A Brief Overview of the Rio Grande Plan Screening Analysis

[@eyezak_m]

Really glad someone like you is the public image of this plan. Your optimism is really infectious and I was glad to meet you back in the December meeting!

[@CSLenhart]

Thanks, Isaac! It was my pleasure to meet you too. There is so much to be optimistic about! Very, very few ideas pitched by citizens get this much attention. If you could hear the conversations between city council members on this topic, you'd take heart!

[@FrederickJenny]

It is wonderful to see that the city has taken this project and improved on it. Now we need to get more citizens to stand up and tell their representatives in the City and State that they want this project. Thank you for all you do Christian and keep up the good work. Happy to make a cameo in here as well LOL.

[@Civil_Maniac]

As a Civil Engineer, I appreciate your thorough deep dive into the proposal. I didn’t realize how different it was than the concept plan. Hoping I can one day work on this project

[@CSLenhart]

Hello fellow Civil Engineer! 🤝 I'm hoping we can both work on it together someday soon!

[@ajkleipass]

Someone needs to build a model. These diagrams are good for those of us used to working with them, but the selling point for the general public is going to be an architectural model showing the train boxes and the street grid. If possible, build it in 1:160 scale and use N-scale trains to aid the feel of it.

[@echomande4395]

Or maybe better yet, make a virtual model. With modern gaming engines (Unreal 5 anyone?) the city could take car and helicopter 'trips' through and around the changes and see 'firsthand' what the changes will do. Other people will also doubtless find other uses for such a model.

[@dannybatio]

Hello Christian Lenhart This Plan is fansty land ogden and salt lake city dont have 5 billion dollars for your plan . get rid of the railroad crossings put up overpasses and fence the tracks off save salt lake city and ogden money. you have no right to dig up salt lake city and change it. and piss people off.The rio grande depot was damaged in a salt lake city earthquake i would not make people go back there.

[@JacobOhlssonBudinger]

this plan is really exciting to me, and i don’t even live in the same continent as it. keep up the good work and the pressure, this is amazing

[@GustavSvard]

Amazing to see the City doing a proper study of this plan. And that they've upped the scope of it in a positive way (i.e. they made it better, not just said "it'll cost way more"). Your suggestions for moving the western train box south a block do look like they make plenty of sense. Even looks like a straighter alignment for the railroad? sure, it's close to a T-junction anyway so it wouldn't be a high speed section, but if you can get the tracks straighter: do it! 4-5 years after it is (hopefully) built it'll be such an obvious boon to everyone.

[@CSLenhart]

Moving the western extension of the box further south also has the benefit of reducing the total curvature of the east-west main lines, which ought to make the freight railroads happy (faster speeds, less chance for derailment, lower maintenance, etc.).

[@timothywelke2047]

I do think improving our public transportation can improve such a wide range of our fundamental problems; this seems like a massive step forward I really want to keep hopes high that this goes well and people can see that our city can be improved by good design

[@CSLenhart]

I may be biased, but if there is any project deserving of high hopes, it is this one!

[@brucehain]

I'm a big believer in grade separation. Since the railroads were there first, usually, there was no way to avoid them without giant projects. The once-and-for all solution sounds right to me, as long as it can be gotten right.

[@egbutler114]

Very interesting and bold. I am glad to see that some transportation agencies are making future plans of expansion for their systems to anticipate ridership growth. 👍👍

[@SoCalHighIron]

I love seeing this ambitious plan gaining momentum! I've never had the pleasure of visiting Salt Lake City, but the California Zephyr has been calling my name... Thank you, Christian for all of the work you've done to make this vision a reality. I'm rooting for you from Los Angeles!

[@Positivitypapi]

Would love to see this happen and the opportunity for real estate development open up on the west side😍

[@ibriggs121]

Thanks for this video and all your hard work. I'm an SLC resident and a big fan of the Frontrunner, and I'm really excited about this!

[@RustyFoundry]

As always, amazing analysis and really hope this plan actually gets some real traction, even if it ultimately gets watered down some.

[@AstroMagi]

The KH study also quoted the excavation costs alone to be something like $1.2 billion (at $15/cu ft). Methinks that's an overestimate for the digging, so it seems like the big numbers on the sticker price might be more of an upper bound on the actual cost.

[@CSLenhart]

I absolutely agree. The costs also include a 30% contingency, which for a total cost of $3 billion, means $1 billion was added in 'just to be safe.' Just sayin'....

[@averagejoejesse]

@@CSLenhart From my understanding, it's 30% on top of the base cost. So if the total is $3 billion, the math looks like this 1.30(x )= 3billion. solving for x tells us that the base cost is 2.31billion and the contingency is $690 million. Still a pretty big number

[@philbilly881]

Hope to hear more about your ideas for a line connecting tooele/SLC/PC!

