Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[Liberty Wellsian]

@Hatman


I'm not a fan of this section. Instead it should turn down 800 South and then on to 200 West. The area under the viaduct on 300 West shouldn't be a rail line it should be a freeway off-ramp. The viaduct(east of 300 west) should be removed and become either multi-family housing or a city park. The other reason I would prefer going down 800 South is because it opens up a possible future connection to a line that would travel from the 9th South Station to the 9th & 9th neighborhood. I really see little to no advantage to using this stretch of the right away for rail yet I do see advantage in using it for something else.

[Hatman]

We can both get what we want. Check out my mad paint skills:



What I did was make use of parking lots and unused space to build a new intersection just to the south of the existing UDOT ROW. By doing it this way:
1) UDOT wouldn't need to close the on/off ramps while the bridges are torn down. Just reroute traffic to the new intersection when it is ready to go.
2) UTA can keep their ROW between 2nd West and 4th West. This ROW is built for trains, and if you're going to run trains, it's better to use facilities designed for trains. Sure TRAX could make sharp corners to jog over two blocks - just like going from 2nd West to Main Street - but if it doesn't have to, why should it? Sharp turns are slower, cause more wear and tear on the vehicles and tracks, require reconstruction much more often than straight tracks (see the reconstruction of 700 South and Main Street just last year), and worst of all, cause all kinds of loud squealing noises as the the wheels 'flange' around the corners, which aggravates the locals.

While this design may look good on paper, I have no idea how it will alter traffic patterns. We're taking a traffic stream used to going all the way to West Temple and dumping it on 300 West, 3 blocks away from where it used to go. Worse still, the ramp bridges used to go over the TRAX corridor, but now drivers are forced to cross the TRAX line at-grade, introducing more chances for crashes. There is the potential that by removing these bridges, traffic may become worse and the area will become less attractive than it currently is. Perhaps not likely, but possible.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Traffic crossing Trax at grade is a moot point. most drivers exiting there already cross Trax at grade. West Temple and 7th

[Hatman]

Fair point. But when I use that exit I always turn right on 9th south and avoid crossing TRAX. And that's what's important.

I admit I like the view of town when I get off at that exit. I wonder if there is an example of using old freeway structures as part of a 'highline' park of sorts. Not for all the bridges, but maybe a section between the blocks.

[Hatman]

I cannot help myself. So here is the same transit map from before, but this time with the East-West commuter lines shown as well.



In addition to all the colored lines from before, I added in a 'gold line' to go between Sugarhouse and West Valley. That way the silver and gold lines go together down the S-Line, which makes me happy.

[Hatman]

It's not just us here in Utah considering free public transit. Germany is also looking into it:

How to get cleaner air? Germany considers free mass transit
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wi...ansit-53081077

Germany to fight pollution with free public transportation
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.ecdfc7880a1c

Their motivation is the same as ours - air pollution is killing thousands of people a year, is only getting worse, and will kill more people if it goes unchecked. By putting new restrictions on polluting cars, they will be able to afford to make all public transit free.

They've got a more difficult time of it than we do, though:

Those plans would be costly, as many German transport companies currently finance about 50 percent or more of their earnings through ticket sales. Instead, under the new scheme, the government would be expected to help shoulder the burden, which would ultimately make public transport an almost fully tax-funded system. The free public transport plans would be complemented by other measures, such as car-sharing schemes or expanded low-emissions zones within cities.

This means that the Germans are trying to close a 50% funding gap in order to maintain the same level of service without ticket sales. UTA is facing less than 15% funding gap.

I've said it before, but UTA should just announce now that in 2020 they will stop collecting fares. If the legislature gives them more money, great! If not, just take the 15% cut in service. The pain will be worth it.

It is easier to get more funding for transit when there is a real perceived need for it. Right now the argument is always "Who will ride it? The fares are too expensive and all I see is empty buses!" Get rid of fares and the arguments will switch to "There aren't enough buses to handle the demand. They don't run as frequently as before but they are always packed!"

