Salt Lake Transit News Thread

[Atlas]

Here's a fun little cartoon map of the new OGX from UTA's website:

[UTAZLoVer]

I love it! Though, I do wish that more of this project had a dedicated bus lane. It will still be a great addition to the Ogden community.

[tygr]

UTA is officially studying the extension of FrontRunner to Payson and Express bus service to Santaquin.

See southvalleytransit.com

[Hatman]

The new Airport station is finally open!
• Video Link

The new section begins just after the diamond crossover seen at 0:42. Instead of turning right towards the old terminal (now demolished), the tracks make 2 hard left turns toward the side of the new terminal.

Despite all the controversy over the new station's location and the low speed curves at the end, I think the TRAX connection to downtown remains as one of the best airport rail connections in the country. I'm glad to see it running again.

[Hatman]

A little out of order - these pictures are from Wednesday, before the Airport station opened - but good progress is being made at the 600 South & Main infill station.







I personally dislike station names that are addresses (looking at you, 1940 West North Temple), and I hope they give this station a real name. Any ideas what that could be? I have the feeling that 'Midtown' may be the leading candidate, but that may be circular reinforcement from the fan community.

[RC14]

My vote is for Midtown.

[Hatman]

Looks like UVX may finally get a station on 900 East near the BYU Creamery:

UTA considering new UVX station
https://universe.byu.edu/2021/10/06/...w-uvx-station/

Public support seems higher than before, which isn't surprising since now most people have ridden the buses and can clearly see the obvious good. The only complaint that persists from the last time this was discussed is the elementary school across the street. Apparently bus stops are bad for kids, or something.
But now that won't be an issue any longer:

Provo School District to sell Wasatch Elementary to BYU in land swap deal
https://news.google.com/articles/CBM...S&ceid=US%3Aen

With the elementary school moved 2 blocks east, and with BYU presumably building more student housing on the site, I think the last real roadblock to construction is finally gone.

You will remember that when the UVX line was being planned in 2012-ish, the BYU Creamery station was projected to attract twice the ridership of the next highest-used station on the line. Opposition from the tree streets neighborhood scared the politicians into cutting that station, which greatly annoyed me at the time. Back then I was a student at the Y studying Civil Engineering and Urban Transportation Design, and I had written a couple papers on the BRT line, including an analysis of ridership per station.

Now, 10 years later, it looks like logic and reason are about to prevail after all. And with the new performing arts building going up on 9th East, it only makes more sense now, maybe even enough to consider putting bus-only lanes on 9th and making the new station a median station, but that's probably pushing things too far. 😉

[delts145]

Good to hear Hatman. I see where BYU is also buying the large elementary school property just south as the school is building at a new location. I assume they'll be expanding the campus, building another department there. Definitely 900 East is a high-use corridor.

[Utahn]

Sometime in the last few months UTA completed its Tooele Transit Feasibility Study

Four alternatives were presented, but the shoulder-running BRT and the rail connection were the most interesting to me. (alternatives 3&4 below, from pg. 53 of the report). From the tone of the report, it seems that UTA is veering towards BRT over rail in the near-term. I pulled the challenges and options that the report presented about rail.

Interested in the thoughts and ideas of other forumers, especially Hatman, who I know has a written a lot on a Tooele rail line here and has a lot of expertise.

Challenges
While Tooele County is indeed growing, there simply isn’t the mass nor the
density of population and employment to generate ridership on a consistent basis. This issue is compounded by the long stretch between population centers of very limited development. In other words, the long stretch between Benson Grist Mill and the nearest employment area in Salt Lake County (the International Center) doesn’t generate any riders, so there is a cost for that distance but no “return” in ridership.

On the Wasatch Front, one of the many reasons for the successful implementation of both TRAX light rail and FrontRunner commuter rail was the extensive and redundant rail right-of-way network due to a merger of national freight rail companies. This provided the “in place” corridors and made planning for fixed rail guideways easier. That fact, coupled with a concerted negotiation effort to partner with the freight companies, enabled freight rail corridors for passenger rail service. Prior to, nor in the course of, this study, there has not been any communication with the freight rail carriers about partnering to provide passenger rail service in Tooele County. Until such conversations happen and there is some likelihood that a preserved rail corridor
would become available, it is difficult and risky to assume rail service is possible on the existing freight corridors.

