Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout070 of 2017 - Adopting the Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan 0 17-1 T 17-2 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. 70 of 2017 (Adopting the Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan) An ordinance adopting the Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held public hearings on November 9, 2016 and November 30, 2016 on an application submitted by Salt Lake City Mayor Jackie Biskupski ("Applicant")to adopt a new Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan; and WHEREAS, at its November 30, 2016 meeting, the planning commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the city council on said application; and WHEREAS, after a hearing before the city council, the city council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the best interest of the city. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Adopting the Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan. That the "Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan" is hereby adopted to read and appear as provided in Exhibit"A" attached hereto. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah,this 5 day of December 2017. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: 77`_ ' 40'J . `1 ..: TY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on December 7, 2017 . Mayor's Action: K Approved. Vetoed. l YOR �// CITY RECORDER /� SE'L/ fin 4.;r. f�� is, yf APPROVED AS TO FORM (SEAL) �' � !. Salt Lake Ci Attorneys Office �A Date: Bill No. 70 of 2017. "" Published:December 15, 2017 BY' Pa C.Niels nior City Attorney HB_ATTY-#58790-v1-Ordinance_adopting_SLC_Transit_Master Plan.docx EXHIBIT "A" Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan 01,5 RfYNDUND► AMTRAK Tp BUSES► •EFf i'EIINEf' TRAX f SALT LAKE y.. '41 a - Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan 12017 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i, u r A$B • • 6 REOF-LUTA LOCAPOIN 200s ©o �� ■ is E _ 10/1 - fr' -- • !e' 1311 H77:. A_ • t �_� Key Moves To achieve the Transit Master Plan goals and desired community outcomes, the top priorities of the Plan include: 0Implement a frequent transit network(FTN)to provide reliable, efficient, and frequent transit service that takes advantage of the City's strong street network grid. Initial priorities are to enhance evening service on key routes, which will make transit more usable for both work and non- work trips, and to implement frequent service in the 200 S corridor. PDevelop pilot programs and partnerships for employer shuttles and on-demand shared ride services that extend the reach of fixed route service for employment areas or neighborhoods that lack sufficient density or demand to support cost-effective frequent transit service. Implementation of these programs will consider the east and west sides of the city equally and incorporate Federal Transit Administration guidance to ensure equal access for people with disabilities. IWDevelop enhanced bus corridors that help transit run faster and more reliably, and offer high quality stop amenities that make riding transit comfortable and attractive. An initial priority is to implement coordinated capital and service improvements on 200 S, a primary east-west transit corridor for bus (and potentially future bus rapid . ,. transit and/or streetcar) service between downtown and the University. /CL'0 Implement a variety of transit-supportive programs and transit access improvements that overcome barriers to using transit in terms of information, understanding, and access (including pedestrian and bicycle facilities and affordability). Initial plan priorities include developing a highly visible frequent service brand and focusing access improvements, rollout of real-time transit information, and targeted transit marketing programs on corridors that will be prioritized for FTN service enhancements. Acknowledgments The Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan was prepared by the Salt Lake City Division of Transportation in coordination with the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) and multiple City departments and other community and regional organizations. Members of the Transit Master Plan Steering Committee provided valuable expertise and assistance throughout development of the Plan. The Planning Commission, City Council, and the Mayor also provided important guidance. The City would especially like to thank the people of Salt Lake City and the region who provided input through outreach events, online surveys, and other channels during development of the Plan. .`' .�R ' }ice }: .- r. Irrkft n MIA% sr, .....-,..E _ . _,, • V iii _ . : .. -,-\ E . ' . -. - iij I it. : • ....! 1• Why a Transit Master Plan The Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan is a blueprint for the future of public transportation in Salt Lake City. It addresses public transit service, The Transit Master facilities, and policies and programs, just as the Plan builds on X previous planning PLAN and Bicycle Master Plan addresses , PLAN SALT LAKE active transportation elements for the city. efforts including: SA I,KE CITY CITYWIL E V%ON The Transit Master Plan emphasizes providing `, » Plan Salt Lake r 1r-- choices in travel and reducing dependence on the „ Sustainable Salt ... N single occupant automobile. The Plan builds on Lake numerous Salt Lake City and regional plans (see » Pedestrian and iz sidebar) that have identified the availability of Bicycle Master safe, high quality, and convenient transportation Plan » Downtown Plan WASATCH FRONT P choices as a critical tool to support achievement REGIONAL COUNCIL u » Northwest METROPOLITAN PUNNING OncnmunoH X of broader outcomes (e.g., health, economic i*AR ..' °°°�- ' L''L''''L'°°°°LOOe°°°�'' W Quadrant — competitiveness, and quality of life). The Plan Master Plan •. a J identifies key corridors for high frequency transit; » 2040 Regional w_' W intermodal opportunities to enhance linkages Transportation ► �:, a Plan a between the pedestrian environment and transit = `-= N corridors, nodes, and centers; shared mobility • ah's Unified _. „ a Transportation • 1- Tr options to improve access to transit and serve Plan 2011-2040 Charting lower demand neighborhoods; and policies and Our Course e Y programs that will leverage investments in transit eoM1ni al Report SU a 2011-2040 Regional hanzportaoon Plan J J and support transit ridership. How far we've come From its humble beginings as a handful of rival independent streetcar operators, the incorporated Utah Transit Authority (UTA) became the fastest growing transit agency in the country by the 1980s. The following two decades were defined by developing and implementing plans for bringing light rail and commuter rail transit to Salt Lake City and the region. The future brings a renewed focus to improve the quality of both bus and rail transit in Salt Lake City through implementation of UTA's Core Route Network and the Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan recommendations. 1900s 1908 1940s Fierce competition Trolley Square is National City Lines buys among rival streetcar constructed and the out and decommissions lines results in their streetcar system is the trolleys from the incorporation into the expanded. For 37 years, Utah Light and Traction Consolidated Railway the Square is home to Company. Buses fast and Power Company. over 140 trolley cars. become the dominant transit mode. ' r„4 .. Alkt. rt • f . III IA -. ' 1889 - ' Ili ,� ,t a, Electric streetcar 1_`:1 4_,,,I- - p 4 c III T I—, - ° - begins operating 4 2 �� rv-v- _I on the mule- . �iRflilliri° I f r drawn lines that -i4,4�s' 1 �' were established -; o o by SLC Railroad 41, Fa,' 14Will_ FR / Co. in the 1870s. ` D W it - I d i ll. ' . W x •; I Ng Ail' t a 6 ce 1890s 1920s — 1930s f The transit system in Salt Lake 1- Several streetcar companies i form, including Salt Lake Rapid City continues to expand, and a while still primarily served by ce Transit Company. Rail lines >- are built along major spurs, streetcars, electric coaches creating Sugar House as SLC's and gas buses begin to appear. a first streetcar suburb. Streetcar lines are increasingly F replaced with bus routes. J Q N T. Sources:Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Transit Authority,except where otherwise noted 1970s - 1980s 1995 UTA is incorporated Winning the bid for the and farebox revenue 2002 Winter Olympics is halved, causing an makes Salt Lake City a increase in ridership. high priority for federal UTA becomes the fastest transit funding, and sets growing transit agency the stage for building a in the country. rail network. Salt Lake Map N a' Q y m .......„,.// o"D a 2010s The recession's impact on sales tax 1969 revenues, at the same time that massive The Utah State rail expansion is Legislature passes underway, results in enabling legislation cuts to bus service. called the Utah Public Transit District Act. • • • • • • • Q ► •1 e 1 1..I r Ia_ ' ..__r•- Q 111111 Ap 117 F '� i7 -ay _ :; 2008 D 414, 'Ht92" G," -p `.4 FrontRunner begins room" w � - 11 �` " � operating in 2008 . D 4- = — piii from Salt Lake City / o W x ` r'='� i�;, to Ogden. W ac C a 1999 N i .N The first TRAX light i-/ .-` a rail line opens from y 1950s - 1960s Downtown SLC to Sandy. 2013 a Low gas prices and Streetcars return to et F highway construction the City with the S 1- TheSalt Lk Line. ae causes a precipitousx decline in transit City Council commits J ridership over the funding to the creation next 20 years. of the City's first-ever In Transit Master Plan. M Our goals The Transit Master Plan goals support broader community outcomes that are important to Salt Lake City and clearly define all the desired elements to improve the transit system in Salt Lake City. These goals guided the evaluation of investment options and development of the Plan's recommendations. PROVIDE A SAFE AND COMFORTABLE TRANSIT ACCESS AND WAITING EXPERIENCE » Improve bicycle and pedestrian IMPROVE AIR QUALITY access to transit Improve the transit waiting » Reduce vehicle miles experience and universal traveled per capita accessibility of stops and stations INCREASE THE NUMBER I OF PEOPLE RIDING TRANSIT » Make transit useful for more types of trips • » Improve competitiveness of transit with auto travel a • w F 17) U Q w X w _ ■ d J J i a1.1 w w F ~ • •1 Vl >. PROVIDE ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY FOR LIKELY RIDERS WHO ARE UNDERSERVED Design a transit network ' CREATE ECONOMICALLY that supports access to VIBRANT, LIVABLE jobs, education, daily PLACES THAT SUPPORT PROVIDE A COMPLETE needs, and services for 4 people who are more USE OF TRANSIT TRANSIT SYSTEM THAT likely to use transit based » Align transit investments with SUPPORTS A TRANSIT on ability, age or income transit-supportive land use LIFESTYLE » Provide affordable transit policies and development options, particularly for » Catalyze economic » Provide reliable, efficient, low-income households development and jobs in frequent, and affordable Salt Lake City by providing transit service effective transit service that • Maintain stable service on the employers, businesses, and core transit network the development community can depend upon » Provide service on the core transit network during the evening and on weekends » Provide information and maps that make the transit system easy to understand • • • . . . U . . ■ ■ ■ U . . ■ ■ ■ ■••.. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ A Ma • 1 Why now With changes in demographics, socioeconomic conditions, and transportation preferences, there is an increasing need to reassess how transit service can best serve Salt Lake City's residents, employees, and visitors. The Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan sets a vision to improve transit service to best meet changing preferences and future needs. 1 Transit supports our growing population and economy Expanded transit service is needed—particularly during \ ••• / times of peak travel—to maintain commute times that are competitive with ••• auto travel, retain and attract ■■■ businesses, and support the ■■ ■ ..• efficient movement of freight. ■■ ■ ••• •M• In • 2 Transit carries more people, reducing emissions and improving air quality On-road transportation accounts for over 15% of total emissions in Salt Lake City. If current trends continue, vehicle miles traveled are a expected to increase 1.4% per year. D Source:Salt Lake City Community Carbon Footprint(2010). in w X ° s 0 • 0 0 0 . O . 0 • ° O . 0 ° . O • 0/ 0 O • 0 •O . O z a J 6 w W f N Q f H z z AF1► AR AIM WI Fir 111 IT1 ' v "°mot ° o o 0 0 ° ° O o ° o o° ° w Q J J N 0 0 t7 THE MILLENNIALS ARE TRAVELING DIFFERENTLY Transit supports changing3 50% From 2001 2009,those - aged 16 to 34 took: transportation preferences EA The Millennial generation 40% (approximately those born 40% between 1981 and 1997) is driving less and using transit, 30% 4 MORE w TRANSIT biking, and walking more. ere TRIPS • 20% P 24% 16% MORE BIKING 10% TRIPS • MORE WALKING TRIPS 0% O O 2 0 Source:Federal Highway Z% Administration,"National Household -10% FEWER Driving Trends,"2001-2009 9 i i DRIVING TRIPS Population Population Aged 65+ Aged 65+ -20% 2014 2040 Source:2014 ACS 5-year Estimates and Utah Governor's Office of Planning and Budget Transit provides 20 i an affordable iis ,—. transportation transportation 4 Transit supports a more costs accessible and inclusive option city for older adults and Salt Lake City residents spend an average INCOME people with disabilities. of 20% of their As the City's Baby Boomers household income on reach retirement, they will transportation; transit require safe and affordable provides an affordable Source:Housing and Transportation transit options to stay option for those Affordability Index.Transportation active and engaged in their who most need it. Costs as%of Income.http:// htaindex.cnt.org/map/" communities and access daily services and medical o o ce appointments. Transit is also a I the primary mode of travel for x many of the approximately 1 Transit keeps us healthy w in 10 Salt Lake City residents Taking transit can help increase 5 that have a disability. physical activity and improve w x health. The current obesity rate W in Salt Lake County is 27%. a J Source:Utah Department of Health. a tx Public Health Indicator Based Information W • ® m MI 'n System(IBIS).2016.Retrieved from 1- �>t i7 a rk https://ibis.health.utah.gov/indicator/ f t O O complete profile/Obe.html ~ z a a Public transit users walk an ■■■ ■■■ 1- average of 19 minutes daily ■■■ W getting to and from transit stops i i i ■■■ g ▪ ■■■ ■�■ �� • a ASSOURCE:Besser,Lilah,and Andrew Dannenberg."Walking to Public a Transit:Steps to Help Meet Physical Activity Requirements" • AL American Journal of Preventive Medicine 29:4(2005):273-80. ' What we heard The Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan public outreach process engaged broad and diverse segments of the population. Opportunities for public involvement occurred throughout the process, from goal setting, to identifying issues and opportunities, to weighing in on priorities. This is what we heard. 0 What are your desired outcomes for transit? Outreach Method: Stakeholder Interviews # of Participants: 16 organizations What did we hear? The community's goals for transit were documented through stakeholder interviews and a questionnaire made available to the general public at the outset of the Transit Master Plan. Common themes are listed below: • To attract riders, public transit must be competitive with private automobile (in time and convenience) • Support current and future growth areas • Be a regional destination for culture/commerce • Meet local and commuter needs a z • Build a "transit culture" W What are the opportunities to improve transit? Outreach Method: Mobile Outreach Events # of Participants: Hundreds of people at 18 events What did we hear? Key findings from the comment boards are summarized below: • 18% want improved east-west connections • 12% want more frequent transit • 9% want service to run later in the evenings and on weekends Outreach Method: Open House # of Participants: 60 What did we hear? Participants were invited to identify which of the Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan's service design principles was the most important to the success of the project. • Almost 50% of respondents identified "provide simple citywide connections on a high-frequency network" as the most important service design principle 0 What are your priorities? Outreach Method: Open City Hall Questionnaire # of Participants: 535 What did we hear? • 41% of respondents selected transit system convenience and reliability as the most important outcome • Pedestrian and bicycle access to stops (28%) was the highest ranking improvement • A citywide network is the most important big idea for a majority of respondents (51%) Outreach Method: Design Your Transit System Online Tool # of Participants: 1,400 What did we hear? The Design Your Transit System tool asked the community to prioritize different levels of service, where transit should be improved, and what capital and other improvements are needed. Key findings are outlined below: • Improved convenience: 49%selected "Making transit easier and more convenient to use" as their primary decision factor in designing their transit system • Faster, and more reliable: 56% of survey respondents don't take transit because N it takes too long • Improved connectivity: 54% of survey respondents can't get where they need to go via transit a • Weekend and later service: 70% of survey respondents said they want evening transit service; 58% want more transit service on Saturdays Vl • Regional and local priorities: Salt Lake City residents want investments in a bus based system; respondents who live outside of Salt Lake City want investments in a bus and rail system • Improved bicycle and pedestrian access: 43% of survey respondents want improved bike and pedestrian access to transit Our challenges Using key findings from the State of the System report, stakeholder input, and public outreach, a gaps analysis was conducted to identify opportunities to improve the transit system in Salt Lake City. This is what we found. Transit service is limited outside of the standard ° commute. Frequent service is very limited outside "I used transit regularly for of standard commute times, particularly in the daily commute for about 6 evening and on weekends. Some areas of the months. It more than doubled city with high propensity to use transit have low my commute time, and I was transit mode share and are not well-served by constantly worrying about missing the existing transit system. For example, of the the 'last bus.' The (bus) system 44 bus routes that operate in Salt Lake City, only worked; it was just slow." about half operate outside commute periods and provide midday service.* -Design Your Transit System Survey Respondent Transit is not the preferred option.Approximately 6% of Salt Lake City residents take transit to Access to transit is a challenge.Access to transit work; only 2% of all trips are made on transit. is challenging in Salt Lake City due to the wide streets and large blocks, and a majority of stops Transit boardings outside of Salt Lake City are have not had ADA accessibility improvements. outpacing boardings inside Salt Lake City.Total • transit ridership on all lines that touch Salt Lake System information is limited. Improved City increased by 28% between 2011 and 2014 information (e.g., maps, online schedules, and whereas boardings in Salt Lake City on these trip planning, etc.) is needed to help residents, • lines only increased by 13%.* employees, and visitors understand how to use the transit system. ▪ Bus stop amenities are limited. There are limited amenities for passengers at bus stops-83% of Cost of transit is burdensome for some. The • bus stops do not have a bench or a shelter for cost of transit is particularly burdensome on people to wait for the bus to arrive.* large families, youth, and transit dependent W populations—low-income, older adults, persons with disabilities, and zero car households. J IA Note:Based on the State of the System report,which was produced in June 2015 using the best data available at the time. The Percent of Transit Riders Varies Across Salt Lake City In Salt Lake City, some l `� neighborhoods with the c highest propensity to use dL transit have the lowest transit mode share due �` to limited access to Roe_ran ,* frequent transit service ��a'�1F 3.3 rig 1 1 Callao!Hill ,,,rater Avenues St I ernatio 'rport 1111I �, Fairprt .� ::1 1 _ .■�■ �, .� J 6.4% o 18.4/o Poplar Grr 'axe. nib university or Utah �.R._..a 1 18N■II�1�1 0.7% Hamm Central City/ O Foothill/ Transit Propensity Index* ;;ho 1„,�,o„ 7■4 yalecres� sunnyside East (by Census Block Group) Highest ,e a ; Bali .pie East Bench Lowest 1.6 i This index is based on combined densities of: -Low-income households L -Zero vehicle households _____I -Seniors-Seniors(aged 65+) ' - -Disabled population — 1 Li._ -- N it. 0 1 2 Miles -- '� r ill 4 le , >- I✓� Imo ills = e"^ =— ti D w ,ft.