Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by dshane73

A question I do have is what is the plan for utilities in and crossing the street where the train box will be? I feel that will cut off development to the new acreage opened up on the west.

There will be space between beams for utility lines of all sizes. Typically highway bridges have about 6 feet between beams centers, and since they are about 2 feet wide, you will have a space about 4 feet wide to run utilities every 6 feet. Maybe that changes a bit when the beams run perpendicular to travel, but other cities have made it work, so I'm sure we can get it to work too.

Utilities running along 500 west scare me more than ones that cross it. There is space under the sidewalks, but it will need to be used wisely since it so limited.

[Hatman]

Some unexpected news: Moab will be getting passenger rail service next year! However, it will not be from Salt Lake City. The private luxury train company Rocky Mountain Tours, which operates scenic 'rail cruises' in Canada, will offer two day trips between Denver and Moab, beginning with 40 test trips next August.

It's more for tourism than transportation, but any train to Moab would be highly dependent on tourism.


https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...301176711.html


I've mentioned before that a train to Moab from Salt Lake City would make sense. If done right, the trip would take just over 4 hours, which is competitive with driving or busses. Many tourists who want to see Arches National Park arrived at the Salt Lake airport, but then they have to rent a car to get the rest of the way to the park.

Now Denver is siphoning some of the tourist money out of Utah. Perhaps that will finally get local governments to act.

1) Salt Lake City needs a real train station. It's no surprise that RMT is choosing Denver as their base of operations. Besides the scenic rail line out of Denver, their Union Station is very impressive. Time for the Rio Grande Plan?

2) Moab needs a train station. Unlike SLC, it never had one, so everything will need to be new. I think the obvious choice is to build a station right next to the entrance to Arches, but I've seen other proposals for an extended rail ROW that gets closer to the actual city.

3) Arches needs a shuttle bus system like Zions National Park. Like Zions, one bus route would go through Moab and end at the park entrance (and train station), in order to collect people from their hotels. Three more bus routes would go into the park - one to Delicate Arch, one to Double Arch, and one to Devil's Garden. Regular city buses would work just fine on these routes. Maybe even electric buses, like Park City uses.

These would be big undertakings for sure, but unless we do something, Denver may become the more popular gateway to the Utah National parks, and that would be pretty hard to take.

[Atlas]

I'm not surprised by that at all. If you ask most people in Colorado if they've been to Utah, they will respond with some permutation of "oh I love Moab!" SLC isn't even on their radars. Other than the skiing aspect and Mormons, I don't think most people here think of SLC as being different than places like Tulsa or Omaha. But they do love nature and Arches is iconic.

I'd love to see a train from SLC to Moab, especially if it started at our glorious new Rio Grande Central Station. If it was all in place by the next SLC Olympics, all the better. It also seems like higher-speed rail is becoming more popular in general and it would be great to have some quality rail infrastructure in place for eventual SLC-Vegas/Denver/Boise lines.

[Hatman]

Link to the new train's website:

https://www.rockymountaineer.com/tra...kies-red-rocks

There are several touring packages. Some of them involve beginning in Denver, riding the train to Moab, spending a few days there, then continuing on to Salt Lake City via bus, privately chauffeured SUV, or even a rental car for the plebs. All the options are over $1k per person, and for basic things like access to the lounge car, you need to upgrade your ticket for ~$400.
Sheesh.



I'm happy to see passenger trains get to moab. To my knowledge, this will be the first passenger service ever to get there. Hopefully this will get the ball rolling on creating a real train station in Moab, and then getting a UDOT/Amtrak partnership for a corridor train there in the near-ish future. Because nobody I know can afford to ride this new train!

[delts145]

I imagine a lot of the traffic on this train from Denver will be Europeans. Moab is extremely popular amongst the upper and upper-middle class Europeans.

