Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[SLCdude]

Originally Posted by Ironweed

Thanks Hatman.

The ridiculous traffic on I-15 warrants it!!

The Mountain View Corridor will alleviate I-15 flow in the short-term but I don't see it good for traffic at all in the long run. I'm afraid of how much this will enable car-dependent sprawl as far west as the mountains allow. It would be nice to include a BRT or TRAX line in the full-build of the corridor though.

[Atlas]

I mentioned this to Hatman the other day but I recently found Stadler's presentation to the Central Wasatch Commission about their cog rail alternative for Little Cottonwood Canyon. Pretty interesting that their cost estimate per mile for the system is lower than the gondola and that they have a trainset that is compatible with TRAX.

[Ironweed]

Originally Posted by SLCdude

The Mountain View Corridor will alleviate I-15 flow in the short-term but I don't see it good for traffic at all in the long run. I'm afraid of how much this will enable car-dependent sprawl as far west as the mountains allow. It would be nice to include a BRT or TRAX line in the full-build of the corridor though.

I prefer rail Atlas. However, we have idiot politicians in the state legislature who are bought off from the auto lobby.

I agree with your assessment.

Many of the locals just don't have it together. Sprawl is inevitable.

[i-215]

Unless you can convince SW Salt Lake County cities to dramatically change their land use patterns (which follow 60 years of national inertia), it would be irresponsible to not plan new car-centric transportation facilities.

The best we can (and must do) is to build cities within the city. Urbanizable nodes which act as walkable islands inside the sprawl. And transit connects those nodes. Urbanization/walkability will sprawl outward from these nodes as market demands change over the next half century. Try to promote new sprawl/suburban street grids which can later accommodate urbanization in the future (fewer cul-de-sacs, more grid-like patterns).

[Paniolo Man]

Since UTA just finalized the location for a Frontrunner station in Willard I have got to thinking. How far are they on figuring out the Ogden-Pleasant view track issue? Has the space for a track parallel to UP been procured for that stretch? UTA has been cruising through the Box Elder county land procurement so I'd figure they have a solution in mind for their Weber County Woes.

Also what became of that plan for a station at Business District Ogden?

While I'm slamming questions, what is the status of the Union Station project in Ogden?

(Here's the land swap for the station)

[Atlas]

So I came across this today because it was just given $29 million by the legislature.

Brigham City will be building a giant car bridge over their quaint historic rail station on Forest Street. This station would presumably be where FrontRunner would eventually stop.

IMO, this will really stunt this area's potential for TOD.

[delts145]

That seems short-sighted. Hmm, Then again I wonder. Since the depot runs parallel to the tracks I think it would be feasible to lift and move it further away, so that part of it is not sitting underneath the overpass. Perhaps when the time comes to extend Front-Runner to Brigham City that would be cheaper than moving the alignment of the overpass away from the depot.

[Makid]

I am a little surprised that this hasn't been shared here yet:

https://www.ksl.com/article/50342100/uta...nsit-projects-says-house-majority-leader
Utahns could save 'billions' if UDOT oversees massive transit projects, says House Majority Leader

SALT LAKE CITY — A new bill in the Utah Legislature would let the state oversee development of massive transit projects, including a proposal to double-track the FrontRunner rail line.

Such projects are currently overseen by the Utah Transit Authority, but would fall under the supervision of the Utah Department of Transportation if HB322 passes. In the long run, House Majority Leader Mike Schultz, R-Hooper, said the change would make transportation cheaper for Utahns and would meet the transit demands for a rapidly growing region.

"We have to start thinking 10, 20, 30 years down the road," he said. "You think about the congestion going north-south along I-15 right now. We know we cannot widen I-15 enough to meet the demands of the population growth 10 to 20 years from now."

Schultz said that highways across the Wasatch Front are being outpaced by population growth, and added that there need to be significant investments in east-west transit options in both Salt Lake and Utah counties.

HB322 was made public on Friday. A fiscal analysis is still ongoing and it is unclear what the move would cost initially.

