Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[delts145]

As far as I know they will have to rebuild the viaduct in order to accomodate TRAX. I don't think there's a choice on that issue, Am I right?

[Makid]

The current plans are to run Trax over a new bridge on the north side of the viaduct. There are some that want to redo the viaduct to have trax down the center. But it would add almost 100 million to the price according to previous articles.

I personally would love them to redo the viaduct and have Trax go down the center.

[urbanboy]

The current viaduct is blighted! It would be a huge waste to build a new bridge next to the old viaduct! I attended those planning commission and city council meetings which discussed the bridge, and many residents complained that the longer than needed viaduct was a public nuisance and created an unsafe place for all people including their high school age children. Not only were the members of the community for the 4th west alignment, but were also for shortening that viaduct!

[delts145]

I very much agree with you Urbanboy, I think there is a lot of support for a new viaduct. Seems like the prevailing attitude is, "if we're going to do this let's do it right." I hope that the proponents for a new and much shorter viaduct win out.

[RFPCME]

Originally Posted by arkhitektor

I was at the Airport yesterday and thought the same thing. Yeah, a sparkling, brand new airport would be nice, but the current one isn't that bad. Given the current state of the airline industry, I just don't see it happening soon. With all of the small upgrades that have been completed recently, from terminal renovations to parking, street and sign improvements, the airport is looking nice as is.

Arkhitektor and NY Rick:

True, SLC International isn't that bad...it's beyond bad. Let me try and list the reasons why it should be knocked down and completely redone.

(1) With airlines in bad shape, the number of flights are decreasing. Anything that can be done to hold on to the number of existing flights should be done. Airlines need fast, efficient airports, that maximize passenger throughput. SLC Int. is far from that goal.
(2) Current concourses were designed for smaller aircraft. Parking and taxiing at SLC Int. is slow and somewhat dangerous.
(3) Baggage and freight facilities are antiquated.
(4) Fuel storage and disposition facilities are antiquated.
(5) Passenger convenience is cumbersome for a number of reasons. The jumble of gates at the end of concourse A far exceeds sitting and waiting room. The same is true for all the gates beyond the midpoint of concourse B.
Changing flights among concourses B,C, and D is slow and arduous.
(6) Passenger amenities, such as restaurants, shops, and lounges are few because of the limited space.
(7) No current runway is truly adequate for "heavies," the aircraft necessary for intercontinental flights.
(8) Current parking is ramshackle, taking at least 3 times as long for me to park my car and get to the terminal than it does at Atlanta, which is a much larger airport.
(9) Aside from the wonderful art on the walls, the airport is ugly--unacceptable since the airport is the first thing people see when they come to SLC. The airport detracts from, instead of adds to, the notion that SLC is a progressive, sophisticated, urban environment.
(10) As the battle for fewer flights heats up among regional airports, SLC Int. is a distant second to Denver's Adam's Co. Airport.

I rest my case. Let the bond issues be floated.

[skyguy414]

Originally Posted by RFPCME

Arkhitektor and NY Rick:

True, SLC International isn't that bad...it's beyond bad. Let me try and list the reasons why it should be knocked down and completely redone.

(1) With airlines in bad shape, the number of flights are decreasing. Anything that can be done to hold on to the number of existing flights should be done. Airlines need fast, efficient airports, that maximize passenger throughput. SLC Int. is far from that goal.
(2) Current concourses were designed for smaller aircraft. Parking and taxiing at SLC Int. is slow and somewhat dangerous.
(3) Baggage and freight facilities are antiquated.
(4) Fuel storage and disposition facilities are antiquated.
(5) Passenger convenience is cumbersome for a number of reasons. The jumble of gates at the end of concourse A far exceeds sitting and waiting room. The same is true for all the gates beyond the midpoint of concourse B.
Changing flights among concourses B,C, and D is slow and arduous.
(6) Passenger amenities, such as restaurants, shops, and lounges are few because of the limited space.
(7) No current runway is truly adequate for "heavies," the aircraft necessary for intercontinental flights.
(8) Current parking is ramshackle, taking at least 3 times as long for me to park my car and get to the terminal than it does at Atlanta, which is a much larger airport.
(9) Aside from the wonderful art on the walls, the airport is ugly--unacceptable since the airport is the first thing people see when they come to SLC. The airport detracts from, instead of adds to, the notion that SLC is a progressive, sophisticated, urban environment.
(10) As the battle for fewer flights heats up among regional airports, SLC Int. is a distant second to Denver's Adam's Co. Airport.

I rest my case. Let the bond issues be floated.

I agree wholeheartedly. The airport's terminal and concourses are in dire need of replacement.

While they have made some minor improvements to the current terminal and the access roads with new landscaping, a new terminal is going to be needed.

The major hurdle will be convincing the airlines it is necessary and minimizing the cost/impact on those carriers.

