My comments on the Salt Lake City Draft Master Transportation Plan

The Plan (Draft)

The map

My comments:

Reducing local bus stop frequency would be a virtue. Fewer stops would mean faster transit and more money to be sent per station, so there is (minimally) someplace to sit, rather than 'a pole in a mud-puddle'. The new places along 200 south have been really nice. Arguably, even local buses should not stop more often than 1/4 a mile. The high-stop density in downtown makes riding a bus across downtown miserable--far faster to bike. The couple of minutes walking the larger number of stops saves a few people is outweighed by the delay is causes people still on the bus. Harm to those with walking difficulties can be mitigated by better bus stops, available seating, and improved walking conditions for sidewalks near bus stops.

Very pleased to see a 200 south connection direct to FrontRunner--getting between the FrontRunner and the U is almost astonishingly difficult. The University connection between main and 400 west has been on the books for decades, without success, and it's a pleasure to see an alternative under consideration. Upgrading an already successful line is a best practice in transit planning.

The new transit centers near the hospitals and at 2nd&7th are welcome. I might suggest the addition of a 'transfer center' at State and 200 East, to take advantage of the connection between the future State BRT/Bus+. I've heard Carl's Junior mooted as a site, or the use of Gallivan center, with a bit of a walk to transfer to Gallivan station. It's a long way to ask people to walk, but might be feasible.

Transit Signal Priority, segments of dedicated lane, and improving stops into level-boarding stations are all welcome and effective improvements. The emphasis on the creation of better bus corridors through ongoing capital spending rather than on high capital cost streetcars is welcome. The mooted continuance of the Sugarhouse streetcar along 1100/900 East (11c) seems more feasible as a bus. Connecting Westminster to Sugarhouse and the TRAX line is a surefire strategy for success.

I applaud avoiding Research Park along the the Foothill BRT/Bus plus (line 12). The lack of a I-215 NE means that some combination of Foothill and 13th East have to handle the traffic demand of a major freeway. Given the difficulty and cost of widening either street, using higher capacity alternative to make more efficient use of limited ROW is an excellent idea.

If a TRAX extension is in the works, a line along 400 West from 200 South to 700 South and eastward to 200 West is suggested. It would require only about a mile of new track, serve Pioneer Park and Pierpont, and free up much needed capacity along the main street line. Much of the median ROW is already preserved, so there would be no need to take traffic lanes. The greatest conflict would be with automobile traffic at 500 and 600 South.

Reducing local bus stop frequency would be a virtue. Fewer stops would mean faster transit and more money to be sent per station, so there is (minimally) someplace to sit, rather than 'a pole in a mud-puddle'. The new places along 200 south have been really nice. Arguably, even local buses should not stop more often than 1/4 a mile. The high-stop density in downtown makes riding a bus across downtown miserable--far faster to bike. The couple of minutes walking the larger number of stops saves a few people is outweighed by the delay is causes people still on the bus. Harm to those with walking difficulties can be mitigated by better bus stops, available seating, and improved walking conditions for sidewalks near bus stops.

Very pleased to see a 200 south connection direct to FrontRunner--getting between the FrontRunner and the U is almost astonishingly difficult. The University connection between main and 400 west has been on the books for decades, without success, and it's a pleasure to see an alternative under consideration. Upgrading an already successful line is a best practice in transit planning.

The new transit centers near the hospitals and at 2nd&7th are welcome. I might suggest the addition of a 'transfer center' at State and 200 East, to take advantage of the connection between the future State BRT/Bus+. I've heard Carl's Junior mooted as a site, or the use of Gallivan center, with a bit of a walk to transfer to Gallivan station. It's a long way to ask people to walk, but might be feasible.

Transit Signal Priority, segments of dedicated lane, and improving stops into level-boarding stations are all welcome and effective improvements. The emphasis on the creation of better bus corridors through ongoing capital spending rather than on high capital cost streetcars is welcome. The mooted continuance of the Sugarhouse streetcar along 1100/900 East (11c) seems more feasible as a bus. Connecting Westminster to Sugarhouse and the TRAX line is a surefire strategy for success.

I applaud avoiding Research Park along the the Foothill BRT/Bus plus (line 12). The lack of a I-215 NE means that some combination of Foothill and 13th East have to handle the traffic demand of a major freeway. Given the difficulty and cost of widening either street, using higher capacity alternative to make more efficient use of limited ROW is an excellent idea.

If a TRAX extension is in the works, a line along 400 West from 200 South to 700 South and eastward to 200 West is suggested. It would require only about a mile of new track, serve Pioneer Park and Pierpont, and free up much needed capacity along the main street line. Much of the median ROW is already preserved, so there would be no need to take traffic lanes. The greatest conflict would be with automobile traffic at 500 and 600 South.

TRAX vs. Streetcar

I was browsing UTA's website, and came across this map, for the West Valley TRAX line.



















It begs the question why the line doesn't just connect directly to the 2100 South Sugarhouse Streetcar, rather than requiring a transfer at the station. To me, the answer is clear: Different types of trains, so different types of funding, so different projects.

But it raises an interesting point regarding expert knowledge: What is common sense to me is not to my non-expert/non-professional friends and family. But I still need to be able to articulate that understanding, and to do so on a ad-hoc basis: There is no time to prepare a lengthy exposition. I need a ten word 'Elevator Speech'. (And that, I increasingly come to believe, is the essence of expertise: The seemingly effortless performance of public competence.) What will my ten word explanation be? "TRAX trains are too heavy". The issues of rail types, station spacing, double track versus single track, and the engineered weight capacities of different soil types are irrelevant.

Update: Scuttlebutt is that UTA actually plans to use regular TRAX trains along the Sugarhouse 'Streetcar' route. 

"UTA only knows how to build Light Rail'

I was looking at the illustrations for Sugarhouse Streetcar, and the criticism that UTA only knows how to build light rail sings true. Sugarhouse Streetcar looks like a TRAX line--a dedicated corridor, with a gravel bed and fences along both sides. I've ridden streetcar systems in Portland and Barcelona. Like the name suggests, streetcars run in the street...sometimes on the edge, sometimes down a center median.

UTA built most of the TRAX system using old railway corridor (Sandy--SLC--Mid-Jordan) and seems to be comfortable and familiar doing so. It certainly makes sense to do so. Building in an existing corridor reduces utility conflicts, and makes the property acquisition for right of way relatively simple.

Cost-wise, I know that the per-mile costs associated with running TRAX light rail through Salt Lake City on city streets was fairly high compared to the initial Sandy-Salt Lake stretch, and certainly more complex in terms of traffic engineering, and the need to come to negotiated agreements with UDOT and Salt Lake City.

The next phase of the Sugarhouse Streetcar will have to be along roadway (east on 21st, or north on 1100 East), so UTA is going to have learn how to build 'real' streetcar, and not just TRAX-lite.

TRAX shares right of way with automobiles only at intersections (typically left turn arrows). The rest of the street right of way is protected by curbs or jersey barriers separating the train from auto-traffic. That wasn't originally so, but a two or three cars got themselves t-boned as they tried to make (illegal) turns across the TRAX right of way). Hence, curbs.

But that's not something that is going to work with streetcar, which is going to have to run 'in traffic', right with the cars. That it is possible to do so is really the big difference between the two vehicles. A light rail car weights about 98,500 lbs, while a streetcar weights about 30,000 lbs, or about 1/3 as much. Thus, faster, more responsive stopping capacity.