HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #8201  
Old Posted Jun 19, 2019, 9:20 PM
Hatman's Avatar
Hatman Hatman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,429
City-funded bus expansion could relieve jammed-up Sugar House
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/...ty-funded.html

Yes it could. Or it could be obvious now that cars will always jam up in denser urban areas and that transit is the only way to add capacity to a street.
The measure of success for transit should not be if there are or are not traffic jams.

Neat article, though. I agree with most of the comment section (only six comments when I read it), all saying that instead of extending the streetcar they would rather see money spent on connecting the S-Line bike trail with Parley's trail farther east. There is a very weird gap between the S-Line and the rest of the separated trail, and no consideration has been given to cyclists crossing 11th east. It's pretty dangerous/bad.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8202  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2019, 7:35 AM
bob rulz bob rulz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sugarhouse, SLC, UT
Posts: 1,452
The bike paths should be connected, but the S-Line badly needs that extension. Unfortunately, political will for that seems to have dried up.

I've always though that Sugarhouse could do with more transit though. Sugarhouse is one of the few true mixed-use neighborhoods in Salt Lake City, and it's becoming very dense. Better transit connections are needed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8203  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2019, 1:29 PM
delts145's Avatar
delts145 delts145 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Downtown Los Angeles
Posts: 19,343
I agree Bob that more transit options are needed for Sugar House. As Downtown Salt Lake City and south becomes more dense, along with corridors between Sugar House and South Salt Lake, there will definitely be a reckoning coming for additional mass transit in at least a couple forms. More often than not a tipping point has to be reached before a public consensus demands the additions or ad on's.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8204  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2019, 7:46 PM
Utahn Utahn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by delts145 View Post
I agree Bob that more transit options are needed for Sugar House. As Downtown Salt Lake City and south becomes more dense, along with corridors between Sugar House and South Salt Lake, there will definitely be a reckoning coming for additional mass transit in at least a couple forms. More often than not a tipping point has to be reached before a public consensus demands the additions or ad on's.
In the article, the Sugar House Chamber of Commerce head said there weren't any proposals to extend the S-line; however, that's not entirely true. In January, Salt Lake City and Millcreek received a joint grant to study transit and traffic connections between Sugarhouse and Millcreek with a specific intent to look at extending the S-line into Millcreek. I think with Millcreek's recent incorporation and a new downtown master plan for Millcreek (which includes mention of streetcars), there is significant interest at least on the Millcreek side to move that direction.

On the Parley's Trail front, the PRATT Coalition and Sugarhouse Community Council are looking into what the best options are for connecting the S-line with Parley's Trail in Hidden Hollow.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8205  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2019, 8:45 PM
Hatman's Avatar
Hatman Hatman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,429
Extending the S-Line southward to the Brickyard isn't a bad idea. What bugs me the most about most S-Line extension proposals is that the line isn't connecting to a destination - it feels like the push to extend is driven by a desire just to extend it anywhere. Case in point - everyone is still arguing as to whether it should go north on 11th and end at a gas station, or go east to a high school.
So having an actual established place for the streetcar to go is a huge plus.

Next I started looking at ROW. You might say 'it's a street car, it should go in the street!' But just for fun, I wondered if I could extend the S-Line linear park concept all the way to the Brickyard, so that not only would there be slow rail service between the Brickyard and Sugarhouse, but there would also be a super-awesome bike/pedestrian trail.
It turns out, there is a canal that runs roughly between the two neighborhoods and, even though it is partially built-over, a lot of it isn't. Here is a streetview of the (covered) canal as it appears from Zenith Avenue. Notice how it looks a lot like the S-Line corridor used to look pre S-Line?



Now, I'm not saying this is the best option, or even a good option, but I think it is a reasonable possibility and ought to receive some study. This is what would need to happen:


The S-Line would curve south and follow 1100E and Ashton Avenue until reaching I-15. There is room beneath the I-15 bridge for at least one more rail line. (((This is also a great spot for a transfer between the S-Line and a future rail line in the median of I-80 to Park City!)))


