Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[Hatman]

Originally Posted by Atlas

Anyone know the timeline on the ~650 S Main TRAX station? After riding the train through downtown last week, my feeling was that not having a station there already feels like a missed opportunity. The gap between Courthouse and 900 S stations is really substantial. It will be very inconvenient for office workers at 650 Main to use TRAX until the new station opens.

Also Hatman, looking at your 2030 TRAX map I have a question. What would the be the best way to get from say "Industry" station to "600 South Main" station? Seems like the best options would be to either ride Silver on a big loop around downtown or ride Blue to Central 9th and transfer to Red or Blue (northbound). Neither seems like a very efficient route from A to B.

The 2030 Map in Question:


As Atlas says, there is no direct service between the two stations at 600 on 600 South. The best way to go would probably be a transfer at 900 South, which would add time, distance, and inconvenience to your trip. Obviously this will be a problem as the city continues to grow. The obvious solution is to add a second circulator line that follows the big loop created by 700 South, not just the little loop created by 400 South.

I didn't show such a line in this map because I didn't want it to get too crowded. TBH, there are probably already too many service lines on this map if we are considering a conventionally-operated human-driven LRT system. Step into the future of autonomous LRT operations, where individual cars run independently from all other cars, and you can create truly thick transit maps.

[Atlas]

Hatman, I spoke with someone knowledgeable about hydrogeology and hazard sites recently. This person was skeptical about developing the land between the Rio Grande Depot and the freeway because he thinks that it's been significantly contaminated by the industrial activity and that would require extensive (and expensive) cleanup. He also thought that the groundwater in the area would make the trench idea infeasible without some kind of active pumping measure. Have you put any thought into these factors?

[Hatman]

Those are legitimate concerns, but I do not think they are prohibitive. I am in no position to state authoritatively whether the soil is too contaminated or if the water table is too high, but I can look at what other developments and what cities have done and draw comparisons.

First, the water table. We live at the bottom of an ancient inland sea, which makes the ground not only wet but also porous. However, with the appropriate engineering precautions, the negative aspects can be mitigated, structural speaking. Case in point: the Gateway parking garages, which are located immediately east of 500 west, go deeper into the ground than the proposed 'train box's (trench). Another example is the tunnel being constructed at the airport right now, which will connect the two concourses. I don't know if these two examples use active pumping to remove ground water or passive sealing, but I posit that whatever works for them will also work for the Rio Grande plan.

Soil contamination is a real issue, but it is one that plenty of other projects have worked around. Both Denver's and Sacramento's new downtown districts are built on old rail yards, and UTA's new bus depot is being built on the very rail yards that the Rio Grande plan would open to developers. Perhaps there will be additional costs compared to a completely Greenfield site, but when the is no Greenfield available, and when your only options for developing downtown are demolition at Property A, or soil removal/remediation at Property B, the cost of industrial cleanup won't be seen as prohibitive.

That's unfortunately the best answer I can give, and unless a professional feasibility study is done, I think that's the best we're going to get.

[Hatman]

A very interesting article from the Standard Examiner about potentially relocating the Frontrunner platforms in Ogden to be closer to Union Station:

UTA tweaking its transit development plan in Ogden to align with city vision



OGDEN — The Utah Transit Authority is looking to tweak its plan for transit-oriented development in Ogden so it meshes with the city’s vision for the downtown area.

UTA is working on changes to its “Ogden Onboard” plan so it fits better with a sweeping city initiative that was adopted by the Ogden City Council earlier this year called “Make Ogden.” In a sense, the plans are similar. Ogden Onboard guides development at future transit station locations through the city, while Make Ogden lays down a development vision for the city’s Central Business District.

Ogden Onboard was adopted by UTA in 2019. The measure deals heavily with the agency’s $120 million bus rapid transit project, which is being constructed in Ogden now. The BRT will feature a 5.3-mile transit connection between downtown Ogden, Weber State University and McKay-Dee Hospital. The service will originate at the Ogden UTA transit center at 2350 Wall Ave., head east on 23rd Street to Washington Boulevard, go south along Washington Boulevard to 25th Street, turn east along 25th Street to Harrison Boulevard, then south to WSU and a planned transit center at the Dee Events Center. McKay-Dee would be the final stop on the line.

Individual BRT stations will be located at the transit center, The Junction, several other spots downtown, along 25th Street and Harrison Boulevard, Ogden High School, WSU, the Dee Events Center and the hospital. New development is expected to take place at locations throughout the route.

But after UTA’s Ogden Onboard plan was finished, the city amped up work on Make Ogden. The long-range master plan will guide development downtown for decades to come.