At the end of the article the transit agencies did the same sort of dithering that UTA did about "We can't just cut all fares, we don't have the capacity to handle the increased demand!"
I can't buy this argument. It's using the 'chicken or egg?' question as an excuse to do nothing. You can't be passive about this and just expect more funding to come your way - if you want something done you've got to do it yourself.

UTA has been very good in the past at seeking out and winning federal grants for building out new infrastructure, like its rail lines or the Provo-Orem BRT. This is why we have an above-average rail transit system for a city our size. I want them to be just as aggressive in other forms of financing too. We have a real chance of setting a trend with free public transportation, and it would be a real tragedy to dither on this while other cities and countries take the lead.

[Always Sunny in SLC]

I have always been frustrated by the argument that they don't have enough capacity to handle the increase in demand if fares were gone. While that is a legit concern, it is essentially acknowledging that they are okay with being a bit player in the transportation system. They know full well very few citizens can live in a way that eliminates their need for a car therefore it relegates them to being a rush hour service and the occasional sporting event etc. There is no reason, with the right policies, those trains can't be full even during off peak hours. At the very least they could make the trains free on the weekends and after 6 pm on weekdays. I ride the train with my wife when heading downtown, but that cost is so much higher when I need to buy tickets for my 3 kids. WAY more economical to pile them in the car that I have my sunk/fixed costs in and just spend the gas money and head downtown. Rant done.

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by Always Sunny in SLC

I have always been frustrated by the argument that they don't have enough capacity to handle the increase in demand if fares were gone. While that is a legit concern, it is essentially acknowledging that they are okay with being a bit player in the transportation system. They know full well very few citizens can live in a way that eliminates their need for a car therefore it relegates them to being a rush hour service and the occasional sporting event etc. There is no reason, with the right policies, those trains can't be full even during off peak hours. At the very least they could make the trains free on the weekends and after 6 pm on weekdays. I ride the train with my wife when heading downtown, but that cost is so much higher when I need to buy tickets for my 3 kids. WAY more economical to pile them in the car that I have my sunk/fixed costs in and just spend the gas money and head downtown. Rant done.

Your last point about the costs sunk into your car are legitimate. It's also the reason I believe autonomous taxis will be a good thing for public transit, since it will mean car ownership will go down and the sunk costs of owning many cars will not be a barrier to using transit.

Of course, if public transit were free that argument goes away entirely.

I think a large reason why most transit agencies are content being a rush hour/sporting events service is that the people who manage them (for UTA, the board of trustees, CEO, etc) don't rely on them for everyday transportation. I think the last newspaper report about it said only two of the UTA board rode transit regularly. So they manage transit according to their needs and perceptions rather than according to the potential a city or transit network actually has. It's very frustrating.

[Hatman]

This post will be about Bus Rapid Transit in downtown Salt Lake City, and what I think it should be like.

To start, here is good article about making good transit rather than flashy transit:

No-Nonsense Transit in Rhode Island
http://transitcenter.org/2018/02/13/...-rhode-island/

What happened was this: Providence asked the Federal Government for $125 million to build a downtown streetcar line. The government gave them $13 million. This put the streetcar out of financial reach, so instead they went with a BRT line through the core of downtown.

Here's the thing though: It isn't reserved for just one bus line with a flashy name. ALL buses entering the downtown corridor will use the faster lanes and high-quality stations. The map looks like this:




Details from the article:

By extending routes through downtown and consolidating a large portion of RIPTA’s transit service on one path, buses will run every five minutes between the Providence Station, through the downtown core, and to the Ocean State’s largest hospital. The upgrade to transit frequency will be accompanied by bus lanes, shelters with real time information, wider sidewalks, and priority for buses at intersections. 9,000 riders are projected to use the service, for the cost of 17 million.

Basically, they made all the improvements usually associated with a streetcar line, but didn't include the streetcar. Instead they used a much "less-flashy" bus that puts function over form:

As RIPTA’s interim planning director Greg Nordin states, “while possibly lacking in ‘flash,’ [the projects] offer significant improvements to RIPTA’s operations that assist in creating a more functional system.” And the city and transit system dodged the bullet of building a costly white elephant along the lines of Atlanta’s downtown loop, D.C.’s H Street streetcar, Salt Lake’s Sugar House Line — the list goes on.