Once south of I-15, the line would run along Elizabeth street. This is a wide street with very low usage; perhaps the S-Line would run in traffic, or perhaps it could go on the side.


At Crystal Avenue, the streetcar line would leave Elizabeth Avenue and enter the canal alignment. From the maps, it looks like one or two home owners have extended their back yards into the canal area. These would have to be bought back.


The canal ROW continues. Some access roads and alleyways would need to be removed for this project.


The Canal section on its own is about 1 mile. It would make for an awesome trail.


I don't know what to do with the line once it reaches the Brickyard, so I ended it on the north side of the main road.

All total, it is about 1.6 miles long. This could add about 5 new stops to the S-Line and nearly double its length.
I think its an idea worth considering.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8206  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2019, 10:27 PM
Utahn Utahn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hatman View Post
Extending the S-Line southward to the Brickyard isn't a bad idea. What bugs me the most about most S-Line extension proposals is that the line isn't connecting to a destination - it feels like the push to extend is driven by a desire just to extend it anywhere. Case in point - everyone is still arguing as to whether it should go north on 11th and end at a gas station, or go east to a high school.
So having an actual established place for the streetcar to go is a huge plus.

Next I started looking at ROW. You might say 'it's a street car, it should go in the street!' But just for fun, I wondered if I could extend the S-Line linear park concept all the way to the Brickyard, so that not only would there be slow rail service between the Brickyard and Sugarhouse, but there would also be a super-awesome bike/pedestrian trail.
It turns out, there is a canal that runs roughly between the two neighborhoods and, even though it is partially built-over, a lot of it isn't. Here is a streetview of the (covered) canal as it appears from Zenith Avenue. Notice how it looks a lot like the S-Line corridor used to look pre S-Line?

All total, it is about 1.6 miles long. This could add about 5 new stops to the S-Line and nearly double its length.
I think its an idea worth considering.
That is a fantastic route. I could definitely get behind that. I share your feelings that Streetcars are better in dedicated right of ways like that and are mostly property redevelopment incentives when they are mixed in traffic.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure that Millcreek shares our vision. I pulled this from the recently put together Millcreek City Center Master Plan available here https://www.utah.gov/pmn/files/486683.pdf

"Transit investments in the Brickyard area have been studied in the past. The Sugar House Phase 2 Alternatives Analysis, sponsored by the Utah Transit Authority and Salt Lake City, evaluated alternatives extending from the current endof-line station for the Sugar House Streetcar. One alternative studied alignments connecting the streetcar to Brickyard shopping center
along either 1300 East or Highland Drive. These alignments were screened out early on, because they were not as competitive as other potential alignments in meeting the goals outlined by Salt Lake City and the Utah Transit Authority; however, Millcreek City may have other goals for transit that are different from those in the Phase 2 Alternatives Analysis. In light of the proposed new City Center, a light rail analysis could be conducted that
might result in different recommendations today. Future redevelopment of the Brickyard could also increase demand."

There's other mention of streets cars and potential BRT feasibility, so I think a lot is still up in the air. You should email your plan to the transportation folks in Millcreek and SLC.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8207  
Old Posted Jun 21, 2019, 1:21 AM
Wasatch Wasteland's Avatar
Wasatch Wasteland Wasatch Wasteland is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 312
If we are looking for “destinations” rather than directions to extend the line, has anyone ever considered extending it the two miles past brickyard along highland drive to the cottonwood mall redevelopment?

Also, the extension to brickyard is in the 2019 WFRC Master Plan https://wfrc.org/vision-plans/region...ortation-plan/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8208  
Old Posted Jun 21, 2019, 9:12 AM
bob rulz bob rulz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sugarhouse, SLC, UT
Posts: 1,452
I still think looping it up 1100 East is a better idea than extending it to Brickyard.

From what I remember, the proposal north on 1100 East would end around Westminster College. Is that not a good destination for a streetcar line? Further extension to eventually loop back and connect to TRAX would be within reach, although certainly specific routing would need to be worked out, and the NIMBYism would be very strong through the Harvard-Yale area.