The idea behind this is that regional impacting transit will be built by UDoT and operated by UTA. UTA can build local routes, such as Ogden and Taylorsville BRT routes. UTA would also be able to build items requested by Counties and Cities such as Sugar House Streetcar and the SLC Transit Master Plan, as these would be funded locally.

All larger projects, just as double tracking and electrifying FrontRunner, cross County transit and any transit that is deemed regionally important, would be paid for via State funding (or local funds that are directed to specific projects) and built by UDoT.

UTA can still work on the grant packages for Federal Matching funds to assist with funding projects at all levels (Local, County, and Regional).

Now, there are a few things driving this. One is to bring UTA more into the fold akin to UDoT. This has been a long time push from multiple members of the Legislature, they just don't want to absorb the debt, so this gets them closer to the end goal by reducing the overall debt needed for transit projects.

Second is that UTA has been value engineering transit plans that are later needing upgrades that could have been vastly cheaper if built correctly (in their eyes) originally. Some legislators point to UDoT having learned this with regards to Bangerter Highway and the massive costs to upgrade the intersections today. The lessons learned is shown by looking at Mountain View. For UTA, some members of the Legislature like to reference 3 projects that were either under built, incorrectly planned, or used incorrect modes. These projects are - FrontRunner, Point of the Mountain transit, and UVX.

The Legislators do understand FrontRunner to a point, in that it was a new transit type in the State and no one knew how it would be received once it was done. However, after the full length was opened, UTA did not want to put additional funds to improving service, nor asking the Cities and Counties for funds to upgrade the system. Even when UTA was advised of a Standing Room Only situation during rush periods, no additional rail cars were added to help with capacity. This pushed the State to step in to speed up the double tracking of FrontRunner.

For UVX, there are many Legislators that questioned not only the route, or the mode and the fact that it goes from dedicated lanes to shared lanes. While they like the idea of transit, many would like to have the route upgraded to LRT sooner rather than later.

This leads to the POM, many in the Legislature still prefer extending Trax into Utah County, that can eventually connect with and upgrade UVX to LRT. They fear that BRT without any actually connections won't satisfy agreements made with Adobe. They also fear that it will be harder for the Trax Red Line to be extended both Southward and Eastward connecting to the once planned Blue Line extension near the Pluralsight campus. There is also a push to have an LRT spur through Lehi out to Eagle Mountain that would connect to a Utah County Blue Line extension. There are some Legislators that feel that without dedicated LRT service in or around the prison redevelopment that it won't bring in the level of development needed to justify moving the Prison to their constituents.

Lastly, I have heard that 1 minor reason for this bill is that it would make it easier for the Rio Grande plan to happen. This bill would allow the State to build the project. The state benefits from new land added to the tax roles as well. This is a minor reason behind the bill but it does remove the largest impediment to it happening, UTA.

[Paniolo Man]

Only loosely related, I'd love to see UDOT and neighboring states collaborate to create Amtrak Mountainwest. It would serve long distance routes 1-3 times a day. SLC-Moab, Pocatello-Vegas, Reno-Park City... It would be an absolute win for tourism and folks in rural communities.

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by Makid

I am a little surprised that this hasn't been shared here yet:

https://www.ksl.com/article/50342100/uta...nsit-projects-says-house-majority-leader
Utahns could save 'billions' if UDOT oversees massive transit projects, says House Majority Leader

I support this bill. It only makes sense that the largest projects should be considered at the same level as freeway projects. It also addresses my main criticism of planning in this state, but it doesn't solve it. I do not understand why there is no comprehensive master plan for transit, in the same way that there is for freeways. Take the Mountain View Corridor, for example. They have its future route planned out down to the radii of the individual curves and number of lanes, and the have a metric set up so that when the road gets used by X vehicles per day (AADT) it triggers an upgrade (an additional lane, a grade separation, etc).
UTA and transit in general seem to be solving one little problem at a time. Instead of getting a network of BRT routes radiating from downtown, we get a bunch of disparate systems spread throughout the valley. We need some high-level systems-oriented thinking here to figure out what the optimal maximum use of our transit assets are, and to develop a plan to build our way there.
A Master Plan.
Obviously this bill doesn't create any of that, but it takes the larger projects up to a state level, at least, so that the local politics that UTA swims in don't bog down the bigger stuff.

