Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[Wasatch Wasteland]

Hatman, those two trainsets I believe have already been purchased by Amtrak Washington to replace the destroyed train set from the point defiance bypass disaster as well as to increase frequency along the cascades corridor. Something in the area of going from 7 trains a day to 8 trains a day between Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia.

Also, Moab is not considering extending the rail spur into Moab, as the superfund site where the rail line enters the Moab valley is almost completely finished decontaminating. The plan is to zone this area for tourism/hospitality development in a few years in order to keep such projects out of the downtown Moab area, and link up with the town by the future shuttle bus service that is proposed to be implemented in Arches National Park. Sort of a “gateway” development and overflow access to relieve the arches entrance and prevent the over-development of existing land in Moab.

While 3.75 hours is less than 5 hours, I’m sure the benefit and luxury of a scenic train ride would outweigh getting to a world class outdoor destination an hour faster. I personally don’t think any track realignments would be necessary, if anything people might want it to last longer!

[Hatman]

Last I heard on the two Talgo trainsets is that there is interest from WSDOT, but no firm deal, but I may be out of date.

Even if the two new trainsets get purchased by WSDOT, my slightly more controversial plan is for UDOT to by 2, or perhaps even all 4 of the trainsets they are replacing. WSDOT is replacing their 2 Talgo series 6 trainsets because the NTSB didn't like the way the trainsets handled a crash in 2017. Talgo disputes that their trainsets are unsafe, and I'm sure that if UDOT purchased them, Talgo would make some safety upgrades along with refreshing the rest of the interiors.
It is also completely disingenuous of the NTSB to recommend the Series 6 Talgos be replaced, because they were always operating on a safety waver to begin with. It was assumed that with active safety features (such as PTC that would prevent a train from going overspeed and crashing) would make up for a perceived lack in passive safety features (such as a more rigid bogie design), so that there would not be any additional safety risk. So then they ran their train on new route that lacked PTC, and the train crashed by going 75 mph in a 30 mph zone.
A route from SLC to Moab would, by law, need to be completely in PTC territory, so it wouldn't matter that the trains would be operating under a safety waver. It is also worth noting that the FRA is easing up its safety standards to make them more comparable to European standards, which would probably mean that the Talgos wouldn't need a safety waver in the first place.

All I'm sayin' is that there are options to get a several Talgo trainsets for cheap, if UDOT is interested. And I say they should be interested because there is a significant difference between a 5-hour train ride and a 4-hour train ride. Even if we go ahead and call it a luxury service, it still needs to appeal to a broad enough amount of travelers to fill trains every single day, and a faster travel time is a good way to do it.

Also, Moab is not considering extending the rail spur into Moab, as the superfund site where the rail line enters the Moab valley is almost completely finished decontaminating. The plan is to zone this area for tourism/hospitality development in a few years in order to keep such projects out of the downtown Moab area, and link up with the town by the future shuttle bus service that is proposed to be implemented in Arches National Park. Sort of a “gateway” development and overflow access to relieve the arches entrance and prevent the over-development of existing land in Moab.

I like this plan to develop on the north side of the Colorado River, but ideally there would be a small rail spur into this area for passenger service. The current tracks are pretty high up on the hill and far from where the development will probably happen. Train stations work best when they are at the center of developed areas. Like the Rio Grande depot...

Originally Posted by bob rulz

Hatman I'm consistently amazed at your knowledge of this subject and your well thought-out plans. I approve your future appointment as train czar.

It is a lonely friendless job to be train czar, but I'm used to the strange looks people give me. I once had a job as a reporter, and it seemed to go pretty well...
• Video Link

[delts145]

JetBlue founder unveils new, Utah-based ‘world’s nicest airline’

By Art Raymond, For the Deseret News - https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/2/...hwest-airlines

COTTONWOOD HEIGHTS — Almost 20 years after disrupting the staid world of U.S. airline service with the launch of JetBlue, Utah native and serial air travel entrepreneur David Neeleman is back with another project.

And once again, he’s looking to shake things up.

On Friday, Neeleman announced the official name of his new carrier, Breeze Aviation, which will also be headquartered in Utah. The move completes a circle that brings Neeleman back to the place where he grew up and also made his first moves into the airline business.