Emphasis added. It's always disheartening to hear Salt Lake City listed as a bad example, even if it is true that our S-Line is an embarrassment to the concept of streetcars.

I've come to adopt the philosophy of 'let buses be buses, let trains be trains.' What I mean by this is this: don't force a system into the role of another one.

Streetcars were great back in the day when streets were dirty, muddy, and filled with manure. There were real advantages in speed to be gained by using steel tracks in the streets. People built and rode streetcars because they were the fastest way to get around.

Enter the car and city governments began upgrade streets so that cars could travel faster on them. With smooth, fast, paved streets becoming commonplace, streetcars began to be replaced with buses. As early as the 1920's Salt Lake City's streetcar system was already in decline, and began experimenting with trolley-buses:


That is a picture of a trolley converted into a bus and run by the trolley company. It's even painted to look like a trolley. But it doesn't use tracks, it uses the paved road. Because why should a private company pay for a surface to run on (trolley tracks) when the government is subsidizing an equally good road? There is no reason. The trolley companies knew this, and were trying to get out of the streetcar business as fast as they could.

The Great Depression and World War II delayed the downward trend of trains in the street, but by the late 40's the trends resumed and our streetcar system was removed.

My point in retreading this history is that it isn't the trains in the street that provide the value, it is the transit. It is the utility that the transit provides that makes it popular. A bus not only can be better than a train in the street, but it actually is better than a train in the street because it makes use of the environment around it - the street.

Salt Lake City is currently considering a downtown streetcar along 200 South. This would cost millions of dollars and provide utility only along its length and immediate surroundings. It would be good, but I think there is a better way to go about transit on 200 South.

I propose that along 200 South, from 400 West to 700 East, a high-frequency Bus Rapid Transit system be built. This would have exclusive bus lanes in the middle and raised median station platforms that look and act exactly like the TRAX platforms on Main Street.
This corridor would be used by all buses entering the city from the east or west. Buses would continue past the end of the BRT line and then become normal buses, headed to the University of Utah, down 700 East towards Murray and Holladay or wherever, or past Salt Lake Central Station and out to Redwood Road.

Look to my downtown transit map for a full plan. Here's a taste:



Another route to get this treatment would be State Street. I have a BRT line run down the median of State Street from 9th South up to North Temple, then curve over to the North Temple Bridge TRAX station. This line would handle routes arriving from the north and south. These exclusive bus lanes would ensure buses would never be stuck in traffic, and that the experience of catching a bus downtown would be just as pleasant as riding any rail line.

Some downsides would be that UTA would need to buy all its new buses with doors on both sides, so that the buses could use the BRT lanes downtown and act like regular buses in the less-urban areas of the valley where BRT makes no financial sense. But compared to the cost of buying all-new streetcar vehicles, it is still cheaper to replace some buses.

I never thought I would be against streetcars, but with all the thought I've put in the east-west commuter rail lines, I think there is a better use for rail transit funds than for building trains in the existing streets. Rail transit is not an old or antiquated technology unless we use it in old and antiquated ways. Since we have such nice wide streets already in Salt Lake City, let's use a vehicle designed to operate in the streets - bus rapid transit - and leave the trains for the dedicated routes they excel in.

[bob rulz]

Originally Posted by Hatman

Emphasis added. It's always disheartening to hear Salt Lake City listed as a bad example, even if it is true that our S-Line is an embarrassment to the concept of streetcars.

I know we've talked about this recently, but I don't think the S-Line should be seen as a failure. I don't think the S-Line ever should've been called a streetcar to begin with - it's more like just another TRAX line. It's already surpassed its ridership expectations and it has spurred a huge amount of development both along its length and just past it in the heart of Sugarhouse.

The only way in which the S-Line is a "failure" is in its low frequency, which can be improved. I imagine in another 5-10 years, the S-Line will be seen as a model as opposed to a failure, as long as it gets the proper funding.

[Hatman]

It all depends how you look at it.

As an incentive for developers, it has done its job and more. The S-Line corridor is great and new stuff is getting built at a much faster pace than elsewhere. No complaints there.

