I see all participants for chat

super

That's better!

Thank you Blake!

Can you also publish the chat comments?

Folks might need to rename themselves to include org/entity

I want to express something. Pat

Please go ahead, Pat.

See the MTS Draft Alternatives Report here: https://mcusercontent.com/d039de63a7bcadab6bef83ace/files/9800a2a8-3320-488a-b11e-73c26018966a/CWC_MTS_Draft_Alternatives_Report_Updated_9.18.20.pdf

See the MTS Summit agenda here: https://cwc.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/CWC_Summit_Agenda_11.20-_v2.pdf

I think they might be talking about not wanting to pave over native land.

3600 stalls at BCC Induces car demand to foothill corridor. Reduce this by utilizing regional parking east/west along Ft Union, 9400 South and other arteries and run small, frequent, free transit based on recreation demand times (i.e. Fri, Sat, Sun) year round.

The Cottonwoods Express would be usable 24/7 year-round with on-demand service. It would be so superior to driving on the surface that hardly anyone will choose to drive.

Getting cars out of canyons is good, but moving those cars to the foothills is also bad.

Don't we want to disincentivize driving personal vehicles up the canyons?

To do that, we really need our MTS to be so superior to driving that people choose to use the MTS instead of driving.

The Cottonwoods Express proposal includes using 25 different existing parking areas distributed around the service area. To reduce congestion you have to distribute the access points and have many of them. If you have the same number of access points as current, you just change where the congestion is.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1kfsbonyy4dqr04/Cottonwoods%20Express%20proposal%20V3.2.pdf?dl=0

Along with equipment***

The Cottonwoods Express would have exits at all trailheads and bike and ski/snowboard racks.

If anyone needs help, call me directly at 801-706-1004

I think it is about 9000 total

For Solitude: Parking spot number vary with snow removal schedules but Solitude has 2 lots with an average daily capacity of about 1500 spots

In BCC there are approximately 2,300 roadside parking places.

A graphic on existing parking from the study Blake referred to

Great image, very informative.

You're the BEST Blake!

It's true!

More dispersed parking with shuttle buses is good.

So 10,300 spaces near the base, up the canyons, and at the ski resorts. 3,600 seems a bit low. Use existing dispersed parking lots. We don't need to pave paradise, put up a parking lot.

I guess we’d like the idea of spreading out parking lots around the valley, rather than a big one or two at the mouth. It seems like this may just shift the problem that’s being held IN the canyons further onto I-15

*I-215

Will these costs and additions of pavement, etc be outdated 30 years from now. If so, doesn't it make sense to think much more into the future and what is sustainable like a future reservation system?Will these costs and additions of pavement, etc be outdated 30 years from now. If so, doesn't it make sense to think much more into the future and what is sustainable like a future reservation system?

The idea is it would lower VMT. Our goal for better air quality is to lower Vehicle Miles Travelled.

The Cottonwoods Express proposal utilizes 25 existing parking lots distributed geographically around the Salt Lake valley. Also tied into UTA transit spots (bus and train stations).

With free or discount EV charging at all valley stations. We really need to improve our air quality.

Solar powered EV charging, btw.

Air quality is better when air is filtered through greenery and on the other hand, clearing vegetation and replacing it with asphalt raises summer temperatures, increases CO2, pollutes air. Reduces and disincentivize private car use through fewer parking spaces and for which drivers pay dearly if used.

Best is to make it so that using mass transit is so superior to driving that few choose to drive. And free.

The comments that mention a shift are correct, and are a huge part of the problem that a regional transportation plan needs to address. In other words, large hubs do not function to disincentivize automobile use, instead they shift that use, and thus create congestion. I like the thoughts on distributing parking as part of a greater network, and identifying sites that can be repurposed

We can all save the chat.

Suggest the poll include "DIspersed minor hubs"

At the bottom of the chat window there is a … which has Save Chat as an option. Do it just before the meeting ends.

Large Hubs get congested themselves.

Exactly Carl!

Yep! We intend to save all of this conversation in the chat bar. Thanks, all.

The Cottonwoods Express, once extended to The U and SLC airport will also have that utility year-round 24/7.