[@Corrado9671]

Amazingly thought out and carefully planned plan! 😁

[@RussSmith-xu6kd]

The Olympics are coming and this must be done by then!! Plus a rail link to Park City!! GREAT Plan!!

[@CSLenhart]

Thanks, Russ!

[@rollinwithunclepete824]

Impressive effort! Thank you, Christian

[@dennischen96]

Wow! Cool project, thanks for such a deep explanation. I'm just wondering, how come Union Pacific needs 3 tracks? Would UTA only having 2 tracks affect future capacity, especially with the plan for a new east west line?

[@CSLenhart]

My opinion is that the important thing is to get 6 tracks built. Once we have the infrastructure, track allotments can be reassigned. Perhaps by upgrading the freight tracks between Roper Yard and the Inland Port (the ones that run just south of Glendale Park), Union Pacific would require less capacity and would agree to only 2 tracks and with Amtrak, as originally pitched. The important thing is that real conversations have actually happened, which is a huge first step!

[@railroader921]

Double track main lines and a running rail between North Yard and Roper Yard

[@alpacarama21]

With this much extra stuff, is it your feeling that things have been piled in because everyone wants to get their additions to the plan, or that the cost is intentionally being run up to make it unpalatable? Hopefully the former! Anyway, here's hoping it comes to fruition 👍

[@CSLenhart]

These early studies are often meant to determine who a project would likely benefit, ie, which voting block will reap the benefits. By expanding the plan, SLC is very shrewdly expanding the number of people who will gain from the project. In all my conversations with planning staff, I am confident that sabotage is not their motivation. 😅

[@alpacarama21]

@@CSLenhart Good to hear!! It seems like an amazing plan for sure.

[@iamtobler]

Good stuff as always!

[@cityforall]

Very interesting project. When it's supposed to be constructed?

[@CSLenhart]

@cityforall No date set yet... but we're working hard to get everyone on board! Any help os always welcome.

[@cityforall]

@@CSLenhart oh, so you're involved in this project? Cool

[@CSLenhart]

@@cityforall Yep! I'm one of the authors of the original Rio Grande Plan, and I helped pitch the idea to the city.

[@cityforall]

@@CSLenhart that's cool! I talk about such projects on my channel every week so if there are any news I can include it to the Urban News episode

[@redpandaz5146]

I would hope that there will be space for future electrification?

[@CSLenhart]

I hope so, too! At the very least, there will certainly be space for wires above the UTA tracks, since the freight train loading gauge is so much taller. But my opinion is that space should be provided above every track.

[@jflan_2625]

Would be incredible to see a swiss-esque train systems to park city and the cottonwoods. With the HB at rio grande. Only a dream

[@CityGlowUp]

Keep up the good work 🤙

[@CSLenhart]

Thanks, will do! 😁👍

[@Hahlen]

Ought to put up catenary in the box during construction as well, so that it doesn’t have to be closed again for electrification soon after completion

[@CSLenhart]

@@Hahlen Not a bad idea. Especially if UTA chooses to expand its Frontrunner fleet with BEMU's like the FLIRTs Metra is buying.

[@Absolute_Zero7]

Question, what would the plan be for the Trax Blue line when SLC Station is moved? I presume they would relocate the route to travel down 500W?

[@CSLenhart]

@@Absolute_Zero7 There are multiple options. 500 West is a good one, and so is 400 West. Personally, I prefer 450 West, called Rio Grande Street, directly in front of the depot.

[@odess4sd4d]

4:50. Is it really feasible to construct the box walls so close to the I-15 bridge piers? Did you look into what that would involve?

[@CSLenhart]

Good question! If the bridge piers rest on piles, the walls can be constructed within a couple feet of the piers, provided there are sufficient tie-backs on either side. If the piers are on flat footings, then a few extra feet would be needed. The main idea is that SOMETHING can be made to work in the near term, as the screening report states.

[@LopazIRL]

Half the words may have confused me, so I have a few clarification questions. 1. Are they making the lower grade tracks before 900 south or after as in it would go down after passing 900 south? 2. Are they adding another bridge because of the changes in the plan? If so, is there more solutions to elimate that in the future? 3. Are the vents getting bigger or is going to be the one like reno but as frequent as it closing at every insection? I'm keeping high hopes for this project so the city can be as bright as our future 😋

[@CSLenhart]

No problem! 1) The full depth is reached before 900 south. There will be no at-grade crossings between 9th South and 4th North. 2) More bridges are being added because the tracks need to transition from at-grade to below-grade. 3) The vents in the new plans are much bigger. You could easily mistake them for the openings in Reno. Remember that this is all very preliminary, and many things will change in the future!