Also access to more funding. More funding is always good.

Originally Posted by Makid

Lastly, I have heard that 1 minor reason for this bill is that it would make it easier for the Rio Grande plan to happen. This bill would allow the State to build the project. The state benefits from new land added to the tax roles as well. This is a minor reason behind the bill but it does remove the largest impediment to it happening, UTA.

Wow, are there really conversations among legislators about the Rio Grande Plan? That's awesome! I would love to hear more of what you hear!

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by Paniolo Man

Only loosely related, I'd love to see UDOT and neighboring states collaborate to create Amtrak Mountainwest. It would serve long distance routes 1-3 times a day. SLC-Moab, Pocatello-Vegas, Reno-Park City... It would be an absolute win for tourism and folks in rural communities.

Great minds think alike. Here's what I was thinking of back in 2020:
https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9132840&postcount=8424

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by Atlas

So I came across this today because it was just given $29 million by the legislature.

Brigham City will be building a giant car bridge over their quaint historic rail station on Forest Street. This station would presumably be where FrontRunner would eventually stop.

IMO, this will really stunt this area's potential for TOD.

If I remember correctly, UTA were most recently exploring the idea of a FrontRunner terminus just west of Box Elder High School, which is further south than the old UP depot. Their plan makes sense if you assume that FrontRunner will never go farther north than Brigham City - but that's a silly assumption. Logan is the obvious terminus for FrontRunner, and their current plans for Brigham City are short-sighted.

One more benefit of free fare transit is that it will become easier for transit agencies to work together on certain projects, such as extending FrontRunner to Logan, which has its own transit operator. With no fares to collect no argument of one operator cannibalizing fare revenue from the other, though the larger issue of splitting up the local transit taxes remains.

I hope the bridge turns out better than it looks in that rendering. Since it is two lanes in each direction, perhaps it will accommodate bus stop at the top and have escalators going down to track level. But probably not.

It's things like this that make me desperate for a transit master plan, as alluded to in an earlier post. The designers of this bridge don't know that their design is potentially infringing upon transit expansion because that expansion isn't currently planned for with any level of detail. If there was a real idea of what the footprint of a commuter rail station looked like in Brigham City (at the depot site, not the silly Box Elder High School site), then the bridge designers would have to come up with something compatible.

But there is no master plan currently - and so we have to just hope that the harm being done isn't too great. We're like the person strapped to the plank in a knife throwing act - we just have to hope that the knives land away from parcels and assets that we know could be useful in the future.

[Paniolo Man]

Originally Posted by Hatman

If I remember correctly, UTA were most recently exploring the idea of a FrontRunner terminus just west of Box Elder High School, which is further south than the old UP depot. Their plan makes sense if you assume that FrontRunner will never go farther north than Brigham City - but that's a silly assumption. Logan is the obvious terminus for FrontRunner, and their current plans for Brigham City are short-sighted.

You are correct, UTA already owns the land for the Brigham City Station and has a park and ride on part of it.

As someone who lives in Logan, I've been personally involved in the fussing for a better transit connection. Regarding buses, I've chatted with a few people from CVTD about it and it is less a conflict of cannibalizing fares and more a conflict of who has to pay for someone else's bus. The way CVTD and Cache County would have it UTA/State would pay them to operate a bus from the Logan Transit Center to Ogden Station. UTA wants Cache County to pay them to extend Route 630 to the Logan Transit Center. Cache County is unwilling to fund more than one transit provider. It's a silly conflict and I don't care which solution gets chosen, just need one sooner rather than later. I have been submitting public comment to CVTD, UTA, and Legislators about this for a while now.

As far as Frontrunner is concerned I agree that Logan is the obvious norther terminus, though finding right of way is extremely difficult. My understanding is there are three options, the two most feasible are explored by this report written by two USU engineering students.