Especially with the Tesla Network ride-sharing system tied into the Cottonwoods Express stations network.

To support regular transit needs, not just the canyons.

Can't submit unless you answer all the questions!

The Cottonwoods Express would remove much of the Wasatch Blvd traffic heading to BCC and LCC. The people movement would be invisible with no surface congestion.

1a Most people should arrive at the canyons in their final mode of transportation for going up the canyon. Few stops at the mouth of the canyons. Create dispersed, smaller hubs through out the valley.

I am glad that Wasatch Blvd has been elevated into the discussion with these goals. Thanks!

THIS is FOR CARLTON C: Lack of a north/south commuter service for folks who live in southeastern quadrant has never been viably addressed. UTA needs to be financially supported to provide true Express Bus service to improve ridership. Too many stops and transfers for north/south commuters to Res Park/U of U. BRT, Express Buses and/or Light Rail that uses existing thoroughfares such as Highland Drive & I-215 up Foothill Drive is necessary. Without this included, CWC’s regional suggestions will not be as impactful and positive.

While CWC says it will support Cottonwood Heights, this is a UDOT road.

1a - Agree with KIrk Nichols

And, UDOT has received an appropriation to acquire land and build a parking lot adjacent to the road.

Given that Cottonwood Heights raised the zoning of parcels N. of LLC North leading to Wasatch by 20 to 60-fold, it is clear we should not blindly defer to Cottonwood Heights decision making regarding the Wasatch corridor. Wasatch Blvd. is UDOT’s purview and changes are paid for by the tax payers of the State, not Cottonwood Hts. Are they not?

Sorry but I don't agree with that Kirk.

Comments on Regional Transit Hubs…

Question 1 Will these costs and additions of pavement, etc be outdated 30 years from now. If so, doesn't it make sense to think much more into the future and what is sustainable like a future reservation system in the canyons?

Oppose since it would just relocate the congestion instead of solving it.

,

Regional transit hub should co-locate with high density commercial/housing and parking lots

To be sustainable our MTS must be totally powered by renewable energy.

Favor in concept with a lot more refinement and robust transit connection and echo hat @bob Pruitt said. Also should be designed to accommodate and complement Cottonwood Heights masterplan for Wasatch Blvd.

#1 Dispersed parking so we avoid a traffic jam on Wasatch Blvd.

The Gravel Pit hub would congest the entrance to BCC.

When I “favor” regional transit hubs, I also want “dispersed hubs, too”

#1 Recommend more than 2 hubs and more balance between the hubs

Second question - depends on the location of the various regional parking areas

more dispersed parking will reduce congestion on Wasatch blvd

One project objective is to reduce congestion on Wasatch Blvd and a transit hub in the gravel pit would NOT help promote this objective.

Hubs work best when they are located next to major vehicle modes, avoid standard surface streets as much can be done

B, sorry if I misunderstood but I would be in favor of regional hubs in general. Im not wed to the gravel pit. I should've clarified.

So what I am hearing is: Ellen does not like the idea of a hub a “Gravel Pit” - Cottonwood Heights would like to do Mix Use Development/parntered with UDOT- and Laura is concerned with Green/Environmental impact on the new water treatment plant. The “Gravel Pit” is currently not green. Could a planned, mix-use, green hub be planned with Laura/slc input with Cottonwood Heights & UDOT?

I think the first poll should be done again with only residents answering.

Megan, do you mean residents of CH?

The people who are not on the planning committee.

too slow to vote with my question My input is spend those big bucks on more dispersed parking locations with frequent shuttle vans to catch ski bus or gondola et al

Clarifying Question: would there be a new Frontrunner station?

Frequent shuttle vans could also be electrified more easily, which speaks to David’s previous point

There was confusion as to who should answer. I am in agreement that those people planning should not answer.

The Cottonwoods Express will connect to existing UTA bus and train stations.

Page 3 of the proposal shows the proposed station locations.

25 different locations.