The plan includes guidelines for things like facilities, community identity, economic development, environmental resources, housing, land use, neighborhoods, open space and transportation — all within Ogden’s Central Business District, which stretches from 20th to 27th streets between Wall and Adams avenues. Make Ogden calls for nearly 5,000 new housing units, 7,000 new jobs, 1,000 new hotel rooms and 4,500 new parking stalls — benchmarks that would be implemented incrementally in four different phases through 2045.

“(Make Ogden) provided quite a lot of detail for the entire downtown area,” said Jordan Swain, UTA’s Transit Oriented Development project manager. “But some of the details ... didn’t necessarily correspond with the recommendations that came out of Ogden Onboard.”

Swain said Ogden’s Union Station is a central driver in the effort to align the two plans.

The nearly 100-year-old train depot is a major factor in the Make Ogden initiative, envisioned to be part of a large, westward expansion of the city’s downtown sector. Upgrades to the station spelled out in the plan include a new museum building and train hall, a new parking structure and a transit plaza that connects to the nearby FrontRunner station.

Swain said UTA is looking to potentially relocate the FrontRunner platform south of where it is now, so it’s adjacent to the main Union Station building and more central to planned future development there.

“We still have yet to figure out how that will work and if it’s feasible,” Swain said. “It’s not a conclusion, it’s just a possibility.”

The city eventually wants to redevelop the Union Station and much of the land surrounding it, from 22nd Street to 27th Street on Wall Avenue. The project could include large, public open spaces, museums, art galleries, high-density housing, retail space, meeting and event space, and administrative offices.

“It’s good that Ogden City is trying to maximize (the land) they have,” said Beth Holbrook, a member of the UTA board of trustees. “Because once you go forward with this, you’re committed.”

Among other things, Swain said the Ogden Onboard amendment also includes consolidated parking to free up land for development. He said potential changes will not impact the route of the BRT.

Funding for the relocation of the Frontrunner Station would likely come from state sources, according to UTA documents. The documents also say several steps, like requisite zoning changes, finding a development partner and more, will need to be completed before the proposed plan is implemented.

I hope this happens. The Rio Grande plan would be made a lot easier if Amtrak trains could continue north to Ogden, and have their servicing and fueling stop there.
Fun fact, from Salt Lake City to Elko, NV, it is exactly the same distance by rail whether you go south of the lake through Wendover or if you go across the lake via Ogden. The only thing holding back Ogden from national rail service is the Ogden Union Station being bypassed from rail service.

[downtownslcresident]

Does anyone know if the original plans for the Mountain View corridor originally routed the freeway down the ROW at about 5850W between 47th south and 78th south, and rerouted to its currently location further west? Or was it always planned to go west behind USANA and then back over to the 5850W ROW again?

If it was rerouted, was it because of NIMBYs, or something else? Super curious on any information or links/documents anyone is able to provide! TIA!

[i-215]

Originally Posted by downtownslcresident

Does anyone know if the original plans for the Mountain View corridor originally routed the freeway down the ROW at about 5850W between 47th south and 78th south, and rerouted to its currently location further west? Or was it always planned to go west behind USANA and then back over to the 5850W ROW again?

If it was rerouted, was it because of NIMBYs, or something else? Super curious on any information or links/documents anyone is able to provide! TIA!

It was actually worse. There was an alignment where the road avoided the golf course entirely (westerly), made a pretty sharp turn along 4700 South and then back to 5800 West.

https://mountainview.udot.utah.gov/w...Alignments.pdf

Another alignment had it swinging all the way west to 7200 West, where it would have superseded the actual street.

[i-215]

The next leg of Mountain View Corridor (to the SR-201 freeway) opens this morning.

So naturally, I'm flying up to Utah this weekend to drive on it. (Well, that... and father's day).

https://www.udot.utah.gov/connect/20...-with-s-r-201/

Up next?

* The MVC "missing link" from Herriman to 2100 North near Saratoga Springs (begins Fall 2023 — funded).

* First "freeway" section will be the fields within the frontage roads through Herriman and Daybreak (begins Spring 2028 — legislature TBD).

[RC14]

^
I drove this new segment over the weekend. All the articles say this segment goes to SR 201 but it actually goes all the way to California Ave.

[i-215]

Initially, I was disappointed to see the flyover (WB to SB) cut out of "phase one" construction. But that's probably a good thing. The lack of freeway grade separation at 3500 S and 4100 S really stand out — now that it connects to a freeway.

[Atlas]

I've mentioned this before but after flying out of SLC yesterday, I'm back to thinking that the pickup and dropoff zones have been built to be far too short. It was already pretty crowded and chaotic, more so than the old setup.

I love the rest of the airport despite it being unfinished. The loading zones are finished though, and that fact worries me.