But as a transportation service it's pretty bad, and what's worse the badness of it is easily quantifiable.

Cost: $55 million
Ridership: 1,262 per day

Divide the two numbers and we get a pretty meaningless $43,582 per rider (since that is just one day, and hopefully the S-Line has a long life).

Then, we take the bus route in Providence Rhode Island from the article above and do the same thing:

Cost: $17 million
Ridership: 9,000+ per day

Divide the numbers to create the same meaningless metric and we get $1,889.

What this means is that Providence project is 23 TIMES more efficient in terms of getting ridership per dollar spent. That is just embarrassing.

What's more, it proves that the S-Line was never really about transit at all. It was a way of making the area more attractive to build on - and in order to do that they created a half-baked idea of a short 2-mile train line with 20-minute frequencies and a mandatory transfer to get anywhere.
Basically they gave anti-transit people the best argument they could have ever come up with. If anyone comes forward now to say "we want to create a new transit line that moves lots of people" the response is "Oh, like that S-Line that cost so much and nobody uses?"

And here's the part that really annoys me: You don't need a streetcar to create revitalize urban corridors:

The Streetcar-Minus-Streetcar Plan Worked for D.C.
https://www.citylab.com/transportati...for-dc/371830/

Basically, Washington DC started seeing the benefits associated with a streetcar long before the streetcar actually began operation, and this happened because the train was just an excuse to do things like widening sidewalks and improving streetscapes. Cities can do these things without needing to give transit a bad name, but they do it anyway because it is easier to get people excited for the 'new flashy train' than it is for "Sidewalk and streetscape improvements."

So when I say I am against a downtown streetcar, what I mean to say is that there is a better way to spend the money. Buses have basically zero dedicated infrastructure in the downtown area right now, and people keep wondering why bus ridership is so low compared to rail. If we could create a bus corridor along 200 South that was as fast, convenient, and as well-established as TRAX, bus ridership would increase dramatically. And it could be done without the high cost of a streetcar, and it could have much farther-reaching benefits than a streetcar, since a bus could continue on past the end of the busway and keep going to cool places, like the University or wherever.

[Makid]

Hatman,

I do like what you are saying and I think it can work in most if not all areas of the city.

The main problem to overcome though is the built in transportation bias. Even in a dedicated ROW, bus service is always looked down upon. This is something that can change over time but it isn't something that will happen overnight.

What I would like to see along 2nd South is a hybrid model. The street could be reduced down to 1 lane with on street parking (make it angle parking to increase parking capacity.

Down the middle of the street we have the streetcar line with stations in between the tracks. Additionally, on the outside of the tracks, we have stations for bus riders. So it would be something like: sidewalk - parking - driving - bus waiting area - shared transit ROW - Streetcar waiting area - shared transit ROW - bus waiting area - driving - parking - sidewalk. The bus waiting area would be similar to the infill station at 9400 S in Sandy for Trax.

Now, this will only work from 4th West eastward due to the track structure but there is enough room for this and to keep the alignment straight, areas that aren't used as a waiting area could be used as green space (trees, flowers, shrubs or art). Left turns off of 2nd south should be limited or removed as it would be a transit oriented street.

Depending on the final alignment of the downtown streetcar, the shared ROW would go to at least State Street.

State Street BRT transit way would be center running, buses could exit and enter at the intersections (only from other dedicated/shared transit ways). To save money initially and to get the transit way running, buses would run opposite of traffic. As it is protected by a curb, head on collisions would be reduced.

Initially the line could run from 2nd South to 9th South. Construction shouldn't cost all that much as it would be adding 2 curbs and a center median for passengers. Maybe come in at between $30 million to $40 million for the State Street upgrade. Over time dedicated BRT buses or buses with doors on both sides could be purchased and the line would then switch to flowing in the same direction as traffic, if it is desired.

My thought of a shared bus/streetcar ROW on 2nd South would only add maybe $10 million to the budget but it would move all bus service to the ROW and reduce the in and out of traffic situation that currently occurs.

Additionally, when the Davis BRT/Streetcar line is built along 4th West, I think the bus routes that are on 3rd West should be moved and also run within the dedicated ROW. 3rd West should be more of a local transit area as opposed to a regional one. Not just because it is owned by UDoT but because it will allow for better infill with a more locally oriented transit option.