Suggestion: Transfer at Murray Central from Frontrunner to TRAX, and use Sandy Historic station on TRAX.

yes

Summit County

fully electric express bus on Sr-224 that will be converted to BRT via dedicated running lanes

with electric you would have to install that charging capacity as well

The Cottonwoods Express is all solar-powered EV based.

All the Tesla EVs have regenerative braking and recover a significant proportion of the energy spent ascending when they later descend.

Maybe fuel cell buses are an option for BRT

The Tesla EVs have a capacity of five people. Individual families only. Single riders even supported.

Tesla Model X an Model Y with 5-person seating.

also con: people prefer comforts of cars- its hard hard to convert people out of those comforts.

With ski racks during ski season and bike racks the rest of the year. A mix on "shoulder" seasons.

The Cottonwoods Express will also be a world-class system that will be the best on the planet for an MTS.

agreed -- are there any talks of working with bus manufacturers?

Preliminary test in LCC for electric bus: from leaving its depot going up LCC and coming down, the battery only dropped from 90% to 65%. 7% battery charge was regained on the way down the canyon. The quick charging infrastructure already being used in downtown could recharge the buses in a matter of minutes

Kyle, was the test bus loaded to capacity or empty?

@Kyle Maynard. Similar experience in Park City. Cold was more of an issue than incline. We tested runs up to the Montage at the top of DV.

And we were loaded

One big advantage of the Cottonwoods Express being in tunnels is that temperature year-round is in the 50's and totally unaffected by snow.

A high capacity transit to move visitors up 9400 to transfer to 2nd transit hub seems inconvenient at best, worst if you a schlepping ski gear

Can high capacity transit still be financially feasible if we have to manage recreational overuse issues?

I agree with Laura Briefer

Lauren, could you elaborate on "recreational overuse issues"?

Too much recreational use exceeding the capacity to manage the environmental and watershed impacts. The risk of loving the Wasatch to death.

Buses use the same congested roads. They are fine for a stopgap measure, but not a permanent solution.

I think a con could be that some of these things may force a mode shift or transfer… which as we understand are a huge disincentive to transit use

I agree with Laura at wat point how do we stop pumping more people up into the mountains.

Thanks Kerry… that helped clarify the termini questions. It wasn’t clear

Good points on visitor use increases from transportation improvements. Note that our objectives and attributes for the MTS address this point as a priority consideration.

A high capacity E-W transit line in the SE Quadrant is consistent with UTA’s long range vision and adds to their network

If the Cottonwoods Express covers LCC, BCC, and the Wasatch Back, it could be used with real-time data to encourage and enable dispersal of pressures across a much larger area. It could even have displays showing how many people have been delivered to each area, so riders could change their minds to go to a less crowded area. It also could tie into ski resorts systems if they limit ticket sales to redirect people seamlessly to other resorts.

We need to think in a calculus mind frame with with multiple variable, not in a simple arithmetic. And, as with any calculus formulation the sequence which variables are resolved is extremely important, if not critical.

Agree, that it will be a deterrent to have to change transportation modes

Will and Laura, I previously asked a canyon capacity question, and Ellen brought it up also. I’ve expressed this concern to Ralph and believe it is s fundamental question that remains unanswered

The Cottonwoods Express has one of it's main routes being under 9400S.

And, this isn't purely a quantitative calculous. It is qualitative and an art for decision makers.

Comments in response to High Capacity Transit along 9400 s

question 2 From Laura Briefer to Everyone: 03:24 PMquestion 2 From Laura Briefer to Everyone: 03:24 PMToo much recreational use exceeding the capacity to manage the environmental and watershed impacts. The risk of loving the Wasatch to death.

2. This mode would be best if it continues up the canyon w/o needing to "schlep" skis between modes

Question 3 Depends totally on the sequence of where the 9400 rapid transit would occur.

2: Opposition due to impact on local traffic.

Is the parking lot, business (Lowe’s) on 90th and 1-15 still vacant?

9400S if it's not on the surface causing more congestion.

Shopko parking lot is vacant and so is Market Fresh parking lot south of 9400 S.

Man, If I learned anything in 2020 it is not to trust polls!

2. Second Kirk’s observation.

@Carl LOL

😂

The Cottonwoods Express southern route goes out 9400S to State St. then down to W11400S out to Herriman HS.

