A lightrail boondoggle?

I love TRAX, but I'm not in love with TRAX at point of the Mountain. I'd love to see Utah County get light rail, and it seems insane that the two might not connect, but.....Eastern draper is a wasteland of single family homes. There is a rail corridor, but no ridership.

The Utah Legislature (made up of developers) would really like to get UTA to provide service to the Prison site, so they can sell it to the Silicon Slopes tech people. (Who, coming from California, really understand the value of proximity to rapid transit).

That said, the western alignment is less cost-effective, per new system rider:

East - $739 million - 33,000 a day = $22k/rider

West - $1200 million - 44,700 a day = $25k/rider

Been having a long series of conversations on Twitter with 'A Bus Rider' (@sp_redelectric), who has been pretty persuasive in articulating the ways in which Portland has overbuilt its rail network: extending light rail to quasi-rural areas, and then building a truly appalling failure of a commuter rail (WES). 

When I think of where I want TRAX to go, it's not to Utah County (FrontRunner has been fine).  And the Provo-Orem BRT (UVX) has been done well, so I can't claim Utah County can't do BRT. They have BRT to a high standard (not the crap BRT of the Salt Lake County MAX). So....does Utah County really need light rail? The rail corridor they have isn't exactly central to anything. Might the be better off with an electrified FrontRunner (as regional rail) and a bunch of local bus?

The political deviance of BRT

I love looking at transit plans. And I love looking at good maps. WFRC's website satisfies about 75% of them.

But today, I need to call out an egregious failure:

This is a planned BRT, stretching from downtown Salt Lake to Sandy, a large suburb some 15 miles south. East from the FrontRunner station in Salt Lake, South along 700/900 east, and West on 9400 South, and then on 102nd south to Frontrunner. Except for this  weird little jog.

I know why--there is a relatively dense residential cluster at the 106th South Trax Station. But there is also a Trax station at 9400 South. Connecting the two Trax stations by BRT makes no sense. Connecting the (low-rise) residential makes no sense. Why not just continue west on 94th, and south along Sandy Expo Parkway? Or South along States Street to 102nd South? This routing adds miles and minutes to a BRT route...and for what?

There must be some political schenanigans going on.

Medium Capacity Metro Systems

I was just reading up on Medium Capacity Metro systems, and one column listed capacity per hour as a criteria (20,000-30,000 persons per direction per hour) and it made me wonder how the UTA Trax stacks up. Years ago, a Portland planner explained the virtues of SLC's long blocks--we can run four car trains, when Portland can only run two-car trains. So, how does SLC's capacity stack up?

The Siemens S70 can hold 225 people, at crush loads. SLC can run four cars per train. And I know there are segments of the network that run trains every five minutes (where the blue, red and green lines share track), which is 12 trains per hour.  So: 4*225*12 is 10,880 persons per direction per hour. Which suggests that Trax is not at it's max, it is pretty close to it (10,000-12,000). 12000/4/225 is 13.3 trains per hour, or a train every 4.5 minutes. So Trax is (in certain sections) very close to capacity. And in sections with curves/turns (900 S to 400 S) probably at capacity, and starting to generate delays.

UTA should probably be looking at either an alternate alignment (400 west) through downtown for the green line, or a transit tunnel under the 400 south intersection.   

Always the bridesmaid, never the bride

This has been a perpetual project on the LRTP for as long as I've been watching the LRTP--Trax along 400 South to Frontrunner. If I was a better man (or a real estate investor), I'd have gone broke waiting for it. At this point, I'm frankly uncertain of the need for it. If the point is to connect FrontRunner to the University/hospital (without requiring a transfer between Trax lines, there seem to be better ways to do it: Either a bus direct from FrontRunner along 200 S, or a 'Black Line' direct from the Airport to the U, connecting to FrontRunner along North Temple. 

If we're going to spend $75 million on transit, this is NOT how we should spend it.

Perhaps it's just dumb planning? A holdover from a decade past? Or perhaps Crayonista hubris, wanting all the Trax lines to connect to a central station? The latter seems unsupportable: rail road 'Union Stations' were a questionable American hubris when they were built: European cities seem to do fine with a variety of stations at railroad stations at the edge of their periphiques (where the old city stops). And the modern metropolis is multi-polar: bringing everything together at a single point is foolish, and any regional agency should oppose it.  In the past couple of years, UTA seems to be getting the idea of a 'transfer network' composed of high frequency bus routes (rather than the historically-based idiocy of trying to bring everyone downtown for a transfer). And I don't see how this project fits into it.

