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

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

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

4. Downtown Transportation Master Plan Study Area

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

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

7. Downtown Transportation Master Plan 2015 Light Rail Operating Plan Hub to U of U West Valley to U of U Draper to Airport Mid Jordan to Hub Draper to Hub Commuter Rail Facts: 1)Existing track is sufficient for 2015 suburban extensions. 2)Doesnt fully support anticipated land use. Regional & Local Trips Regional Trips

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

9. 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

10. 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.

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

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

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

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

15. Downtown Transportation Master Plan Level of Service from Suburbs, 400 S. and 700 S. t0 400 W. Coverage is maximized, but quality of suburban trips may be reduced. 1.8 miles new track Short Walk, Frequent Service, High Ridership Longer Walk, Less Frequent, Lower Ridership Regional & Local Trips Regional Trips

16. Scenario 2 –East-West Choice 200 South –North-South Choice 200 West

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

18. Downtown Transportation Master Plan Level of Service from Suburbs, 200 S. and 200 W. Circulator Opportunity Excellent suburban access to regional destinations 1.3 miles new track Short Walk, Overlapping Access Longer Walk, Less Frequent, Lower Ridership Local Trips Regional Trips

19. 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

20. Downtown Bus Options

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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 buss natural path. No single location has an inordinate number of buses.

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

25. 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.

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

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

28. 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 mid- block alignment, (but at high cost) –Intersection is mobile With little or no construction, a new site can be selected later if necessary

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

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

31. The End