[Hatman]

Man, as someone who worked on the UVX line, this video was sooo satisfying!
• Video Link

[Hatman]

... And on the topic of buses, there is a new report out about transit in the Cottonwood Canyons! This time, in addition to the enhanced bus proposals, they have added a gondola option and a diesel-powered cog train:

Is a cog railway or gondola in the future for Little Cottonwood Canyon?
https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/11...salt-lake-city

Udot is adding these alternatives into the options to be analyzed because so many people commented on previous reports, wondering why not try these options? And according to the article, environmental groups are pretty angry.
And rightly so! A ski lift going up and down the mountain is one thing. Having a gondola running the entire length of the canyon is a completely other thing. I still think there is a case for having a gondola connection between the two Cottonwood Canyons. There is probably also a good case for having a connection over to Park City as well. But I am very much against having a gondola running up the bottom of the canyon.

Thankfully, it seems that UDOT is too! Here is the actual report:
https://littlecottonwoodeis.udot.uta...2020-Final.pdf

This document lists all kinds of problems with the gondola - such as no room for parking at the bottom of Little Cottonwood Canyon (they think they need 30 acres of land for a 7,000 car parking lot!), no connections to other major transit lines, the fact that during avalanche artillery detonations, the gondola would have to be closed for safety, the fact that wind in the canyon will force the gondola to close or run at half-speed, the fact that it will take between 30-50 minutes to ride up to Alta (a ~18 minute drive), and the fact that capacity will be so low that it would not be feasible to ban single-occupancy cars from the canyon.

So they're not very hot for the idea. We did get a cool map of the proposed service, though:


All those green dots are cable support towers. I am impressed that they could design a system with only two angle towers. But it will hopefully never happen, so let's move on.

Next is the Diesel Cog Railway, which would be about 8 miles long. There are two alignments: one on the original narrow gauge line that ran up to the mines at Alta, which would displace the hiking trail near the creek, along with at least 10 of the best campsites at the campground. That alone makes it pretty unpopular, but it gets worse! The areas near snowbird and Alta would require ski runs to be cut in half at the rail line, and temporary fencing would be needed to prevent skiers from falling into the trench created by running a train at ground-level through a snow-filled ski area:



So that alignment is pretty much trash. The other alignment they are considering sticks to the north side of the road - the uphill side, which would require all kinds of fun walls and retaining structures. The full alignment is displayed in the pdf report, and I had a wonderful time looking through it. However, I think this is as far as UDOT should take it, since there are some big problems:

• The line would cost $900 million, at least.
• The travel times from Alta to the mouth of Little Cottonwood would be ~40 minutes, which, again, is an 18 minute drive.
• A huge parking structure would need to be build somewhere at the mouth of little cottonwood, TBD.
• The current park and ride lot would become the rail yard and maintenance base. The park and ride lot would need to be relocated farther up the hill, completely separate from the humongous parking structure needed for the 'downhill' train station.
• Still no connection to a major transit line.
• Special rotary snow plows would be needed to throw snow off the train tracks. Because the tracks would be right up against the mountain, the only place to throw snow would be onto the adjoining road! This would require both the road and the train to be closed for periodic snow clearing operations.

Anyway, for all the work they did in the report, UDOT still doesn't seem very hot on the option for a train. I understand. I don't want to spend $1 billion that could have been spent on FrontRunner double-tracking to be spent on a train that would only go to ONE of TWO canyons.

The report gets so snarky that they start throwing out other hilarious ideas, such as using the Boring Company to build a Loop (basically, a bunch of autonomous Teslas in a tunnel), which is the report-writing equivalent of saying 'why don't we just magic all the people up the canyon?'

So is there any sensible ideas in this report? Sure. ENHANCED BUS SERVICE.