__\ _0„ .. F so la P U w z Q .. a a w ,- Bicycle and pedestrian improvements Only 17% of bus stops in Salt f are needed in areas of Salt Lake City, Lake City have a bench or t= such as Ballpark Station, to connect shelter for passengers to wait z people safely and comfortably to transit comfortably for the bus to arrive ,- U w Q J J Q Building complete transit The Transit Master Plan supports a complete transit system. The policies, programs, and service improvements that support a complete transit system leverage investments in transit service, maximize the benefits of transit, and bring Salt Lake City closer to meeting the goals set forth in the Transit Master Plan. How does a complete transit system benefit people? 0 Expanded frequent transit service that is fast, reliable, and permanent allows people to ride transit without a schedule and transfer with ease O O >- a z z 0 w D 0 xw w w w z J 4 W I- Transit information and legibility lets riders know when 1- transit will arrive and makes a using the system intuitive cc i- 1- u w a J J a , tisk Safe and convenient 0 pedestrian and bicycle access connect people to transit stops and key destinations 4A.5 'p _ 07 Vt5 On-demand services (e.g., 1 B�KESHARE Lyft and Uber) and bike share Lev 4 , serve first and last mile needs - and expand service hoursCRI5 77 0 High-quality stops andi- stations make transit accessible, comfortable, and • convenientift1-1 6k, Flexible fare and pass 6 programs make transit easy to use and affordable for families and low-income people WNW a F f Coordinated land use, parking, ■■■ 0 and placemaking policies ■■■ > helptransit connect people to ■ • ■ ■ ... p p ■■ ■ ... W destinations efficiently ■■ ■ ■■■ x W • • z 5 a et w 1- in Q I I- H Z 4 Education and outreach i- improve awareness and understanding of how to usethe transit systemI- 8I- a ta M SALT LAKE CITY'S Frequent Transit Network The Transit Master Plan provides a vision for FTN Frequency and Span an expanded Frequent Transit Network (FTN); it is a long-term, 20-year vision that identifies Frequency the corridors where high-frequency service 15 minutes should be provided in Salt Lake City. Building I (or better) off the existing grid network, the FTN is a ■ 30 minutes set of designated transit corridors that offers frequent and reliable service connecting major destinations and neighborhood centers seven Monday-Friday SO days a week throughout the day and evening. The lines on the FTN map (following page) do Saturday not represent individual routes, but are corridors where frequent service would be provided Sunday 4110 by a combination of bus or rail technologies. 1 . 1 . 1 , 1 . 1 , 1 . i , i . i . 1 . i Defining an FTN vision allows Salt Lake City to 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 12 work closely with Utah Transit Authority (UTA) AM PM AM to set priorities for service provision now and Hours of Service in the future. • Why a Grid Network? Radial vs. Grid Network Salt Lake City's existing, centralized hub model is effective for regional connections but is• inefficient for some local trips. Currently, many of X UTA's routes terminate at Central Station, which Li —• • provides good connectivity to commuter rail • service, but creates challenges for people who �� • need to travel to other destinations throughout X. MEM �— the city, necessitating multiple transfers and/or / • indirect trips. The FTN builds on Salt Lake City's Radial Grid (Hub and Spoke) strong street network grid. Vl Salt Lake City r ,, North Frequent Transit Network I• I•�� UTA Transit Service !L it. ._ Salt Lake Tior1 RTII�t Ir 7� — Bus Route . . . Tier 2 FrontRunner/ as ! Sreetcar/TRAX ���y=j , 2300 N Quarter Mile Walk from - Frequent Transit Network e' , I\ ■ l I ®Intermodal Hub i• J� re • At-Grade Rail Crossing ® (dTA&Ride • Grade-Separated Freight Rail Crossing O (Other Ride lanned em-- ® B (-1 P,cfj. Transit Center l Internat SaltLake A port 3 ional A� I 1000 N 8 • r AWL A EA?HART DE utahState wiOl Shrives rtalfor(wen \ Fair6rounds Sa�tPalam l� hTH AVE 1 'Iy ' IC don Temple Hospital anal • - N MAPLE-SShT®ing Centei r'tej�iCreeR(enie, �S�� MediralCee e 1 q+Ulmary i end .r � • P.rimaryChtAlrenslbspnal 80 ® r + • �' 1400S EP P Area • —F.' ®•e; • t,O— r• •4 ®Research Pork - r- W°sahingmn rolley +s INDI 4 AVE ��z. -J 4 Square - VA 900 S �i I • 19001 900 S MeedlPal �p 15 CC l��t P o8,��_ P o EALIFuic1�IAAVE ^ � a J300S Q � Salt Lake,_, O Calle e y Tar 0'oothill Village Walmart Snuth's ' o Ballpark 1700 S - © 1 _ 1700S e) o rr 'o S ® �Q Wrsiminster r p� olle e SOUTH FRONTAGE RD \f - ® 21005 . 9 � \�� u I. 0 usmessDisnirf Loo„._ Walmmt�s 5 L,,-, , 1 -ir Iv West Valley City South 4 = Salt Lake I goios 0 1 — (: BidyaN 2 - o PIar0 Data'Sources:UTA,Utah AGRC,ESF E-1 .2 VA- / i-�r I o The map above illustrates phased implementation of the corridors that are recommended to create a grid-based Frequent Transit Network in Salt Lake City.The lines on the map do not represent individual routes,but rather provide a sense of the quantity,structure,and geography of coverage that Salt Lake City envisions for the future FTN.The yellow shading represents a quarter mile walking distance from the FTN. The Frequent Transit Network is: • Fast and Reliable: Operate transit on arterial streets/transit priority streets where it will be most rapid and reliable; make improvements that reduce transit travel time and make it more competitive with automobile travel. >- ce • Frequent: Connect major destinations and neighborhood centers with all-day service, < 15 minutes or better. Service that operates every 15 minutes or less is considered D lil the minimum service level that allows people to use transit without consulting a schedule. 0 x tL • All Day: A service frequence of 15 minutes or better, between at least 6 a.m. - 7 p.m. Z on weekdays and Saturdays, with 30-minute service in the evening and on Sundays. W • Every Day: Service running 7 days per week maintains a basic level of frequent f service on weekends. 47) Z a ce • Stable and Permanent: Once adopted, it is critical that the FTN become a stable, relatively unchanging part of the transit system that offers riders the same level of c, W reliability as the TRAX system. a N us Connecting neighborhoods and to em mo ent the FTN Local transit service extends the reach of transit to neighborhoods and employment areas that are not within walking distance of the Frequent Transit Network. While the FTN (including TRAX light rail, BRT, and other frequent bus modes) serves long, direct citywide corridors, local service routes are designed to connect neighborhoods and employment areas to the FTN. The plan will need to adapt to ensure transit is "right-sized" to serve growing areas such as Northwest Quadrant as it develops and a street network is planned. As the FTN is implemented, the local service network should be adjusted to complement the FTN, and maintain a basic level of local service (minimum 60-minute frequency for 12 hours per day) to within a half mile of most residents. By 2040, 73% of the people projected to live and/or work in Salt Lake City will be within a quarter-mile walking distance of the FTN. Two additional types of local service are recommended to extend the reach of transit in Salt Lake City. Salt Lake City _ 7( ! North Frequent Transit Network T!,A& A I• I• UTA Transit Service f+ Salt Lake . Tier, Tier 2 FrontRu nner/ rillA/.\. T ! 2300N First-Last Mile Service Zones streete2,76,. rJ , la f•• Employment • Residential ®Intermodal Hub .- MN are — I Oriented Zone Oriented Zone Park&Ride \ ® At-Grade Rail Crossing ® (DTA) Grade-Separated 0 Park&Ride • Freight Rail Crossing (Other) Planned _ B'.(,��f Transit Center Salt takeCitp� 1 - � International Airport 1000 Nbbb •Q h00N _ �� _ State - -Capitol CCCC AMELIA EARHART DR 2 hroSi s SallPolaw 6TH AVE Shriners Hospital for Children F 1 Convention Temple Ho,ital F N MAPLE ST® 0(Ater ware SaltFakeFegiorml D ... 4 ©4 r�-�• `a,, PMPLE Medico +UniversityMC and tq Gateway tl 0 ©:i �— r_r l+i w'1 • -Rrimary(hddrensHaspdal w / .,.r Shoppi Center � - _� � - • � I the D Employer-oriented ? 00S DTI-( •1 •400S '1Q <' 1‘ U •Li, shuttle services in lit5„ "ea�Pok is se Washingtor w N. West Salt Lake City "SI W IN01 AVE I Sgoare Square A , Central Z and on-demand ride 900S 4 o — 1 0 900S 900 S Cate, �1 0. services in low-density a e ,aooS J� CALIFrR`IAAVE Saltlake w residential areas °� _ W q �o Community M (j Foothill Village Q r� r Wa/mart Smitht College x connect to the FTN III l9allpark el I- I I Tt I P 1 I70OS 0 iliP 0 Westminster. �, O Z _ r,® oe [allege y SOUTH FRONTAGE RDATI!121��1•- FJ ....k.di 2100S — et U. •_ • • • • s garHouse 1- B`uslnessDismq Walmart s0 L South 4. g ' West Valley City 3A a Salt Lake2 Ti_ bolos N 0 V 1 2 -=03 %a10 Miles o _• 0 Data Sources:UTA,Utah AGRC,ESpl-1 The map above illustrates conceptual zones where first-last mile services could be explored. Catch employee shuttle to work — — ' 4;4 it Walk to bus TRANSIT STATION _____,,...._f,..0 4 • 4 o 4 4 Take bus to transit station 1. Employer-Oriented Service in West Salt Shuttle drops ::: Lake City: Employers beyond the reach off employee ' "4""""" of transit in industrial areas in West Salt at work Lake can fund a shared shuttle service 0 from major transit stations to help retain and attract employees. Partnerships across multiple employers can be particularly ---k cost-effective. 2. On-Demand Ride Services in Low-Density Residential Areas: Some neighborhoods in Salt Lake City lack sufficient density or demand to make it cost-effective to provide FTN and/or local service but still have important transit needs. On-demand ride service companies, such as Lyft and Uber, can provide cost-effective shared ride service in these areas. They can also help meet STATIONTRANSIT citywide needs to connect to the FTN outside of 0 - 0 • local transit operating hours. The City and UTA would partner with these companies to provide a discounted fare on trips to transit stations or Ai- other identified neighborhood destinations such as a grocery store; these partnerships would be structured to ensure equal access. Utilizing ■ STOP3 N vehicles that are already on the road reduces ,�, 1 _ traffic, cold starts, and the need for park-and-ride I w lots, especially if several people can share a ride. w z a a. a w w ACCESSIBILITY 1 ~ a f A1:21 STOP i a COST- 1- EFFECTIVENESS (7) �,,,,,,,, ,,,,, . U • w Q Without With 1 ■ ■ a On-Demand On-Demand STOP a I N Ride Services Ride Services The dials illustrate conceptually that on-demand shared ride services can improve transit access and cost-effectiveness. Making transit reliable fast and Capital Investment Principles • State Street/500 E/900 E—north- The following principles were used, along with south enhanced bus corridors spaced a Transit Master Plan analysis of current and about a half mile apart extending from potential transit corridors, to guide where Salt southern city limits through downtown Lake City should prioritize capital improvements to major destinations, including the to make service faster and more reliable. State Capitol and LDS Hospital, and into the Avenues neighborhood. • Ridership potential—enhance transit • 400 S—continuous east-west bus experience for existing riders and corridor between Redwood Road and attract new riders. the University. • Cost-effectiveness—investment per • 900 S and 1300 S/California— passenger. continuous east-west cross-town bus corridors in the center of the city, • Land use—corridor land use/density including service to the Poplar Grove that supports a particular mode or level of investment. and Glendale neighborhoods. • Corridor conditions—potential (need) • TRAX light rail improvements—capital z for travel time savings, and right-of improvements to resolve capacity way opportunity or constraint. issues that preclude direct service p between the Airport and the University. Priority Corridors • Regional access corridors—support W Capital investments in transit corridors support regional transit on corridors such as • investments in frequent service and long hours Redwood Road, Foothill Drive, and • of operation, and help address challenges Beck Street (to South Davis County). • identified through the Transit Master Plan gaps ▪ analysis. Recommended corridors for transit • S-Line Streetcar Extension—extend capital improvements include: the line to improve its utility, to 1700 S (consistent with the Regional • 200 S—key east-west bus (and Transportation Plan)with a connection potentially, future bus rapid transit to the 900 E FTN corridor. A future and/or streetcar) corridor between extension along 900 E could connect downtown and the University. to TRAX service at 400 S. Salt Lake City North Recommended Capital TRANSIT Salt Lake Improvements UTA Transit Service High Priority Corridors — Bus Route MASTER J High Level of Investment FrontRunner/ 1300 N Streetcar/TRAX ri ii � ® Intermodal Hub P LAN TRAX Upgrades pa k&Rlde (UTA) L— ® Grade-Separated Park Ride Freight Rail Crossing O (Other&) W BF. Planned Transit Center 0- ' !¢fl SnaionalA L� Frequent Transit Network In[erna[ionalA�port `; IDS Tiers rerz I _ • el 600N, AMEL11 EARHART DR i UtahSmte - - r �Proi I ITH AVE - _ \ Fair_6rouads SaRPala[e �' pS '- ShrinersHospdal for fhildren r 1 Convenfi°n temple Hospital I NT':MPLEST® _ II, • • • • Eli fetter—�quote SalFtakeRegional ��� # 1 MediraLGenter. UniversiryMCand , Gateway �O •a} (: � t� �PrimaryChiMrensHosphal Shopping Center •* - University ------ 017„-reek Center `U 1Y00` 0 dfU[ah 14uus1 �,Op C>'re�a7 • coos-,.�-L" �w -_ t\om- _ mW a©ton T u n v 0R "search Pork 0. 68 Sp° e9 rq'oee -INDIAN AVE r900 S Mdal OnQ_ n 900 S ' 1 . .9005 _ Center s d LALIF AVEz I Q 1 salttake o113005 -d - Qp. Community 0 0 foothill Village En Walmbrt Smith's College _— _ _ - Ballpark ® - . p i ngs O N Hs 61 m ! •Westminster r SOUTH FRONTAGE RD © _ t� 110iS . 0o),1 College p -)ot q 1::Business 0ishirt Walma00 700 5 West Valley City 3 South q �� Salt Lake a RrirkyaN �o1os o ® , z O a, � Plaza miles �/� Data Sources:UTA,Utah AGRC,ESRI .2 I ♦ / I I ® -C Salt Lake City's highest priorities for capital investments include facilities and corridor management strategies that enhance transit speed and reliability and amenities that improve passenger comfort. Implementing Priority Corridors The plan identifies a transit priority toolbox of Enhanced Bus Corridors treatments that can be applied to transit corridors Two proposed transit modes are to improve speed and reliability, including enhanced bus and bus rapid transit dedicated lanes, transit signal priority, queue (BRT). The main difference is that bus jumps, off-board fare collection, level boarding, rapid transit includes dedicated lanes. a and context-appropriate stop spacing. The Both types of bus service make transit toolbox is generally consistent with the NACTO run faster, more reliably, and provide Transit Street Design Guide*, which provides high quality amenities at bus stops and additional design options and implementation stations. Page 21 highlights key elements W details. of enhanced bus corridors. a J 0. C Implementation of the Transit Master Plan priority A first step in developing capital improvements a corridors should integrate recommendations on these corridors would be to conduct a i- 7, in the City's other modal plans, including the more detailed study to refine the mode z Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan.This approach (including potential applicability of a rail recognizes the importance of safe walking and mode),specific alignment,and design. Capital W biking access to transit and the cost-effectiveness investment corridors with connections to the of coordinating improvements. existing rail system can serve as a potential N * http://nacto.org/publication/transit-street-design-guide/ framework for a streetcar network. Making transit comfortable convenient and Access and Amenities BEFORE IMPROVEMENTS: Capital investments help improve the transit experience, providing safe and convenient access to the system and comfort on vehicles and at stops and stations. For many potential transit zy. users, a lack of comfort, convenience, and safe access deters PAY "N"` them from using transit. Expanding the current program to enhance amenities at transit stops would address a key system gap-83% of bus stops do not have a bench or a shelter where people can more comfortably wait for the bus to arrive.* Transit investments, such as branding, enhanced stations, and bike parking,can help achieve the Transit Master Plan goal of providing AFTER IMPROVEMENTS: a safe and comfortable transit access and waiting experience. The graphic on the following page illustrates investments in enhanced bus corridors and stations. '' m+ • H1111 r-� Secondary Transit Centers - - Salt Lake Central Station is the city's primary intermodal transportation hub. It connects TRAX, FrontRunner, numerous bus routes, and intercity services. However, it requires out-of- Preminary data show an increase in direction travel for some bus routes and its bus layover facilities ridership related to capital improve- ; are at capacity; UTA is working to develop the Depot District ments on 200 S Clean Fuels Center on UTA-owned property adjacent to Central Station, which would provide additional layover space that would support the Transit Master Plan. North Temple Station has similar issues in addition to first and last mile challenges. W The Transit Master Plan recommends developing two new transit centers: • East Downtown,vicinity of 200 S and 700 E—would support current high transit demand in east downtown and provide additional layover capacity to support implementation of the FTN. • The University of Utah campus—The University has obtained funding to develop dedicated layover facilities on the campus, needed to expand service to and from the University. Note:*Based on the State of the System report,which was produced in June 2015 using the best data available at the time. Mobility Hubs Located at the intersection of frequent transit corridors, mobility hubs integrate the transit network with multimodal access and connections. They include pedestrian and bicycle improvements and other sustainable modes (e.g., car or bike sharing) designed to connect transit passengers to adjacent neighborhoods and nearby land uses. ELEMENTS OF HIGH QUALITY BUS CORRIDORS II - 3min UNIVERSITY:.uc rt:::: UNIVERSITY O TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITY111 BRANDING AND VEHICLES . Intersection improvements Unique designs make buses and �\ including transit signal priority stations more visible, raising —� - (TSP)allow buses to bypass awareness and increasing „�,}_ congestion.TSP gives buses customer expectations for earlier and/or longer greenkW) higher levels of service. '^ lights. IP 0 -�J } a F F ENHANCED STATIONS irrr! O ENHANCED FARE W Enhanced amenities include COLLECTION SYSTEMS F raised platforms,tactile treat- Off-board fare collection using W ments,off-board fare payment, l ticket vending machines,card W real-time arrival information, readers,and other tools at w $ z larger shelters,bike parking,and `_ stations allow passengers to information in audio,visual,and load without waiting in line to W tactile formats pay their fares. a F 1- BIKE PARKING ' RUNNING WAY a Bike parking and GREENbike �`i�� v IMPROVEMENTS PP ix bike share at stations increase Could include bus-only lanes p 1- the reach of transit. L that separate transit from traffic j1W- Y ae 1 _ £ 4�, o and are clearly marked or queue , jumps. a _ ) _ 11II���I N 3 N Supporting the complete transit `°EEp Fast, reliable, and connected transit service is � z x' only one element of a complete transit network 1,� - 4y"r #" in Salt Lake City. Safe and comfortable bicycle 'T r ' `" ' ice# and pedestrian access to stops, legible transit ; ,, "' ���r }'. information, education and outreach campaigns, • n _ i +\ affordable pass programs, and supportive land _,: - use policies leverage investments in transit -, , - .n - .. service, ensuring more people ride transit more - ,-,, a often. Applying the principle of "designing for o ��� ' disability" makes the transit system work better ,�, ` - i v r` for all users. Key supportive strategies and �' ate ' recommendations are outlined below. • In partnership with the City's Pedestrian and Bicycle Program, Bike and Pedestrian Access designate a network of multiuse rk A safe and connected /�'' paths; neighborhood byways; network of pedestrian and bike lanes that provide it and bicycle facilities direct connections between local z is a foundation of a destinations and the FTN W good transit system. Additional mid-block • 5 crossings and bike/transit integration can Strengthen the City's existing X help support a complete transit network. Key Complete Streets Ordinance (per W the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Z recommendations include: Plan) by integrating transit a J a W • Create pedestrian