see the outward growth happening at the same rate as it has in the past.

[cololi]

Originally Posted by Urban_logic

Elevated rail, on the other hand, is simpy rail that is like a freeway - up off of traffic - but still goes both directions and branches outward to strategically move people around to vital parts of the metro.

I think that the WF most certainly will need elevated rail at some point, but Future Mayor is correct, we must develop our surface mass-transit infrastructure before we look to the skies. The points were brought up in posts past that Utah has excellently planned wide roads and a wide array of existing rails on the ground as is. We most certainly should utilize these exsisting rail lines and wide roads for light rail, BRT, and commuter rail.

Then, when we have a well-developed and mature surface mass-transit infrastructure 30-40 years from now, we can focus on building elevated rail.

And, no, I don't think that it shadding pedestrians and keeping snow and ice from melting is an issue at all. The elevated rail doesn't have to go over pedestrians heads. It could be build along side 1-15 or in the middle of it (like they've don'e in the BA). What would make sense to me would be to build and elevated rail between the North/South or East/West bound lanes of traffic along the freeways. The stations would be indoor and below the freeway. Parking would be under the freeway as well, to conserve space. There would be a drop-off zone for cars, buses, and taxis adjacent to the station below the freeway or beside it. Once you would enter the station, you would buy your tickets at the bottom platform, then stuff your ticket into automated gates. Once you pass through the gates, you would go up the escalator to the top, where you would be outside but covered with a roof structure (open air). The tracks would be beside you, with the freeway traffic behind them.

Here is what the structure of the platform would look like:



Notice half the freeway to the left:



This is what it would look like beneath the freeway:

I don't consider a transit line that runs in a freeway right of way that is at grade with the freeway an elevated rail line. This is the same thing as running in any other right of way, only it is a limited access freeway. In the bay area the area that immediately comes to mind as an elevated rail is the section that runs near the Oakland coliseum and airport to the bay tunnel. That is elevated, above grade, with all kinds of roads under it. But if I remember correctly, it is still primarily in it's own right of way. It makes sense to elevate in areas where city blocks are only 200-300 feet wide. If you were to bridge every cross street, you basically have an elevated rail. SLC blocks are 660 feet wide. We don't need to elevate.

And icing is an issue with any sort of elevated road way or rail line. Cars hitting a support basically shuts the system down until engineers can verify there was no damamge to the support. when I toured the Chicago public transit system with one of their managers, they told me it was a major issue. Chicago has a hell of time freeing the areas under the el of ice in the winter. UDOT has the same issue at every one of their bridges. It adds to the liability that the operator has to assume and it adds to maintenance costs. The Gateway also has to deal with it near their sky bridges and City Creek will face the same issue.