While rumors of the new effort have been circulating for months under the “Moxy” moniker, the company locked down its brand and is moving forward with a timetable aiming to have planes in the air by the end of this year.

“Add a car, add a hotel, cancel a flight, make changes, it will all be there at your fingertips. Completely hassle-free flying.” — David Neeleman, air travel entrepreneur
Breeze will be the fifth carrier startup for a guy who’s built a reputation for being something of a market oracle when it comes to the airline industry. Neeleman’s previous endeavors include Utah-based Morris Air (acquired by Southwest in 1993), WestJet (currently the No. 2 Canadian carrier), JetBlue and Azul (currently No. 3 among Brazilian domestic carriers).

JetBlue founder and Utah-native David Neeleman unveiled the name of his new, Utah-based airline on Friday. Breeze Aviation will launch later this year with a new, high-tech platform and flights between currently underserved airports. Breeze Aviation

In an interview with the Deseret News, Neeleman said the impetus behind his continued interest in airline startups boils down to a penchant for recognizing opportunity, and acting on it.

“I never started an airline just to start an airline,” Neeleman said. “Right now, we see some pretty gaping holes in the industry.”

While Breeze has not yet announced potential routes, Neeleman’s plan is to identify and leverage nonstop flights between currently underserved airports. Right now, most major carriers require passengers traveling to and from second-tier airports to connect with a regional hub, then travel on to their ultimate destination. Breeze, Neeleman said, is looking to fill in the connection gaps left by an increasingly hub-focused system.

And, he thinks it can be done in a way that scores a win-win for passengers.

“We can cut the fare in half and get them there faster,” Neeleman said. “And we’re going to do it in a completely new way.”

That new approach, according to Neeleman, will prioritize a customer-centric system focused on making all the ins and outs of air travel, well, a breeze. That will include taking a page from the success of marketplace titans like Uber and Amazon, with an app-based toolkit that will allow passengers to find tickets, change or update travel plans, and add other travel necessities like rental cars and/or accommodations without ever having to deal with a customer service network.

"The goal is to have our customers ... never having to speak with anybody, if they don’t want to,” Neeleman said. “Add a car, add a hotel, cancel a flight, make changes, it will all be there at your fingertips. Completely hassle-free flying.”

And Neeleman has a track record for bringing big innovations into the realm of air travel. During a presentation at the recent Silicon Slopes Tech Summit in Salt Lake City, Neeleman noted that while Southwest Airlines is credited by the Smithsonian Institute as pioneering e-ticketless travel, the technology was actually first launched by his debut airline, Morris Air, and became the property of Southwest after the acquisition deal. JetBlue — which pioneered free, in-flight live television programming — and Azul launched service in dozens of Brazilian cities that had previously gone without an airline connection.

Breeze has ordered 60 brand-new Airbus 220-300 aircraft, with deliveries beginning in April 2021, and has leased 30 Embraer 195 aircraft from Azul, which will be delivered starting May 2020. The company said the A220 is ideally suited for nonstop flights between mid-size markets that Breeze expects to serve while the E195s can cost-effectively connect smaller markets.

Neeleman’s latest startup has already earned support from state leaders, with the Governor’s Office of Economic Development announcing a post-performance tax rebate package for the company late last year. The package could earn Breeze as much as $1.1 million in tax rebates on plans to make over $3 million in capital investments and hire about 370 new employees. At this point, Neeleman said he does not anticipate Breeze will be providing service in or out of Salt Lake City International Airport, but other Utah airports may be in the running for new routes.

“Twenty years ago, we brought humanity back to the airline industry with JetBlue,” Neeleman said in a statement. “Today, we’re excited to introduce plans for ‘the world’s nicest airline.’”

.

[Makid]

More movement on the FrontRunner double tracking effort:

https://www.ksl.com/article/46717938...ouble-tracking

McAdams, Curtis aim to secure federal money for FrontRunner double-tracking

SALT LAKE CITY — A bipartisan proposal by two Utah congressmen aims to secure federal dollars for double-tracking the FrontRunner commuter rail line.