and bicycle Transit Information F- f routes using mid-block crossings For people to be aand passageways, wide sidewalks, able to use transit, and signage; prioritize mid-block 0they must first know III crossings along the FTN what services exist W • Treat bike share as an extension and understand how to use those services. N of the transit system and prioritize Providing clear and concise information in N expansion of GREENbike to provide multiple formats is critical for a high quality connections to the FTN transit system. Salt Lake City should support UTA in providing real-time information at access the transit system. Salt Lake City can stops and stations and developing a unique further promote and expand the HIVE Pass FTN brand. Key recommendations include: program and work with UTA to improve fare affordability. Key recommendations include: • Provide real-time information displays at bus stops along the FTN • Improve fare affordability; work with UTA to determine next steps • Establish a Frequent Transit for establishing more affordable Network brand that is in line with fare options for trips within Salt UTA's updated branding efforts and Lake City is highly visible and distinguishable from other service types; the • Promote and expand the HIVE brand should expand UTA's Pass Program to get more passes existing frequent service branding into hands of people who are not to include: printed and web/ currently using transit app-friendly maps and schedule information, as well as vehicles, Parking and Land Use Policies stations, and stops Parking management ;;; and land use policies Education and Outreach ••• NEN are needed to fully • A lack of knowledge and • • understanding is often the ;'; "' leverage the City's transit investments to greatest barrier to transit ensure a symbiotic connection between use. Building a "transit development and transit service. Key culture" through education and promotional recommendations include: programs is a powerful way for Salt Lake City to increase the number of people riding • Initiate additional parking studies transit for more trips. Key recommendations for areas beyond Downtown and include: Sugar House to support the FTN • Expand on UTA's existing public • Establish density thresholds that information campaign to educate indicate when certain frequency Salt Lake City residents, employees, levels are justified and visitors on the benefits of transit • Establish standards that ensure it 4 • Continue to develop an individualized transit supportive design and marketing/SmartTrips program that development practices along > targets neighborhoods along the FTN major transit corridors, including as service improvements are made; the FTN W a "New Resident" program is also an • Standardize Transit Area g effective way to reach new residents Zones to foster appropriate W Fare and Pass Programs development along the Frequent f Fare and pass programs Transit Network a ix iv a seamless and • Create community gathering 444 more affordable way for places around transit stops ando passengers—particularly stations (such as plazas, parklets, J 011 large families, youth, and squares, or parks) a low-income residents—to M N i• • I Implementing the Transit Master Plan Achieving the enhanced transit services, facilities, and supportive programs set forth in the Transit Master Plan will require: • Strengthening the City's partnership with UTA. Implementing the Transit Master Plan will require the City and UTA to continue to build a close partnership. Regular meetings will provide a forum for the two agencies to define their roles related to implementation of the plan, determine the level of local control, and articulate the outcomes of interagency consensus building. • New local transit funding sources. Funding from a variety of public and private sources will be needed to enhance Salt Lake City's transit system and reflect the vision of the Transit Master Plan. The plan identifies potential funding options including expanding existing sources and developing innovative new sources. Private sector opportunities include sponsoring stops and funding employee shuttle services. • Establishing new public-private partnerships.Contracting arrangements • for residential on-demand services will need to specify when and - where the service will be available, and resolve fare payment, equity, accessibility, and technology considerations. The City could encourage private sector participation by expanding the Transit Station Area Zoning District to include the FTN corridors, and factoring additional • #- transit and transit-supportive investments into its point system. • Coordination between City departments. The plan's recommendations • will require support from a variety of City departments—with • ' • responsibilities ranging from streets, sidewalks, bicycle facilities, traffic signals, land use, and urban design. Specific early action items . will be to standardize design guidance using the NACTO Transit : Street Design Guide and to revise the Complete Streets Ordinance to ' • explicitly include transit. • Adapting to changing circumstances. The plan is a flexible, "living" document and the City can apply its principles to evolving needs. For example, the prison that is planned for the northwest quadrant of the ` city is a major new land use that will generate transit demand. For more information, or to get in touch, contact the Salt Lake City Transportation Division at (801) 535-6630 or slcrides@slcgov.com - y � RfYNUUNU► IA BUSES, 052 TRAX ( - ________ SALT LAKE -. \\\\ \ CFMRAI IIRr1 \ ve s...• .E 7 �. A: 1 I 11 ` 1 V--M_ Salt Lake City TRANSIT MASTER PLAN c ura B" l�—�� • • 6 RI06 zUTA Loani<D_i. 200x =. ®® i - -- // mow- I _ _ - I 1 I--� �' 011°1II ,.11.115 ■� ' - =r \ t, r../ 17 -• ,„,e.. J . ,.. • Table of Contents Page 1 INTRODUCTION 1-1 Project Overview 1-1 Report Organization 1-2 Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Goals 1-3 Summary of Community Input 1-5 Gaps Analysis 1-8 Complete Transit System 1-8 2 TRANSIT SERVICE 2-1 Service Design Principles for Salt Lake City 2-2 Frequent Transit Network Overview 2-2 Frequent Transit Network Service Vision 2-5 Local Service Network 2-19 Summary of Recommendations - Service Improvements 2-33 3 CAPITAL 3-1 Capital Investment Principles/Framework 3-1 Transit Modes and Amenities 3-1 Transit Corridors 3-10 Implementation of Bus Priority Corridors 3-18 Summary of Recommendations - Transit Corridor and Facility Capital Investments 3-24 4 ACCESS TO THE TRANSIT SYSTEM 4-1 Pedestrian and Bicycle Access 4-1 Summary of Recommendations - Pedestrian and Bicycle Access 4-7 Other Access to Transit Solutions 4-10 Summary of Recommendations - Other Access to Transit Solutions 4-10 5 SUPPORTIVE PROGRAMS & POLICIES 5-1 Transit Information and Legibility 5-1 Summary of Recommendations - Transit Information and Legibility 5-7 Education and Outreach 5-9 Summary of Recommendations - Education and Outreach 5-10 Fare and Pass Programs 5-12 Summary of Recommendations - Fare and Pass Program 5-13 Parking Management 5-15 Summary of Recommendations - Parking Management 5-16 6 LAND USE & PLACEMAKING 6-1 Transit-Supportive Land Use and Design 6-1 Summary of Recommendations - Land Use 6-7 Stops and Stations 6-10 Summary of Recommendations - Stops and Stations 6-13 7 IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING 7-1 Implementation 7-1 Funding Strategies 7-9 Transit Service Delivery 7-21 Measuring Success 7-27 UNDER SEPARATE COVER: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY APPENDIX A: STATE OF THE SYSTEM APPENDIX B: COMMUNITY OUTREACH APPENDIX C: GAPS ANALYSIS APPENDIX D: TRANSIT SCENARIO ANALYSIS Table of Figures Page Figure 1-1 Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Goals and Objectives 1-3 Figure 2-1 Frequent Transit Network(FTN) Summary 2-4 Figure 2-2 Basic Transit Network Design Concepts 2-5 Figure 2-3 Comparison of Transit Service Models 2-5 Figure 2-4 FTN Minimum Service Level Definition 2-7 Figure 2-5 Phasing Approach for the FTN* 2-8 Figure 2-6 Frequent Transit Network Vision: Tier 1 2-10 Figure 2-7 Frequent Transit Network Vision: Tier 1 and Tier 2 2-12 Figure 2-8 Frequent Transit Network Vision: Tier 1 and Tier 2 Quarter-Mile Walk Access 2-15 Figure 2-9 Frequent Transit Network Vision: Tier 1 and Tier 2 with Transit Propensity Index 2-16 Figure 2-10 First-Last Mile Service Zones 2-21 Figure 2-11 First-Last Mile Service Zones with Quarter-Mile Walking Distance from FTN 2-22 Figure 2-12 First-Last Mile Service Strategy Characteristics and Applications 2-24 Figure 2-13 Summary of Target Areas for First-Last Mile Service Types and Case Studies 2-32 Figure 2-14 Service Improvement Recommendations 2-33 Figure 3-1 Salt Lake City Existing and Recommended Transit Modes 3-3 Figure 3-2 Salt Lake City Transit Modes, Land Use Conditions, and Capital Features 3-5 Figure 3-3 Elements of High Quality Bus Corridors 3-6 Figure 3-4 Stop Spacing Guidelines by Mode 3-7 Figure 3-5 Phase II Corridors 3-9 Figure 3-6 Transit Master Plan Priority Corridors for Capital Investments 3-13 Figure 3-7 Transit Master Plan Priority Corridors for Capital Investments and Compatible Modes 3-14 Figure 3-8 Relationship of Transit Master Plan Priority Corridors to Other Local and Regional Capital Improvement Plans 3-16 Figure 3-9 Assessment of Capital Investments in Other Corridors and Compatibility with Transit Master Plan Goals 3-17 Figure 3-10 Transit Priority Toolbox 3-18 Figure 3-11 Treatments for Transit Master Plan Priority Bus Corridors 3-23 Figure 3-12 Transit Corridor and Facility Capital Investment Recommendations 3-24 Figure 4-1 Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Recommendations 4-7 Figure 4-2 Other Access to Transit Solutions Recommendations 4-10 Figure 5-1 Transit Information & Legibility Recommendations 5-7 Figure 5-2 Education & Outreach Recommendations 5-10 Figure 5-3 Fare and Pass Program Recommendations 5-13 Figure 5-4 Parking Management Recommendations 5-16 Figure 6-1 Transit Mode& General Frequency by Gross Density 6-5 Figure 6-2 Land Use and Placemaking Recommendations 6-7 Figure 6-3 Facilities Hierarchy and Amenity Prioritization Guidelines 6-11 Figure 6-4 Facilities Map 6-12 Figure 6-5 Stops and Stations Recommendations 6-13 Figure 6-6 Salt Lake City Bus Stop Guidelines and Ridership Thresholds 6-14 Figure 7-1 Service Restructuring Example: Existing Service on S. Temple, 100 S and 200 S 7-3 Figure 7-2 Incremental Costs to Implement FTN Vision 7-4 Figure 7-3 FTN Implementation Considerations 7-5 Figure 7-4 Ride Services Partnership Service Parameters/Concerns 7-8 Figure 7-5 2015 UTA Operating Budget 7-10 Figure 7-6 Conceptual Illustration of Funding Sources by Revenue Potential and Ease of Implementation 7-20 Figure 7-7 Transit Master Plan Performance Measurement Process 7-27 , +1F110 ........ , -------'•,. r ' fit A . . , ... . ... . -..4.,._ Physi cal Re 11WV' habilitation&Rver --* rtie—,f,—.. -,A 'NO IDLING • th• ,4‘1 -- AOND •,"11 .. . . IIIIF 1 , . 4.-•, ., nulll 1 1. i L , - _ i. .T. ., ., Z 'eh 16,.....x....._. _ ._ al hP hsouthutah.com WNW 0 t ...._____. .www„... _—_---- \ • 1 —•• ,,. ,. -... --- ...,. .- . ....__....„ _..... ___ ...„, .... __ ...... . _•_____. abilitationHostoorth 111 1/4 )) Up . ... -AI,- "'".......- ' . , --—. _..ap.17.':,-'''''--•1-'..'-';:ii.1/4'-:". .'.:7•-••:'.Z--'4':;.“'5','.:: i''''::,:,; :].`;'t'.''''',.-.,,''..' -.....- . 0 • .011'.7 -'A*7:':::,•:-1'',4' ''.--i.,-•:. f.';`',•••..-'''--- ':''',:- .---. -.','- ';'''' •-•,•. • ---- 1,•!.... . , . .. .• , .. ..• - - - ,-. — . __. •_.... . — •-,-, _,-..‘.1--% 4`.f.z--- •‘j -',.; _ '''.'.-• •' -- --- • . •!-- -.0",e' , -.)..";,..i,, 1,.4.75-.4' .-- prit. ,,,i.;k:,1,-7-•:: p,,sk ''',.-2'.---------.':--- ' _ , ;.., 1 INTRODUCTION The Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan is a blueprint for the future of transit in Salt Lake City.The Transit Master Plan emphasizes providing choices in travel and reducing dependence on the single occupant automobile.Numerous Salt Lake City plans in the last decade have identified the availability of safe,high-quality,convenient transportation choices as a critical tool to support achievement of broader outcomes,e.g.,health,economic competitiveness,and quality of life.The plan builds on this work and identifies key corridors for high-frequency transit;important intermodal opportunities to significantly enhance linkages between the pedestrian environment and key transit corridors,nodes,and centers; shared mobility options to improve access to transit and serve lower demand neighborhoods and employment areas;and policies and programs that will leverage investments in transit and support transit ridership.The plan builds on the strong partnership between the City and Utah Transit Authority(UTA)and aligns with short-and long- term service design and operating principles. PROJECT OVERVIEW The Transit Master Plan helps Salt Lake City and UTA set priorities for the next 20 years and guides decisions about the timing and location of service and capital investments. The planning process included an in-depth analysis of city-wide travel patterns,the existing transit system and projections for future growth,extensive public outreach,and a multi-phased evaluation process to develop a set of recommendations that will guide future transit investment priorities in Salt Lake City. The Plan was led by Salt Lake City and sought to identify citywide transit needs and investments (rather than focusing on any one neighborhood).It builds on other local and regional planning efforts and was developed in close coordination with UTA,City departments,and regional agencies.The inclusive public process is described below and in Appendix B. Why a Transit Master Plan for Salt Lake City? • Increase safe, reliable, and affordable transportation options for city residents • Foster business relationships and economic development • Accommodate urban growth in a sustainable, cost-effective manner • Provide access to jobs, housing, and recreation • Enhance partnerships with UTA • Represent the community's ideal network of buses,trains, and streetcars SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 1 Introduction 1 1-1 REPORT ORGANIZATION The Transit Master Plan is comprised of an Executive Summary(under separate cover)that highlights major themes and recommendations(in the future Salt Lake City also plans to develop an overall transportation master plan summarizing this and other individual transportation modal plans),and a Technical Report that is organized into seven chapters(plus appendices) as follows: Chapter 1: Introduction. Provides an overview of the Transit Master Plan process,including plan goals and objectives.Includes a summary of community input and system gaps identified throughout the planning process. Chapter 2: Service.Provides recommendations for an expanded frequent transit network (FTN)for Salt Lake City.Components include service design principles,an FTN service level definition,maps,and descriptions of alternative local service models to support the FTN. Chapter g: Capital.Analyzes existing and potential transit corridors throughout Salt Lake City to determine their suitability for capital investments and recommends potential transit mode(s) for high-potential corridors identified through the corridor analysis. Chapter 4:Access to the System.Provides recommendations for improving bicycle and pedestrian access as well as first and last mile connections. Salt Lake City manages the streets that connect people to transit,which makes the City a key partner in improving access to the system. Chapter 5: Program and Policies. Describes a range of programs and policies that can support the Salt Lake City FTN and enhance the usability and attractiveness of the public transit system. Recommendations address information and legibility,education and outreach,fare and pass programs,and parking management. Chapter 6: Land Use. Provides guidance for community planning and design in the areas surrounding transit stops and stations to support transit-oriented development and the coordination between land use and transit in Salt Lake City. Chapter 7: Implementation. Provides guidance and suggested phasing for implementing the FTN,capital improvements,and transit-supportive programs and policies.Potential funding sources and service delivery conditions are also discussed. Appendix A: State of the System Fact Book. Describes the existing conditions for transit, travel demand,and land use patterns that affect the performance of transit in Salt Lake City. Appendix B: Community Outreach.Summarizes the community outreach conducted throughout the Transit Master Plan process. Appendix C: Gaps Analysis.Provides an analysis of the transit system gaps identified through the Fact Book analysis and community outreach. Appendix D: Corridor Analysis Results.Provides results from the corridor analysis that informed Transit Master Plan recommendations. The Transit Master Plan was developed in 2015 and 2016 using the best information available at the time. The Transit Master Plan is a flexible, "living" document. The City can apply its principles to address changing circumstances and needs, and adapt the plan to integrate the outcomes of other planning processes. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 1 Introduction 1 1-2 SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN GOALS The goals and objectives,shown in Figure i-i below,were developed through the refinement of goals established by City officials,incorporation of public input,and initial evaluation of the existing system.They support broader community outcomes that are important to Salt Lake City and clearly define all the desired elements for improving the transit system in Salt Lake City. These goals and objectives guided the evaluation of investment options and development of the Plan's recommendations. Figure 1-1 Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Goals and Objectives Goals Objectives 1 Improve air quality. Reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled. Increase transit ridership. 2 Increase the number of people Make transit useful for more types of trips. riding transit. Improve the competitiveness of transit with auto travel. Provide reliable,efficient,frequent,and affordable transit service. Provide service on a citywide network that serves a broad range of important community destinations. 3 Provide a complete transit system Maintain stable service on the core transit network. that supports a transit lifestyle. Provide service on the core transit network during the evening and on weekends to support all types of trips,including work and non-work trips. Provide information and maps that make the transit system easy to understand. Provide a safe and comfortable Improve bicycle and pedestrian access to transit. 4 transit access and waiting Improve the transit waiting experience and universal accessibility of stops and experience. stations. Design a transit network that supports access to jobs,education,daily needs,and Provide access to opportunity for services for people who are more likely to use transit based on ability,age,or 5 likely riders who are underserved. income. Provide affordable transit options, particularly for low-income households. Align transit investments with transit-supportive land use policies and development. Create economically vibrant, 6 livable places that support use of Catalyze economic development and jobs in Salt Lake City by providing effective transit. transit service that employers,businesses,and the development community can depend upon. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN Introduction 1-3 Benefits of an Enhanced Public Transit System With changes in demographics,socioeconomic conditions,and transportation preferences,there's an increasing need to reassess how transit service can best serve Salt Lake City's residents, employees, and visitors. The Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan sets a vision to improve transit service to best meet changing preferences and future needs. $ Transit supports our growing population and economy g 1 Expanded transit service is needed particularly during times of peak \ / travel to maintain competitive commute times, retain and attract ... �[ businesses, and support the efficient movement of freight. •••... •0• ■■ ■ 2 Transit carries more people, reducing emissions and improving air quality On-road transportation accounts for over 15% of total emissions in Salt Lake City. If current trends continue, vehicle miles traveled are expected to increase 1.4% per year. Source:Salt Lake City Community Carbon Footprint(2010). AR Atli MI RV RIM I /1� .,—�O1O' c,— o O o o o,o O O o 0 3 Transit supports changing transportation preferences THE MILLENNIALS ARE TRAVELING DIFFERENTLY The Millennial generation (approximately those born between 1981 FI)1112001.2009[ho and 1997) is driving less and using transit, biking. and walking more. aged 16 to 34 took. 40%_ Transit supports a more accessible and inclusive city 4 for older adults and people with disabilities 30�- 0% MORE TRANSIT As the City's Baby Boomers reach retirement, they will Gov TRIPS require safe and affordable transit options to stay active and engaged in their communities and access daily 2O Ak- 24% services and medical appointments. Transit is also the 16% MORE BIKING primary mode of travel for many of the approximately ID - TRIPS MORE 1 in 10 Salt Lake City residents that have a disability. WALKING � TRIPS p; O 0 23% 9% 15% .10,E FEWER DRIVING Populatiol Population, TRIPS Aged 65+ Aged 65+ Source:Federal Highway za Administration,-National Household Driving Trends."2001-2009. 