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

Dow

nto

wn T

ransp

orta

tion M

aste

r Pla

n

Stu

dy A

rea

Dow

nto

wn T

ransp

orta

tion M

aste

r Pla

n

Medium Density

Residential & Mixed-Use

Residential

Institutional

Core

Expanded Core

Exp

and

ed

Co

re

Hotel Row

HD Residential & Mixed-Use

Commercial & Mixed-Use

An

ticipated

Lan

d U

se (Gen

eralized)

Existing Track

Dow

nto

wn T

ransp

orta

tion M

aste

r Pla

n

High DensityMix of Regional

& Local Trips

Highest Density Regional Trips

Do

wn

tow

n T

rips

Existing Track

Dow

nto

wn T

ransp

orta

tion M

aste

r Pla

n

2015 Lig

ht R

ail Op

erating

Plan

Hub to U of U

West Valley to U of U

Draper to Airport

Mid Jordan to Hub

Draper to Hub

CommuterRail

Facts: 1) Existing track is

sufficient for 2015 suburban extensions.

2) Doesn’t fully support anticipated land use.

Regional & Local Trips

Regional Trips

Dow

nto

wn T

ransp

orta

tion M

aste

r Pla

n

Short Walk, Frequent Service, High Ridership

Levels o

f Service, 2015 P

lan

Longer Walk, Less

Frequent, Lower

Ridership

Regional & LocalTrips

Regional Trips

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.

Dow

nto

wn T

ransp

orta

tion M

aste

r Pla

n

Regional & Local Trips

Highest Density Regional Trips

Lig

ht R

ail Op

tion

s Stu

died

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.

Scenario 1

– East-West Choice• 400 South

– North-South Choice• 700 South to 400 West

Dow

nto

wn T

ransp

orta

tion M

aste

r Pla

n

400 S. an

d 700 S

. to 400 W

. Op

erating

Op

tion

Mid Jordan to Hub

Hub to U of U

West Valley to U of U

Draper to Airport

CommuterRail

Excess Track

Capacity

Improved circulation, but

lengthens some suburban trips Regional

& LocalTrips

Regional Trips

Dow

nto

wn T

ransp

orta

tion M

aste

r Pla

n

400 S. an

d 700 S

. to 400 W

. Op

erating

Op

tion

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 & LocalTrips

Regional Trips

Dow

nto

wn T

ransp

orta

tion M

aste

r Pla

n

Level o

f Service fro

m S

ub

urb

s, 400 S. an

d 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 & LocalTrips

Regional Trips

Scenario 2

– East-West Choice• 200 South

– North-South Choice• 200 West

Dow

nto

wn T

ransp

orta

tion M

aste

r Pla

n

200 S. an

d 200 W

. Op

erating

Op

tion

Mid Jordan to Hub

Hub to U of U

West Valley to U of U

Draper to Airport

CommuterRail

Excess Track

Capacity

Regional & LocalTrips

Regional Trips

Dow

nto

wn T

ransp

orta

tion M

aste

r Pla

n

Level o

f Service fro

m S

ub

urb

s, 200 S. an

d 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

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.

“Transit Intersection” Concept

Bus Stop On-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

Sta

te

Off-Street Transit Center Concept

Bus Stop On-street amenities (bike lockers/rental, etc.)

1-block walk to Trax

200 South

Sta

te

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.

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

Transit Center Site Preferences with 200 South Trax

200 S. Bus-Rail Connectivity

Transit Center Site Preferences with 400 South Trax

400 S. Bus-Rail Connectivity

The End