Another challenge for Tooele County is the distance between destinations in the study area. Many Tooele County residents travel at least 30 miles by automobile to reach their job locations. The typical spacing between commuter rail stations ranges from approximately one mile to ten miles, depending on residential
and employment cluster densities, service type desired, and other factors. The benefit and necessity ofmultiple stations along a line are that they provide access to employment, attract ridership, and offer potential economic development (i.e., transit-oriented development). Ridership and transit-oriented development are two very important factors necessary for successful rail service. While the train travel speed could be sustained over the long distance between the Tooele Valley and the urban core of Salt Lake City, the lack of development creates a 25-mile gap where no passengers can enhance ridership and improve the service’s cost.

The last major challenge to implement passenger rail service between Tooele County and Salt Lake County is not having a preserved nor a planned rail corridor. Sometimes communities will use their land-use authority to preserve a corridor ahead of or concurrent with development, making transit planning much easier, time efficient, and more cost-effective. The City of Herriman and Box Elder County have done that successfully. Box Elder County is working to preserve a corridor for potential passenger rail service in the future. Unfortunately, at the time of this study, no such corridor exists in the Tooele Valley. There is no planned corridor preservation in the County, any of the cities, or with any large-scale developers, such as Kennecott Land.

Options
1. Share track rights with the Union Pacific rail line: UPRR has an existing rail line that starts in SaltLake City and goes to Tooele County, and continues south to other regions. The upside to this line isthat the track is already in place. However, obstacles to this are issues with Positive Train Control. The limits track-sharing would place on consistent and reliable scheduling of passenger service (since UPRR freight traffic would get priority, and that schedule would likely be variable and inconsistent), and negotiating with UPRR for track rights. UTA operated on a shared track with Union Pacific to provide service to Pleasant View until 2018, which required a very limited schedule. Ultimately, this service was discontinued.

2. Build a parallel rail line next to the existing UPRR (within the same right-of-way): UTA used this option to implement the FrontRunner service on the Wasatch Front. UPRR would then have to agree with the project and allow for adjacent track construction and passenger service operation.

3. Build a new rail corridor: This assumes a new corridor not just in Tooele County but also in western Salt Lake County. As previously noted, the best place to begin this effort is to identify a logical corridor alignment and pursue corridor preservation efforts. New corridors can be acquired and preserved using land-use planning resources at the local level. But first, there must be a plan with a corridor identified in place so that government agencies can work with developers and landowners to preserve the desired corridor. Depending on the ability to get some or most of the corridor from development, this approach will still be very expensive and time extensive as land in Salt Lake County can be more difficult to preserve as well as all the construction costs associated with a new track.

4. The last option is to integrate service with the possibility of a multi-state High-Speed rail project. This is highly speculative and very much a long-term option. In 2014, UTA was part of a large consortium that looked at the possibility of High-Speed Rail in the West (Southwest Multi-State Rail Planning Study). This was a high-level study that included six states in the southwest that, among other things, looked at “candidate corridors” for eventual High-Speed rail. A corridor that could connect Salt Lake and Las Vegas is a route through the Tooele Valley. This route did not score particularly high considering all the other connections in the study, including numerous connections to California’s major metropolitan areas. But, if it were to go forward, it would likely require a new corridor “footprint.” This footprint could theoretically also include either width for local passenger service, or perhaps the technology is such that a station could be considered in Tooele.

[Atlas]

Thanks for sharing.

Do they really think a BRT line is going to have higher ridership than a commuter rail line? Is that because it would run more often? Or because it would have a few more SLC stops? Otherwise, I would dispute that conclusion.

[Utahn]

Originally Posted by Atlas

Thanks for sharing.

Do they really think a BRT line is going to have higher ridership than a commuter rail line? Is that because it would run more often? Or because it would have a few more SLC stops? Otherwise, I would dispute that conclusion.

The primary reason cited in the study for higher BRT ridership over rail is multiple BRT stations in the heart of SLC starting with 600 S. State St. compared with the rail option that would terminate in at the North Temple Station.