[wrendog]

I read somewhere that SLC is running WAAAY over what the build out capacity originally was. It was originally built for 12 mill passengers a year and we are well over that. Also, it is built in such a way that two planes (say one in C and one in D) could not back out at the same time.

[skyguy414]

Originally Posted by wrendog

I read somewhere that SLC is running WAAAY over what the build out capacity originally was. It was originally built for 12 mill passengers a year.

It's true. And the airport saw over 22 million passengers last year.

[DENrising]

Originally Posted by wrendog

I hope they have to foresight to build the Trax stations at the airport so as to fit with the new terminal to be built.

considering the state of airlines now with fuel, new terminal(s) at SLC will not be in the near future, SLCIA should spend their limited resources on internal improvements to existing concourses. If fuel prices continue the way they have, people will travel less, there will be more cuts in capacity and there is no reason for new terminals. It will take a massive energy policy by the U.S. to reverse this damage, and even that will take years. The airlines will be cutting back for years ahead.

[delts145]

Even still a new terminal is not out of the question, I think we're just talking about semantics here. There's a big difference in new terminal vs. new airport. The continued updating of current facilities is a given. Along with updating, modernizations, refurbishing, "a new or additional expansion of current terminal facilities is highly likely." It is probable that Salt Lake International will be one of the handful of aiports that will actually see major expansion during this big 'shakeout' that is now commencing.

Salt Lake City has many reasons to accomodate the needed changes pointed out above by RFPCME. The Wasatch's Front advantageous location over Denver to all points of the mammoth West coast market, is becoming increasingly apparent as the current economic and freight issues unfold. Lets not forget we are not only talking about air travel here. Air service is a critical component of the huge manufacturing, rail freight, and trucking transport that the Wasatch Front has become a major player of.

[arkhitektor]

Originally Posted by RFPCME

Arkhitektor and NY Rick:

True, SLC International isn't that bad...it's beyond bad. Let me try and list the reasons why it should be knocked down and completely redone.

(1) With airlines in bad shape, the number of flights are decreasing. Anything that can be done to hold on to the number of existing flights should be done. Airlines need fast, efficient airports, that maximize passenger throughput. SLC Int. is far from that goal.
(2) Current concourses were designed for smaller aircraft. Parking and taxiing at SLC Int. is slow and somewhat dangerous.
(3) Baggage and freight facilities are antiquated.
(4) Fuel storage and disposition facilities are antiquated.
(5) Passenger convenience is cumbersome for a number of reasons. The jumble of gates at the end of concourse A far exceeds sitting and waiting room. The same is true for all the gates beyond the midpoint of concourse B.
Changing flights among concourses B,C, and D is slow and arduous.
(6) Passenger amenities, such as restaurants, shops, and lounges are few because of the limited space.
(7) No current runway is truly adequate for "heavies," the aircraft necessary for intercontinental flights.
(8) Current parking is ramshackle, taking at least 3 times as long for me to park my car and get to the terminal than it does at Atlanta, which is a much larger airport.
(9) Aside from the wonderful art on the walls, the airport is ugly--unacceptable since the airport is the first thing people see when they come to SLC. The airport detracts from, instead of adds to, the notion that SLC is a progressive, sophisticated, urban environment.
(10) As the battle for fewer flights heats up among regional airports, SLC Int. is a distant second to Denver's Adam's Co. Airport.

I rest my case. Let the bond issues be floated.

I'm just giving my impressions as a passenger at SLC. I've been to much worse airports around the country.
Your points are all valid, but I have no idea who is going to pay for everything that is needed. The airline industry is in a tailspin, so I don't think its going to be a huge priority, at least not for the next few years until things stabilize a bit.

As a passenger, it seems that new airports are almost always more expensive to fly in and out of. If I fly to Dallas, I fly on SW through Love field. Even though the place smells like urine and feels like it could fall in on me at any moment, it costs hundreds less to fly there than to DFW.

[RFPCME]

Originally Posted by arkhitektor

I'm just giving my impressions as a passenger at SLC. I've been to much worse airports around the country.
Your points are all valid, but I have no idea who is going to pay for everything that is needed. The airline industry is in a tailspin, so I don't think its going to be a huge priority, at least not for the next few years until things stabilize a bit.

As a passenger, it seems that new airports are almost always more expensive to fly in and out of. If I fly to Dallas, I fly on SW through Love field. Even though the place smells like urine and feels like it could fall in on me at any moment, it costs hundreds less to fly there than to DFW.

Arkhitektor: Yes, there are a lot worse airports in the country, but I wonder how many of those airports handle the traffic volume that SLC Int does. Here is what I see as the reality of the situation.

There are only two realistic locations for hubs in the West, Denver and SLC. Denver has two big disadvantages, and SLC one. Denver weather is quixotic, making it difficult for any airline that hubs out of there. Denver is also on the fringe of the West, instead of dead smack in the middle of it, as SLC is. But the huge advantage Denver has is its airport. SLC Int is a liability, not an advantage.