$75 million buys a lot of bus service hours. Buys even more bus service ($150m) 10 years out.  Investing in 'Crayonista' Trax doesn't seem like a very good idea....

Regional Electric Rail.

I've largely ignored the UTA FrontRunner. I don't ride it. It doesn't go where I need to go, at the times I need it to go places. It's a commuter rail, ferrying office works. It doesn't serve my transit oriented lifestyle. But not everyone is me, and transit riders come in many varieties.

The new (draft) WFRC-MAG long range transportation plan is out.  And looking at transit, one of the things that really catches my eyes is the money being put into FrontRunner--extension, electrification, double-tracking. I'll admit all are worthy: a) a regional rail network needs to serve the region; b) It's a dirty secret that FrontRunner's diesel engines actually produce more pollution than the cars they replace; c) doubling tracking is strictly necessary for more frequent operations. 

But a whole pile of articles I've been reading have me thinking about through-running regional rail (see end of post). In a nutshell, the 'Réseau Express Régional' (RER)  works because Paris is polycentric. The center is historic, so they exiled all the new skyscrapers to the edge of historic Paris--literal Edge Cities. So when people commute to/from these edge cities, they do so using the RER to cross central Paris. Despite much hope, such an approach seems unlikely to work in NYC, because it has one central CBD. 

But it makes me wonder if it might work in the Wasatch Front--that long skinny ribbon of urbanity west of the Wasatch Mountains. The biggest 'CBD' is SLC, but neither Provo nor Ogden are exactly tiny. So it's possible to imagine a transit network connecting all three, flowing through and across them. Not just a CRT, but a regional rail network. 

My first objection would be: "We already have TRAX!". But when I look at the Long Range Plan, I see 'infill stations' at 1700 S. and 2700 S. Infill stations improve the local access, but reduce network access. Every station requires an additional 3 minutes, making every commuter 3 minutes longer. Mode-share is very time sensitive, so adding 6 minutes the commute for someone coming from Sandy may lose UTA riders. (Whether the new stations add enough riders/trips to offset that requires serious analysis). But, less us presume things do go that way: That the TRAX corridor becomes more urban, with a stop every mile, such that the entire corridor is within a half-mile of a Trax Station--a veritable Transit Oriented Corridor (TOC--see Cervero's article on it). If that happens, SOMETHING is needed to replace the high-speed regional access formerly provided by TRAX. And if I'm reading the planning right, the idea is to have FrontRunner fill that role: A RER ('Regional Electric Rail'), touching Trax at North Temple, at 6400 South, and (sort of) in Sandy. LRTP is also showing cross I-15 at 102nd south, to connect Trax to FrontRunner, with a shared corridor down to 135th. (While still on the map, I view extending the Draper line as a dead letter. Nothing but miles and miles of single family out that way.) The South Jordan FrontRunner station would be a reasonable terminus. But, given the pressure to reach the Point of the Mountain and prison site, I can't imagine them stopping there. Draper FrontRunner would be the next reasonable terminus for extending Trax, and would make Ebay happy (they were long-ago promised a train). Past that gets muddy--reconnecting to east-side rail would require jumping I-15 again (not cheap), and is highly dependent on what happens with Utah County Trax.

• What the RER A vs. C Contrast Means for New York Regional Rai
• Regional Rail for New York City - Part I
• Through-Running at Penn Station
• To RER A, or to RER C? How Paris typifies the two models for cross-city commuter train lines

More rail?

I can't see much room for more rail in Utah. I spend a lot of time looking at it, and I'd like to use that old freight rail in Utah County, but the connection to Trax along the east bench seems sillier and sillier. Not sure how much the network interconnect with Trax weighs against the cost of making the interconnection, but likely not worth it. A combination of FrontRunner and BRT could likely do the job better/cheaper.  UTA could easily spend a decade just double-tracking/electrifying FrontRunner, and extending it N/S.