Land-use patterns and the higher frequency of BRT vs. Frontrunner are also cited. It does still seem kind of crazy. They haven't planned for any additional stops such as at the airport which Hatman has indicated would draw ridership the other direction as well. More below:

The ridership patterns shown in the figure indicate that areas with greater numbers of household andemployment such as Salt Lake City, Murray, Ogden, and Provo have higher ridership projections. In contrast,lower density household and employment areas such as Pleasant View, Payson, and Centerville have ridership Tooele Transit Feasibility Study projections in the 400-900 boardings range – these stations (represented by hatched bars) do not exist but have been studied; and therefore, are available in the WF TDM, along with having an advantage of being contiguous with the existing line. Comparing the future land use projections near Tooele City and Benson Grist Mill (dotted bars) to the other commuter rail stations, the most similar stations seem to be the stations insmaller communities with fewer households and job opportunities. Other factors considered in this analysiswere travel time, frequency, and the terminal in Salt Lake City. The rail has an estimated travel time of 30-40 minutes (slightly faster than the BRT alternative), an assumed frequency of 30 minutes (less frequent than the BRT alternative), and a connection to the North Temple FrontRunner station (farther removed from downtown Salt Lake City, where many people from Tooele go). Since the BRT alternative has a more direct connection to downtown Salt Lake City than the rail alternative and considering the future ridership/land use patterns displayed in the figure, it is estimated that the rail ridership will be lower than the BRT alternative, ranging from 600-800 daily boardings.

[Urban_logic]

Originally Posted by Atlas

Thanks for sharing.

Do they really think a BRT line is going to have higher ridership than a commuter rail line? Is that because it would run more often? Or because it would have a few more SLC stops? Otherwise, I would dispute that conclusion.

I would guess that cost would also be a significant ridership driver. I can imagine there are plenty of Tooelans who’d be less likely to ride a train that costs 5x more than a BRT. It becomes more cost effective to just drive at that point for some people.

[Atlas]

Originally Posted by Urban_logic

I would guess that cost would also be a significant ridership driver. I can imagine there are plenty of Tooelans who’d be less likely to ride a train that costs 5x more than a BRT. It becomes more cost effective to just drive at that point for some people.

What makes you think the commuter rail fare would be 5x the BRT fare?

Given the choice between riding BRT for $5 and commuter rail for $10, which would you choose? I would choose the train every time and I suspect most others would too. That is, unless the BRT line had a more convenient terminus like Utahn mentioned.

[Urban_logic]

Originally Posted by Atlas

What makes you think the commuter rail fare would be 5x the BRT fare?

Given the choice between riding BRT for $5 and commuter rail for $10, which would you choose? I would choose the train every time and I suspect most others would too. That is, unless the BRT line had a more convenient terminus like Utahn mentioned.

I was looking at the annualized cost per rider, but I realize now that is likely referring to the per capita capital cost of the project. Looking at existing fares, the monthly local pass is $85 compared to $170 for premium (Frontrunner). So it’s twice the cost (to the rider, but 5x the cost to UTA).

I’m sure people would hands down chose the train over the BRT, but it could be cost prohibitive for some riders and would likely dissuade them from riding/cause them to ride less frequently than they could on a BRT line. We only have two BRT lines we can look at data for, but both are more popular than Frontrunner:

UVX: 10,000 daily riders (909 daily riders per mile)
MAX: 4,200 daily riders (389/mile)
FTRNR: 28,000 daily riders (318/mile)

Granted, the Tooele line will likely be much more comparable to MAX than UVX in ridership, however, that still pulls in 20% more than Frontrunner. Isn’t that ultimately the goal here? Remove as many vehicles from the road as possible and increase accessibility (which includes affordability). Don’t get me wrong, I love riding on Frontrunner. Alas, we don’t build trains just because they’re “cool.” I’m a numbers guy, and from where I’m standing it does not make sense to spend 5x as many transit funds on something that carries 20% fewer passengers. If you can show how the substantially larger investment cost in rail has a tangible benefit over BRT that justifies it, I’m all ears.

Curitiba, Brazil (the cradle of the BRT) has a system that moves 2.3m people per day (45,500/mile) and it pays for itself with fare collection. I’m a firm believer in BRT on a local/inter-regional scale as most Brazilian cities have mastered. Trains are better suited for long distance. If we just primarily focused on BRT going forward, we’d have lines crisscrossing the Wasatch Front in just a few years with a significantly smaller budget to manage/fight over between municipalities and legislators. We should make our BRT stops more like the ones in Brazil, which are basically built like covered rail platforms. Curb separation is crucial too.