Reps. Ben McAdams, D-Utah, and John Curtis, R-Utah, have introduced legislation that would make projects like FrontRunner eligible for funding to increase service by installing more miles of double track.

The Transit Revitalization and Infrastructure Needs Act would expand eligibility for transportation grant funding to electrify transit systems, like FrontRunner, and move away from older, outdated diesel-powered engines.

McAdams, Utah Transit Authority Board Chairman Carlton Christensen and UTA Executive Director Carolyn Gonot are scheduled hold a news conference Tuesday to unveil the proposal.

[Makid]

Updates that may be new for some people:

Tuesday at approximately 3:50pm

The Council will receive a briefing about a grant application request that would fund $9 million from the Transit Transportation Investment Fund (TTIF) for transit projects. The projects expand the two-mile road reconstruction of 200 South from 400 West to 900 East with the addition of dedicated transit lanes, upgraded bus stops, transit signal priority, and the identification of a location for a transit center and hub on 200 South.

From one of the documents:

200 South Transit Corridor, Complete Street, and Transit Signals – Transit
Transportation Investment Fund (TTIF): Transit Projects
Purpose/Goal of the Grant: If awarded, the grant monies will be used to expand the
planned two-mile road reconstruction of 200 South (400 West to 900 East) by adding
dedicated transit lanes, upgraded bus stops, transit signal priority, and the identification of a transit center/hub.
Grant Amount: $9,000,000
Requested by: Department of Community & Neighborhoods, Division of Transportation
Funding Agency: Utah Department of Transportation

Match Requirement: $6,000,000 – Source: Salt Lake City Street Bond in fiscal year
2020-2021 through the annual budget for the transit-focused project elements and for the
Complete Streets transit facilities. The Administration indicates that this project is the
City’s first in nomination priority for TIF and TTIF funding.
Note: The Engineering Division’s six-year pavement plan identifies specific streets to be
rebuilt with bond funding.

If the City does get this grant, it does appear that 2nd South will be changing from a 5 lane street to a 3 lane street. The 2 other lanes would become the first transit (bus) only lanes in Utah.

While the lane locations haven't been identified, I am fairly certain they would utilize the outside lanes. While this is fairly standard, I personally would like them to be towards the center of the street.

To reduce the need to buy new buses, the stations/stops would be placed between the Transit lanes and the general driving lanes. This reduces the need for riders to cross the street fully while also getting drivers used to the thought that Transit is a priority for SLC rather than an after thought.

This also would allow the ROW to be upgraded as demand entails to a full BRT or Streetcar line. Riders would also be used to using the Center/Near Center stations so it wouldn't be out of the ordinary for them. This would be the least impactful to existing drivers and patrons of the buildings along the corridor. Lastly, this would not interfere with the various construction projects that are planned along 2nd South.

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by Makid

McAdams, Curtis aim to secure federal money for FrontRunner double-tracking

I'm on board with this. Good work by two former mayors! In fact, former mayors are so wonderful I think we ought to elect one as our next president!

[Makid]

Originally Posted by Hatman

I'm on board with this. Good work by two former mayors! In fact, former mayors are so wonderful I think we ought to elect one as our next president!

More information from their news conference today:

Officials redouble efforts to double-track FrontRunner commuter rail

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics...ials-redouble/

Officials are opening a second front in the fight for money to build a second parallel track for the FrontRunner commuter rail system — needed for the Utah Transit Authority to run trains more frequently, reliably and quickly.

Democratic Rep. Ben McAdams and Republican Rep. John Curtis announced Tuesday that they introduced legislation to change the rules for one of the nation’s biggest rail federal grant programs, which would allow FrontRunner to compete for some of the roughly $2.3 billion distributed through it annually.

That comes on top of a request by Gov. Gary Herbert for $34 million this year in state money to help double-track the system, but which is seen as a long shot because legislators say their budget is tight.

About 70% of the 90-mile FrontRunner system from Provo to Ogden now runs on a single track, so trains may pass each other only at stations and a few sidings.

“A delay at one station, for example, can cause a ripple effect of delays down the entire line,” said UTA Executive Director Carolyn Gonot, who said that led to long delays during heavy snowstorms earlier this month.