Is this with or without canyon tolling?

tolling will be discussed shortly

Keep following options as we look at different segments of the geography. When we get to the end, we'll want to evaluate the modes comprehensively.

In my mind the benefits of the different transit options also depend on whether there will be limitations or restrictions imposed on cars. Just a general comment.

Articulated buses have no real provision for gear bags and skis and snowboards. Those will reduce capacity.

Last season the ski racks were removed from the ski busses to accommodate increased ridership, yes?

My continued concern with buses up the canyon is that they are stuck in the same traffic and accidents closing the LCC road. Separate bus express lane is not likely to work when the road is snow covered.

I need to switch devices so I might miss the poll, but I am not in favor of this option because it works against the psychology of transit riders. In every study, every survey, every anything ever conducted, the #1 demand riders make is "more frequent service." Peak service only works in certain circumstances and the diverse use and demand for the Canyons is not one of those circumstances.

Well Spoken Michael Maughan!!!

Chains and seating arrangement are the primary differences in current ski vs valley bus system. Ski buses are currently 35 foot, valley buses are 40 foot. Some adjustements in tight turns at parking lots in the canyons would be needed to use 40 foot buses easily.

transmission and engine are similar

So transit hubs will not be needed

Smaller shuttle service would solve so many of these problems… UTA - what do you know about the future of running more smaller shuttles?

We will be getting to another element on improving SL Valley transit.

Mike,

At what point in time does the need to protect other interests over take personal transportation preference

If there are alternatives which cost more money like a tolling booth that would encourage bus riding.

Good question Mike Marker.

I agree Caroline, a big feature of the Cottonwoods Express is a capacity of thousands of people per hour and totally on-demand. Rapid transit as well. I15/4500S to Alta in < 9 minutes.

You’re right its not a hate of buses… rather distain for how minimal the existing system is!

Ski resorts could also have better dedicated bus drop off locations where putting on equipment is easy

Blake, …I would suggest this wording for the first additional question: “What are the barriers to running canyon-compatible express buses from more hubs, further from the mouth of the canyon?”

Mike Maughan, what skiers want now (their own cars) is not working., hence the congestion. Anything we change will require a mind shift away from cars.

@Aaron - thanks for the question. Smaller shuttles would actually be more expensive because we'd have to run more buses to carry the same number of people which would take more operators (drivers) and labor is our biggest expense,

@aaron the biggest cost of transit service is the labor. We still have a pay a driver the same whether they are driving a big bus or a smaller vehicle. Smaller vehicles work well we need to move smaller numbers of people, or we are trying to service a large number of destinations. It doesn’t really save us any money, but smaller vehicles can navigate tighter streets a little better where that is a concern.

is it possible to encourage ski resorts to pay some of that "more expensive" cost of smaller shuttles?

The MTS should be so compellingly better than driving that nobody wants to drive. The Cottonwoods Express will use only autonomous EVs so minimal labor costs (no drivers to pay).

Comments for year-round bus services..

Question 4 Costs vs. functionality.

Buses are not long-range sustainable as they are fossil fuel powered.

They also have high O&M costs.

Thanks Laura & Kerry, from what I’ve learned about technology it seems that self-driving is not too far out, but even if not, it would be good to see a comprehensive life-cycle cost analysis of these options

Thanks Mike for the question about brakes on ski buses. Yes, ski buses have an additional brake system (Jake Break) for ski buses as opposed to regular buses.

Grant - Snowbird does utilize a lot of UTA shared vans for employees. It is we’ll supported.

Tesla Full Self Driving beta is going well and improving daily. By the time the Cottonwoods Express could be built it would definitely be reality.

The trade-off in extending transit to different areas within the valley is transit frequency vs. coverage. the larger the area you cover, the less frequent the service will be. Spread the resources out and you spread it thin.

I agree that bus service in the valley is the good alternative at this point, i hope it provides for flexibility if transportation modes change in the future

I think the preference is for these buses to be electric, hence cleaner, quieter, an not fossil fuel dependent.