Buses work until service reaches a given point and then rail is more efficient. The S-line was built not for practical reasons but to encourage development. The Granary streetcar line is designed to facilitate development along the route. The downtown streetcar is designed for increased density along the route but also to provide heavier and cheaper service for the forecasted growth downtown.

Now, I do agree that a bus, in a dedicated ROW would remove the need for the streetcar in higher density areas. But until the bus is self driving, the personnel costs + replacement costs are higher than that of a streetcar in the same ROW.

The good thing though is that we are entering a time when transit should be getting cheaper. Self driving, electric buses will reduce many costs while also reducing the bias against buses. Once these buses are located in their own ROW's, the benefits are greatly increased.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

@Hatman


I'm not a fan of this section. Instead it should turn down 800 South and then on to 200 West. The area under the viaduct on 300 West shouldn't be a rail line it should be a freeway off-ramp. The viaduct(east of 300 west) should be removed and become either multi-family housing or a city park. The other reason I would prefer going down 800 South is because it opens up a possible future connection to a line that would travel from the 9th South Station to the 9th & 9th neighborhood. I really see little to no advantage to using this stretch of the right away for rail yet I do see advantage in using it for something else.

I'm in a little disbelief. I've done some studies for this area, and this is almost exactly what i and our team have come up with. Great minds think alike?

[bob rulz]

Originally Posted by Hatman

It all depends how you look at it.

As an incentive for developers, it has done its job and more. The S-Line corridor is great and new stuff is getting built at a much faster pace than elsewhere. No complaints there.

But as a transportation service it's pretty bad, and what's worse the badness of it is easily quantifiable.

Cost: $55 million
Ridership: 1,262 per day

Divide the two numbers and we get a pretty meaningless $43,582 per rider (since that is just one day, and hopefully the S-Line has a long life).

Then, we take the bus route in Providence Rhode Island from the article above and do the same thing:

Cost: $17 million
Ridership: 9,000+ per day

Divide the numbers to create the same meaningless metric and we get $1,889.

What this means is that Providence project is 23 TIMES more efficient in terms of getting ridership per dollar spent. That is just embarrassing.

What's more, it proves that the S-Line was never really about transit at all. It was a way of making the area more attractive to build on - and in order to do that they created a half-baked idea of a short 2-mile train line with 20-minute frequencies and a mandatory transfer to get anywhere.
Basically they gave anti-transit people the best argument they could have ever come up with. If anyone comes forward now to say "we want to create a new transit line that moves lots of people" the response is "Oh, like that S-Line that cost so much and nobody uses?"

That's why I say give it 5-10 years...hopefully by then it can be double-tracked all the way to increase service (hopefully closer to 5 years than 10), and the increased development on the line could greatly increase ridership. Not to mention the trail that's run along the length of the line gives it something unique that most streetcars don't have.

The streetcar vs BRT debate is tricky, and I really think it just depends on the expected capacity of the line.

You can run buses cheaper, sure...but streetcars can carry greater capacity, and are much more comfortable to ride. The comfort level of a train/streetcar over a bus is a big factor. I would ride a train over a bus 100 times out of 100 if both options were equally convenient. I think in the case of 200 South and the Granary Streetcar, streetcars are the better option since those are VERY high capacity and quite short. I think for, say, State Street, BRT is a better option, since it gives it the opportunity to extend further (all the way to at least Murray Central, hopefully) in a way that wouldn't be realistic for a streetcar.