[Hatman]

The period of public comment is open on UDOT's Little Cottonwood Canyon study:

https://littlecottonwoodeis.udot.utah.gov/

For those not following along, UDOT is going to recommend further study for one of two competing proposals to address traffic congestion in Little Cottonwood Canyon.
First is the expanded bus lanes, which would widen the road to 3 or 4 lanes. The new lanes would be exclusive bus lanes in the winter, and would be used for cyclists in the summer.
Second is the gondola, which would take 35-45 minutes to get to one the two ski resorts. This idea sounds pretty good, until you read a little deeper and realize that they can't build enough parking spots at the bottom of the canyon, so they will build a separate transit center a few miles away, then bus passengers over to the gondola station. The amount of transfers required to use the gondola means it will probably not draw sufficient ridership to put a serious dent in road traffic.

To be honest, I think UDOT has framed the problem incorrectly. I do not understand why this study covers only one of the two canyons. The obvious solution is to connect the two canyons together at the top so that both canyons can work together. If snow or an avalanche closes one canyon, passengers could board a bus up the other canyon, then transfer over to their desired canyon via the gondola or tunnel, or whatever way turns out to be best to connect the two canyons.

You can use the link above to leave your own official comments before September 3rd. I just left my own comments about expanding the scope of the study to include both canyons. Once both canyons are considered, I think the solution becomes obvious: Two bus systems connected at the top by a gondola/tunnel. That will be a much cheaper and effective solution than either one of UDOT's proposed solutions.

[RC14]

Good points Hatman. Why was the cog railway ultimately not considered?

[Utah_Dave]

I like the idea of connecting the 2 canyons. While they are at it they could connect to PC or Deer Valley with the Gondola maybe. I’m pretty new to the transportation discussion but couldn’t they just limit the number of cars per day or charge single occupancy cars a toll and then make it bus service only when the limit is reached? The slopes are already maxed out. I don’t see the sense in trying to add more skiers if the lift lines are so long. I would be a little more interested in connecting canyons and limiting vehicle numbers. This has probably already been hashed out in previous discussions but can the ski resorts take on much more capacity?

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by Hatman

The period of public comment is open on UDOT's Little Cottonwood Canyon study:

https://littlecottonwoodeis.udot.utah.gov/

For those not following along, UDOT is going to recommend further study for one of two competing proposals to address traffic congestion in Little Cottonwood Canyon.
First is the expanded bus lanes, which would widen the road to 3 or 4 lanes. The new lanes would be exclusive bus lanes in the winter, and would be used for cyclists in the summer.
Second is the gondola, which would take 35-45 minutes to get to one the two ski resorts. This idea sounds pretty good, until you read a little deeper and realize that they can't build enough parking spots at the bottom of the canyon, so they will build a separate transit center a few miles away, then bus passengers over to the gondola station. The amount of transfers required to use the gondola means it will probably not draw sufficient ridership to put a serious dent in road traffic.

To be honest, I think UDOT has framed the problem incorrectly. I do not understand why this study covers only one of the two canyons. The obvious solution is to connect the two canyons together at the top so that both canyons can work together. If snow or an avalanche closes one canyon, passengers could board a bus up the other canyon, then transfer over to their desired canyon via the gondola or tunnel, or whatever way turns out to be best to connect the two canyons.

You can use the link above to leave your own official comments before September 3rd. I just left my own comments about expanding the scope of the study to include both canyons. Once both canyons are considered, I think the solution becomes obvious: Two bus systems connected at the top by a gondola/tunnel. That will be a much cheaper and effective solution than either one of UDOT's proposed solutions.

While I would love to have the 2 canyons connected, it won't help the traffic problem. If Little Cottonwood is traffic jammed so will Big Cottonwood. It's usually based on if there's lots of new snow, or it's a weekend or holiday.

[Atlas]

$66 billion is going to rail projects in the latest federal infrastructure bill. I wish we had a bit more momentum for the Rio Grande Plan right now because:

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

There is another $5B in competitive grant money for mega-projects. I would expect some of this will be spent on the Gateway tunnel replacement and the Baltimore tunnel replacement.

Also, I saw on the local news that Silicon Slopes has started a PAC to lobby in the Utah Legislature. That sounds like a group that could be interested in the Rio Grande Plan and the lucrative real estate that it would open up.

[Hatman]

Ogden BRT Line gets named "OGX"

https://www.ksl.com/article/50247359...-to-completion

This will keep it in the same branding as the UVX line in Provo/Orem, and hopefully one day the MAX (Magna Express?), whenever that service is revived.



Like UVX, the buses will be free to ride for everyone for a few years. Unlike the UVX line, the buses will be standard length (40-ft) buses with doors only on one side. When they stop in the medians on Harrison Blvd, they will switch from right-hand-running to left-hand-running so that the doors line up. Best of all, these will be battery-electric buses, meaning faster acceleration, quieter ride, and no emissions/smell/fumes.

