Transcript Rail and Bus Options

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
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
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 NorthSouth 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. t0 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