I really like that routing of the streetcar line south to Brickyard, but I think it's a non-starter. You would have to convince a lot of people that it would be in their best interests for it to literally run through their backyard. If you think the backlash over the Cottonwood Mall redevelopment was bad...I can't even imagine how bad that would be.

I sketched out not too long ago a proposed city-wide streetcar system. I don't remember the exact routes I drew out, and certainly it wasn't as detailed as Hatman's proposals always are, but it involved running a streetcar down 900 South from TRAX, connecting to an S-line extension that would run down 1100 East, turn west on 1300 South, and run all the way up 900 East to the 900 East TRAX station on 400 South.

Ideally, it would be cool to have the streetcar ALSO run south to Brickyard (or even to a future Cottonwood Mall development as mentioned above), plus additional streetcar lines throughout the city and the downtown TRAX circulator. Salt Lake could be the model for transit in a mid-sized U.S. city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8209  
Old Posted Jun 21, 2019, 8:41 PM
Hatman's Avatar
Hatman Hatman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,429
You're right, its disingenuous of me to forget about Westminster.
If we're aiming at Westminster, then why stick to 11th? 12th is a far less busy street and actually has some dense housing developments.

The only trouble is that I have no idea what can be done to connect the current End of Line with 12th:


Whatever happens, the S-Line pedestrian trail will need to connect with the Parley's Creek Hollow area, so that a continuous trail is formed.

Once the S-Line is connected to Westminster, it can be declared finished and transit funds can be used on things like more frequent rail service, BRT expansion, and downtown transit improvements.
(The Downtown streetcar project has been put on hold long enough, and I blame the S-Line.)


As for that canal alignment from yesterday:
I learned that it is called the McClelland Canal, and there is a bike trail along the northern part of it with the potential to extend southward along the line I drew. I hope this happens - it will make for an awesome pedestrian trail! And as for using that alignment for a streetcar expansion, let's just file that away under 'hypothetical thought experiments' and not discuss it again.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8210  
Old Posted Jun 21, 2019, 9:06 PM
bob rulz bob rulz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sugarhouse, SLC, UT
Posts: 1,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hatman View Post
You're right, its disingenuous of me to forget about Westminster.
If we're aiming at Westminster, then why stick to 11th? 12th is a far less busy street and actually has some dense housing developments.

The only trouble is that I have no idea what can be done to connect the current End of Line with 12th:
Why not just run it down 1100 East and 2100 South before turning north on 1200 East? The current proposals to extend the S-Line already involve running north on 1100 East, and one of the other proposals goes east on 2100 South.

The 1200 East alignment idea is actually really cool, and something I had never considered. It has a few single-family homes towards the end of the street, but as you said, it's already mostly multi-family housing on that road. It could also connect directly to what appears to be student housing on the southern end of Westminster. There's a huge parking lot right at the southwest end. It's a great idea, if we have Westminster as the end-point. The problem it presents is that if they want to expand it further north, that alignment makes it much more difficult.

Quote:
Once the S-Line is connected to Westminster, it can be declared finished and transit funds can be used on things like more frequent rail service, BRT expansion, and downtown transit improvements.
(The Downtown streetcar project has been put on hold long enough, and I blame the S-Line.)
Yes, as much as I love the idea of expanding transit service throughout the valley, I would love to see Salt Lake City become a leader in transit advocacy and development.

Hopefully the last transit bond is just the beginning. I would be happy if Salt Lake City put a transit sales tax on the ballot every 3 or 4 years or so to fund further Salt Lake City-specific improvements. Coverage is important, but in order to become a truly transit-dependent city, increased frequency and density of coverage is how to make it happen.

Quote:
As for that canal alignment from yesterday:
I learned that it is called the McClelland Canal, and there is a bike trail along the northern part of it with the potential to extend southward along the line I drew. I hope this happens - it will make for an awesome pedestrian trail! And as for using that alignment for a streetcar expansion, let's just file that away under 'hypothetical thought experiments' and not discuss it again.
I like the idea a lot! If I lived in one of those houses I would be happy to accept it in my backyard, and I'm sure you would be, too. Unfortunately we are not most people. I take no pleasure in saying that it would be a non-starter as an idea.