1. New right of way following Flat Bottom Canyon between Brigham City and Wellsville. It's theoretically possible, but would be absurdly difficult to build/maintain. The grade would be significant.

2. Beaverdam City via Collinston Divide. This route follows UPRR to Collinston but takes a more southern route over the divide as opposed to Cutler Canyon where the UPRR line goes. From there it would follow abandoned right of way through Benson into Logan. This route is feasible because it has been done before, the Oregon Short Line took this route before relocating to Cutler Canyon to decrease the overall grade.

3. Cutler Canyon, Least feasible by far. UPRR is not likely to share their track, and it is unlikely that a second track could be added. I have extensively hiked in and around Cutler Canyon while birding/sightseeing, here are a few pictures from last year showing how much cutting, tunneling, and bridging UPRR has had to do for one track. Adding a second track on either side of the canyon isn't feasible in my opinion.

I believe that #2 is the best option and land should be acquired sooner rather than later.

Ill attach a picture of the USU student's map for those who don't feel like opening the PDF. I also have a few pictures of the abandoned line across the valley if anybody is interested.


Sorry if this has been a bit long, This is something I've read up a lot on.

[Makid]

Hatman,

I think you are aware that UDoT and UTA have looked into improving transit to Tooele. UTA said there isn't demand for rail and recommends BRT due primarily to costs. UDoT wants to provide an alternative to I-80 for both commuters and trucks, but the other options are too expensive.

I had heard that one big reason UTA prefers BRT over rail is they lack a ROW sufficient for rail. Additionally, UTA would have preferred LRT for the route due to the Central Station rail configuration makes it difficult (expensive) to configure rails to go to the West for FrontRunner, even though it is a cheaper option. UDoT and the State were close to accepting BRT while they look into extending Trax through the International Center and to Tooele.

The Rio Grande plan has intrigued a lot of people in that while they see the development potential from the newly accessible land and reduced maintenance costs for a few overpasses, the Rio Grande plan increases the feasibility of a Tooele FrontRunner line from a central location.

As you may recall, the majority of the ridership of the Tooele BRT line is from ridership gained once closer to downtown. The BRT line would mostly bypass the International Center/Inland Port. The Legislators realize for the Inland Port to be successful it will need improved transit options. With a speedy rail connection to a main hub, it will improve ridership but it will also reduce commuter traffic on I-80 and the 201.

To do a related tangent here, there are reports that the IP needs additional rail capacity to have a better impact economically while reducing the number of long haul truck trips. UDoT has looked into creating a new ROW for this additional capacity between Grantsville and SLC. It is also why the IP Committee has looked into Grantsville as a satellite site for the Inland Port.

To return to the main topic here, there is an idea to include space for passenger rail within the possible new rail ROW. The Legislature wants the IP to succeed and is already looking at paying for the ROW and rail construction for the IP and would lease capacity to the railroads. The costs to add dedicated passenger rail tracks during this time is negligible in the overall costs. Usage of the passenger rail is primarily dictated based on ease of connections.

A line running from near Tooele and Grantsville, with a stop around 5600 W, and then a final stop at a central station serves the IP, has a high running speed, and allows for easier transit connections. This would have a direct impact on commuter traffic through the area. LRT works great for local and semi-local routes but on the distances needed for the route, LRT isn't practical.

FrontRunner is the practical option and the Rio Grande plan actually makes the route feasible. When one factors in the potential eastward expansion through Parley's Canyon, the Rio Grande plan can help reduce 2 major commuter bottlenecks along the Wasatch Front.

Again though, the Rio Grande plan is just a small but not insignificant item with regards to the overall bill and plan for UDoT to take over construction of transit projects.

[Atlas]

Some excellent posts lately. The Beaverdam route to Logan definitely seems like the way to go, and I think the depot on Forest Street is the most natural place for the Brigham City FrontRunner stop. It's really a shame that this bridge project is so far along at this point.

A statewide transit master plan makes a lot of sense, so much so that I am surprised we don't already have one. Makid's posts make me hopeful that something like that will happen if UDOT is put in charge. What are the odds of success of this bill in the legislature?