[bob rulz]

UVX connects 2 universities and has been free since it opened. You can't use it as an apples-to-apples comparison. I also don't think comparing it by-mile is a good comparison either, as BRT is going to have significantly more stops and higher frequencies than a train, but a train moves way more people at a time than BRT can.

I don't know which is better, per se. There are obvious pros and cons to both. I'm sure there's a certain ridership treshold at which trains start to make more sense than BRT. But I don't think those comparisons really make much sense at all.

[Reeder113]

As someone who frequently uses public transportation, I can't help but think that these methods are going to be obsolete in the not-so-distant future. The problem is time. It takes me 3 times longer to get to my destination via train/bus than it does just to drive my car.

Autonomous taxis are going to be the future. You call the car via an app, it picks you up at your location and takes you directly to your destination without having to stop/wait to pick up people along the way.

I'm not a financial guy, so I don't know what the cost would be, or if that would be unreasonably expensive for people, etc, but it's a much more appealing mode of transport than buses/trains.....to me, at least.

[DirectionNorth]

Originally Posted by Reeder113

As someone who frequently uses public transportation, I can't help but think that these methods are going to be obsolete in the not-so-distant future. The problem is time. It takes me 3 times longer to get to my destination via train/bus than it does just to drive my car.

Autonomous taxis are going to be the future. You call the car via an app, it picks you up at your location and takes you directly to your destination without having to stop/wait to pick up people along the way.

I'm not a financial guy, so I don't know what the cost would be, or if that would be unreasonably expensive for people, etc, but it's a much more appealing mode of transport than buses/trains.....to me, at least.

... also a terrible method from every standpoint other than time. You would need enough shuttles for peak hour, and somewhere to store them ... not much different than now.

The benefit of public transport are environmental (at least, in my Canada; I'm not sure of the equation when ridership is so much lower) and capacity; FrontRunner takes probably 10% of traffic off the 15, TRAX another 20% (at least, from the limited numbers I can get by Googling).

[Reeder113]

Originally Posted by DirectionNorth

... also a terrible method from every standpoint other than time. You would need enough shuttles for peak hour, and somewhere to store them ... not much different than now.

The benefit of public transport are environmental (at least, in my Canada; I'm not sure of the equation when ridership is so much lower) and capacity; FrontRunner takes probably 10% of traffic off the 15, TRAX another 20% (at least, from the limited numbers I can get by Googling).

If autonomous taxis become a common thing (and are affordable to use), there would be a lot less car-owners on the roads. I'm not saying they WILL BE a common thing, or that they're even financially viable. All I'm saying is that time is important, and when I can choose between getting to work in 1/2 hour vs 1.5 hours, I'd prefer the former.

Waiting for TRAX, Frontrunner, and buses is a huge pain. Standing out in the weather or heat, dealing with delays, etc. I've been taking my car this past year almost daily, whereas the prior 3 years I've been taking TRAX/Frontrunner. The amount of extra time I have with my family is worth it. I literally get an extra 2 hours per day with them. That is the problem with today's version of public transportation.

[bob rulz]

I think the autonomous car revolution is a lot further away than people think. I've been hearing that the future of autonomous cars is "5 years away" for 10 years now, and it doesn't feel any closer. Look at the problems Tesla is having with their full self driving, and that's with drivers at the wheel.

Autonomous taxis with no drivers at the wheel at all will be a hard sell any time in the near future. Not to mention the issues presented above about storage, availability, cost, etc

I will say, I will take transit over an Uber almost 100% of the time if the option is available. If autonomous taxis do become a realistic option in the near future, I don't think it would make public transit obsolete in the slightest. I do get that it's not realistically possible to connect everywhere with reliable transit, especially with how sprawling America's development patterns are, but better investments in transit are much preferred for me over autonomous taxis. Essentially, in that scenario, I can see how transit would be better in some situations, and a taxi in other scenarios, but there is no future I see in which developing better public transit is a bad idea.

[Utahn]

In the conversation regarding autonomous vehicles, I think it's worth pointing out that the benefits do not accrue to cars alone. I think Hatman has posted on this thread previously about how a greater degree of automation and artificial intelligence could significantly impact public transit as well. Better automation could allow for much higher frequencies on transit lines and more customizable routes with individual lightrail/metro cars detaching at transfer stations and departing for different destinations.

In some cases these technologies may blur the lines between what we see as public vs. private transit as we are beginning to see with the growth in microtransit and further down the line autonomous buses.