[delts145]

A lot of talk on the forum over the years regarding street medians. One thing I wanted to share about medians that really drove the point home again for me. Particularly, with streets like State St. or 700 East there would be two goals foremost in my mind. One would be a median with well cared for trees, and the other would be a lane provided in each direction for BRT. Regarding the trees median, I couldn't believe the difference that the median on 700 East makes in the Liberty Park area. Just traveling south on 700 East between 900 and 1300 So., (Google Earth). Upon leaving Trolley Sq. and heading south everything about that street just made me cringe. The shear wasted width of the street is so vacuous and ugly. Most of the homes and lots to the sides are historic, but also very shabby and rundown, which only adds to the lack of the quality of life. However, then you come upon 900 S. The median with the trees that are now reaching a decent size changes an individuals entire attitude. The heightened beauty and overall warming quality of the neighborhood on that median stretch is elevated immensely. Even the majority of the property owners on the east side seem to be heartened by the tree lined median. Their homes are often charmingly restored, and yards well maintained and attractive. After traveling so much of Central Salt Lakes streets one thing is very obvious. Wherever there are overly wide streets, at the very least there should be tree medians in between the middle turning lanes. Even so many of the non-400 S. streets where mass transit might not be called for, the very least requirement should be tree medians. IMO, The great news about that Salt Lake having an over abundance of too many super wide streets, is that it's an urban planners paradise. The designer in me feels like a kid in a candy store, there are so many multi-use possibilities. Where else can so much multi-use street enhancement take place on so many streets like we have in Salt Lake City? For me, the median with attractive trees is just a minimal, no brainer beginning.

[Old&New]

added another viaduct to connect SLCentral to North Temple.

Originally Posted by Hatman

I cannot help myself. So here is the same transit map from before, but this time with the East-West commuter lines shown as well.



In addition to all the colored lines from before, I added in a 'gold line' to go between Sugarhouse and West Valley. That way the silver and gold lines go together down the S-Line, which makes me happy.

I'd move one of the lines off of main, and on to 400 west 9-line.

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

That's why I say give it 5-10 years...hopefully by then it can be double-tracked all the way to increase service (hopefully closer to 5 years than 10), and the increased development on the line could greatly increase ridership. Not to mention the trail that's run along the length of the line gives it something unique that most streetcars don't have.

I hope you're right and that in 5-10 years the whole thing is double-tracked and performing well. I also hope that by then they've given up on the notion of keeping it a separate 'streetcar' and have integrated the line with TRAX. The rail corridor has a potential to be something great, and I think rail for this corridor was the right choice - but the way the rail line currently exists is a pretty revealing look at how real-estate developers view rail transit. It isn't currently transit for utility's sake, it's transit for development's sake. Transit designers and engineers are going to have to spend several years and many millions of dollars to double-track and upgrade the line to the point where it has any real transit utility.

My point in attacking the S-Line isn't anything I have against the S-Line, per se (because I do see the potential you have described), its that I don't want these same mistakes to be repeated on 200 South in Downtown Salt Lake City. Imagine what they could do with that!

Phase 1: Single track-line between 400 West and 500 East. Distance of just over a mile. Frequency every 20 minutes. Anticipation of Phase 2 that goes to the university, perhaps in another 5-10 years. Until then, the 2X bus (the express bus route between Central Station and the University) is shortened from the University to the Streetcar stop at 500 East. This creates a mandatory transfer for anyone wanting to go between the University and Salt Lake Central Station.

Phase 2: (10 years after Phase 1) Continue Single-track line to the university. The 2x bus has now been completely replaced with the streetcar, which takes 10 minutes longer due to the increased amount of stops. Reliability is called into question as single-track operations have a tendency to cause delays. Vehicles on the tracks - especially in the eastern section by the University where the line is constructed in mixed traffic - become a frequent problem as poorly-parked cars can block the tracks for hours at a time while towing companies reap massive profits. Frequency remains ever 20 minutes until more funding can be found for double-tracking the entire line.

Phase 3: (5 years after phase 2, 15 years after phase 1) 'Strategic' double-tracking takes place to increase the frequency of trains to 15-minutes. Community leaders cheer as this becomes a 'high-frequency' route, even though BRT lines across the Wasatch Front already regularly run at 5-minute frequencies at peak times (The Provo-Orem BRT opening this year will run a 6 minute frequency!).

Phase 4: Officials say they no longer have funds for the completion of the 4th South TRAX line between Main Street and Salt Lake Central Station. "We spent all the money on a streetcar line," they say. "And besides, that's only two blocks to the north; we don't need parallel rail transit lines."