Makid's post also makes me think that the timing of the Rio Grande Plan has been excellent. 10 years ago there probably wouldn't have been enough interest in the Depot area, or the internet sharing infrastructure that we've leveraged, for the idea of the RGP to take root, and we couldn't have pointed to Denver's Union Station as a successful project. There was also no inland port motivating the legislature's decisions, no Station Center project area from the RDA, fewer people living the area, and lower ridership.

10 years from now, I think there will be more buildings/projects that could interfere with the RGP than there are now. UTA/UDOT will have probably made other changes to TRAX and Salt Lake Central too, which would make the RGP a lot less justifiable in some ways.

All of that is to say that it seems to me like we are at an opportune moment for the Rio Grande Plan and I am elated that it's made its way into the state's thinking (even if only marginally). At the local level, I think if we can get some serious discussion on the SLC city council about the RGP, to the point where they commission a legit feasibility study and it gets into the updated transit master plan, we will be in a really good spot going forward. The fact that Dan Dugan is now the chair of the council helps us too.

P.S. Are we all pronouncing it "Rio Grand" or more faithfully as "Rio Grande"? We discovered recently that different people are verbalizing it in different ways because until recently we've all just been communicating online.

[Utahn]

I'm thrilled about the possibility of UDOT getting more involved in the planning, financing, and construction of transit projects. This could be a huge leap forward for transit in the State of Utah, and I'm hopeful a more heavy involvement in transit could change UDOT's greater orientation towards more sustainable growth.

A statewide transit master plan makes a lot of sense, so much so that I am surprised we don't already have one. Makid's posts make me hopeful that something like that will happen if UDOT is put in charge. What are the odds of success of this bill in the legislature?

There's been a couple of legislative attempts on this already, a bill in the 2020 session tried to provide funding for a statewide comprehensive rail plan.

In 2021 Luz Escamilla tried a similar resolution, though this one with a broader focus on interstate rail opportunities. Both bills had some support, but lacked the priority to make it through the legislature. However, an enlargement in UDOT's role is likely to shift support further in this direction, at least I hope so.

There's going to be a lot of dollars from the infrastructure package on the table in the next few years , and even though most of these broader projects are more long-term, the State will be missing a lot of opportunities if it doesn't take advantage of funds to at least plant out the system.

[bob rulz]

I do like the idea of UDOT taking over planning for large-scale transit projects and what that could mean for transit in the state. I'll admit I don't have a lot of faith in UDOT when it comes to anything but car infrastructure, but they DO have expertise in long-range planning and visions that UTA honestly lacks, so I'm cautiously optimistic about that bill and I hope it passes.

Definitely hope that rail to Logan is considered in long-range plans. Logan has a surprisingly decent bus system, but it's definitely past time to consider transit options to connect Logan to the Wasatch Front.

[tygr]

We're a week in with UTA's "free-fare February." Is there any way to see if it's had any impacts? Increased ridership? Other than maybe just riding it and saying "Yeah, the bus/rail car has been fuller than usual."

I don't get to ride UTA enough to gauge any changes.

[msbutah]

I commute by Trax and it has definitely seemed busier, but not sure if there are other factors at work. My commute ridership levels in the past have mostly been impacted by the U's schedule.

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by tygr

We're a week in with UTA's "free-fare February." Is there any way to see if it's had any impacts? Increased ridership? Other than maybe just riding it and saying "Yeah, the bus/rail car has been fuller than usual."

I don't get to ride UTA enough to gauge any changes.

I do a reverse commute on TRAX every day (leaving downtown area heading toward Sandy), and I've seen the train be slightly busier than usual, but not by much, unfortunately.

On Saturday, however, I took the FrontRunner and I was impressed by how full the train was. Best of all, it was full of kids and their parents. I know UTA offers a $15 group pass for 4 people (or at least they used to), but it is still rare to see young or large families riding the trains together. The cost of a fare is reasonable for a single commuter, who would otherwise be driving alone during rush hour, but the process and cost of buying fares for each member of a family really discourages larger groups and families from riding together, which is a real shame.