According to the two enhanced bus alternatives, two transit centers would be built. One at the Rock quarry off I-215, and the other at 94th South and Highland Drive. Direct bus service to resorts up the canyon would depart every 5 minutes - and since there are two resorts in each canyon, that means there would be 24 buses an hour!
One alternative requires a wider shoulder. The shoulder would become a bus-only lane in the winter, and in the summer these would become bike lanes.
There would be no bus service in the summer, but I can see that changing. Once there are huge transit centers built, there will probably be pressure to have at least some sort of summer service to make use of the public asset.
Both alternatives make use of snow sheds. Basically, in avalanche prone areas, build a concrete roof over the road and shoulders. Then the avalanche can just slide on by, and the road can stay open. PROBLEM SOLVED.

I think the decision should be obvious.

But don't you worry, transit fans - I think there is still a way to get a new train out of this! I propose that UTA construct a new TRAX line from Fashion Place West station eastward, in the I-215 corridor, all the way up to the gravel pits, which is where one of the two new transit centers will be. This line would be just under 6 miles long, or about as long as the West Valley extension from Central Pointe station. There is already a lot of density around the I-215 alignment, so this would be a legitimate transit line, not just a tourist line for skiers - though it would be pretty handy for that too. Staying at a hotel in downtown SLC? Hop on Trax for a one-seat ride to the quarry transit center, then a 18 minute bus ride to the ski resort! Easy!

This is a screenshot from my Rio Grande Plan Google Map:

(You have to toggle on all the TRAX LINES layer to see it)

But first things first. Get bus service going in the canyons. Make it excellent so that many people ride it. Get a summer service going too. Then it will be TRAX time.

[Orlando]

Before I could drive I used the ski buses all the time. I do think that they should have some sort of train go up Little Cottonwood though. Not diesel, though. Diesel sounds very contradictory to being environmentally sensitive.

[Makid]

I think that an enhanced bus would be good in the short run but eventually we will need to have rail up the canyons. LCC should be first, I would put Parley's second and BCC last.

I think ideally, the best way for rail up the canyon would be to have it elevated and along the south side of the road for the most part. I would start the incline near La Caille. A decent park and ride lot could be built on some empty land there.

The pillars would be 10' to 15' thick concrete, think of the pillars at the 201, I80, I15 junctions.

The track forms would be precast and put into place using the elevated track work. This would keep the road free of most heavy construction vehicles, thus keeping traffic moving. The stations at the resorts would be elevated. The resorts could be included with the design and costs of the stations.

To do any extension of the LCC line, it would need to come from the other end, either BCC via the existing tunnel, or via the bypass road if coming from Park City.

With the train being elevated on pillars and the track being precast, the overall construction could go fairly quick. It would also be fairly low on the environmental impact. There would be some drilling for the pillars but this would be the extent of the off-road work, making it less invasive than many other options, including adding/widening the existing shoulder.

This is the most costly option but it would be able to operate year round and with it being elevated, the impact from avalanches would be minimal.

It could be built as LRT, and connect with Hatman's I215 extension. This could also allow it to pass through the Old Mill area.

It could even be called the White line as a nod towards snow.

It would cost approximately $2 Billion just from my envisioned park and ride through the extended end of line. It would probably be another Billion for the extension either from the Fashion Place station or the 7200 Station.

A line like this would be a showcase line as ridership would never justify the $2 Billion. But it would set the LCC resorts apart from nearly all other ski resorts. This would increase tourism to the canyons and definitely increase the number of skiers. As it could be incorporated into the existing Trax framework, it would increase the likelihood that local skiers would use the line as well. The more convenient it can be, the more it would be used.

[bob rulz]

If we ever do get rail up the canyons, I would hope that the ski resorts would help pay for them to bring down the cost of construction. I like the idea of bringing a TRAX line to the mouth of LCC too, but that seems like a pipe dream. I think a BRT line would be more feasible in the short term.

[delts145]

Even though elevated rail might be an efficient way of moving people up the canyon, I don't think what would visually amount to a giant miles long overpass up Little Cottonwood Canyon would ever get past the public. We all hate the visual pollution caused by long continuous concrete overpasses. Imagine one traveling up what many consider one of our most sacred and beautiful canyons. It will never happen.