[@erikgustafson9319]

I do think they need to add 2 more platforms

[@ZackScriven]

Toole to park city would slap.

[@jmchristoph]

Best guess on why they're leveling the descending slope out further south, is that it's to avoid a compound curve track geometry. Generally speaking, it's a lot cheaper to maintain track that only curves in a single plane, either vertically or horizontally, because there's less likelihood that the track will shift position with the repeated load of trains passing over it. If you have to superelevate the curve on the passenger tracks, that becomes an even bigger issue, & also significantly restricts the range of speeds trains can traverse the track at without damaging it. Most Class I freight railroads have gone out of their way to eliminate compound curves wherever they possibly can, so this configuration probably satisfies UPRR's wishlist along with everyone else's.

[@CSLenhart]

That makes perfect sense. Thank you!

[@railroader921]

I dont believe that UPRR or expert track building engineers were consulted at all on this study.

[@RustyFoundry]

@@railroader921 Christian references that the UP was consulted with by the engineering firm

[@railroader921]

​@cewhitney7674 The only mention of meetings with UP is the one with network development director and the public relations manager, who both know next to nothing about build and/or design..., in fact they suggested that Kimley Horn "Make sure that we bring in freight experts to give feedback on freight specific design considerations". Kinley Horn did not do that, or they would have said so. To me that means that no one has as of yet said anything about the actually geometry of the rails as they curve descend, and ascend through the project area. I could be wrong.

[@railroader921]

The reason that the trench is at full depth at 1100 south is likely due to business access, and the need for a private driveway over the trench at that location. Also they could be thinking about 500 west being widened and/or lanes added

[@SiarlW]

🎉

[@jeffreysmith85]

Amtrak needs 2 tracks

[@railroader921]

The RGP will NEVER happen with out buy-in from Union Pacific Railroad. UPRR will not sell their 4th south rail yard unless it makes business sense for them to do so. I have been thinking about what might actually convince them to even consider it. UTA could offer to return all the Warm Springs locomotive shops, facilities, tracks and former intermodal ramp property that they bought when they originally created the Frontrunner in 2002 back to UPRR. Frontrunner would have to be rerouted, presumably over to Beck Street, and new UTA locomotive servicing facilities would have to be constructed somewhere else. If UTA made UP that offer, I do believe that UP would part with its 4th south rail yard. Union Pacific never should have sold the shops at Warm Springs to UTA, and they have been regretting it ever since. There is also at least one large customer, Univar, within the 4th south rail yard that would have to be relocated. But they left out of the screening analysis because it is outside of the project area. There may be other smaller customers as well.

[@AstroMagi]

Part of the discussions in the KH study was that UP communicated that they would want land for a replacement yard, so it seems like they'd be willing to play ball if the state came to the table. Interesting to hear about the backstory on Warm Springs. As usual, thanks for the feedback and thoughts!

[@jeffreysmith85]

Up track should not be downtown

[@KW8309]

I love this plan, and truly hope they take your recommendations to consideration. However the plan to demolish The Complex without a plan to relocate the building to a similar location of adequate sizing is gonna be a MAJOR issue once this gains more public attraction. That building is the heart of entertainment for all of the adjacent apartments. You remove that and there's gonna be problems.

[@AMPProf]

Jetsons

[@taylor5542]

Absolutely not worth the money.

[@FrederickJenny]

So worth the money!

[@dannybatio-nw5or]

You people in charge of the rio grande plan need to go back to fantsy land union pacific railroad amtrak and the uta front runner are not moving and i think it is stupid to waste 8 billion dollars on this project. And the railroad crossing should be removed and put up overpass and fences this makes more sense than wasting 8 billion dollars. When they built the front runner train these crossings they are complaining about should have been removed along time ago and this is my opinion on it.

[@CSLenhart]

I recommend you look at similar projects in Reno, Los Angeles, and El Paso, to name a few. Train tracks can be moved below grade, and it won't cost $8 billion. In fact, it will be cheaper than building expensive overpasses for every crossing!

[@dannybatio-nw5or]

you people of the rio grande plan need to go back to fansty land union pacific amtrak and uta front runner are not moving and the railroad crossings that salt lake city are complaning about should have been removed with overpass and fences to keep people out when the front runner trains was built along time ago it doesnt make sense to waste 8 billion dollars on this project.

[@FrederickJenny]

8 billion seems a little excessive and more in line with a highway project, but go off posting comments that are negative and not needed.