2014 2040 Source:2014 ACS 5-year Estimates and Utah Governor's Office of Planning and Budget Transit provides an affordable transportation option 5 Salt Lake City residents spend an average of 20% of their �ZO transportation household income on transportation; transit provides costs INCOME Source:Housing and Transportation an affordable option for those that most need it. Affordability Index.TransportationcoLt.as %of Income.http://htaindex.cnt.org/mapr 6 Transit keeps us healthy Taking transit can help increase O • .O physical activity and improve health. The current obesity rate Public transit users walk an average •o• in Salt Lake County is 27%. of 19 minutes daily getting to and m■■ No from transit stops y I:' •:: Source:Utah Department of Health. A ■ ■ Public Health Indicator Based Information 916 .. • System(IBIS).2016.Retrieved from https://ibis.health.utah.gov/indicator/ Source.Besser.Lilah,and Andrew Dannenberg."Walking to Public Transit:Steps to Help Meet complete profile/Obe.html Physical Activity Requirements."American Journal of Preventive Medicine 29:4(2005):273-80. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 1 Introduction 1 1-4 SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY INPUT The Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan public outreach process engaged a broad and diverse segment of the population. Opportunities for public involvement included: stakeholder interviews,mobile event outreach,public open houses,and online engagement.Public outreach was conducted in all seven Council Districts of Salt Lake City.In addition to the general public, numerous organizations were involved in the planning process,including: • Breathe Utah • Salt Lake City Transportation • Crossroads Urban Center Advisory Board(TAB) • Envision Utah • Salt Lake City's UTA Trustees • Heal Utah • Salt Lake County • Salt Lake County Aging and Adult • South Salt Lake City Services • Sugar House Chamber • Salt Lake City Chamber of • University of Utah Commerce • Utah Department of Transportation • Salt Lake City Community Councils (UDOT) • Salt Lake City Council • Utah Transit Authority(UTA) • Salt Lake City Downtown Alliance • Utah Transit Riders Union • Salt Lake City Planning Commission • Wasatch Front Regional Council • Salt Lake City School District • Westminster College An overview of key outreach efforts is provided below;Appendix B provides a detailed summary. Stakeholder Interviews The project team met with several key stakeholder groups in the community during spring of 2015 to understand the needs of their organizations and constituencies.Interviews focused specifically on their goals for the Transit Master Plan,issues and opportunities for the current UTA network, level of understanding of the services provided,and any other issues such as accessibility, affordability,etc. Mobile Outreach Events To develop a presence in the community,the team conducted 18 mobile outreach events during the summer of 2015.This effort took advantage of existing city-wide and neighborhood events and engaged members of the public that do not traditionally attend open houses. Over 40o individual comments were collected via comment boards and a mapping exercise that allowed attendees to geographically highlight routes in need of improved service,longer service, or new service.A number of these events used a branded trolley-style bus to allow members of the public to board,interact with members of the project team,and engage in the outreach activities. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Introduction 11-5 Public Open House On September 23,2o15,a total of 6o people attended a public Open House held at the City Creek Harmons "People work on Sunday and late at grocery store.The team presented the educational night, it is difficult to get where we boards from the mobile outreach effort as well as need to go when we cannot rely on the transit system to run at the boards that showed key gaps where land use density appropriate times." or demographics indicate a propensity to ride transit, - "Design Your Own Transit but where there is little transit use. System"Survey Respondent A total of 64 comments were provided via three "conversation boards"—one for prioritizing goals,one for comments on service design principles, and one for conversation on maps and information,fares,and access and station improvements. Online Engagement To engage Salt Lake City residents who were unable to attend one of the in-person public outreach events,the project team developed a project website: SLCRides.org.The website included detailed information about the project,outreach events planned and completed,project reports and documentation,and online community input tools—Open City Hall Questionnaire, Open UTA Questionnaire,and the"Design Your Own Transit System"tool. In addition to the available online community input tools,twenty-two participants wrote direct emails through the SLCRides.org website. Open City Hall Questionnaire The Open City Hall online questionnaire asked respondents to identify their top choices regarding key outcomes from the Plan,desired improvements,and"big ideas"related to transit.The questionnaire was available from July 3o to October 1,2015 through Open City Hall and the project website. Among the 535 responses,air quality(49%)and transit system convenience and reliability(41%) were identified as the most important outcomes.Pedestrian and bicycle access to stops(28%)was the highest ranking improvement and a citywide network of transit service was the most important big idea. Open UTA Questionnaire The Open UTA online questionnaire asked "Buses should run on predictable respondents to identify their top choices regarding routes on major streets at closer service improvements,bus improvements,light rail distance intervals. The city is a grid; the bus system should reflect that. (TRAX)improvements,and FrontRunner Nowhere in town should be more than improvements.The questionnaire was accessible one transfer and a short walk away." from UTA's website during the summer of 2015 and - "Design Your Own Transit closed on October 1,2015.A total of 461 responses System"Survey Respondent were collected,including 74 from Salt Lake City residents. Bus was identified as the most important mode for improvement(45%),followed by TRAX and Streetcar(35%). Improving service span was the most important bus improvement(5o%). Late night service was the most important TRAX improvement(47%)and Sunday service was the top priority for FrontRunner enhancement(59%). SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Introduction 1-6 "Design Your Own Transit System" Online Tool Between November 2015 and April 2016,a"Design Your Transit System"tool was made available to the public on the project website SLCrides.org.Over 1,40o people participated.Input highlighted the key challenges and opportunities to improve the transit system in Salt Lake City. Major findings from this outreach tool are described below. • Participants — 1,412 people participated,of which 65%live in Salt Lake City. — The online tool reached a wide audience;however,seniors(65 or older),low-income populations(earning less than$35,000 per year),and residents of western Salt Lake City were somewhat under-represented as compared to their share of the general population. • Transit Use — 4o%of respondents ride transit multiple times per week and 6o%ride at least once a month. — The top reason cited for riding transit was environmental reasons(25%of respondents). — The top reasons for not riding transit more often were related to convenience,with more than 50%of respondents indicating transit takes too long or doesn't go where they need it to go. • Service Coverage — The highest-priority destinations to serve were Utah's top job centers(52%)and mixed use and major growth areas(49%).These two destinations were priorities for all groups regardless of frequency of transit use,age,or income. — Service to LIMITED neighborhoods'was a particular priority for adults 65 or older(end most common response)and low income respondents(3rd most common response). • Service Periods — Respondents most desired new service in the evening(70%),followed by Saturday service (58%)and finally Sunday service(39%).These priorities were identical,regardless of respondents'frequency of transit use,age,or income. • Capital Improvements — The top capital improvement priority was to increase investments in a rail-based system(46%). This was the top priority regardless of frequency of use,age,or income. — Responses from Salt Lake City residents were similar to those of all people who responded, though Salt Lake City residents were somewhat more likely to want to increase investment in the bus system. — Adults age 45-64,age 65 or older,and low-income respondents were somewhat more likely than other groups to indicate a preference for a bus-based system or incremental improvements to the current system. • Other Improvements(to support coverage,service period,and capital investment selections) — Increased investment in access to transit on foot or by bike was the highest priority improvement overall(43%)and for all groups except those age 65 or older. — Respondents age 65 and older indicated a preference for investments in benches,shelters,and amenities at transit stops. I Limited neighborhoods are neighborhoods with a high propensity to use transit. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 1 Introduction 1 1-7 GAPS ANALYSIS While portions of Salt Lake City are well-served by transit,some portions of the city experience a mismatch in the existing transit supply and current demand,resulting in a"gap."To determine where gaps exist,an analysis was conducted to identify underserved corridors or markets,areas with too much service,and areas ineffectively served by transit. Key transit service needs and gaps identified in this analysis are highlighted below;the complete Gaps Analysis is provided in Appendix C: ■ Transit service is limited outside of the standard commute.Frequent service is very limited outside of standard commute times,such as midday,evenings,and weekends.Some areas of the city with high propensity to use transit have a low transit mode share and are not well-served by the existing transit system.For example,of the 44 transit routes that operate in Salt Lake,only about half operate outside commute periods and provide midday service. • Transit is not the preferred option.Six percent of Salt Lake City residents take transit to work; only 2%of all trips are made on transit. • Transit boardings outside of Salt Lake City are outpacing boardings inside Salt Lake City.Total transit ridership on all lines that touch Salt Lake City increased by 28%between 2011 and 2014 whereas boardings in Salt Lake City on these lines only increased by 13%. • Bus stop amenities are limited.There are limited amenities for passengers at bus stops-83%of bus stops do not have a bench or a shelter where people can more comfortably wait for the bus to arrive. • Access to transit is a challenge.Access to transit is challenging in Salt Lake City due to the wide streets and large blocks. • System information is limited. Improved information(maps,online schedules,and trip planning,etc.)is needed to help residents,employees,and visitors understand how to use the transit system. ■ Cost of transit is burdensome for some.The cost of transit is particularly burdensome on large families,youth,and transit dependent populations—low-income, older adults,persons with disabilities,and zero car households. COMPLETE TRANSIT SYSTEM The Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan sets a vision for frequent transit service throughout the city,responding to community and policy direction to improve public transportation for the benefit of all members of the community.However,getting more service to more people is not the only answer.Enhancing transit quality and the transit passenger experience for Salt Lake City residents and workers will take a coordinated,"complete transit system"approach. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Introduction 11-8 What is the "Complete Transit System?" A Complete Transit System is a unifying concept for complementary transit service quality and land use elements(e.g.,service levels and land use policies)and non-service elements(e.g., facilities,pedestrian and bicycle access,etc.)that function together to achieve the desired local outcomes for transit in Salt Lake City. The Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan provides strategies and recommendations for Salt Lake City to develop a Complete Transit System that: Prioritizes expanded frequent transit service that is fast and 0 reliable,frequent,all day,every day,and permanent. Improves transit information and legibility. O AfAbEnsures there is safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle 4` r. access to transit and from transit to key destinations. eV Integrates on-demand ride services and bikeshare to serve first-last mile needs and expand service span. (RI) s Builds stops and stations that are accessible,comfortable,and is •—" / convenient. 4t* WIOffers fare and pass programs that are flexible and affordable. ■.■ ... "• Coordinates land use,parking, and placemaking policies ... ... ••• ••••••- with transit investments. • • • Provides education and outreach to improve understanding of the transit system. Implementing the policies,programs,and service improvements that support a Complete Transit System will require a strong partnership between UTA and Salt Lake City.These elements will help the City and UTA fully leverage investments in transit service,maximize the benefits of transit,and bring Salt Lake City closer to meeting the goals set forth in the Transit Master Plan. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Introduction 1 1-9 I I BLUE LINE d V RI jlf \ • ANL �11$1.-L,Iw a 6EE Salt Lake rlA e,1;`1A Es��j Central .,..� , i 4 V• ril i° 3306.600 W. . .\ w� ,� . W 1022B yl U II" 1 ate ^ > J • UT4M TRANSIT 11F--` W ..- ,ff jai, co _. ''}..►.... IF H - N 2 TRANSIT SERVICE This chapter provides the Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan transit service recommendations.Transit recommendations are grounded in an extensive existing conditions and gaps analysis that informed a detailed evaluation of current and potential transit corridors in Salt Lake City.A multi-faceted public outreach process complemented the technical evaluation and helped validate the recommendations. A core service element of the Transit Master Plan is an expanded frequent transit network(FTN)for Salt Lake City.The FTN is the City's long-term,20-year vision for high-frequency transit service corridors in Salt Lake City.The existing TRAX light rail system already provides frequent service;this Plan builds off of this core network by identifying a high-frequency grid comprised of both rail and bus service.Defining an FTN vision allows Salt Lake City to work closely with the Utah Transit Authority(UTA)to set priorities for service provision now and in the future. This chapter includes the following elements: • Service Design Principles.Principles that can be used to design a network of transit routes that will fulfil the FTN vision. • FTN Overview and Service Level Definition.The definition of the standardized minimum service level that will be provided on all FTN corridors,e.g.,frequency,span(hours of operation), and days of service. • FTN Vision and Maps.The vision for where frequent service should be provided throughout the city,including general phasing recommendations. • Local Service Network. Recommendations for the network of local bus routes that provide connections to the FTN. • First-Last Mile Service Models. Examples of alternative service models to improve first-and last-mile connections to the FTN and other transit services. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 1 Transit Service 1 2-1 SERVICE DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR SALT LAKE CITY The service design principles below guide the development of the frequent transit network in Salt Lake City.These principles respond to the goals of the Plan,the gaps analysis,and input from stakeholders and the public(described in Chapter 1). • Convenient: Provide frequent,reliable daytime and evening transit service • Connected: Provide simple,citywide connections on a high-frequency network • Legible: Brand the core frequent transit network differently and design for ease of understanding • Easy to Use:Make the transit network easy to access and comfortable • Demand Driven: Invest in transit where overall travel market demand is high • Permanent: Provide stable service that riders and investors can rely on now and in the future These service design principles inform the frequent transit network recommendations and can inform design of specific transit routes that are developed to fulfil the vision.They also inform the recommendations for capital investments,programs,policies,and other supportive investments which are presented in subsequent chapters. FREQUENT TRANSIT NETWORK OVERVIEW What is a Frequent Transit Network? A frequent transit network(FTN)is a set of designated transit corridors that offer frequent,reliable service connecting major destinations and neighborhood centers seven days a week and in the evenings. The FTN can be comprised of both bus and rail technologies.Regardless of mode,the network should be developed to provide a consistently high standard of capacity,reliability,frequency,and passenger amenities.The FTN should be easy to understand and clearly communicated to riders and non-riders.The FTN is just one element of a complete transit system—other local transit routes would provide well-timed connections to the FTN and additional first and last-mile services would help passengers connect to origins and destinations located beyond a short walking or biking distance of the FTN. Chapter 4 describes access improvements for people walking and biking to transit. Chapter 5 provides recommendations related to branding the FTN. Key Performance Characteristics of a Frequent Transit Network To meet City goals to increase transit mode share and truly support residents'ability to live a car-free lifestyle,a frequent transit network should ideally have the following characteristics: • Fast and Reliable: Operate transit on arterial streets/transit priority streets where it will be most rapid and reliable; make improvements that reduce transit travel time and make it more competitive with automobile travel. • Frequent: Connect major destinations and neighborhood centers with 15 minute or better,all day service.Service that operates every 15 minutes or less is considered the minimum service level that allows people to use transit without consulting a schedule. • All Day: 15 minute or better service frequency between at least 6 a.m. —7 p.m. on weekdays and Saturdays,with 3o-minute service in the evening and on Sundays. • Every Day: 7 day per week service that maintains a basic level of frequent service on weekends. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 1 Transit Service 1 2-2 • Stable and Permanent. Once adopted,it is critical that the FTN become a stable,relatively unchanging part of the transit system so that riders can rely on it much as they do the TRAX system. What Investments are Typically Made on a Frequent Transit Network? Once the network is defined,coordinated transit service and capital investments,bicycle and pedestrian access improvements,and transit-supportive land use policy changes are needed to fully realize the value of the FTN.A truly effective FTN must be developed as a partnership between the City's multiple departments,the transit agency(UTA),and the private sector.Once the City and its transit partners agree on the definition of the FTN,they can work together to obtain funding and make the improvements necessary to achieve the level of service that is envisioned.FTN investments and supportive policies include: • Intersection and Signal Management: Signal management and right-of-way improvements are a critical component of the FTN.Since these corridors carry the highest volume of transit riders and have the greatest potential to capture more non-auto users,signal management at intersections should favor transit vehicles; moving full,high-capacity buses through congested commercial districts should be balanced with the need for on-street parking to support local businesses; and integrated solutions should be sought to allow transit and bicycles to safely coexist. • Transit Lanes: Providing transit with priority lanes on high-ridership corridors supports investments in frequent service.Where sufficient right-of-way is available in these corridors, dedicating part of the right-of-way to transit is justified based on transit's higher person-carrying capacity.Transit lanes also allow buses to bypass congested areas,making bus travel times shorter and more reliable. • Stops/Stations:The quality of stop and station amenities on FTN corridors is critical.Stops and stations also represent an opportunity to brand the FTN network differently so that the location of high-frequency service is clear to riders. • Multimodal Investments: Coordinated multimodal investments along the FTN provide safe, high-quality walking and bicycling access to stops and stations on the FTN. • Land Use:Zoning and other land use policies must support high frequency service along the FTN.The FTN designates which corridors will have the highest-quality transit service.Land use policies will need to foster transit-supportive land use development along these corridors. Figure 2-1 summarizes the primary components of an FTN. See Chapter 3 for further discussion of transit capital investments, and Chapters 5 and 6 for further discussion of stop/station amenities, multimodal investments, and land use policies that support the FTN. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Transit Service 2-3 Figure 2-1 Frequent Transit Network(FTN)Summary Feature Description Mode Any mode that meets the service level definition is considered part of the FTN(e.g.,could include TRAX, BRT, Bus Plus/Enhanced Bust,Streetcar,etc.). Span Operates all day every day(see Figure 2-4 for minimum service level definition). Frequency Operates at sufficient frequency for most of the day so that riders don't have to consult a schedule (see Figure 2-4 for minimum service level definition). Route Operates throughout the city on relatively straight,east-west and north-south cross-city corridors Spacing spaced approximately every'/2 mile so no passenger has to walk more than—1/4 mile to access the FTN (see Figure 2-6 and Figure 2-7 for FTN maps illustrating recommended phasing). The FTN is branded in a clear,easily identifiable,and easily distinguishable way to make it easily recognizable on the street, in print materials,and in online information. Branding This includes stops,stations,vehicles,maps,schedules,wayfinding,and trip planning information. (See FTN branding examples in Chapter 5). Reliable Investments are made and service is operated to maximize reliable headways(see capital recommendations in Chapter 3). Permanent/ Provides a permanent service option—e.g., residents, businesses,and developers can count on Stable trunk bus lines to remain where they are,just like a TRAX line is permanent. Stop Spacing Stop spacing varies depending on mode, but could range from to IA mile for bus and IA to 1 mile for light rail. (See Chapter 3:Capital.) 1 Bus Plus is a proposed network of high-frequency transit service defined in the UTA Network Study(2013).It is referred to as Enhanced Bus in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Bus Plus service would include all of the amenities of Bus Rapid Transit without the exclusive lanes. See Chapter 3 for more details.The State of the System Fact Book(see Appendix A,page 4-33)also summarizes UTA's proposed Bus Plus Network. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Transit Service 12-4 FREQUENT TRANSIT NETWORK SERVICE VISION A High-Frequency Grid System for Salt Lake City There are two primary network designs that most transit systems utilize: radial or grid. Figure 2-2 and Figure 2-3 describe these models and summarize their keys strengths and weaknesses. Figure 2-2 Basic Transit Network Design Concepts IA Radial (Hub and Spoke) model has a single central transit station that provides access to most, if not all, transit routes. This model provides direct connections to destinations located near the central hub and access to most destinations outside of the hub with a single transfer. A Grid system provides a more integrated network with multiple options to connect between transit lines. This network requires frequent service to make transfers convenient at major stops or transit centers where lines fintersect. Figure 2-3 Comparison of Transit Service Models Radial(Hub and Spoke)Model Grid Model Strengths • Easy access to destinations near a central hub • Can be effective for short trips in the downtown core • Can reduce out-of-direction travel ■ Coordinated schedules where all routes leave ■ Can provide good service to a wider range of the hub at the same time allow access to most destinations,including those outside of downtown other destinations with no more than one well- • Routes can be spaced farther apart;people will timed transfer generally walk longer distances to frequent service ■ Concentrating service on direct corridors serving the grid helps provide resources to increase frequency Weaknesses 1 • Can increase travel times and out-of-direction • Requires very frequent service to make transfers Design travel for trips that don't naturally pass through convenient and avoid long wait times Considerations the hub • Routes serving the grid should be designed to • Can be inefficient in a city with dispersed major ensure that most destinations can be accessed trip generators with no more than one transfer • As a city grows,maintaining coordinated schedules can result in system inefficiencies In practice,most transit systems are a hybrid combining elements from both radial and grid network designs. For example,a central transit hub can facilitate well-timed connections to/from regional services while high-frequency cross-town routes support convenient,flexible connections between branches of the SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Transit Service 12-5 radial network without requiring passengers to travel through the central hub. Developing secondary transit hubs or high-quality major stops where high-frequency lines intersect help facilitate these connections. Current Salt Lake City Service Model Salt Lake City's current,centralized hub model is effective for regional connections. However,Salt Lake Central Station is located in an area west of the downtown core that provides good connectivity to commuter rail,but does not have considerable activity or density.Many of UTA's routes currently terminate at Central Station to take advantage of the centralized layover space that is available there.The gaps analysis and public outreach indicated that this creates challenges for people who need to travel to other destinations throughout the city,necessitating multiple transfers and/or indirect trips.Further, requiring routes to go through Central Station despite a lack of demand undermines productivity in some cases. Recommended Salt Lake City Service Model Developing a high-frequency network is best suited for Salt Lake City's rapidly growing population and diversifying "Buses should run on predictable routes transit demand needs. Salt Lake City's strong linear street on major streets at closer distance grid is well-suited for a grid-based system.This change intervals. The city is a grid; the bus system should reflect that. Nowhere in could allow for more frequency on heavily used routes town should be more than 1 transfer and and/or offer better service in currently under-served areas a short walk away." where there is demand. However,new layover locations - "Design Your Own Transit will need to be identified to make this model viable,both to System"Survey Respondent support transfers and for operational reasons(e.g.layover). Potential secondary transit hub locations are discussed in more detail below. FTN Corridor Analysis The Transit Master Plan corridor analysis provided the basis for the FTN recommendations. In addition to the service design principles and FTN performance characteristics described above, factors included: • Population and employment density and industry-standard rules-of-thumb relating transit service frequency to the minimum intensity of land use (e.g., household size, population, and employment) required to support that level of service. • Service to major activity centers such as the University of Utah, downtown Salt Lake City, or other major anchors or activity centers at one or both ends of a line. • Spacing between parallel corridors, e.g., approximately a half-mile as described above. • Access to opportunity for vulnerable and transit-dependent populations Appendix D provides more detail on the FTN corridor analysis. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Transit Service 12-6 Frequent Transit Network Service Level Definition High-frequency service is critical for a grid-based transit system because riders depend more on transfers to access destinations. Based on the general principles described above,the level of service shown in Figure 2-4 is recommended for the FTN.All designated FTN routes should operate according to these parameters,which were designed to not only be frequent,but also to operate relatively consistently all day,every day.A simple and easy-to-understand service design,along with clear branding,allows riders to use an FTN route without referencing a schedule and provides a level of certainty and reliability on which riders can depend. Figure 2-4 FTN Minimum Service Level Definition Frequency « Monday - Friday 15 minutes (or better) Saturday ■30 minutes Sunday 111, I I , I . I . 1 . I . I I . 1 . + 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 12 AM PM AM Hours of Service Note:Appendix D provides additional detail on the relationships between land use and frequency. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Transit Service 2-7 Frequent Transit Network Recommendation and Phasing The FTN is a long-range vision that is intended to be phased in over time,as described in Figure 2-5.UTA currently has plans to provide frequent service consistent with the above definition on its Core Service Network,although the specific corridors that will comprise this network are not yet finalized. Figure 2-5 Phasing Approach for the FTN* TIER 1: NEAR-TERM TO MEDIUM-TERM TIER 2: LONGER-TERM • Upgrades to • Additional high- • Longer-term corridors existing corridors priority corridors identified through the with close to identified through ', TMP corridor analysis frequent service the TMP corridor process • Implementation analysis process • Justified based on of UTA Network • Justified based future conditions and/ Study Bus on near-term or community input Plus Corridor conditions recommendations *Note:Some existing corridors have frequent service(at least every 15 minutes)on weekdays during the day(peak periods and midday),but do not meet the FTN service level definition later in the evening or on weekends. "Ideally I'd like a transit system that is everywhere, all the time, but until that happens, I'd like people to get used to taking transit, which I think would require very, very frequent service in key areas." - "Design Your Own Transit System"Survey Respondent FTN Phasing Maps Figure 2-7 illustrates phased implementation of the corridors that are recommended to create a grid- based FTN in Salt Lake City.The lines on these maps do not represent individual routes,but rather provide a sense of the quantity,structure,and geography of coverage that Salt Lake City envisions for the future FTN. Tier 1 FTN Corridors—Short-Term Implementation: Figure 2-6 The recommended Tier 1 FTN includes two categories of corridors: 1. Existing and planned corridors where UTA already operates or plans to implement frequent service.These include the Bus Plus Corridors recommended in the UTA Network Study(2o13)that were incorporated into the Regional Transportation Plan(2015)as Enhanced Bus corridors and are also supported by the Transit Master Plan evaluation and outreach process.2 ■ 200 S performed strongly in the Transit Master Plan analysis and is recommended as a primary east-west transit corridor for bus(and potentially future bus rapid transit and/or streetcar) service between downtown and the University. 2UTA plans to designate a Core Network of routes that will have frequent service,but this network had not yet been finalized by the time Salt Lake City's Transit Master Plan was completed in fall 2016. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 1 Transit Service 1 2-8 • State Street,50o E, 900 E,and 1300 E.Combined with existing TRAX service in the 200 W corridor,frequent bus service on State Street,500 E,900 E,and 1300 E would provide north- south connections with approximately half-mile spacing between southern city limits and downtown,as far east as the University of Utah. • North and South Temple Streets also performed strongly in the Transit Master Plan analysis, and in conjunction with frequent service on 200 S and existing TRAX service in the 40o S corridor,would provide quarter-mile spacing for frequent service through downtown. • 2100S/2100E.This east-west and north-south corridor(currently served by Route 21),provides a connection between the Central Pointe TRAX Station and the University along the southern and eastern edges of the frequent grid. • Redwood Road.While it lacks the density of other corridors,Redwood Road is an important, continuous street for transit in west Salt Lake City.It would run along the western edge of the recommended Salt Lake City FTN and would be linked with additional east-west FTN corridors. 2. Additional high-priority corridors that go beyond existing plans for frequent service(UTA Network Study,Regional Transportation Plan,etc.).These corridors provide the following enhancements to the existing or planned frequent service network: • Provide additional east-west cross-town connections - 40o S.This corridor would connect Redwood Road to the University of Utah. - 1300 S/900 S.This corridor would begin to build out the east-west frequent service grid between the TRAX line along 40o S and southern city limits.Due to an at-grade railroad crossing on 90o S,this corridor transitions to 1300 S between 30o W and Redwood Road. (At-grade freight railroad crossings can cause significant transit delays and bus bunching, especially for high frequency service.)In the long-term,it is assumed that a separated crossing could be implemented on 90o S(see Tier 2 FIN map). • Extend north-south corridors to better serve major activity centers and neighborhoods north of downtown - State Street.Extend north-south frequent service to the State Capitol. - 500 E and 900 E.Extend north-south frequent service to the LDS Hospital and into the Avenues neighborhood. • Provide better connectivity in Rose Park and Fairpark neighborhoods - Provide frequent service on 200 W and 60o N that connects these two neighborhoods to downtown Salt Lake City.These neighborhoods show high propensity to use transit,but are not well served currently. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 1 Transit Service 1 2-9 Figure 2-6 Frequent Transit Network Vision: Tier 1 Salt Lake City ( North Frequent Transit Network IT RA i~�7 i Salt Lake . Tic, , UTA Transit Service ... Bus Route 1. - ` • Tier 2 , FrontRunner/ �A 1 E 2300 N / Streetcar/TRAX IS 1 k, -• I, tr Planned Transit Center ® Intermodal Hub N N. I- re Park&Ride ® At-Grade Rail Crossing ® (UTA) Grade-Separated ) • Freight Rail Crossing O COther Ride o —,15 11[ �F•'trt SaltlakeCli o International Apart o 1 1000 N '114 • n, ' 1 - State -� AMELIA EA CHART DE Utah State o 11 TN AVE apno P krGrounds ParaP mr +' 6T AVE }Shnnershospital lot Children Convention emple P N 1 PLE ST® 1 Cmter u.r • • • • 11 SaRtokeRegional Wiv Gateway �t I �� $TEMPLE Medico/ •',+t r y hildrensHospred .r. Shopping Center 0•<° .•i]•� ••� P ■tto 1* —14005 17 �Ar;na I •4005 N�• - I C ®( s • fir;' • -••jo -•eax5 Park Washington UTroll +, ..II. INDIANA AVE care Square VA • ,17 v 900 S = J • 900S 900 S Medical /C. Center_ c e 3 .n 0 0 0 cr. 89f r 154 o o W CALI i•NIA AVE g " alttake a - 13005 0 re 'ommuni 18 p foothill Village} Walmarr?"rrtlr's College Z 1700 S allpor 0 P 17005 e P ' —�, t a �00 SOUTH FRONTAGE RD n, L 7efn inster 111, allege P y-e i • 201 GMT A �� ar House • • • • • • • l AD loess District Wahnort s os .— . • - i ioo S fD West Valley City South _ s \ $ (D :z Salt Lake - ark ae `0105 0 O t 2 r - o - �Za Milos N O COData Sources:UTA.Utah AGRC,ESRI-, — I i 1 SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Transit Service 1 2-10 Tier 2 FTN Corridors-Longer-Term Implementation(Figure 2-7) Proposed Tier 2 corridors recommended for implementation in the longer-term are illustrated in Figure 2-7.These corridors complete the FTN vision of a well-defined transit grid with approximately half-mile spacing in the portions of Salt Lake City where existing or future land use supports this level of service. The following Tier 2 recommendations build upon earlier service enhancements: • Implement additional east-west cross-town corridors to provide approximately half-mile spacing between frequent east-west corridors - goo S and 1300 S.Assuming a grade-separated railroad crossing has been developed on 900 S,both corridors would have frequent service between Redwood Road and 1500 E. - 1'700 S. Frequent service between State Street and the University(including 1500 E). • Extend north-south corridors to better serve major activity centers and neighborhoods north of downtown - 11t'Avenue and 1200 E.Additional frequent service to Shriners Hospital and the Avenues neighborhood. • Enhance service to Rose Park and Fairpark neighborhoods - Provide frequent service on additional corridors,assumed to be 900 W and moo N. • Enhanced service on regional access corridors - Foothill Drive. Foothill Drive is an important corridor for regional access to Salt Lake City as well as a local corridor through the city's eastern neighborhoods.The City,UTA,University of Utah,UDOT,and other partners completed an implementation strategy for transportation and other enhancements for the corridor in 2017.As the study has strong stakeholder and community support,it is suggested that project partners consider moving forward with near- term implementation of the study's significant transit,bicycle and pedestrian supportive elements.Salt Lake City will also participate as a key stakeholder in developing updated University of Utah transportation plans and will partner with UTA and the University to seek resources for further study of bus,rail,and shuttle service connecting to and within the University of Utah campus,Research Park,VA Hospital,and Foothill Cultural District in the context of planned land use changes. Additional Service Span Priorities In addition to the identified FTN corridors,Salt Lake City prioritizes later hours and/or expanded weekend service on the existing UTA rail system,which provides important local and regional connections,including: • TRAX Green Line to Salt Lake International Airport.Provide extended hours of service to the Airport; employees and travelers need transit access earlier in the morning and later at night. • FrontRunner.Add Sunday service; FrontRunner currently only operates Monday through Saturday. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Transit Service 1 2-11 Figure 2-7 Frequent Transit Network Vision: Tier 1 and Tier 2 Salt Lake City i North Frequent Transit Network 7 RA M.S I T Salt Lake ____ i ler i uTA Transit Service r — Bus Route I1•■A S T E R Tier 2 —_el_ Street FrontRunner/ 1-■ 2300 N Streetcar/TRAX .� ' 1, f� 7r Planned Transit Center ® Intermodal Hub .— i� ® At-Grade Rail Crossing Park&Ride CUTA) • Grade-Separated Park& • Freight Rail Crossing el (Other)Ride 11001 pi AM. eie,..... Salt Lake City ((( 1 t International Airport o ; 1000N 1 ie4 //----• 600N State ----N � (apird l lTil AVER��� AMEL A EARHART OE p Drah 5rate o Iffi +' T AV ShrinersHo piri[:rCh;k r.n \` Rni_6raunds -_kit ahce LD (m:e•roo Temple Hos•irol N tjNPLE ST®• • �"Crntr+ quare id Lake Regio n! �'_� j ' � S TEMPLE ,,1fedKd[rnter( O r,erytiMdreand Guter;., �O ��7 ^ .I1 • maryChi(drensNnspitd ...r ShoppsngCenrr • �' •;,MIME On, TI' Ir 400S 1Ii S• •400S • • •` • ., earth Park .88i I Washingto Imlie + "' INDI I4AVE I SquareSquare — VA s72 900 S =fi 900S _900 S dkai ( L-- eg o a ..gg N re _e 154 CALIF'IR IA AVE -II "' altlake 13005 00 Communa r II •Smith's Carlege tat El kothiUlrllage a :allpark Q — _P_ IIOOS o nWestminster a obi eCollege y SOUTH FRONTAGE RD 201 I 2101 el o P `(r °201 ,-- GMTMIZIMIII. • • • 5DgarHouse o Business Dis,,Ki Wabnurf Q .....„.......j. L 1 t C 7 \.'.Ir ..--- • -i '''' .1 .