Transit does best where roadway alternatives are worst: Downtown, the U, etc. I worry about Red line ridership when Mountainview reaches I-80. (I also worry what happens to I-80. )  

Moving FrontRunner East a block

Trax, FrontRunner, Amtrak, moving them all and connecting them all in one place...

Probably a lot of money for not much benefit. Nice map, though.

The Owl Line

I've written previously about an 'Owl' line for TRAX, running from the Airport to the Univerisity Hospital.(Map)

Today, I read a Tribune Editorial which said:

Honestly, to justify the more expensive station, we may eventually to have to throw in even more money. Specifically, the trains need to start earlier and run later to catch more airport employees and travelers. (Current ridership to the airport is about 1,100 per day.) 

UTA can't run TRAX any later due the deal they cut with Union Pacific regarding use of the rail-road tracks TRAX runs on, viz: UP gets to run freight on the tracks after midnight. But it's only on the part of the Blue line south of about 1100 South.  So an 'Owl' line, running up to and after midnight, could be run on the street-running portions of TRAX. The termini on each end (the airport and the hospital) are both 24 hour destinations. However, the majority of the ridership for both of those destinations are going to come from employees, and TRAX doesn't connect to the lower income neighborhoods where orderlies and baggage handlers make their homes. (There is a reason that the Green line connects to West Valley). Given that we can't make that connection by TRAX, it will have to be by bus. Given the distances, it should likely be BRT-like (ie MAX). Currently on the planning books are two N-S corridors, 5600 W. and State Street. Operating those two routes on longer hours, in combination with the Owl line, would provide access to 24-hour employment at a large number of destinations. Running through SLC downtown, it would also serve the cleaners/janitors, and may, just maybe, the bar-going crowd...

Non-Attainment and Future Transit in Utah

Found this on SkyScraperForum. Fascinating.


Posted May 3, 2017, 3:55 PM, by Makid

     ..Coming back to the part above about the State possibly providing funds for Trax. I do think that the increased talk we have seen about Trax to Lehi/Utah County in the Legislature increase further. It may not be the next session but I do think that 2019 or 2020 the State will need to step in and probably force the Proposition 1 increase in Utah and SL Counties (if the counties haven't yet passed it).
     The State would do this with the intention of bringing Trax to Lehi/Utah County as well as Trax extending towards the relocated prison. This will also bring Trax through the International Center as well as through the Inland Port (Probably #1 or #2 topic of the 2018 session).
     I do think that the State will also directly provide funding to additional transit along the Wasatch Front soon. This is mostly due to the EPA classifying the majority of the area as a Serious Non-Containment Area. If the designation doesn't change soon, the State will lose funding for Roads and be forced to pass all laws that other states have enacted to improve air quality. This may include some of the statewide transit authorizations that some states have passed to help with air quality...

....without additional transit funding and usage, Utah will have the same air quality regulations and laws that California has....Dedicated Transit Funding, Stronger Limits on Emissions for all vehicles as well as Industries (MagCorp), Limits on Mining and air particles (Rio Tinto, Point of Mountain (North and South), and Limits on Coal Power emissions. These are the minimum that could be forced on the State by 2020...

I hate to cheer when my home state is about to take a punch to the gut, but....Serious Non-Attainment is no laughing matter.

 

Waiting For Transit

"Service frequency determines the average wait time for transit, and thus much of the overall travel time for a trip"

Q: Reallly? People spend that much time waiting for transit? 

A: Not average trip time, average wait time. Wait time, however, is a substantial portion of many transit trips, and the part of the trip people hate worst. The lit says that riders treat a minute of wait as the same as multiple minutes of in vehicle time. Many UTA buses (especially in Utah County) run at 20, 30 or 60 minute headways. Once you include the amount of time you have to wait when the bus is late, this can mean substantial waits. Given that people choose transit based largely on its time competitiveness to the automobile, this is a significant issue. It's most significant for short trips.  TRAX is frequent and (generally) reliable,. A 10 mile bus journey on a local bus is pretty miserable. WFRC likes to use 5-10 minutes for the wait, but I don't that that effectively reflects how miserable the experience is. It assumes people know where the bus stop is, how long it will take to walk there, and how long the wait will be. That is valid if you are taking the bus to work, once per day, but doesn't reflect the experience of using the bus for general transportation. The longer the headway, the higher the time-cost of missing a bus, so the more likely you are to leave your current location early to make sure your make it. If you have to use an (unreliable) bus connection to make that connection (such as bus to FrontRunner), there is even more waiting, because you can't control if you arrive 10 minutes early or 2 minutes too late, so you have to be 25 minutes early to be guaranteed a connection. Hence, I prefer to assume random arrival, at 1/2 headway, for any bus. This becomes increasingly important as UTA moves away from the '1-seat ride' model and toward the more efficient 'transfer network'. 