Yes, the airline industry is in shambles, seeming to make a major upgrade of any airport risky. But I believe if you closely examine the situation, the only risk SLC Int has is if it does little to improve itself, thus making Denver the odds on favorite as the airline industry shrinks.

It's a fair guess that only one hub in the West will survive. SLC Int has geography and mother nature on its side. Denver has existing infrastructure on its side.

Regardless of what Delta has said since its consolidation with Northwest, I think it's a safe bet that the Cincinnati hub will survive, instead of Minneapolis and Detroit. Cincinnati is more centrally located and has a better airport than either Minneapolis or Detroit. Interestingly, both the Minneapolis and Detroit airports have been put together piecemeal, much like SLC Int. On the other hand, Cincinnati bit the bullet 20 years ago and essentially started over with its airport. It was a gamble at the time, but that gamble has paid off almost from the beginning and will continue to pay off for some time. I hope SLC takes the path of Cincinnati.

Of course, if Delta pulls out of Cincinnati, then you can throw my argument to the wind. But if Delta abandons Cincinnati, in favor of either Minneapolis or Detroit, then Delta is probably doomed. The weather, locations, the poor airport infrastructure in both Minneapolis and Detroit make either a poor choice. It will mean corporate politics won out over economics. Delta will collapse and with it, SLC Int.

[wrendog]

No way does MPLS lose it's hub. Not a chance.

[delts145]

FrontRunner lot in Layton is too small

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1...234958,00.html

We've developed all the land we own in the area," said Carrie Bohnsack-Ware, senior media relations specialist for UTA.

UTA research determined the lot was big enough for the forecasted ridership, she said. But the analysis fell short.

"More people are riding than we thought," Bohnsack-Ware said.

Layton City Manager Alex Jensen said city officials knew the Layton station would be busy, but they didn't realize how busy.

.

[Future Mayor]

I'm glad to hear that Ridership estimates were low. They usually are but they have to estimate low because if they estimate high and don't reach them then they are in big trouble.

It's interesting to read some of the comments on many of these articles and to realize how dense, and stubborn some people are.

[DENrising]

Originally Posted by wrendog

No way does MPLS lose it's hub. Not a chance.

Right, MPLS is a major US-Asia route or NW. Asia routes will only increase due to extreme economic expansion there. It's location to the northern arc is a valuable one and I think Delta will increase Intercon TransPac flights from there. I would worry about Cin, Detroit hubs before any others.

[DENrising]

Originally Posted by delts145

FrontRunner lot in Layton is too small

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1...234958,00.html

We've developed all the land we own in the area," said Carrie Bohnsack-Ware, senior media relations specialist for UTA.

UTA research determined the lot was big enough for the forecasted ridership, she said. But the analysis fell short.

"More people are riding than we thought," Bohnsack-Ware said.

Layton City Manager Alex Jensen said city officials knew the Layton station would be busy, but they didn't realize how busy.

.

Sounds like when UTA was planning FR they didn't take into account $4+ gallon gas. I bet they don't make the same mistake on FR South.

[DENrising]

UTA will move into the 21st Century. They are planning to use onboard scanners to collect fares. Very interesting. I used a 'card' system in the DC Metro years ago as it first came out in the late 90's.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=3535726

This will be more convenient than using paper tickets, but will everyone getting onboard use their card to get on and off? How can they enforce that when there are no entry turn-styles to the platform. I think this is a great idea, but only if everyone has to use it for entry onto the platform.

I think UTA needs to use entry/exit turnstyles at each end of the platform. Then surround the stations with fencing so people don't jaywalk across the street and walk over the tracks to the platform. This may be expensive to implement, but won't it prevent the free ride freeloaders? I don't know about this, just think those that want the convenience of not buying a paper ticket will use it, but not those that are chronic free loaders.

BTW, this is UTA's first step in implementing a distance based fare structure. It was discussed here earlier that transit systems, like DC Metro use this structure, and I think it will happen sooner than later on UTA.

[RFPCME]

Originally Posted by delts145

FrontRunner lot in Layton is too small

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1...234958,00.html

We've developed all the land we own in the area," said Carrie Bohnsack-Ware, senior media relations specialist for UTA.

UTA research determined the lot was big enough for the forecasted ridership, she said. But the analysis fell short.

"More people are riding than we thought," Bohnsack-Ware said.

Layton City Manager Alex Jensen said city officials knew the Layton station would be busy, but they didn't realize how busy.



.

Delts: The is great news! I thought this may happen, but it's good to see it verified.

[wrendog]

Originally Posted by SLCrising

Right, MPLS is a major US-Asia route or NW. Asia routes will only increase due to extreme economic expansion there. It's location to the northern arc is a valuable one and I think Delta will increase Intercon TransPac flights from there. I would worry about Cin, Detroit hubs before any others.

Detroit has a brand spanking new, well, airport. I'm sure they will have a very large hub there. Memphis is toast and most likely cincy.