-' -----) ;estvcityL South Q ��'' Salt Lake A 2 ekiyare olos o r 2 .2 .2 Plano Mies 5 6 O Data Sources:UTA Utah AGRC.ESRI IV SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Transit Service 1 2-12 FTN Access Figure 2-8 illustrates a quarter-mile walking(network)distance from the completed frequent transit network vision.A quarter-mile is a rule-of-thumb for the minimum distance people are willing to walk to access transit,although people will typically walk longer distances to high-quality service. By 2040: • Approximately 73%of current residents would be within walking distance of a frequent transit route. • Approximately 73%of current jobs would be within walking distance of a frequent transit route. Figure 2-9 illustrates the recommended FTN in relation to populations with a high-propensity for transit use,including low-income households,households without access to a vehicle,seniors,and persons with disabilities. As described in the Local Service Network section below, it is important to emphasize that local bus routes would continue to serve parts of Salt Lake City that are not served by the FTN. In addition, the Transit Master Plan recommends that the City implement first-last mile strategies to enhance access to the frequent transit network FTN Implementation Case Studies In many cities, frequent transit service is implemented incrementally, while branding these services as a high-quality frequent service network is often undertaken later. Chapter 5 highlights the branding aspects of two such cities—Minneapolis and Portland. Chapter 7 describes the process that the City of Seattle used to fund targeted increases in King County Metro service levels to expand frequent service provided in the city. In Houston, as described below,the transit agency undertook a more comprehensive restructuring to expand the frequent service network. Houston METRO The Metropolitan Transit Authority (METRO) in Houston, TX recently transformed its bus network from a low performing limited network to a more expansive frequent network. The new network—launched in August 2015—was designed to enable anywhere to anywhere travel with a single fast connection. Houston has experienced decades of decentralized urban growth; however, most bus lines terminated in one small section of the downtown core, where only 25% of the region's jobs are located. Without increasing operating costs, METRO was able to restructure the Houston bus network to: • Increase the share of METRO's resources focused on maximizing ridership from 55% to around 80% • Expand the reach of frequent service • Expand weekend service, especially Sunday service' To achieve this,METRO removed duplicative and low-demand routes. A small number of existing riders (0.5%) were negatively impacted, as they were no longer located within a quarter-mile of bus service.2 Within the first month of the new service, weekend ridership dramatically increased, especially on Sundays. Daytime and evening service levels on weekends are now almost identical to service on weekdays. Ridership in the first month slightly decreased, which is commonly observed with any major service change but by the third month of service, local ridership increased by 8%.3 1 Jarrett Walker.Houston:Great Ridership News on the New Network.28 October 2015 Human Transit Blog.Retrieved from http://h umantransit.org/2015/10/houston-good-ridersh ip-news-on-the-new-network.htm I 2 Jarrett Walker.Houston:Transit Reimagined.9 May 2014 Human Transit Blog.Retrieved from http://humantransit.org/2014/05/houston-a-transit-network- reimagined.html 3 Laura Bliss.How Houston's Bus Network Got Its Groove Back.5 April 2016.City Lab.Retrieved from http://www.citylab.com/commute/2016/04/how- houstons-bus-network-got-its-groove-back/476784/ SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 1 Transit Service 1 2-13 Houston Frequent Network—Before Change ®0 '0 / SYSTEM REIMAGINING 'I o— ♦ EXISTING FREQUENT NETWORK —� o a ... 4 o ...�.a.,...ea ..... .. _ .._ . 1 ,h,„ \\,,.. \_ •._ , i . • • 1-- '/ _ .,, • , .. .. . ./ —� � as I aaa... . .-. 4. ./\ , •-a.- . Houston Frequent Network—After Change ®000 / SYSTEM REIMAGINING ° ♦ PROPOSED FREQUENT NETWORK E /1." : - mg ,s, /• � - - • • Houston transformed its bus network from limited span and frequency(above)to an expansive high frequency network(below). Source:Human Transit,Jarrett Walker SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 1 Transit Service 1 2-14 Figure 2-8 Frequent Transit Network Vision: Tier 1 and Tier 2 Quarter-Mile Walk Access Salt Lake City ,I North Frequent Transit Network TRANSIT Salt Lake aa>• Tier 1 UTA Transit Service Bus Route mur. - , MN IF . Tier 2 FrontRunner/ 4y , ;= 13 2300 Nit 0 Quarter Mile Walk from Streetcar/T RAX II�� /, - _LJ Frequent Transit Network ® Intermodal Hut, I ta1w '- ri ® At-Grade Rail Crossing Park&Ride (UTA) • Grade-Separated Freight Rail Crossing O (Other Ride r+ : o B Planned + ® o ® Flf4J Transit Center Salt take Otr International Airport '. Fir, 184 • II, i. • JAMEL A EA MART DR `-1 � star,e Cap t°l °- fuGaud iatPlur 1ffia 10, 6TH slrieen Hospital rnrCddrrn —� owrn;an Temple Hospital • • N PLE S ® • _�1 ie ter 'hare Sit-ladri{eyianal ,�J# Mimi ,Warw.Center f1•• JnnrniryyMCand Gatew,ry. • -r<� ••,1 Pitmary(heldrenstksplfal LI g� Shm,pity Ce^;,y •0° �_ ammo ►-min l+ Un+versR C • 4 os DofUtah)14005 -. °q'6'Are' t S•1 • II •grill • 1 •/ �•• 'it • •• 'searF p. if frodey MY INDIA�7A AVE I flume c,h n, 4 14 al Neatal 17z 900 S ;c ter_, H O W 154 o e89j in ' o o CAIIFDRIA AVE 'r_v • ) "s Salt lake ' =' 1300S ,• \ —�� In.lmsnit c [1 0 p faothrlll'i ;e nc l (till"-le 1 Bt: 9 • o W liiiilnart gr,ark Ol g Ral,¢snrk 11005 .o o 1700 S - ® _ �F _ _ 1 - t d 71. .1 Vestmir,,p+l o '�O ultra;' SOUTH FRONTAGE RD 20t 1-'�J = llr P \yl --M:201 / N '- A - • • • • • • Sr s.,nes!';'sr \ 0 �BussJst+d N.WaJmart.( South________________S- 1 4.- -_,1 West Valley City a • \1��1J ID Salt Lake Rrl,j. .li ;010 S o �- 1 2 J Al- c - Plata - MAes ,n O O DatalSources:UTA,UtahAGRC,ESR1-- Tii SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Transit Service 1 2-15 Figure 2-9 Frequent Transit Network Vision: Tier 1 and Tier 2 with Transit Propensity Index Salt Lake City North Frequent Transit Network and Transit Propensity Index !� ,� Salt Lake Tier 1 FIN UTA Transit Service Bus Route Transit Propensity Index' ��,■* + (by Census Block Group) . Tier 2 FTN Highest mi FrontRunner/ r&I.A c , I 2300.N Streetcar/TRAX �� , �� ___L ® Intermcdal Hub II Ri• �� Pi © Park&Ride (UTA) Lowest Park&Ride This index is based on combined l� O (Other) densities of: dt _ ._, ._:. t � _'ll ., ..\. d� — Planned -Low-income households L!ri. -.1 -' r¢Jl Transit Center -Zero vehicle households niors(aged GS+) Snll LCkt'Cryi7, _1:2: -Disabled popuatin International Airport :IF M •1 I kl I I i " �� � 1 L / ■■■ . AIIE�► AMEBA EARNART DR ' l T •I!E ;cri. off __.I • •N IEMPL ST • n i' T '!' I I4 P Willi1 I 80 • • I Ir 1. ' • � 1l 00. •• •• _• • i ••m 69 _11_I� i .,,,,,,..9. ,r.,,:, 6,. _ _ _ 51...„_ .. ' „Nil j) , i . , [i----,, . g . ,-... .., 0 -..- ,3 ... II r or— IT_ vl 1.300-5 _ I r 181 IC uoo s ill armsP re I. .a SOUTH FRONTAL[RD yr p1 P poi t 201 - - .,:2,1,001_ �A ti •tot GIMP • 4 'Vest Valley City(-- - • 1 17005 1 T7,77 • South !'r- 3010 S D 1 2 0 Mlles Salt Lake w 1' ) Data Sources'vleaekn Front Regional Council Uteri -- ',Winkled ueogr.Pete Reference Center. Utah T nnn:Authooh..sari Lake Clay / -� 1 P _�_- i -- -- - - - - - SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Transit Service 1 2-16 FTN Branding Based on outreach findings,the current UTA frequent transit network branding is not readily visible to the average rider.UTA's current service types are not defined primarily based on frequency,but on a combination of service qualities including purpose,stop spacing,and frequency,e.g.,types include local, shuttle,flex,commuter,express,and fast bus.UTA is rolling out Bus Rapid Transit lines outside of Salt Lake City and"Core Service"—branded high-frequency services with improved reliability,a higher level of stop/station amenities,and protection from service cuts to provide customers with the same guarantee of permanence associated with TRAX.UTA's Core Service would likely be largely consistent with the FTN corridors recommended in the Transit Master Plan. Branding for the FTN should be coordinated with UTA's roll out of branded Core Service. Chapter 5: Supportive Programs and Policies provides a more detailed discussion of service branding, including examples of frequent transit network branding in other cities. Proposed Secondary Transit Hubs to Support Grid System Salt Lake Central Station,located on the west side of - - downtown Salt Lake City on 60o W between 200 S and 400 S,is the city's primary intermodal transportation hub.It connects TRAX,FrontRunner,numerous bus routes,and interstate coach services like Amtrak and Greyhound.UTA is working to develop the Depot District Clean Fuels Center nk :� on UTA-owned property adjacent to Central Station(see I $ •• sidebar on the next page for more detail),which would ~ - provide additional layover space that would support the Transit Master Plan. Source:Flickr Matt'Johnson However,Salt Lake Central requires out-of-direction travel for some bus routes and is therefore not optimal as a downtown layover location for these routes.In addition,its bus layover facilities are at capacity and cannot accommodate additional bus service at peak times. The concept of developing additional transit centers and layover facility locations has been studied in the past,although locations previously studied in downtown are no longer available.Proposed locations identified as part of the Transit Master Plan analysis include: • East Downtown,vicinity of 200 S and 700 E.An additional,centrally-located facility would support current,high transit demand in east downtown and provide additional layover capacity to support implementation of the FTN.A high-frequency bus service grid would in-turn make transfers at a secondary transit center more convenient. • The University of Utah campus.The University of Utah is one of the city's largest trip generators.However,UTA does not currently have dedicated layover facilities on the campus and existing facilities lack capacity to expand service to/from the University. The areas stretching from downtown to the University of Utah are the most common origins/destinations for trips in Salt Lake City.Corridors serving these proposed transit hub locations(including Route 2 along 200 S)have some of the highest bus ridership in Salt Lake City.In addition,routes operating on 500E and 900E could benefit from close proximity to an east downtown transit hub.With implementation of the FTN,increased ridership on these routes and corridors would be better served with these additional transit hubs.Finally,creating more layover space for UTA buses is a major factor in enabling additional transit service to be provided in Salt Lake City,including implementation of the envisioned FTN network. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Transit Service 2-17 Depot District Clean Fuels Tech Center UTA is in the process of expanding its facilities with the Depot District Clean Fuels Tech Center—a new maintenance facility on 25 acres of UTA property located at approximately 600 South and 200 West in Salt Lake City. The transit-oriented development is located in a transit-rich area—with access to FrontRunner, TRAX, and 15 bus routes—and would also include office space and mixed-use residential buildings. Additional capacity and infrastructure would allow UTA to transform the property into a state- of-the-art maintenance and fueling facility and increase its fleet of clean fuel. UTA is currently searching for the necessary funds to build the Depot District Clean Fuels Tech Center, and the agency has worked to establish project readiness. UTA has completed the necessary environmental studies, finalized design and constructed a small fueling facility for its current CNG bus fleet on the site. UTA has identified local funding to help cover design and construction costs and is actively pursuing federal grants for the remaining capital requirements. Depot District , ----- 200 North UTA Property inimppimpinprd ,III TRAX to Airport North Templeoi Gateway I TRAX Shopping Center "II. i ... ' o�et •r Existing Central �� ' PROPOSED Garage Fi ( DEPOT DISTRICT ` CLEAN FUELS !✓ i TECH CENTER Road Home TRAX • Shelter ' 1111 . • 200 South lrirrioz• .g 011111111 Saftake c 1, UTA Property Central Stion zr -011 ■; 400 South RDA Station Central o a 0 0 0 Source:UTA. https://www.rideuta.com/About-UTA/Active-Projects/Depot-District-Clean-Fuels-Tech-Center SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN Transit Service 2-18 LOCAL SERVICE NETWORK The FTN is designed to serve long,direct citywide corridors.This includes TRAX light rail,Bus Rapid Transit,and other frequent bus modes that are oriented to serve longer-distance trips and have a longer spacing between stops.Local transit service extends the reach of transit to neighborhoods and employment areas that are not within walking distance of the frequent transit network.While the FTN serves long,citywide corridors,other local service is designed to connect neighborhoods and employment areas to the FTN.Traditional fixed-route local bus service and first-last mile services are recommended to extend local transit access in Salt Lake City. This chapter focuses on local service strategies. Other strategies to provide "first-last mile" access to transit are discussed in Chapter 5: Access. These include car share, park-and-rides, bicycle sharing, and secure bicycle parking. Local Fixed-Route Transit Service Local fixed-route bus service that connects to the FTN and provides neighborhood circulation is an equally important element of the complete transit system.Coverage rather than speed is the goal for the local network. Stop spacing as close as 60o feet can be acceptable in some cases.As with the FTN,transit access improvements are critical to maximizing usefulness of the local services and providing equitable access to transit service for all populations. The local network that feeds the FTN is not a key focus of this plan since the City's limited transit resources will be focused on the development of the FTN.However,the City should support UTA actions to: • Maintain a basic or"lifeline"level local service to within 1/2 mile of most residents.This level of service is defined by a minimum of 60-minute frequency for 12 hours per day.If a route cannot support this level of service,then alternative local service models should be considered to provide access to a FTN station.Alternative service models can also be considered to provide access to the FTN during early morning or later evening hours when basic local service does not operate. • As the FTN is implemented,the local service network should be adjusted to ensure it complements and supports new frequent services. There are a variety of additional approaches that Salt Lake City could promote to complement the frequent transit network.The remainder of this chapter describes these strategies. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Transit Service 2-19 First-Last Mile Services The"first-last mile"concept was informed by findings in the UTA First/Last Mile Study(2016)and recognizes the need to get people to and from the transit system efficiently in areas that lack sufficient density,demand,or street connectivity to justify providing FTN or even a basic level of traditional local fixed-route service,as defined above.Public outreach efforts for this plan have identified a significant need for improved first and last-mile connections in Salt Lake City.3 Where Could First-Last Mile Services be Used? The gaps analysis conducted as part of the State of the System Fact Book(Appendix C)identified geographic areas and times-of-day where parts of the city lack convenient or any access to transit service. The recommended FTN would help meet these needs;however,first-last mile services could be used to provide cost-effective access to the FTN in parts of the city where geographic or temporal gaps would remain.Figure 2-10 illustrates conceptual zones where first-last mile services could be explored.These include: • Western Salt Lake City,west of Redwood Road or I-215(primarily employment-oriented demand),including the Northwest Quadrant as this part of the city develops and in relation to regional bus service in the Mountain View Corridor • University of Utah Research Park(primarily employment-oriented demand); destinations in the Foothill Cultural District will also be included in discussions about shuttles and circulation in this part of the City • Southeast Salt Lake City,including the East Bench(primarily residential) • Glendale/Poplar Grove neighborhoods(primarily residential) • Rose Park/Fairpark neighborhoods(primarily residential) • Northern part of Greater Avenues neighborhood(primarily residential) These conceptual zones were defined based on a quarter-mile walking distance of the recommended FTN, illustrated in Figure 2-11.The defined zones include areas that would be served by Tier 2 FTN corridors, which may only be implemented in the longer-term time frame. The technologies used to provide first-last mile services are evolving rapidly. Elected officials and stakeholders have expressed concerns services developed to meet the needs identified in the Transit Master Plan are affordable and accessible to all users. The Federal Transit Administration issued guidance in 2016 to clarify requirements for ensuring that the these types of services provide an equivalent level of service for people with and without disabilities, including the following characteristics: • Response time • Fares • Geographic area of service • Hours and days of service • Restrictions or priorities based on trip purpose • Availability of information and reservations capability • Any constraints on capacity or service availability The Transit Master Plan recommends that City staff research and monitor best practices to ensure equal access to rides regardless of ability, and incorporate those practices into partnerships and agreements that implement these services. Source: https:l/www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidancelshared-mobility-fags-americans-disabilities-act-ada 3 UTA conducted a First Mile/Last Mile Study in 2016,but this system wide study only covered TRAX stations in Salt Lake City. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN Transit Service 2-20 Figure 2-10 First-Last Mile Service Zones Salt Lake City _ (7/ North Frequent Transit Network ErC i 5 I Salt Lake . Tier 1 UTA Transit Service R�t;I•� Bus Route Tier 2 0 FrontRunner/ 41115/ I ! . m= a ��IA2300N First-Last Mile Service Zones Streetcar/TRAX `S 1 A �� - EmploymentOrientedZone • ResidentialOrientedZone 0 Intermodal Huu Park&Ride °ME • At-Grade Rail Crossing ® <UTA) 1 I — Grade-Se Park&r Ride • ail Cros O (Other) ilk all 1 � II \ • Freight Rail Crossing �u Punned ` dF?y Transit Center o Jl ''��yy11�� o [it yJi f I t. ( p �I __ N NN \11R 784 Stater IIRH11Yt Lynn AMELIA EARHART DR N Utah State o ttr I 6TH AVE ShnnersHospital lor(hMren a�'r_CWounds _ sal Pa!are 1D, I �. C�rveation kelpie Ho,•ital • PP PEEST® • ,QT CFrirer Sown.' Sae lakeRegronol p Ma S TEMPLE I kledkalCenter +,ennersityyMCand Gateway • PemayihrldrensHosptal �.r� Shaer,,;., 1,,/ ,(711 • .,, rr ■+� University m •V ra,tI Um'h • f IS QI�1 Arena E• 400 M I 1 �! ei,� I �a�• f • • • ,•41 a arch Park �I �— Wolfinger err Jley + 1\ — !NOV AVE Square Siqn IA 900 S I ... • 19005 900 S 1 "Kai (enter, o.o o i ' 8g� N o CALI�OR•IA AVE G. a - 300S O Comment O t8s • ionthifi Yr,lagr 3 'Halm,' )nritlr's College c :allpurk ,`p eD 1700 s _ o _p_ I100S yam, — „�- 71_ ! /elfr•vnele' g \`��D =r I o e9ege '\ y SOUTH FRONTAGE RD 201 �� „ -ir 2100S — rr • tat / Q ' �'\ • • • • • • Sup gause \ o WI&a irless D/SrtKt Wa!IaOlt Of '• ia\ � �non- CY South West Valley City Min Salt ake s erkkyad010s \U O t ZM�s N 1 - o POData',Sources:UTA.Utah AGRC.ESRI 1 ,0 I Y - , SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Transit Service 12-21 Figure 2-11 First-Last Mile Service Zones with Quarter-Mile Walking Distance from FTN Salt Lake City North Frequent Transit Network T!, �X I • I•�� UTA Transit Service `i ' ii )II Salt Lake Tier 1 — Bus Route ,/ Tier 2 IL FrontRunner/ I�/AA.. I ! m 2300N First-Last Mile Service Zones Streetcar/TRAX , �� Employment Residential ® Intermodal Hub �� r_ r� f� rli Oriented Zone Oriented Zone®\ Pa &Ride r'r� Quarter from (UTArk) .� Frequent Mile TransitWalk Network park&Ride ® At-Grade Rail Crossing - (Other) Amilma & e Grade-Separated ] Planned o F��f "" Freight Rail Crossing Transit Center Salt lake City oo International Airport o 1000 N ak r 600N , A% / • 1/. I State"/ !_ IA EARHART DR /i p .. �i praahsttt j 9 �Pnol ' I AVE /�/ �� Fmr_Gcoutids! r Sahpalace �SF aTH AVE , `4 ShrinersHospitalforChildren �s. �• i / Convenhan fipple Ho ttal yf / p e �� • -s S �,i' E. � ,, co,'(enter /4q'uare„iiw r� / -Sahtake Re tonal _,/Le �� 1"...'A r/i�(r Medical.Cehtei +tUn vets tyMCartd ' / Gatewa' • r • RrimaryChildrensHospital / �r nYr 0 0 T.": 14i it i i ty /�i,. AtYiu. .• �- A •1 T. / 9. 14111i I/// nergl `� •Vivant. •� , �y ' ( ;h •ii, 4FJUS 'P ,Irena / ; 7 /II •// r / �.--. • • • • •i` • Research park I `/e„ P4 Kit -% �' ashin.ton 1 r S'�are l'Trolley %s I.