TRAX is about done in Salt Lake County

The more I look at it, the more I think that TRAX is done in Salt Lake County*. Barring an odd stretch of the Denver and Rio Grand Western Railroad, I don't think there is any unused railroad track left in Salt Lake County**.  Almost all of what which existed in years past has been removed or converted to roadway. And that means converting roadway to dedicated right of way, at which point you might as well built a BRT.

There are a few cases where light rail might be appropriate: 

• Granary TRAX along 400 W/700 South. Only a mile long, and reduces congestion on the 400 South and Main Street intersection.
• Salt Lake International Airport. Airports need circulators, and it might as well be TRAX.
• S-line to Westminster. (Maybe) Again, about a mile long. 
• 400 South to connect the Red Line to FrontRunner direct. This has been part of the long range transportation plan for a decade, without happening. 200 south is increasingly play the role of connection FrontRunner to the University, making this irrelevant. 
• Misc. streetcar, but anyplace they add a 'tram' portion (dedicated/shared guideway) to TRAX is going to have to be short, or else it will be so slow that no one will use it.
• Streetcar from Westminster to 900 East. It would connect two rail lines, and links the University to Sugarhouse.
• 9 Line SC, from 900S/400W to Indiana Ave/Redwood Road. TRAX on one end, BRT at other terminus. 2 miles long.
• The extension from Draper to the Utah County line is planned, but being put off until Utah County matures enough to support TRAX. I admit a certain amount of skepticism this will happen. 
• Red line extension to Herriman/Draper Town Centers. A bit noodely, but greenfield development without an existing roadway, so reasonable. 
• Draper FrontRunner to LRTP Highland Drive/Minutemand Drive TRAX stop. Connects two rail modes, uses the 'grayfield' of the Prison site for exclusive right of way, and makes it possible to get across I-15 by rail. Bonus points in they add a ped bridge.
• Any freeway median. BRT would be cheaper, LRT might be better. 

Not appropriate 

• Fashionplace TRAX to the U, via I-215 and Foothill. Better as BRT. 
• Sugarhouse to Parley's Transit Center. Via roadway, so better as BRT.
• Highland Drive from end of Blue Line to 1100 East in SLC. Better as BRT. 
• Daybreak-to-Draper along 114th South. Better as BRT.
• 'Cottonwood Coaster' from Historic Sandy TRAX to Cottonwood Transit Center. Better as BRT. 
• Draper Town Center to nowhere(?), along 123rd. No rail terminus, no connection to TRAX or Frontrunner on the east end.  I understand the desire to connect this end of the Red line extension to the rest of the valley, but TRAX is not the way to do it. 
• I specifically disdain the DGRW Garfield Branch between Magna and the Old Bingham Highway. No major uses connected, and substantial out of direction travel. 
• DGRW Branch from Old Bingham, to 5600 West, North to Amelia Earhart Drive and thence to the airport. The 5600 West portion is better as BRT, and connecting to the airport would require constructing substantial track is an area already full of ramps. Converting the rest of 40th West to freeway standards provides better airport access.  A BRT from the airport to the business park and thence south on 5600 South is likely just a better alternative. Converting the DGRW branch from railway to exclusive BRT would be better than TRAX.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*I know it's still in the running for Mountain Accord in Little Cottonwood; but so are a BRT and a cable car system. I laughed at the idea of a cable car, but if the ski resorts want to fund one over Guardsman Pass, it's their money.

**The extension from Draper to the Utah County line is planned, but being put off until Utah County matures enough to support TRAX. I admit a certain amount of skepticism this will happen.