This is a comment/info for my friend, Barbara to her question about fire mitigation. Senator Romney announced on Oct. 15th from Neff’f Canyon trailhead his intention to introduce new Federal Legislation fo a new Federal “Wildfire Commision” to address catastrophic fires before they start. Governor elect cox and Mayor Silvestrini were there as well. I hope the “Wildfire Commission” will bring all the stakeholders together for better forest fire mitigation in Millcreek, BCC, LCC Canyons.

If a train can be electric so can a bus

UTA looked into EV buses and the technology isn't there quite yet. They are still subject to the same red snake and avalanche/accident closure issues.

Electric buses are fossil dependent, especially in Utah. It moves the pollution elsewhere in the Valley or State, which may be acceptable, maybe not. Since Utah uses a great deal of coal for electrical generation, electric buses could well generate more greenhouse emissions than hybrid diesels, for example, per NYT’s analysis.

Do you have the estimated drive times from each of these routes to the mobility hubs at the mouth's of BCC and LCC?

travel times, not drive times.

Thanks, Lisa. Wildfire Prevention is getting more attention. It's a good thing in these mature canyons.

Why is "convenient" considered a con?

Good points on electric buses -- they are being used and improvements occurring. Please note the comments from UTA about how transit works with size of vehicles (cost efficiency), multiple stops, and issue of coverage v. frequency.

I agree Robert. Coal is also not sustainable and being thermal uses huge quantities of water in our arid state. You don't get steam to power turbines without water. The Cottonwoods Express will be totally solar powered with excess generation being sold to displace fossil generation. Rocky Mountain Power has stated they want to add no more fossil capacity.

"Less convenient"

Are we discussing just enhancing the valley buses? vs up the canyon

We're focused in this segment on the Valley improvements to support Canyons travel.

Cottonwoods Express travel time from I15/4500S to Alta is less than 10 minutes. Consistently. Non-stop since the tunnels are like Interstate highways. Main traffic doesn't stop when a vehicle takes an exit. Since all autonomous, no "compressions" due to slow drivers.

So are we not willing to put up with the time for bus traffic but will put up with the jam at the mouth of the canyons?

Will — good obswervation

The Cottonwoods Express current proposal is ~15 stops in LCC. All trailheads and several at both Snowbird and Alta.

Not sure the point here, Will. I think we were trying to focus on Canyons mouths with prior elements of the SL Valley consideration. We have received a lot of suggestions that Valley transit support is important so we're exploring that as part of the MTS>

Why not have some express routes from several distant starting points?

Mike we just discussed that

Yeah, Mike that was the last one

For future Zoom conferences, like this Summit, it would be more efficient if the questions were sent out before the meeting, so the questions with their answers could provide more focused discussion. And, at the end another set of questions would be asked to see if there were conversions or changes of mind.

Comments re: enhanced curent transit...

In favor - allows for more versatility and access to a wider audience, especially during a future Winter Olympics

Salt Lake valley comments - Yes if some express routes from several distant starting points are put into place

I suggest we keep moving until 5pm w/ no break. I and several from county staff have a hard stop at 5.

1e: In favor: more frequent service is always beneficial; not so sure it will benefit skiers that much.

Does status quo mean we are freezing population growth too?

I would vote for the no action option for the simple reason that I feel this process is being rushed and that the main focus is on transportation not preservation.

No action (SLValley connections)...

No Action status quo - comment - We need to put more emphasis on avoiding over use of our recreational areas- such as a reservation system.

Points on over use well taken.

I agree Carolyn.

Haven't we spent the past 30 years taking NO ACTION?

I think our action has been avoidance, discord and heads in the sand.

“A Bio Break” - very diplomatic. :D

If covid has shown us anything, its a glimpse of what's coming as it relates to population increase. No action will result in the total destruction of our quality of life's enjoyment of precious natural resources and our present inability to make decisions to protect what's important to all citizens, stakeholders and future residents of our area.

musical interlude

More John!!

Hopefully at the end of this MTS effort we will have enough direction to move forward with meaningful improvements. For 30 years, action has been limited while the problems have worsened.