// + ' ��� INDIA A AVE ` , gAie /Suare / r VA _f o 1 /. ..,,.,--9, ?,A r —�" i �A ;% 6:IS_ A.,4 A, ' ,Medical . 't ,, 900 S ��_ • ./enre� "" CALIFORNIA AVE 1�!(ifL itCa`.' � 1300 S 0. Vnlmart Smiths Callege/ 1 81; o I700 S Ball�rk /r 05'4 �- p 1700S a d ®W �� %,/� % / %�� WestmirizteI �O (- `��jj, ''ollege o ;y SOUTH FRONTAGE RD 201 _ ! j t/L< ',/ 0/ �i,// rly?'.�n, e �� —6.201 l Q . %//�,//•.,,,. i•r�iir ,Su9orhuwe . 0 r� /i�// .U Susrnesi Drstrici` \ % l_ry- / WalmmtOs c CI ' `, South West Valle City / y' ' (--------------j 7 `'' Q Salt Lake 4o / Brickyard ` oios 0 , 2 N , o Plaza Mies '� Os ill Data Sources:UTA,Utah AGRC,ESljl--i 9- Ir� TT i i SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Transit Service 12-22 How Do First-Last Mile Services Work? The graphics below illustrate how first/last mile services could be implemented to extend the reach of transit service for both employment areas in west Salt Lake City and residential neighborhoods by enabling seamless connections to the frequent transit network. 1.Employment Areas:Employers beyond the reach of transit in industrial areas in West Salt Lake City can partner to fund a shared shuttle service.Shuttle schedules would be coordinated with employee working hours and serve one or more major transit stations. I I Employee shuttle to 2liy Emloee walks to bus TRANSIT 1 STATION Employee takes bus to transit station ' I Shuttle drops O_ ♦ * off employee at work - 2.Lower-Density Residential Areas:Some neighborhoods in Salt Lake City lack sufficient Transit density or demand to make it cost-effective to station provide FTN and/or local service but still have . .. - O important transit needs.On-demand ride service companies,such as Lyft and Uber,can provide cost-effective demand-responsive shared ride — service in these areas.They can also help meet citywide needs to connect to the FTN outside of local transit operating hours.The City and UTA . . 3 wouldpartner with these companies toprovide a j STOP P ,.......♦. discounted fare on trips to transit stations or other identified neighborhood destinations such as a grocery store.For example: • A resident eligible for a discounted trip requests an on-demand ride from their home. 2 . STOP • The on-demand ride service company schedules a shared ride to/from ;..*... j designated transit stations or 1 neighborhood services. ■ STOP • The resident uses the FTN to travel to/from their destination. On-Demand Frequent Transit Ride Services Network SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Transit Service 12-23 First-Last Mile Strategy Success Factors Factors that contribute to success for these local service strategies should be considered as these approaches are implemented.Alternative local services should strive to achieve the following: • Ensure cost effectiveness.Target popular origins and destinations that will allow the service to reach critical mass rather than have underutilized capacity. • Connect to existing services. Integrate and coordinate effectively with other transit services to ensure the service will successfully provide a first-last mile connection. • Leverage partnerships.Developing the service as a partnership,between multiple public agencies or between public and private organizations,can distribute management and operation of the service as well as associated costs. • Ensure equitable access for all users.Structure partnerships to ensure that an adequate number of vehicles are available to accommodate people with disabilities and that services are affordable for low-income users. Examples of First-Last Mile Services This section provides specific examples of first-last mile services that have been developed around the country to extend the reach of transit service.These types of services fall into two general categories: • Community shuttles to complement fixed-route transit service. fi These shuttles can serve xed-routes or may provide service on- ` d � i30 demand. Shuttles can be operated by transit agencies,non-profits, •. y. 9 £, 1 i or public-private partnerships.Shuttles may also be sponsored by major employers or a Transportation Management Association B LI C R1ATIoN .,- If nrI(TMA)to connect major employment areas to transit service. , ► r., ` • On-demand ride services companies offer on-demand,point-to- Source:Ride Connection point transportation that passengers can use to access the frequent (- transit network.These companies use an online-enabled application . .... _ .— - or platform to enable booking a trip on a computer or smartphone. .. - -- _ This means that a ride can be summoned easily when and where I I ` transit is not available.The difference between on-demand ride - �3 "`" Angel.. services companies and taxis is that passengers are connected to =I_. ;.J2 :�...-... drivers who use their personal vehicles rather than those owned byMai PIMP - - the taxi company.Uber and Lyft currently operate in Salt Lake City. a Figure 2-12 summarizes characteristics of these types of services.Successful case studies of each type of strategy are detailed in subsequent sections. Source.Lyft Figure 2-12 First-Last Mile Service Strategy Characteristics and Applications Service Origins and Distance Type Schedule Service Span Destinations Operator Fixed-route Limited to fixed- Public with community Short Fixed-route Scheduled time route community Specified possible support shuttles points shuttle schedule locations from private On-demand By request Limited to on- Public with community Medium or Demand Availability based demand community Defined by possible support shuttles Long response on-demand shuttle schedule service area from private By request Private with On-demand Short or Demand Availability based 24 hours a day/7 Defined by possible support ride services long response on-demand days a week service area from public SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Transit Service 1 2-24 Fixed-Route Community Shuttle Case Studies Fixed-route community shuttles, sometimes described as neighborhood circulators, are used effectively in some cities to serve short trips within communities, feed major transit routes (e.g., rail, BRT, or frequent bus service), shopping, employment, and other activities. Community shuttles often use smaller-capacity vehicles, such as 20 to 25 passenger mini-buses, to provide local transit service in lower-density residential neighborhoods or areas of challenging topography that are more difficult to serve with conventional fixed-route transit service. Some communities have maximized the cost-effectiveness of this model through special contracted rates for community shuttle operators (e.g., Vancouver BC case study) or services operated by non-profits (e.g., Ride Connection case study). Shuttle Bug—Chicago,IL In operation since 1996, the Shuttle Bug program 627 TAKE offers convenient door-to-door and fixed-route service from Metra Commuter Rail stations to • employer sites on accessible Pace buses. The program is a public-private partnership between the TMA of Lake Cook (covering the Chicago p .• ' �; ' suburbs of Buffalo Grove, Deerfield, Glenview, j 4 ' Northbrook, Des Plaines, Lake Forest, Lincolnshire, r ,- Mettawa and Riverwoods in Cook and Lake ' ' 412 - County, Illinois), Pace Suburban Bus, Metra Commuter Rail, and local area businesses. Regular fare is $2.00 per trip, but employees of 6251 member businesses ride free with a company- r ' issued Ventra card.' Currently, there are 14 routes , connecting about 40 companies with eight Metra stations and serving about 1,200 daily trips.2 While operations are managed entirely by the Source:TMA of Lake-Cook Lake Cook TMA, operational costs are shared by Pace, Metra, and area businesses. Funding sources include federal grants, local municipal funding, state funding, foundation funding, and private contributions. Companies contribute funds based on ridership as well as company headcount. By sharing operating costs and leveraging private-public partnerships, the Shuttle Bug program has become nationally-recognized in successfully providing a first-last mile solution as well as numerous benefits to participating employers. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN Transit Service 2-25 Ride Connection—Portland, OR Ride Connection is a non-profit,community service organization in the tri-county area of Portland, Oregon that is mostly focused on meeting the transportation needs of older adults and people with disabilities. The organization is made up of a network of over 30 agencies, providing a variety of transportation services such as Community Connector Shuttles for rural communities where regular fixed-route transit service is limited or unavailable. • Open to the general public, Community Connector Shuttles are • currently(Tualatinavailable Shuttleinuthe), Forestcitiesof F f Grove (Grovelink), and Hillsboro N ) S (North Hillsboro Link). These shuttles are intended to provide transportation for commuters to and BLICfrom TriMet stations, including WES ?n' QN n° - Commuter Rail in Tualatin,TriMet 'OR f l�li �� t (regional transit operator) Line 57 in . 1 ,.0 Forest Grove, and Orenco Station in Hillsboro. Ride Connection operates Source Ride Connection Community Connector shuttles, providing drivers,vehicles, and scheduling. Planning for a Community Connector shuttle includes close coordination with communities being served as well as collaboration with TriMet.3 Ride Connection receives funding from a variety of sources, including federal and state grants from the Oregon Department of Transportation, TriMet, private foundation grants, and corporate and individual donations. Programs are largely supported through volunteer hours— including volunteer drivers—who are typically members of the community recruited by Ride Connection. Success of these shuttles has been possible by targeting specific communities and connecting directly to regional transit service. TransLink—Vancouver,BC TransLink,the transit provider for the Vancouver BC region, has a community shuttle program that serves a number of neighborhoods in the city of Vancouver and communities in outer suburban areas. Shuttle routes were created to provide more economical transit service to low- ridership areas but have been implemented in a variety of operating environments from quiet suburbs to dense, urban areas. Coast Mountain Bus Company (CMBC)—a wholly-owned subsidiary of TransLink—operates the shuttles. Routes complement downtown transit service, provide feeder service from outer neighborhoods to downtown-bound rail or BRT service, and operate as circulators within the University of British Columbia (UBC) campus. For the Vancouver region, community shuttles have proven to be a lower-cost option for providing transit services to underserved areas. Operating cost per service hour is about 36% lower for CMBC-operated shuttles than regular bus service, and about 54% lower for contracted shuttle service. This is partially due to lower labor costs, as community shuttle drivers are part of a separate component of the bus union and have a different motor vehicle licensing requirement since no air brakes are used in shuttle vehicles. Additionally,these shuttles tend to travel shorter distances, reducing maintenance costs. Overall,the program has been impactful in providing a link from outer suburban communities to central transit service more cost-effectively than conventional fixed-route service.4 SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN Transit Service 2-26 Mountain View Community Shuttle—Mountain View,CA The Mountain View Community Shuttle circulates throughout the City of Mountain View, connecting residences, offices, park and recreational facilities, medical services, shopping centers, and entertainment venues. Currently still a pilot program, the service was developed as public-private partnership between the City of Mountain View and Google. This fareless service operates Monday through Friday between 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. and between 12 p.m. and 8 p.m. on weekends and holidays. Two routes—one clockwise and one counterclockwise—serve the same loop and operate at a frequency of approximately 30 minutes. Transit connections are available to the regional commuter rail (Caltrain), employer commuter shuttles, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), and other Mountain View shuttles provided by the local Transportation Management Association, mvgo.5 shoreline/Pear ° Pear Ave. [ Shoreline/ Middlefield/ riddlefeld/ Middlefield ltl 02 Moffett Easy Rengstorff/ 0 Middlefield/ #3 Whisman/ 00 Middlefield Terra Bella Middlefield m a' a Rengstorff/Montecito 0o r 'L Whisman Station o0 Central Expressway Villa/ Villa/ Shoreline Franklin VNI Community Center o c < Mountain Center o ° Mouna Center A Senior/00 Villa/ California/Ortega • Teen Center Mariposa • /1.0 aliforna/ California St Sylvan Park o° Rengstorff o0 Civic Center a San Antonio Center t El Camino Real/ Unborn Se a — a Sylvan oc W El Camino Real Castro/El Camino Real Grant Rd. Graham Middle School Cuesta/Grant o Cuesto Dr. Cuesta/Miramonte ° Grant/Eunice El Camino Hospital Source:City of Mountain View Google is funding the pilot program operating costs for two years. The purchase of four new all-electric buses—produced by Motiv Power Systems—was made possible through California Energy Commission (CEC) grants.° Ridership for the service has continued to increase since the launch of the service in January 2015. The service captured 3,393 riders in the first month of operation but monthly ridership for all of 2015 was an average of 8,089 with a total of 97,079 riders. Ridership for January through March of 2016 totaled 30,977 riders, a 60% increase from the same months in 2015.7 1 Ventra Cards is a fare payment system for Chicago Transit Authority(CTA)and Pace. 2 TMA of Lake-Cook.About the Shuttle Bug Program.2016.Retrieved from http://tmalakecook.org/shuttle-bug/about-the-shuttle-bug 3 Ride Connection.Retrieved from https://rideconnection.org/ride/services/community-connectors 4 SDOT.Transit Master Plan Appendix D:Community Shuttles.April 2012. 5 Mountain View Community Shuttle.Retrieved from https://mvcommunityshuttle.com/ 6 Stephen Hall,9 to 5 Goggle.Google Launches 100%electric,WiFi-powered Mountain View Community Shuttle Program.January 2015. Retrieved from http://9to5google.com/2015/01/13/google-mountain-view-community-shuttle/ 7 Mountain View Community Shuttle.Operational Statistics Summary.March 2016.Retrieved from https://mvcommunityshuttle.com/statistics/ SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN Transit Service 2-27 On-Demand Shuttle Case Studies On-demand shuttles, operated by a public or private entity, provide a flexible end-to-end or first-last mile transit option that is often more cost-effective than fixed-route service. This type of service could be considered to serve employers in Western Salt Lake City. VTA FLEX—San Jose, CA In January 2016, Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) began a new pilot program in North San Jose, called FLEX, which offers on-demand transit service between regular transit stops and high-density employment centers and/or retail centers. FLEX is not a fixed-route service and does not make scheduled stops. It operates in a 3.25 square mile service area that surrounds VTA's Tasman Light Rail Station. Travelers can request a ride using their smart phone or on the VTA website. A driver is then dispatched to pick up the passenger, who is provided with directions to the pick-up location. Other riders with similar travel destinations are picked up and dropped off during the course of the ride. Although the wait time is dependent on the number of trip requests at the given time, the software interface provides an estimated arrival time based on the driver's GPS location and trip load.'This service is still in the pilot phase but has received positive feedback from users, who have experienced shorter travel times to and from VTA light rail stations.2 Norted,,, s, A ® r-�- ......... N � i _ _ elii ` @Firsts _MountainviewA�Rr r i� • •,rode y A •• ` Domain ,rP" •• Apartments • �` •°g • C. ` •j • Lam % �� a a Research r'd o, c` ` ` `/ • �v� • r�(• A • •• Cisco ` LICK J^_ Cisco �' • • • ` CHAMPION • d•l• • `• • Samsung •• RAVPOINTE Center DISCO y 1NAV ` \ • •`• ,o' d o �80, • TASMAN rV`� • M Tasman Or MILPITAS CD V 1 • ` • •Sun Power ans0o' • f• ' North Park / ` • • ` River View • o • r F L E `sib RoAxs ••IVER 4Ne Crescent • ` L• Villager • • ` Pilot Service Area • • vovat.0.6 • &Stop Locations �'' , ` • /•♦Elan at• 1 Flex Service Zone 00. •• Mo^�4e'�%��`River Oaks Rivermark is • Flex Service Stops '• Village '0•• • '' ` ` aiiis o VTA Light Rail Stops `'r% •e. • i. I VTA Light Rail , S. ORCHARD • / `Cadence 0 0.25 0.5 1 `• Miles • 1508-0280 REV121715 Source:Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 1 Transit Service 1 2-28 RTD Call-n-Ride—Denver, CO The Regional Transportation District (RTD) runs Call-n-Rides for 21 service areas in the Denver region. Passengers can request a ride up to two hours in advance by directly calling the driver's cell phone. Advanced reservations (up to 2 weeks ahead of time) can also be Golden Call-n-Ride made via the RTD Call-n-Ride website. Some .519.9162 (y of Mon.4,530u112.00,1 Call-n-Ride service areas also provide Sat. "°°°" scheduled stops, where riders can wait to be Cols Hoot L E°,„ �,, I S picked up and then be dropped offCantor• 1 s. WLine 'anywhere within the service area. • Landmark Additionally, some communities have Safeway ,�..�. coordinated with RTD to provide deviated e�x„ 0 School Naos fixed-route service to better meet the needs a . of the community.3 �y� e10 to School Funding for the service is primarily by federal Wanda School s ••s�, grants and RTD's operating budget but many 'OM M SsoPo local partners also help fund the service in ," their area. Call-n-Ride has been a successful '�@ loth Ave first and last mile connection to other RTD • L_,� services and final destinations. RTD service '''- -,'; standards specify Call-n-Ride areas to be " Jeilerson Count' j�US between four and 10 square miles with two Goldens Center/ to four persons per acre and one to three employees per acre. Productivity of Call-n- Ride services typically ranges from about three (minimum standard) to 10 daily boardings per revenue hour. Productivity in the range of four to six boardings per hour is Source:City of Golden considered to be successful. RTD Call-n-Ride for the City of Golden includes a fixed-route deviated service. Sources: 1 VTA.FLEX.2016.Retrieved from http://www.vta.org/getting-around/vta-flex 2 Five Stars for FLEX!.January 2016.Retrieved from http://www.vta.org/News-and-MedialConnect-with-VTA/Five-Stars-for-FLEX#.VwrW3RMrL-Y 3 City of Golden.Community Call-n-Ride Bus.Retrieved from http://www.cityofgolden.net/live/transit-services/community-call-n-ride-bus/ SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN Transit Service 2-29 On-Demand Ride Services Case Studies • • On-demand ride services refers to on-demand, point-to-point transportation services that are scheduled and paid for using an online- Via 1110 enabled application or platform, such as smart phone apps (e.g., Uber and Lyft). Unlike taxis, passengers are connected to drivers who use their • personal vehicles rather than vehicles associated with a company. These C companies tend to cater to individuals traveling across town or to the airport but some are specifically designed as a carpool service. Some services are also catering to older adult populations by partnering with `' third party internet providers. These partnerships allow people without access to a smart phone to request a ride via the internet instead via a smart phone. Transit agencies, employers, and communities are also beginning to use these companies to serve first and last-mile gaps in the 7' transportation system. Via—Chicago,IL and New York,NY Via is a privately-operated on-demand ride service company that transports multiple passengers heading in the same direction. The service is available in Chicago and New York City. Users can access the service via a smartphone app where they enter their origin and destination and are then directed to a nearby pick-up location. Passengers are dropped off close to their final destination. Riders who pre-pay for their ride are charged a flat fee of $5. Riders who choose not to pre-pay incur a $2 surcharge. This service operates in dense areas of Chicago and New York, strategically targeting first and last-mile connections for transit users within the service area.' Split—Washington,DC Split operates an on-demand ride service to multiple passengers traveling in the same direction in central Washington DC, including first- and last-mile connections for transit users. Users must access the service via a smartphone app where they enter their origin and destination and are then directed to a nearby pick-up location. Riders are charged a $2 base fare and $1 per extra mile but are able to