Cycling lanes in SLC

I grew up biking in a context where urban biking was dangerous, drivers indifferent and sometimes hostile. Being killed by being hit behind from a careless/inattentive driver was continual worry. (Which is why I often bike on the wrong side of the road--at least I can see someone coming). Three yeas ago, I didn't care--the risk was an inherent part of the activity. But now...

I want separate bicycle lanes, I want them everywhere, and I  don't care what it does to traffic speeds. When I bike, I bike with family, with vulnerable people. So the separated bike lanes are really nice. Having a lane of parked cars between you and traffic is an enormous comfort--distracted drivers get to crash into a parked car, instead of someone you love. The painted lines are crap, and I sneer that them. Sure, they are better than nothing...but not much. Most were put in place as part of road diets, as an excuse to narrow the road--the bike lanes on 700 East and 300 West most notably.

I think SLC should take a lane off the whole of 3rd South and give me a continuous protected route from Downtown to University. The traffic volumes don't justify the pavement width, anyway. 100 South cars, 200 South for Streetcar, 300 South for bikes and 400 South for TRAX.

Schedule Span

Catching up on Wikipedia transit updates, I happened across this chart of annual ridership, and ridership on a per-mile basis.  While I was pleased as punch about TRAX's success (#9 in the nation), I was less psyched about the ridership per mile. Reading up on other systems, something about the Seattle's 'Central Link' struck me--"Service operates seven days a week, from 5 am to 1 am Monday through Saturday and from 6 am to midnight on Sundays".

I spent most of last night reading chapter 3 of the 'Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd Edition'. One of the ideas it brought to my attention was the idea of 'schedule span', which is the transit equivalent of hours of operation. The Central Link is operating 20 hours a day. TRAX calls it quit at about 10:30-11, and it starts later! I think that's reflected in the per-mile ridership numbers--almost 2000 vs. just over 1500 daily riders/mile. Central Link is 33% higher than TRAX, for ~33% higher hours.

I've previously commented on the lack of late-night service for TRAX, which (as one commenter noted) has actually been declining over time. Anyone who has read the history of transit is familiar with the ridership sabotaging effects of reducing service. Less service means fewer riders, which means less money, which means less service---it's a downward spiral.

Miles of track are expensive, running between $60m and $100m per mile. We should make as much use of it as possible.

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. 

10 Minute Fare

I rode the Eugene, Oregon BRT ('Emerald Express', or EmX) last week from end to end. Very quick journey, not more than 18 minutes for the whole trip. Strangely enough, this was almost exactly the amount allotted my by my fare card. I found the idea of a 'timed' ticket rather relevatory, for it provides a solution to several issues UTA is having.

1) The 'Free Fare Zone' in downtown SLC. UTA promised it to the downtown merchants about a decade ago, and is not pleased with it. Ideally, any trip that begins and ends in downtown is free. Normally, patrons pay when boarding the bus. In the Free Fare Zone, this is not so, and passengers who leave the Free Fare Zone are supposed to pay without exiting. This aids and abets fare-beating, as passengers will board in the free zone, and disembark without paying, with not a thing the driver can do about it. Thus, UTA would very much like to do away with it, but downtown is very interested in keeping it for the convention crowd and the office worker lunch rush. Nobody wants to buy a $2.50 ticket to ride the train a couple of blocks, or even to ride the train a mile.

Currently, a one way TRAX tickets have a 2.5 hour limit, which is long enough to get from one end of the system to the other, such as from Central Station to Sandy. It's also long enough to make a short trip, run an errand, and get back, (although that can be a chancy thing).  So what about a 'Dollar Ticket'? Purchasable only from select downtown locations, and only good for 1 hour, and only sold at downtown stations? 

Some transit systems have a 'zone system', where you pay a different price depending on the number of zones you travel in. Within Zone1 might be one price, Zone1 to Zone2 a different price, and Zone1 to Zone 4 a different and much higher price. It forms a matrix of zone-pairs, and if you're not familar with it, trying to figure out which ticket to buy can be confusing.


But the dollar ticket is easy: Cost $1, gets you 10 minutes of travel-distance. More than enough to get around downtown. Buy a second one to return. Or you could include a 'right of return' option on it, so you can travel to any point within 10 minutes distance of the original station. Long enough to get lunch for the business crowd, and suitable for the convention crowd. It could even last all day. With the right of return, it's perilously near a zone system, but the time budget+origin station provides a bit more flexibility.