While this route doesn't qualify as a 'true' BRT (far less than 51% of this line will be in its own bus-exclusive lane), I think it is a good project that will be very popular. I like the "_ _ X" branding and paint scheme for the BRT lines, and I hope UTA continues to expand its services in this way.

[Atlas]

Great work on the plan, Hatman, and I saw that a Reddit user is ostensibly going to meet with Governor Cox and his team about it, which is exciting. It's nice to see some comments surfacing from the city council and mayor too, and I hope we see some acknowledgement from UTA soon. The Station Center TOD area was brought up in UTA's September 15th board meeting and they mentioned "wide-eyed" interest in the area from "local and national" developers. No mention of the Rio Grande Plan though, and they seem to want to move forward with their plans relatively soon. It would be a shame for them to start rebuilding the current central station before the RGP gets a fair shake.

Some general comments on the document itself: on the "Network" page, I wonder why the Draper/Lehi TRAX (Blue) Line is listed under "Future Lines" and why you don't use the current naming scheme (Green, Blue, Red) for clarity. I also noticed that the word "summary" is misspelled on the last page of the document.

[Hatman]

Dang typos. Thanks for finding that.

As for the transit map, we discussed the categories on the map for quite a while. The ultimate reasoning for why it is what it is, is that the Blue Line is getting modified on both ends (it doesn't terminate in downtown, it circles it, and the southern end has been extended to Utah County). The Red Line remains basically unchanged, while the Green Line is basically unchanged, except for being rerouted to 4th West instead of Main Street.

In the end, that transit map is intended to be the starting point for future discussions. A sort of 'possibilities' diagram. It could work in real life - I calculated UTA could operate such a map at 10-minute frequencies on all lines without causing rail congestion - but in practice it might be a little too much for what SLC is able to support at present (financially speaking). The main point is to demonstrate how the Rio Grande Depot can be tightly integrated into the downtown transit network, rather than loosely attached to the periphery, as is the case with the current Central Station, and in that regard, I'm very proud of our work.

As far as the Station Center TOD project goes - the beauty of the Rio Grande Plan is that it has basically no impact on that project. The parcels are currently 1 block from a major transit hub, and if the RGP happens they will still be 1 block from a major transit hub - just in the other direction! Perhaps the best thing the Station Center project would do is bring people into closer contact with the depot itself, which might generate more public support of the plan.

Thanks again, Atlas! You've been incredibly helpful across multiple platforms in getting this project going and getting it out to the public to see. Getting recognition from the City Council and the Mayor's office is a huge step, and having the attention of the Governor will be a major achievement. I have very good feelings on where this plan is headed, so thanks again - to you and to everyone on this forum!

[Atlas]

Thanks for the explanation.

Originally Posted by Hatman

As far as the Station Center TOD project goes - the beauty of the Rio Grande Plan is that it has basically no impact on that project. The parcels are currently 1 block from a major transit hub, and if the RGP happens they will still be 1 block from a major transit hub - just in the other direction! Perhaps the best thing the Station Center project would do is bring people into closer contact with the depot itself, which might generate more public support of the plan.

It may not affect the RDA part of the project but UTA is planning on rebuilding SL Central itself with their new headquarters on top. They showed this rendering again at the board meeting:



It just seems to me that they would be much less willing to support the RGP if they already had a shiny new station at the old location. It's good that you are getting the plan out now because it seems that their development plans are still in their infancy at this point. A few years down the line and I don't think the RGP would be as justifiable.

Luckily, UTA could still easily build their headquarters in the location in the rendering even with the RGP. I guess the point I'm making is that we need to try to get them on board before they make their plans for SL Central.

Originally Posted by Hatman

Thanks again, Atlas! You've been incredibly helpful across multiple platforms in getting this project going and getting it out to the public to see. Getting recognition from the City Council and the Mayor's office is a huge step, and having the attention of the Governor will be a major achievement. I have very good feelings on where this plan is headed, so thanks again - to you and to everyone on this forum!

My pleasure! Keep doing excellent work! I just want an invite to the ribbon cutting!

[rockies]

Originally Posted by Hatman

Like UVX, the buses will be free to ride for everyone for a few years. Unlike the UVX line, the buses will be standard length (40-ft) buses with doors only on one side. When they stop in the medians on Harrison Blvd, they will switch from right-hand-running to left-hand-running so that the doors line up. Best of all, these will be battery-electric buses, meaning faster acceleration, quieter ride, and no emissions/smell/fumes.

I have had some really good experiences with UVX and it was probably the biggest factor in me being able to conveniently take the frontrunner a year or so ago. My only complaint was (like most buses) that it was super noisy to the point I could barely hear my own conversations so I'm glad to see that being addressed in Ogden; I imagine it will be great for Weber students.