A glimpse of the future? (and now w/ COVID) The Forest Service and UDOT numbers are that this summer BCC use increased by 250% year to year (from 2019) on a peak day.

Thanks John Knoblock.

new poll option: live blue grass on all transit

i vote yes

partnership with KRCL's Bluegrass Express 😉

Lindsey, would you please promote me for the Millcreek Canyon portion of the meeting

Costs should be to the Wasatch Back since they will receive the benefits. Am I right or not?

Wouldn't it work both ways Carolyn?

Riders go both ways

Thank you for that clarification

I think there are benefits to everyone particularly if you had an Cottonwood interchange around the mouth of parleys

Comments here post poll on: Wasatch front/back/I-80: improve frequency of SLC - PC Connect…

These are hard to analize with out comparitive costs.

IT would be nice to have a transfer point around Wasatch foothill for cottonwood visitors

Of course I'm in favor of the Cottonwoods Express delivering people to Park City in an estimated 16 minutes from SLC and tying into UTA mass transit or Tesla Network vehicles in the PC area.

Capital and operational costs and who pays.

Would buses pick up and drop people at hotels?

The busses from Vancouver to Whistler Blackcomb do that

Way to get er done PC/Summit!

Yes, easy to say 'yes' but it always comes down to funding.

Blake, similar comments to before.. is this non stop or will a cottonwood transfer be part of it

Regarding the question: who pays for it. The current program is a partnership between UTA, Summit County, and Park City. Riders pay a fee and SC & PC subsidize.

Present private system excludes most low to middle income people.

Sounds like a con might be a law change.

Or I guess it could be a pro!

i

Especially for resort employee use.

I would question that low income persons are riding from the airport

Pat Shea - thank you for raising the equity issue. Important for our residents.

Extra cost is a real negative for them.

Who or what is dong the current aerial system study?

What is meant by Aerial System?

Is it being paid for by Park City, or a private party?

I think Summit County has also approve the fifth/fifth transit tax, which I am guessing is helping them.

Yes, Summit County has approved the 4th and 5th quarters!

Pat, Any Aerial system would likely be a public-private partnership.

BRAVO!

Are the private parties identified now.

Thanks to Mayor Wilson on getting the funding for the widened Millcreek Cyn shoulder that was done a couple of years ago!!!

Pat, It's very conceptual, but there is interest by Both resorts--DV and PC--are planning new base developments and have any interest in aerial connections. It's still very conceptual.

Millcreek is a good example of what we should do for our other canyons for summer usage.

Clarification: policy changes would be needed to have transit/shuttle service to trailheads, as I understand so that should be captured

Would a shuttle help with pedestrian/bicycle safety?

This relates to visitor management/capacity issues.

Mayor Beerman, Thank you for your answer on the private parties. Pat

If I'm not mistaken, the FLAP grant $ won't be available for several years if we even get it, and then the USFS has to do a NEPA review and infrastructure improvements before they would allow a shuttle in Millcreek Cyn.

John is correct about FLAP timing and theFS process.

I think FLAP grant final approval is now scheduled for next Spring (2021). That could lead to improvements preceding shuttle development. (Info from FS yesterday.)

Important distinction between adding capacity vs changing behaviors, Laura. Thanks!

Looking at the future, that is, five years out, I think we will have individual programable vehicles which would allow to have less congestion. Let's not base a decision today that doesn't anticipate future technological developments.

Thank you for clarifying intent about incentivizing transit.

Mill Creek has a fee booth.

Like on he freeways, if traffic (auto) drops too low, the cars tend to speed up, reducing bucycle/pedestrian safety.

Great facilitation Julianna!

Thank you for a productive afternoon! I will not be able to join you tomorrow. My opinion for LCC is gondola!. Having lived in Switzerland, perfect model to follow! Gondola’s and Snowsheds!

I would add dirtiest option for the environment to no action

There’s a lot of respect for everyone here. We’ll continue to chip away at the agreement and alignment part.

👍👍👍

Have we asked all of the Commisioners and staff to forgo any future personal involvement in any of of the transporation options.?

Good point Mayor Dan.

This was really great. Thank you CWC and everyone here.