Single track also limits how frequently trains may travel. For example, FrontRunner trains may now run about every half hour at most. Double-tracking could allow service every 15 minutes or more. It would also cut travel time because passing only at stations would not be an issue.

“As Utah’s Wasatch Front population continues to grow, we need transportation solutions that keep up with our growth. Our transit system of buses, light rail and commuter rail is a big part of that solution,” McAdams said at a news conference at the Murray FrontRunner station.

For example, UTA has said that FrontRunner now removes the equivalent of two lanes of freeway traffic off of Interstate 15 during peak times. Double-tracking could help remove more as the area continues to grow.

The legislation by McAdams and Curtis could allow UTA to compete for federal grants that are now limited only to new starts or for systems considered overcapacity. Double-tracking does not meet those criteria, even though it could increase capacity, reliability, speed and frequency.

“Federal funds have long been important in the development of our system, and this would be a much-needed resource,” UTA Board Chairman Carlton Christensen said.

Gonot said double-tracking FrontRunner would be a game changer to make mass transit more attractive along the Wasatch Front.

It could redefine “fundamental assumptions like where you want to live, to get to work, whether you need to drive your car and how we achieve cleaner air in our community. This is where this legislation has such a game-changing potential,” she said.

I do really like that the State at nearly all levels is working towards getting FrontRunner double tracked.

[Makid]

More transit news from the State Legislature:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics...it-brakes-tax/

Senators hit brakes on tax hike for Utah car rentals

People who rent cars in Utah just avoided a proposed 1.5% tax hike.

The Senate voted 27-0 on Monday to advance SB150 to make numerous changes in Utah’s transportation system — but only after removing the controversial rental car tax hike.

That tax would have generated an estimated $4.5 million a year that would have gone toward mass transit projects. It was stripped following opposition from rental car companies, who argue they are already taxed at high rates.

SB150 contains numerous other tweaks and changes to Utah’s transportation systems.

SB150 also would remove a cap on how many “transit oriented developments” the Utah Transit Authority may have, which is now eight. Several cities who want such developments in their areas pushed to eliminate that cap.

The bill also creates a mechanism to allow creation of “transportation reinvestment zones.” Through them, two or more public agencies can agree to capture future increases in property or sales taxes expected from new transportation projects to help fund their construction.

If the bill passes in its current form, the number of TOD's on UTA property will be increased and another way to pay for transit will be instituted.

The Transportation Reinvestment Zones would allow for enhancing and expanding bus service, Trax and FrontRunner.

This is one of the easiest way without direct funding that the State could implement to push Trax to be extended into Utah County.

As the bill does require 2 public agencies to agree to set aside any property tax and sales tax increase for Transit along the line. In SLC, this would be the City and County/State/School District to allow for enhanced bus/Streetcar/Trax routes and expansions. The Downtown Streetcar has been studied and shown to be workable provided a portion of the property tax increase could be used to fund it. So SLC would be able to build the Downtown and Granary Streetcar lines with minor updates.

This bill also would allow both SLC and Murray to build their planned Transit Stations with minimal public funds.

While this could possibly be used to speed up double tracking for FrontRunner, I don't see it being much help without a State push to increase the density around the FrontRunner stations.

Lastly, this could be used as a way to provide Trax to Olympia Hills and Herriman and BRT from Lehi to Eagle Mountain.

I don't expect a lot of new projects in the short term but this does at least open up additional funding options for transit projects especially those that would have high impacts.

[Hatman]

Thanks for the updates! How are the other bills doing - such as the $36 million for double-tracking? I've made the mistake of paying attention to national politics at the expense of the local politics, and I lost track of how transit initiatives were faring.

Too bad the rental car sales tax for transit didn't pass.

[Makid]

Originally Posted by Hatman

Thanks for the updates! How are the other bills doing - such as the $36 million for double-tracking? I've made the mistake of paying attention to national politics at the expense of the local politics, and I lost track of how transit initiatives were faring.

Too bad the rental car sales tax for transit didn't pass.

I haven't seen much movement on the possible money for double tracking. I am still hopeful that they will provide the funding.

I do like that they are trying to be creative with finding new ways to fund transit.