I think running a streetcar down Highland Drive would work out very well anyway. That road has a lot of potential and good "bones" so to speak.

On an unrelated note, I was surprised to see that BRT on 3300 South was in the WFRC's long-range plans. This is the first I had heard of it but I think it's a good idea.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8211  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2019, 10:23 PM
Makid Makid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,001
APTA has released the Q1 2019 ridership numbers.

https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uplo...hip-APTA-1.pdf

Average Weekday Ridership:

Bus: 73.9K. This is up 7.04% over Q1 2018
Trax: 55.7K. This is down 6.89% over Q1 2018
FrontRunner: 19.0K. This is up 5.48% over Q1 2018
Total: 156.2K. This is up 0.63% over Q1 2018

While Trax is still seeing a decrease in riders, ridership is still increasing for both Bus and FrontRunner.

Ridership should continue to increase for Bus and FrontRunner. Hopefully Trax ridership will stabilize and see even minor increases over the next couple of years.

August should see a continued increase of the ridership growth with the additional routes and frequencies in SLC and with UTA updates in SL County. Additional routes will be added in SLC in 2020.

Additionally, I am hoping that UTA will be allowed to focus on ridership rather than coverage in SL County. This will increase frequencies and ridership while also possibly reducing traffic on some of the routes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8212  
Old Posted Jun 28, 2019, 3:29 PM
Hatman's Avatar
Hatman Hatman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,429
For bus ridership, I'd be that without UVX there would be a pretty obvious ridership decrease, following the nation-wide trend.

While I never like seeing ridership levels drop, I think the silver lining might be that transit networks focus on service and high-density routes. Take the lessons learned from UVX and start reworking other bus routes to that level of service. Something will need to be done to address this strange decline in transit use.

TRAX construction certainly isn't going to help ridership this year either.

FrontRunner continues to blow my mind. 19k daily weekday riders? 10th busiest commuter rail system in the country? That is so disproportionate to our population. And just imagine what could happen with double-track and electrification improvements!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8213  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2019, 9:05 PM
Makid Makid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,001
Some FrontRunner news:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics...alt-lake-city/

Quote:
Double-tracking FrontRunner.

The UTA Board have given officials the go-ahead to seek federal grants for projects to double-track more of the FrontRunner commuter rail system.

Most of it is now on single tracks. If a train breaks down, it can shut down the entire system in both directions. Also, the frequency of service is limited by timing that allows trains to pass each other at the few sections with double tracks.

UTA will seek up to $25 million in federal funds in proposals that call for double-tracking around the city of Vineyard in Utah County. It plans on using as a local match land UTA owns and construction of a station in Vineyard valued at $11 million.

Proposals also call for double-tracking between the Draper and South Jordan stations. Grant proposals are scaled to allow different amounts of double-tracking, depending on how much money is obtained.
It is nice to see work starting on the double tracking of FrontRunner. It would be great if they also reached out to the various Counties and the various tech companies along the route to see if they would also chip in. I think that at least SL County and maybe even Davis and Weber Counties would chip in for some selective double tracking.

I wonder if UTA would look at also just adding a 2nd track that wouldn't be used for a while. The idea could be that UTA could add track selectively between the stations. The track wouldn't be connected to the existing track until it was at least 1 mile long. This way, a City or County could opt in to pay a small amount and see the track laid quickly.