I wonder how efficient rail would be when compared to the modern new generation of clean buses. I think a bus system will ultimately be the only answer as far as connecting skiers from the Salt Lake Valley floor. Individual cars during high season should be severely limited, except for the small number of actual residents.

[RC14]

I know this is a touchy subject for some reason but I think a monorail might be a better option than elevated rail as it would be less visually disruptive. However, it wouldn't integrate with the TRAX system as well.
A gondola would probably be the least visually disruptive option.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by delts145

Even though elevated rail might be an efficient way of moving people up the canyon, I don't think what would visually amount to a giant miles long overpass up Little Cottonwood Canyon would ever get past the public. We all hate the visual pollution caused by long continuous concrete overpasses. Imagine one traveling up what many consider one of our most sacred and beautiful canyons. It will never happen.

I wonder how efficient rail would be when compared to the modern new generation of clean buses. I think a bus system will ultimately be the only answer as far as connecting skiers from the Salt Lake Valley floor. Individual cars during high season should be severely limited, except for the small number of actual residents.

You could keep the elevated rail below the road elevation to keep it from being visual pollution.

[Makid]

The concrete for the precast sections could also be colored to blend in to the background.

As it is precast, it could be possible to have open spaces periodically between the rails and between the sets of tracks.

Overall, there would be a lot of options to help hide the elevated rail so that it doesn't impact the overall visuals of the canyon too much.

[Stenar]

Originally Posted by Hatman

...
Next is the Diesel Cog Railway, which would be about 8 miles long....
[LIST][*]The line would cost $900 million, at least.[*]The travel times from Alta to the mouth of Little Cottonwood would be ~40 minutes, which, again, is an 18 minute drive.[*]A huge parking structure would need to be build somewhere at the mouth of little cottonwood, TBD.

I don’t know why we couldn’t put in a train like the Skitube. The Skitube is an electric cog railway in Australia which goes to two ski resorts.

It goes 25 mph uphill (about 20 minutes to get to Smowbird/Alta) and about 14 mph downhill for safety reasons (about 35 mins to get down).

The article I read said a large parking structure was going to be built near La Caille regardless of which option was chosen.

[i-215]

Originally Posted by Hatman

Man, as someone who worked on the UVX line, this video was sooo satisfying!
• Video Link

Great to see this get posted!

Let's just say the author is someone I... know quite well.

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by i-215

Great to see this get posted!

Let's just say the author is someone I... know quite well.

Oh, really?
Let's just say that I'm very happy to find and subscribe to this channel. This guy is awesome.

****

As for transit in the cottonwoods debate, I'm sure that given enough time and continued growth, some form of guideway-constrained transit will become justified. How will we know when that day arrives? When the buses are too crowded and cannot function to everyone's satisfaction.
The thing about rail transit is that it cannot be created ex nihilo (from nothing). Every successful train line is built as an upgrade to existing transit services. TRAX was, FrontRunner was, and UVX was.
Yes, there is a ski bus up the canyon now, but it is about as bare-bones as a transit service can possibly be. There are many levels of bus service left to work through before we can justifiably start talking about separated transit infrastructure. We could skip a few steps and go straight to trains, but usually one does not upgrade from walking shoes to a sportscar without an extraordinary reason.
TL;DR, run the buses for 10 years. If/when they get super crowded at peak hours, popular demand will naturally rise for something better. Then we can have the debate again about trains, tunnels, elevated structures, and whatever else.

(I have very similar views on the Prison Site transit studies. Prove your case with buses first, then upgrade as necessary!)

((Free transit will help tremendously in this regard. Do you want to prove that your transit is at capacity and needs upgrades? Be a little proactive and get people on your bus by cutting fares! Get your critics to ride the bus because its cheaper than whatever they were doing! Make it a shared resource everybody has in interest in improving! Then upgrading will be as routine and uncontroversial as FREEway widenings.))