"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.

Bridge to Bus Transfer

Minneapolis's bridge-to-transit transfer looks pretty nifty. Salt Lake is adding our own version of the same, between TRAX and FrontRunner, @ North Temple and 500 West. Hope it looks half so nice.

Update: Guess not. Probably a lot cheaper, though.

New TRAX!

Interesting to finally hear where the lines are going. The talk I had head suggested that there was a great deal of demand between West Valley and the U of U. There are going to be a LOT of trains on the stretch between Courthouse and 2100 South. All three lines use that stretch of track. I assume all three lines are going to run at 15 minute frequency, so that means a train every five minutes. Thirteenth South looks to be a better and better as a TOD site. I'm pleased to hear they've moved the transfer point away from Gallivan Center. It's a miserable station--cold and windy in the shadow of the Wells Fargo building. I won't miss the Juggaloes either. It is convenient to a number of amenities I'll miss though--an ATM at Wells Fargo, coffee at Sam Wellers, and AJ's convenience store. Still, only a block of walking away.  From the Utah Transportation Report:  UTA to launch Mid-Jordan, West Valley TRAX lines Sunday

SALT LAKE— Utah Transit Authority (UTA) will launch its Mid-Jordan and West Valley TRAX lines Sunday (Aug. 7), expanding significantly the region's light rail system. UTA held opening ceremonies for both lines yesterday (Aug. 2) and will have the lines open today (Aug. 3) from 9 a.m. to 11 p.m. to give the public a preview of the new lines. UTA is partnering with the Utah Food Bank for a "Food as Your Fare" food drive today; riders boarding at one of the new stations are invited to contribute a non-perishable food item as their fare. As part of the system expansion, UTA is moving to a color-coded system for its different lines. The TRAX system will operate as the Blue (Sandy to Salt Lake Central), Red (Daybreak to University) and Green (West Valley to Salt Lake Central) lines. Under the new configuration, Red line trains will run between the University of Utah Medical Center and Daybreak in South Jordan. Green line trains will run between West Valley and Salt Lake Central Station. Blue line trains will run between Sandy and Salt Lake Central Station. The primary downtown transfer station between lines will be Courthouse (500 South). Travel between downtown and the University will require a transfer at Courthouse Station. The new Mid-Jordan line runs along the Bingham Branch Railroad corridor in a southwesterly direction branching off of the existing Sandy/Salt Lake light rail line at the 6400 South (Fashion Place) TRAX station and extending west to 5600 West. From there, the line turns south toward Kennecott's Daybreak development in South Jordan. The West Valley line connects to the current Sandy Line at 2100 South and ends near West Valley City Hall. The line branches off from the Sandy to Salt Lake TRAX Line at the 2100 South Central Pointe station traveling west crossing under Interstate 15. After crossing the Jordan River, the line turns south and then westward to run north of the Redwood Nature Area and the Decker Lake drainage canal. It then travels through the Chesterfield neighborhood along the Cross Town Trail and continues west across Redwood Road to Research Way. After following Decker Lake Drive to 3100 South at the Maverik Center, the light rail line continues west on the south side of 3100 South, then turns south on 2700 West, crossing 3500 South and ending at the West Valley City Hall, across from the Valley Fair Mall. Detailed schedule information is available at www.rideuta.com or by calling 801-RIDE-UTA (743-3882)

Transit Benefits Non-Riders

Don't believe me? Fine. Check it out here.

How Transit Benefits People Who Do Not Ride It: A Conservative Inquiry

By Paul M. Weyrich and William S. Lind

I'm going to reproduce the introduction here, because I'm as pleased as punch by it. It's by "The Honorable Robert F. Bennett United States Senator, State of Utah".

Do you use public transportation?  Of course you do.  Even if you live out in thecountry, you use public transportation when you drive to the city. 

“No, I don’t,” you reply.  “I drive all the way into the city.  I don’t change from my carto a train or bus.” 