Doing this would make it easier for the various entities to come up with additional funds to fill the gaps. The State could also help provide funding for the hardest sections and UTA can get grants to electrify the line. This would also be cheaper than expanding I-15.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8214  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2019, 8:29 PM
Stenar's Avatar
Stenar Stenar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Salt Lake City
Posts: 3,234
UTA proposes route for Murray-Taylorsville-West Valley City bus rapid transit line

UTA proposes route for Murray-Taylorsville-West Valley City bus rapid transit line

The Utah Transit Authority is one step away from finalizing the route of its new “Midvalley Connector,” a bus rapid transit (BRT) system through West Valley City, Taylorsville and Murray.
It will offer speedier service to such points as Valley Fair Mall, Salt Lake Community College’s Redwood Campus, Sorenson Research Park and the Intermountain Medical Center.
The final route was endorsed Wednesday by the UTA Advisory Council, whose members come from cities served by the agency. The route has also been endorsed by city councils in the area affected. The proposal now goes to the UTA Board for final approval, expected in two weeks.



www.sltrib.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8215  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2019, 11:07 PM
Hatman's Avatar
Hatman Hatman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 1,429
Here's another (older) map showing the portion that will have exclusive lanes:


I think it is a good, solid proposal. May it get built ASAP.

In other news, UTA awarded the contract to study which route is best for the TRAX extension to Lehi:
https://www.ksl.com/article/46597396...gh-prison-site

So now we will get to wait for a year for the study to conclude that remaining in the existing UTA-owned ROW - the one that already has all the major bridges built for it already - is the cheaper, faster, and better option. The other proposal, to run near I-15 and through the prison site, is a total political gesture that hopefully will be described as such by this study. And then - Onward, to American Fork!

Also, a surprisingly wholesome comment section in that article. Utah County must really want some TRAX.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8216  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2019, 10:11 AM
bob rulz bob rulz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sugarhouse, SLC, UT
Posts: 1,452
That's a good place to built BRT. It connects the community college and two huge employment centers, with TRAX lines at either end. I love it.

Man how I wish this would would have existed when I went to SLCC.

Hopefully it's no less than 10 minute frequency at peak times. I'm guessing 10-15 minute frequency addresses the range that WILL exist, and not just that they haven't decided between those two yet?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8217  
Old Posted Jul 20, 2019, 1:15 PM
Makid Makid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,001
I do think the ridership estimate is low now that the State will have more offices along 2700 West. They will be moving into the American Express building soon.

I hope that West Valley and UTA can work together to eventually get the 2700 West portion upgraded to exclusive lanes. Having the bus leave and enter the travel lane so much during a straight section just seems wrong. If they can't or won't go to dedicated lanes, bringing the stations/stops out to the lane so the bus can stay in the travel lane should happen at a minimum just to speed up the route.

I think for all BRT routes at a minimum, all stops/stations should be built to the travel lane to remove the need for the bus to leave and then merge back into traffic. This could be done by the Cities as well as a way to invest in transit while also upgrading the streets.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8218  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2019, 3:47 PM
brankrom's Avatar
brankrom brankrom is offline
Transit Advocate
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Liberty Wells-- SLC
Posts: 292
I really hope this BRT route on 4700 South actually happens. Still trying to figure out why MAX is no longer in use though. All the center median infrastructure and signals and it hasn't been used in years. Wonder if they'll just move the structures to the new line or do the new line in the classy way UVX was done?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8219  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2019, 7:14 PM
bob rulz bob rulz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sugarhouse, SLC, UT
Posts: 1,452
Wait, what's up with MAX? I haven't ridden it in years and never really go that direction.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8220  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2019, 8:58 PM
Makid Makid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob rulz View Post
Wait, what's up with MAX? I haven't ridden it in years and never really go that direction.
The Route is still running but it no longer runs in the dedicated lanes.

My understanding is that this is due to scheduling issues. With it being primarily a single lane route with just passing happening at the stations, any delay outside of the protected lanes caused the protected lane timing to break down completely.

There are some road blocks from UDoT on expanding the protected lanes to be 2 lanes for the length. UDoT doesn't want to give up any lane space and West Valley doesn't want the road to be any wider.

Once the issues are resolved, UDoT and UTA will work to add a second dedicated lane. The people I have asked said it would be this summer but since summer is here, I don't expect it to actually happen until the line is extended to 5600 West (2025 to 2030 estimated).

Ridership on the line and development along it have both been stifled due to the lack of a dependable schedule that comes with the dedicated lanes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:11 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.