[Orlando]

I get what you are saying about demand, ie. use buses and then rail, but aren't there examples of leaping forward created the demand? For example, when UTA went forward with light rail in the late 90's they did it more of a "If you build it, they will come" mentality, right? I mean, back then it was controversial, also.

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by Orlando

I get what you are saying about demand, ie. use buses and then rail, but aren't there examples of leaping forward created the demand? For example, when UTA went forward with light rail in the late 90's they did it more of a "If you build it, they will come" mentality, right? I mean, back then it was controversial, also.

Yes, TRAX was quite controversial at the time. It still is. Remember Salt Lake County voters didn't approve the transit tax increase some years ago. The legislature had to pass a law allowing cities to raise the tax on their own, without a vote. Can't trust transit funding with voters, even mostly democratic ones, apparently.

TRAX was also complicated by the impending Olympics. Obviously TRAX ridership proved that the system was justified even without Olympic crowds, but until it actually opened, there was a real perception that after the crowds went away, TRAX would be a 'white elephant' that would never be used.
If your computer model forecasts a decent ridership, then sure 'build it and they will come.' Any upgrade is a risk; literally the entire cost of the construction project and future operating funds are being gambled on your forecasted ridership being correct. It definitely is a risk, so in that regard, boldness is certainly required on the part of the planners.

On the other hand, too much boldness and upgrading without a well-vetted forecast just leads to folly. Take some of the most notorious 'Vanity' transit projects, which are rail projects that were not upgrades of existing services. Austin's Capital Metro is a good example. Nashville's commuter rail line is another. There is was an entire light rail line in San Jose that was very similar to the S-Line here in Salt Lake City that was discontinued in 2019. It is the first example of a modern light rail line being abandoned (if you don't count Pittsburg).

These projects (among many others) were designed to be a sort of 'foot in the door,' a way to get transit going in the hopes that it would catch on. In Austin, after years of low ridership and several rejected ballot initiatives, they seem to have finally succeeded in their goal. Nashville and Santa Clara - not so much.

I guess a more local example would be our favorite punching bag - the S-Line. Ever since that opened in 2013, there has been very little serious talk of a downtown streetcar line. Salt Lake City (who paid for the line) had hoped that people would get excited for streetcars and that the S-Line would be the catalyst for more - but instead it gets laughed at, and now it will be a long time before streetcars get a second chance at downtown.
(though personally I think two TRAX loops through downtown would be infinitely better than streetcars, but that's another subject!)

So anyway, I advise caution in expanding transit anywhere. Perhaps if the Ski Resorts were paying for it (like Stenar's Ski Tube in Australia), I would be more excited about a new train. But since this is all public money, caution, proof, and trust are the rules of the game.

Build an excellent bus system, and people will come through when it is time to fund a train.

[bob rulz]

Poor S-Line - so misunderstood and undervalued. The S-Line was not a victim of overambition - it was a victim of poor planning. The S-Line should have been double tracked from the start - instead they took an incrementalist "well let's see what happens" approach. No wonder people weren't taking it when the neighboring 21 bus line ran more frequently.

Also of note, I do seem to remember an article from UTA a few years ago saying that the S-Line's ridership matched their expectations, but I couldn't begin to pretend like I could find that article now.

Obviously I can't speak for every experience, but failed transit projects from my perspective are almost always a result of poor planning and execution - not because the route itself was a bad idea necessarily.

And I don't think the downtown streetcar talk went dark because of the S-Line being a failure. I think it went dark because 1) of UTA's debt and controversy and 2) because Jackie Biskupski didn't give a shit about transit.

Speaking of the UTA controversy, this is anecdotal, but I feel like the failure of the vote in Salt Lake County a few years back to expand transit funding wasn't because people didn't support public transit. It was because people didn't trust UTA, given the controversies they were having at the time.