[SLCPolitico]

Assuming the budget goes through as passed by the Executive Appropriations Committee, the Legislature will not fund the double-tracking of Frontrunner.

[Hatman]

I guess why should the state pay for upgrades to its own transit system if there is even the slightest potential the federal government will provide money? Sigh... If only transit had a constant source of funding like roads and highways...

Meanwhile, in California:

Catenary poles are up in preparation for full electrification. Soon the Utah-built Stadler EMU's will replace the bombardier coaches and diesel locomotives currently in use.
Maybe Caltrain will sell their extra cars to UTA? Since double tracking and electrification seem like they're going to take years to happen, UTA should probably think about increasing train length to meet demand until bigger improvements can be made.

[Reeder113]

Originally Posted by Hatman

I guess why should the state pay for upgrades to its own transit system if there is even the slightest potential the federal government will provide money? Sigh... If only transit had a constant source of funding like roads and highways...

Meanwhile, in California:

Catenary poles are up in preparation for full electrification. Soon the Utah-built Stadler EMU's will replace the bombardier coaches and diesel locomotives currently in use.
Maybe Caltrain will sell their extra cars to UTA? Since double tracking and electrification seem like they're going to take years to happen, UTA should probably think about increasing train length to meet demand until bigger improvements can be made.

Electrifying FrontRunner would also mean that it would lose the engine on the one end, correct? And that could be replaced by another electrified train car (similar to TRAX). So technically FrontRunner and FrontRunner stations wouldn't need to be lengthened, but could still increase rider capacity per train.

[Hatman]

You're right that the space previously used by a locomotive would be available for passengers if we switched to EMU's. There is the odd chance that UTA keeps its passenger cars and just replaces the diesel locomotives with electric ones, but with Stadler being based within the state, that is a very small chance.

Either way, though, the platforms are going to need rebuilding. The 'high block' portion of the platform is only long enough for 3-4 cars, depending on the station. Stadler's EMU's only come in even numbers, generally 6-8 cars. (Both the Stadler and Bombardier cars are 85 feet long.) Additionally, the Stadler cars have a floor height of 17 inches, whereas the Bombardier cars have a floor height of 24 inches. It isn't impossible that Stadler raise their cars by seven inches, but I suspect that will change the center of gravity too much (and thus vibration of the car and its energy-management/shock absorption systems) - so it seems more likely to me that every FrontRunner platform is going to either get a shave off the top or have the tracks raised. In the case of the shave, this could be done one side at a time so that service isn't disrupted, and in the case of raising the tracks (likely at Salt Lake Central), crosswalks will need to be taken out of service one at a time.

New trains will require huge changes. But in FrontRunner's case, huge changes are required for it to reach its full potential.

[Atlas]

Hey Hatman, since everyone is confined to their computers right now it might be a good time to make a post on the development subreddit about your vision for the Rio Grande Depot. I know that at least one person from the SLC Planning Commission (the director) pays attention to the subreddit and I think it would get more people talking about it!

[Hatman]

That's an excellent point! I've been pretty slammed with work for a while (luckily I still can work from home!), so I haven't made any progress on putting together anything formal - but I will post something to the subreddit soon.

Separately, I've been reading about so many other transit systems being severely impacted financially from the drop in ridership due to the virus pandemic. UTA has and will be affected for sure, but not nearly to the extent of other agencies who will need to be bailed out for many millions of dollars in lost revenue. UTA is reliant on fares for about 10-15% of their annual budget, which is very low for most agencies. I've been arguing for a while here that transit should be free, but this is a new reason I think we should add to the list: Economic Instability. In order to make transit free, you must have paid for the service ahead of time, meaning transit agencies won't have to beg for money or raise fares if fewer riders show up than expected.

[Old&New]

Originally Posted by Hatman

That's an excellent point! I've been pretty slammed with work for a while (luckily I still can work from home!), so I haven't made any progress on putting together anything formal - but I will post something to the subreddit soon.