Now, compare that disappointingly-probable scenario with this BRT map by Liberty Wellsian, which I really like:



When considering that the streetcar would cost roughly about as much as these four lines of BRT, I think the choice becomes pretty clear as to what we ought to do with our money.

The streetcar vs BRT debate is tricky, and I really think it just depends on the expected capacity of the line.

You can run buses cheaper, sure...but streetcars can carry greater capacity, and are much more comfortable to ride. The comfort level of a train/streetcar over a bus is a big factor. I would ride a train over a bus 100 times out of 100 if both options were equally convenient. I think in the case of 200 South and the Granary Streetcar, streetcars are the better option since those are VERY high capacity and quite short. I think for, say, State Street, BRT is a better option, since it gives it the opportunity to extend further (all the way to at least Murray Central, hopefully) in a way that wouldn't be realistic for a streetcar.

It will be really interesting to see people's reactions to the Provo-Orem BRT line this fall. It should be just as smooth and nice to ride as TRAX; the buses are hybrid-electric so they are quieter and faster accelerating than normal buses, and they stop at platforms like trains. People will be amazed at how often the buses run (almost 3x more frequently than any TRAX line), and the ride quality on the new concrete roadways will feel just as smooth as train tracks, if not even smoother. If ridership reaches anywhere near its predicted levels it will rival the Green Line (TRAX) for 3rd place of UTA's most-used transit lines. It will totally blow away any S-Line ridership, now or in the future.

I have a hunch it will change a lot of minds in regards to this streetcar vs BRT debate.

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by Old&New

added another viaduct to connect SLCentral to North Temple.

I'd support this.

I'd move one of the lines off of main, and on to 400 west 9-line.

I'd be in favor of adding more service to the West side; perhaps another route from Fashion Place West up to Salt Lake Central Station. But I really like the idea of being able to catch a TRAX train to any endpoint from Main Street too much to move any of the currently drawn lines to the West.

[arkhitektor]

UTA will indefinitely end FrontRunner service to Pleasant View:
http://www.standard.net/Transportati...rules#cxrecs_s

[bob rulz]

Originally Posted by Hatman

My point in attacking the S-Line isn't anything I have against the S-Line, per se (because I do see the potential you have described), its that I don't want these same mistakes to be repeated on 200 South in Downtown Salt Lake City. Imagine what they could do with that!

I think it's a fair point. Hopefully UTA is smart enough to recognize that the 200 South line would absolute need to be high-frequency from the start. I think it's a different situation from the S-Line, considering the 2 and 2X routes are among the busiest (if not the busiest?) bus routes in the system, and I think UTA recognizes that.

This is why I really hope these UTA funding mechanisms change and go through, and that it does make a real difference in how much funding is allocated to it. Same goes for the SLC Transit Master Plan.

When considering that the streetcar would cost roughly about as much as these four lines of BRT, I think the choice becomes pretty clear as to what we ought to do with our money.

It will be really interesting to see people's reactions to the Provo-Orem BRT line this fall. It should be just as smooth and nice to ride as TRAX; the buses are hybrid-electric so they are quieter and faster accelerating than normal buses, and they stop at platforms like trains. People will be amazed at how often the buses run (almost 3x more frequently than any TRAX line), and the ride quality on the new concrete roadways will feel just as smooth as train tracks, if not even smoother. If ridership reaches anywhere near its predicted levels it will rival the Green Line (TRAX) for 3rd place of UTA's most-used transit lines. It will totally blow away any S-Line ridership, now or in the future.

I have a hunch it will change a lot of minds in regards to this streetcar vs BRT debate.

You might be right. I would certainly prefer BRT over a regular bus line. But since the 35M isn't really a great model to work off of, I'm not sure I really do know how good BRT can be.

Originally Posted by arkhitektor

UTA will indefinitely end FrontRunner service to Pleasant View:
http://www.standard.net/Transportati...rules#cxrecs_s

Hopefully UTA can get that self-built track up to Pleasant View - and eventually to Brigham City. Then maybe UTA could contract with Cache Valley Transit to run an express bus route from Logan to a future Brigham City FrontRunner station just like the PC-SLC line (but without the ridiculously higher fare, of course). I imagine that would be a very popular bus route.