Salt Lake City Downtown Transportation Master Plan Light

Salt Lake City Downtown Transportation Master Plan Light Rail & Bus; Presentation Background and Introduction August 23, 2006

Project Goals Transportation Should… – Serve Downtown – Be Pedestrian Friendly – Be Easy to Use – Enhance Mobility – Balance Modes

Inferred Goals Transportation Should Also… – Serve suburban areas efficiently – Facilitate seamless transfers – Increase transit ridership – Support transit oriented development (TOD) – Support anticipated land use

Downtown Transportation Master Plan Study Area

Expanded Core Medium Density Residential & Mixed-Use HD Residential & Mixed-Use Commercial & Mixed-Use Expanded Core Hotel Row Existing Track Downtown Transportation Master Plan Institutional Anticipated Land Use (Generalized) Residential

High Density Mix of Regional & Local Trips Existing Track Downtown Transportation Master Plan Downtown Trips Highest Density Regional Trips

Regional Trips Regional & Local Trips Facts: 1) Existing track is sufficient for 2015 suburban extensions. 2) Doesn’t fully support anticipated land use. Draper to Hub Mid Jordan to Hub to U of U West Valley to U of U Downtown Transportation Master Plan Draper to Airport 2015 Light Rail Operating Plan Commuter Rail

Regional & Local Trips Downtown Transportation Master Plan Regional Trips Longer Walk, Less Frequent, Lower Ridership Levels of Service, 2015 Plan Short Walk, Frequent Service, High Ridership

2015 Light Rail System Observations Benefit – Excellent connection of suburban trips to regionally significant destinations Challenge – Little or no excess track capacity for local circulation

Why Identify Future Light Rail Track Now? – UTA may need more frequent service than planned for 2015. – Improve bus-rail connectivity. – Decision will facilitate traffic, planning, and development decisions. – Allow circulator concepts to advance.

Planned Light Rail extensions can make use of one yellow and one pink. Regional & Local Trips Existing Track Downtown Transportation Master Plan Highest Density Regional Trips 3 East-West Options: 200 S, 300 S, or 400 S Light Rail Options Studied 3 North. South Options: 700 S to 600 W, 700 S to 400 W, 200 West

Scenario 1 – East-West Choice • 400 South – North-South Choice • 700 South to 400 West

Regional Trips Excess Track Capacity Hub to U of U Improved circulation, but lengthens some suburban trips Regional & Local Trips Mid Jordan to Hub West Valley to U of U Downtown Transportation Master Plan Draper to Airport 400 S. and 700 S. to 400 W. Operating Option Commuter Rail

B-Train: Alternate routing increases track capacity, but lengthens trip Regional & Local Trips Other route choices exist, but all reduce service from suburbs Downtown Transportation Master Plan Regional Trips 400 S. and 700 S. to 400 W. Operating Option A-Train: Normal routing

1. 8 miles new track Regional Trips Regional & Local Trips Longer Walk, Less Frequent, Lower Ridership Coverage is maximized, but quality of suburban trips may be reduced. Downtown Transportation Master Plan Level of Service from Suburbs, 400 S. and 700 S. t 0 400 W. Short Walk, Frequent Service, High Ridership

Scenario 2 – East-West Choice • 200 South – North-South Choice • 200 West

Regional Trips Excess Track Capacity Hub to U of U Regional & Local Trips Mid Jordan to Hub West Valley to U of U Downtown Transportation Master Plan Draper to Airport 200 S. and 200 W. Operating Option Commuter Rail

Regional Trips Circulator Opportunity Longer Walk, Less Frequent, Lower Ridership Local Trips Excellent suburban access to regional destinations Downtown Transportation Master Plan 1. 3 miles new track Level of Service from Suburbs, 200 S. and 200 W. Short Walk, Overlapping Access

300 South Track Potential – Light Rail or Streetcar on 300 South • Excellent transit oriented development • Nostalgia of station near Rio Grande • Compatible with angled parking • Potential advantages over 200 South and 400 South options – Warrants further analysis

Downtown Bus Options

UTA Bus Service Objectives – Improve traveler information and amenities. – Facilitate on-time arrivals. – Create connectivity options. – Consolidate service on primary bus corridors connecting to a transit center. – Locate transit center near high concentration of regional destinations, convenient to bus and rail corridors. – No layovers envisioned

Transit Center Benefits – Good visibility, accessibility, connectivity – Premium amenities for patrons • Airport-style arrival screens • While you wait conveniences (coffee, paper) • Bike lockers, rental opportunities • “Plan my route” kiosks to inform passers by of alternative travel options – Significant increase in ridership

On-Street Transit Center Concepts – Offers better pull-through efficiency than off -street sites. – Create a bus pocket for pull-out – An intersection works better than a single street segment. • Waiting areas on each corner to be in line with bus’s natural path. • No single location has an inordinate number of buses.

Off-Street – A single terminal space for patrons, but more difficult for buses to maneuver. – Requires property purchase or special arrangements with compatible uses.

Transit Center Location – Westside Intermodal Center is too far from the Core. – Most routes access the Core via State or 200 South. – Location should consider existing and new rail stations.

Primary area: Ground-level traveler info; coffee; bike shop; off-street waiting State “Transit Intersection” Concept Secondary areas: Inside waiting, info, small retail 200 South 1 -block walk to Trax Bus Stop On-street amenities (bike lockers/rental, etc. ) State / 200 South is an ideal intersection. Others may also work well.

Same routes, adjusted to offstreet site. State Off-Street Transit Center Concept Ground-level traveler info; coffee; bike shop; off-street waiting 200 South 1 -block walk to Trax Bus Stop On-street amenities (bike lockers/rental, etc. ) Example off-street site: Many similar sites exist each with pros and cons

Intersection vs. Off-Street – Intersection is more efficient • Few left turns = reduced congestion • Improved speed = higher ridership • Operating costs greatly reduced – Off-street offers chance to create midblock alignment, (but at high cost) – Intersection is mobile • With little or no construction, a new site can be selected later if necessary

200 S. Bus-Rail Connectivity Transit Center Site Preferences with 200 South Trax

400 S. Bus-Rail Connectivity Transit Center Site Preferences with 400 South Trax

The End