Separately, I've been reading about so many other transit systems being severely impacted financially from the drop in ridership due to the virus pandemic. UTA has and will be affected for sure, but not nearly to the extent of other agencies who will need to be bailed out for many millions of dollars in lost revenue. UTA is reliant on fares for about 10-15% of their annual budget, which is very low for most agencies. I've been arguing for a while here that transit should be free, but this is a new reason I think we should add to the list: Economic Instability. In order to make transit free, you must have paid for the service ahead of time, meaning transit agencies won't have to beg for money or raise fares if fewer riders show up than expected.

Perhaps the virus will put the brakes on UTA's current masterplan long enough that they not only take your proposal into consideration, but take it very seriously! Now that the Rio Grand has sustained some damage from the earthquake, a project like the one you are proposing would really be beneficial to the 110 year old building!

[Makid]

The Q4 APTA Ridership report is out. https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uplo...rship-APTA.pdf

Here are the highlights:

Bus: 72.6K This is an increase of 1.5% over Q4 2018.
Trax: 56.9K This is down -1.5% from Q4 2018.
FrontRunner: 19.2K There was no change from Q4 2018.

Total: 155.5K This is down -0.13 from Q4 2018.

Overall there were 44.237 Million rides taken in 2019 for an increase of .08% over 2018.

Now, this is the last full quarter prior to the impact of COVID-19. For Q1 2020, we can most likely expect January and February to be about normal. March will drop but the full drop may not be evident as ridership didn't get hit hard until towards the middle of the month.

We do know that Ridership is down approximately 65% and I would bet this is based on the 2019 ridership numbers.

I do think that Ridership will remain low, even once things start to return to normal. As traffic increases, it won't be enough in itself to move people back or towards transit. I think that this will force the State's hand to enact Free Fares for UTA across all modes.

My reasoning for this is that with more people driving and the increased traffic that this will cause, the Wasatch Front will fail to meet Air Quality levels required to receive Federal funds for roads. The State will see that it is cheaper to spend around $40 Million a year for free fares in order to get their Federal outlay.

I also see this as being a good time for UTA to make their Ridership vs Coverage change that they have been working on for bus service. My understanding was they were going to start enacting this change in August for SL County anyway.

[Hatman]

Making UTA free would certainly be a silver lining to this awful Corona cloud. Hopefully people's perceptions of transit/being in public spaces with other people returns to how it used to be. It would be seriously awful if the lesson everyone learned from this is 'stay in your own homes in your own cars, and the bus gives you corona'.

I've been refining my Rio Grande Depot plans a bit, thanks to some excellent feedback from this community and others. Here is my latest iteration:



This is a cross-section view looking north on 500 West. The main difference between this and what I originally proposed is that the bus platform is directly above the Amtrak/Intercity platform and tracks, which allows two things:
1) The platforms are now wider, up to at least current FrontRunner platform widths. The Bus plaza is now significantly wider (45 feet) which will reduce crowding and bunching significantly.
2) Assuming FrontRunner and the E-W commuter rail line are electrified, the diesel-powered Amtrak/intercity trains can be confined in a ventilated area. This allows for a glass canopy to be built over the remaining 4 tracks, which would completely enclose that area and make the platforms immune to weather/heat/snow.
3) I've made the entire trench a little deeper than before - this design shows that trains will have 23 feet of vertical clearance. This means that freight trains can also use the Amtrak track, though I imagine this would only be a temporary situation, until the freight tracks can be relocated/grade separated to make way for other developments (see my google map in my sig line).

You'll notice I've drawn 3 overlapping canopies, and this is on purpose. I love the looks of trains under glass canopies, but I wanted to make something distinct for Salt Lake City. Most other train stations do curves:




I drew pointed pyramids, and I drew 3 of them to show that the repeating pyramids would not be in line with each other. Each pyramid should be unique in height and angle, with the intent to emulate the Wasatch mountain range. Also, flat panels are easier to make glass panes for, which will be helpful in keeping costs low.

Again, if you have any feedback/suggestions/fixes/complaints, I'd love to hear them. I am pretty serious about putting together a formal proposal, and I want this to be as strong as it possibly can be before professional eyes see it.

[Old&New]

Originally Posted by Hatman

Again, if you have any feedback/suggestions/fixes/complaints, I'd love to hear them. I am pretty serious about putting together a formal proposal, and I want this to be as strong as it possibly can be before professional eyes see it.

Just seeing your post, and loving it!