That may be true, but you still use transit to help you get around.  How?  If it weren’t for public transportation, there would be thousands more cars on the road.  You would spend hours more driving in or out of the city, because congestion would be far worsethan it already is.  So even if you don’t ride public transit, you still use it, and it is still working for you

I was pleased and honored to be asked to write the foreword to  this interesting and innovative study by Paul Weyrich and Bill  Lind.  Like them, I am a pro-transitconservative.  I see public transportation as part of the infrastructure, no different from water lines and highways and services such  as the police and the fire department.  If infrastructure is inadequate, everybody suffers.
Here, Paul and Bill explain exactly how transit benefits people  who do not ride it. Reducing traffic congestion for people who  drive is just one way.  As you will read here, there are many more. 

Why is it important that people who do not ride transit understand that it benefits them? Because too often, when a transit measure is on the ballot, they vote against it.  They think, “Why should I vote for this?  It won’t do me any good.” They are wrong.  When they vote no, they are hurting themselves.  That transit issue onthe ballot will often benefit them, in the ways this study describes. 

Democracy depends on informed voters,  and this study will help voters understand public transportation in a new way.  I hope it is widely read and discussed.  I certainly intend to help distribute it in my state, and I will urge my colleagues in the Senate to dothe same.  I congratulate the Free Congress Foundation on once again producing thekind of cutting-edge work for which it is so well known. 

According the WFRC Travel Demand Model, the TRAX carries about a free-way lane's worth of traffic. Many bikers proudly wear a 'One Less Car' tag. Perhaps a train could wear a "1780 Less Cars" tag.

UTA Update

Courtesy of the Utah Transportation Report:

Mid-Jordan, West Valley TRAX lines open in August

SALT LAKE—On Aug. 7, UTA will open the Mid-Jordan and West Valley TRAX lines. The Mid-Jordan line will travel from South Jordan to the University of Utah and replace the existing University line. The West Valley line will travel from West Valley City to downtown Salt Lake City. These new lines also bring many changes to UTA's bus system. To prepare for the rail openings and to explore what UTA's riders wanted in the bus system UTA conducted an extensive outreach effort that included an online survey, a telephone survey and a series of open houses last fall. Using the information gathered during that effort, UTA planners developed two service proposals, which were put out for review and comment during a public comment period in March 2011. UTA received more than 900 comments on the proposals and based on those comments UTA has created a final service plan. The final plan addresses more than 60 percent of the comments received while still meeting UTA's goals. It is estimated ridership under the new plan will increase by 6 percent. UTA prides itself on listening to its riders and making changes where possible to meet both their needs and the budget concerns of the agency. Examples of changes adopted due to comments are: Most Sunday service will remain Convert all Fast Bus routes to express routes with the exception of route 307, which will convert to local service. This will allow some routes proposed for elimination to keep some trips. Route 454 from Grantsville will retain one A.M. and P.M. trip (it previously had two and was proposed to be eliminated) Make routing changes to some routes to provide better coverage to affected areas Create several new flex routes to provide better coverage to affected areas Maintain some service on several routes that were proposed to be cancelled Operate the light rail lines as proposed Timeline July 7—Online schedules and trip planning available Mid July—Printed schedules available Aug. 7—New rail lines open and bus changes begin

 I had to look up what UTA defined a 'Fast' bus as. Apparently, it just means limited stops, so that the 320 just ran the same route as the 220, with fewer stops. I seem to recall the 320 was a 'commuter' bus - five buses in the morning, five buses at night.

The 307 converting to local service.

I was started to learn their is a 207 bus. But it only runs from 5300 TRAX to 10000 South TRAX, along 7th East. I can't say I care for the 'TRAX to TRAX' route buses--Probably faster to get off at the nearest TRAX (64th, 72nd, 78th, 90th, 94th) station and walk 10 blocks east. Confusing, the 307 route runs a totally different route than the 207, despite the similarity in numbers. I'm glad to hear about the conversion to local service--it will be nice to have a local bus along 7th east.

The 'Express bus' seems to be UTA's 'Commuter Bus'. 5 buses in the morning, five buses at night, limited stops. (Which begs the question why the 'Fast Bus' distinction existed at all.)

Date for TRAX open moved up against--now August 7th, down from 17th.  

Seems UTA also intends to provide a lot more of their 'coverage' service using Flex Buses, rather than scheduled service. I'd call that an improvement. But that's an issue for its own post.