split the fare with other riders, making the cost more affordable.2 SunRail Uber Partnership—Altamonte Springs,FL The City of Altamonte Springs is the first city in the country to subsidize Uber rides to and from transit stations. Uber users starting or ending a trip at the Altamonte Springs SunRail station receive a 25% discount on their fare. Additionally, users traveling anywhere within the city limits via Uber have 20% of their fare paid for by the city. The city hopes that this pilot program will encourage SunRail ridership, reduce traffic congestion, and provide a more affordable travel option for all residents and visitors. Users must access Uber using the mobile app and enter a promo code to receive the discount on their ride.3 SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN Transit Service 2-30 Lyft's Friends with Transit Campaign According to Lyft, 25% of its riders use the service to connect to public transit. Lyft is beginning a campaign to bridge the first and last mile gap, connecting its service with transit. In October 2015, 314.' Lyft began its first official partnership with a transit agency, Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART). The - partnership allows users to access Lyft as a transportation option within DART's mobile application. Through the application, users are able Source:Lyft to view the location of Lyft vehicles and request a ride, enabling an on-demand ride service. Lyft and DART made an agreement that lets users get $5 off their first ten Lyft rides. Other Partnership Examples Jurisdictions and agencies across the THE SOLUTION Create Designated Lodding Zones For country are beginning to coordinate with on-demand ride services companies in a variety of ways, RIDESHAREPICKUP/DROP OFF ranging from software collaborations to allocation of passenger loading space111 TAXI at transit stops (or other designated zones) to subsidies. In addition to Lyft (above), DART also partnered with Agd4 Uber and Zipcar to connect mobile apps. Users who access the DART GoPass app have direct access to Uber, Lyft, and Zipcar mobile Source:Livable City applications. DART riders still have to arrange and pay separately for the ride share service.4 A San Francisco non-profit, Livable City, partnered with Lyft to designate loading zones for rideshare users at the San Francisco regional commuter rail (CalTrain) station to promote the connection between ridesharing and transit.5,6 Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) in California is pursuing a subsidy program with Lyft to promote demand-responsive ridesharing as an alternative to low-performing LAVTA routes that provide access to Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) stations. The Denton County Transportation Authority (DCTA) in Texas is also in the process of providing subsidies for first and last mile trips made with Uber.7 1 Via.2015.Retrieved from http://ridewithvia.com/ 2 Split.2016.Retrieved from http://split.usl 3 Veronica Brezina,Click Orlando.Altamonte Springs Uber discounts begin.March 2016.Retrieved from http:l/www.clickorlando.com/newslaltamonte-springs-becomes-first-us-city-to-partner-with-uber-hopes-to-increase-sun rail-ridership 4 Bill Zeeble,Kera News.DART Works With Lyft,Uber,Zipcar To Ease Your Trip. October 2015.Retrieved from http://keranews.org/post/dart- works-Iyft-u ber-zipca r-ease-you r-trip 511th Hour Project.December 2015.Retrieved from http://www.11thhourproject.org/press/the-llth-hour-project-announces-winners-of-the-just- transit-sf-challenge-de 6 Livable City.Curbing the CalTrain Cluster.December 2015.Retrieved from http://livablecity.org/curbthecluster/ 7 Bj Lewis,Dallas Morning News.DCTA plan to add options.May 2015.Retrieved from http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community- news/lewisville-flower-mound/headlines/20150531-dcta-plans-to-add-options.ece SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Transit Service 2-31 Applicability of First-Last Mile Service Types and Case Studies to Salt Lake City Services similar to those described in the above case studies are recommended to improve local transit connections to the retail/employment centers and residential areas in Salt Lake City as identified above. Each of the case studies targets connections to a retail/employer oriented area,a residential-oriented area,or both.Figure 2-13 summarizes the target markets for each of the case studies. Figure 2-13 Summary of Target Areas for First-Last Mile Service Types and Case Studies Retail/Employer Residential Service Type Case Study Oriented Oriented Pace Shuttle Bug X Ride Connection X Fixed-Route Community Connector Community Shuttle TransLink Community Shuttles X Mountain View X X Community Shuttle On-Demand VTA FLEX X Community Shuttle RTD Call-n-Ride X X Via X On-Demand Ride Split X Services On-Demand Ride Services Partnership(Various) X X Non-vehicular connections,such as bike share,can also serve as a viable option for improving connections to transit. Bicycle/pedestrian first-last mile strategies are described in Chapter 4. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Transit Service 12-32 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS - SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS The following table outlines specific service improvements that are recommended in the Transit Master Plan. High priority strategies are highlighted in blue. Figure 2-14 Service Improvement Recommendations Recommendation What is the Who is When should Category # recommendation? Why do it? responsible? it happen?* Develop an FTN in a phased approach. Implement high priority Frequent Transit corridors for Salt Lake City Existing corridors in with strong ridership and Lead: UTA Network(FTN)-Tier 1 2.1 that are already identified in conditions that will merit Near-Term ExistinglPlanned the UTA Network Study and Support: City supported by the Transit FTN status. Master Plan analysis and outreach. Develop an FTN in a Frequent Transit phased approach. Tier 1 corridors have Network(FTN)-Tier 1 Implement highest priority conditions now or in the Lead: UTA Near-Term to Transit Master Plan 2 2 corridors for Salt Lake City near-term that will merit Support: City Medium-Term Recommendations beyond those already FTN status. planned by UTA. Develop an FTN in a Tier 2 corridors are Frequent Transit phased approach. projected to have conditions that merit FIN Network(FTN)-Tier 2 Implement longer-term Lead: UTA 2.3 status in the future.The Long-Term Transit Master Plan priority corridors for Salt implementation of the FTN Support:City Recommendations Lake City beyond those will serve long,direct already planned by UTA. citywide corridors. Construct additional transit To support current transit Lead: UTA New Transit Hubs 2 4 centers in the vicinity of 200 demand and the Support: City, Medium Term S and 700 E and on the development of the high- University of University of Utah campus. frequency grid network. Utah As the FTN is implemented, adapt local routes to support A complete transit system the FTN. Maintain a basic or requires local coverage "lifeline"level local service oriented routes(or to within'/2 mile of most Lead: UTA Local Service Network 2.5 residents a minimum of 60 alternative services)that Ongoing ( provide connections to the Support: City minute frequencies for 12 FTN and neighborhood hours per day)or consider circulation. an alternative service model. 1 Uber for Business and Lyft for Work allow companies to set up a specific business account for their employees to request and pay for rides seamlessly within the organization.These services also include ridesharing functions. *Note:Near term=within 2 years;medium term=3-5 years;long term=6-10 years.Chapter 7:Implementation will provide corridor-level phasing guidance. High priority strategies SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Transit Service 2-33 Recommendation What is the Who is When should Category # recommendation? Why do it? responsible? it happen?* Employers beyond the reach of transit in Consider implementing an industrial areas can fund a Lead: UTA employer-oriented shared shuttle service Support: City, First-Last Mile Service 2 6 community shuttle pilot from major transit stations local businesses, Near-Term Strategies program to serve to help retain and attract employers, employment sites in western employees. Partnerships University of Salt Lake City. across multiple employers Utah can be particularly cost effective. Some neighborhoods in Develop pilot programs Salt Lake City lack and/or partnerships with sufficient density or private or non-profit demand to justify providing Lead: City transportation providers, FTN or local service but Support: UTA, includingon demand ride still have transit needs. Citywide,there are transit private or non First-Last Mile Service 2 7 services companies such as needs outside of transit profit service Near Term Strategies Lyft and Uber,to fill in operating hours. On providers,on- spatial and temporal gaps in demand ride services demand ride transit service.This includes companies can provide a services first-last mile connections cost-effective demand companies generally,shift workers,off responsive service to peak entertainment,etc. areas beyond the reach of transit. Conduct outreach to Employers may be beyond employers in need of last the reach of the FTN in Lead:City industrial areas,such as mile connections to educate Support: On- First-Last Mile Service them on the opportunity to western Salt Lake City;by pp ydemandride 2.8 partnering with on-demand Near-Term Strategies fund last mile trips for their services employees using tools like ride services companies, companies, Uber for Business and Lyft employers can facilitate employers for Works employees taking transit to work Foster creation of a Such an organization can Transportation Management help the City and UTA Lead:City First-Last Mile Service develop alternative,multi- Support: UTA, Strategies 2.9 Association(TMA) employer first-last/mile employers and Near Term comprising west Salt Lake services in west Salt Lake local businesses City employers. City. Lead:City Research best practices to Partnerships with shared First-Last Mile Service ensure equal access for ride service providers Support: UTA, Strategies 2.10 shared rides, regardless of should be structured to private or non- Near Term ability. ensure equitable access. profit service providers 1 Uber for Business and Lyft for Work allow companies to set up a specific business account for their employees to request and pay for rides seamlessly within the organization.These services also include ridesharing functions. *Note:Near term=within 2 years;medium term=3-5 years;long term=6-10 years.Chapter 7:Implementation will provide corridor-level phasing guidance. High priority strategies SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Transit Service 2-34 \ N. N. ill r` i U TA SALT LAKE CENTRAL2so so��ti . a 600 West itf iilj mu. _ ... . ..,„, .... : I i .4 _ ,,,.„,, _ 1 - : .......111.1111111111.. - AIM -ON I OE =_ _--_ _ , I ina 000000 _....miiiiii.... inr. mill Mi.- CL II.- < U M 3 CAPITAL This chapter defines the capital elements of the Salt Lake City Transit Master plan,which include investments in transit corridors and facilities.The capital recommendations will support implementation of the frequent transit network(FTN)by enabling transit to run faster and more reliably and improving facilities to make it more comfortable and convenient to access transit. CAPITAL INVESTMENT PRINCIPLES/FRAMEWORK The City's goals(see Chapter i)prioritize operating and capital investments that increase the number of people riding transit;improve air quality; connect transit-dependent populations with jobs,education,and services;and create economically-vibrant,livable places.Transit capital investments help Salt Lake City accomplish these goals by making transit travel highly efficient and reliable,treating transit as a priority in the street rights of way,and developing safe and comfortable transit access and facilities. The following principles were used,along with the Transit Master Plan's analysis of current and potential transit corridors,to guide where Salt Lake City should prioritize capital improvements to make service faster and more reliable. • Ridership potential—enhanced transit experience for existing riders and attract new riders • Cost-effectiveness—investment per passenger(accounting for corridor length) • Land use—corridor land use(including density,street connectivity,etc.)that supports a particular mode or level of investment • Corridor conditions—Potential(need)for travel time savings and right-of-way opportunity or constraint The assessment of capital priorities also documents alignment between existing UTA,Wasatch Front Regional Council and City plans and priorities,Transit Master Plan goals,and public input received through the plan's outreach process. TRANSIT MODES AND AMENITIES UTA provides a variety of transit modes in Salt Lake City including bus,streetcar,TRAX light rail, and FrontRunner commuter rail.Figure 3-1 describes characteristics of transit modes already operated by UTA and others recommended in this plan that do not currently operate in Salt Lake City: • Enhanced Bus. Enhanced Bus uses features like transit signal priority(TSP)or queue jumps to help buses avoid delay at traffic signals and bypass congestion.Figure 3-3 illustrates typical features of corridors.The UTA Network Study(2o13)recommended a set of these corridors(referred to as Bus Plus),including many of the FTN corridors identified in Chapter 2 and the Transit Master Plan priority corridors discussed in this chapter. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Capital 13-1 • Bus Rapid Transit(BRT).UTA operates one BRT line outside of Salt Lake City and there are several proposed BRT projects in the UTA service area. BRT includes the features of Enhanced Bus,but is distinguished by dedicated lanes to provide fast,reliable travel times.It is often described as light rail with rubber-tire vehicles. • Community Shuttle.Community shuttles are flexible services designed to meet specific transit market needs.The employer shuttles recommended in Chapter 2 are a form of community shuttle service.Other types of community shuttles may be appropriate to meet future potential needs in Salt Lake City.Key success factors for Community Shuttles include large trip generators and well-defined markets. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Capital 13-2 Figure 3-1 Salt Lake City Existing and Recommended Transit Modes Recommended Service Level Existing and Planned Access:Station Vehicle Features Running Way Station Amenities Mode (Frequency) Services Photo Spacing[1] I Capacity Features [2] Commuter • 30 minutes • Provo—Central Station-N. 4 1 5-10 miles • Locomotive • Grade-separated • Fully-featured Rail Temple—Ogden i i i A, _ pulls variable running-way stations / _ ° number of • Enhanced fare coach cars collection with 100-135 ■ Real-time NV•714/- seats each information • FrontRunner Jource:Flickr Paul Kimo McGregor capacity currently at 500 TRAX Light • Frequent • Red Line: South Jordan \. /z 1 mile • 400 • Dedicated • Fully featured Rail Service(15 Downtown-University of I - w!_ . (assumes 4 running-way stations min.or better Utah , ' cars with up • Transit signal • Enhanced fare all day—see • Blue Line: Draper, Sandy — ,, to 100 person priority(TSP)for collection Chapter 2) Downtown e capacity) entire corridor • Real-time ■ Green Line:West Valley- - �— • Branded information Downtown-Airport , . vehicles Source:Nelson\Nygaard Streetcar Existing S-Line • r — -- 1/4-1/3 mile • 100 • Mixed-traffic • Fully-featured Planned S-Line Extension (assumes 1 (could use stations Planned Downtown Streetcar I "r car) exclusive or semi- • Enhanced fare • Branded exclusive running collection we:- • vehicles way in congested . Real-time corridors) information Source:Nelson\Nygaard BRT None in Salt Lake City 1/3—'/z mile • 40-90 • Dedicated running • Fully-featured One line(outside of Salt Lake (articulated)(articulated) way in congested stations City): UTA MAX between s�"'�t •,'?~-o r • Branded corridors • Enhanced fare Magna,the West Valley _ \ vehicles • Transit signal collection Central TRAX Station,and the ;/ •.// priority(TSP)for • Real-time Millcreek TRAX station in entire corridor information South Salt Lake Source:UTA SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 1 Capital 1 3-3 Recommended Service Level Existing and Planned Access:Station Vehicle Features Running Way Station Amenities Mode (Frequency) Services Photo Spacing[1] I Capacity Features [2] Enhanced None in Salt Lake City '/4-'A mile • Typically 40 • Similar to BRT,but • High-end Bus Planned corridors include Bus - ..1 - F' foot bus without dedicated shelters and Plus Corridors identified in • 40-60 lanes amenities at UTA Network Study(see " " " 1, ,I t I _• ■ Spot high ridership Figure 3-8 — I improvements stops and/or TSP)at • Quality rider I congested information intersections Enhanced bus stop in Glendale,CA. Source:NACTO Local Bus 30 or 60 minutes 21 local routes within Salt - J '/8-'/4 mile • 40-60 • Typically runs in • Prioritized Lake City mixed-traffic based on I ridership �� thresholds(see IIP G '° Chapter 6) Source:Nelson\Nygaard Community 30 minutes(may None in Salt Lake City Variable fixed- • 15-30 • N/A • Branded Shuttle be limited to peak Employer shuttles are . .y� , stop spacing • Minibus or signage hours) recommended to serve , . based on land small employment areas in west —imi ��, - use,or on- standard bus °""""` . demand Salt Lake City . .__,•c • Community Shuttle in Portland,OR. Source:Wikimedia Steve Morgan [1]See Figure 3-4 for additional detail on stop spacing.[2]Additional detail on recommended station amenities is provided in Chapter 6. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Capital 1 3-4 Transit Modes, Features, and Supportive Land Use Land use density and transit service should be developed in concert to ensure their mutual benefit and success.High-quality transit modes that provide frequent service and a high-level of amenities require supportive land use to generate enough riders to be cost-effective.As shown in Figure 3-2,light rail and streetcar services require a relatively high density of population and jobs to warrant their higher passenger-carrying capacity and capital cost. BRT and Enhanced Bus service have a lower capital cost, operating cost,and passenger carrying capacity than rail and can be successful with a more moderate level of density.In addition to population and employment density,street connectivity and safe pedestrian and bicycle access are also important to support ridership across all modes. Figure 3-2 Salt Lake City Transit Modes,Land Use Conditions,and Capital Features AVERAGE LAND USE DENSITY FEATURES ©©© SANDY ■ ■ ■■ ` ■ ■ ■ NEON ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■■■■■ TRAX ■ ■ IN ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■■••■ • • • • • M . Fully featured transit stations • Dedicated running way • Transit signal priority for entire corridor 46+people and/or • Branded vehicles 30+employees • Enhanced fare collection per acre • Real time information ti ©©•© . . . . • • • • . . . . . • . . . . . . • . ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ••••• STREETCAR • • • • • Fully featured transit stations H • Branded vehicles Z 24-44 people and/or w • Enhanced fare collection 20-30 employees per acre • Real time information U • Line level branding w 'WNW, ■ ■ ■ • • • MONO• • • • ••••• BUS RAPID TRANSIT • • ■ • • • • Fully featured transit stations • Dedicated running way in congested corridors 36-45 people and/or • Transit signal priority for entire corridor 20-30 employees • Branded vehicles per acre • Enhanced fare collection • Real time information $ q.f gme Farr! ' ENHANCE 24-44 people and/or • Spot improvements at congested intersections 16-25 employees •Transit Signal Priority at congested Intersections per acre • High-end shelters/amenities at high ridership stops Quality rider information SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Capital 3-5 Two proposed transit modes for Salt Lake City are Enhanced Bus and Bus Rapid Transit(BRT).The main difference is that BRT includes dedicated lanes. Both types of bus service make transit run faster and more reliably and provide high-quality amenities at bus stops and stations.Figure 3-3 highlights the key elements of these types of high-quality bus corridors. Figure 3-3 Elements of High Quality Bus Corridors O 1111, inn UNIVERSITY:due UNIVERSITY III • II ••w•• • a -"'..."-AVilsolik4111111111,'"1.41111111P6 • 111111111111111111111111.1411' ' O TRANSIT SIGNAL PRIORITY O BRANDING AND VEHICLES Intersection improvements Unique designs make buses and including transit signal priority stations more visible,raising (TSP)allow buses to bypass r awareness and increasing ..- T congestion.TSP gives buses customer expectations for earlier and/or longer green higher levels of service. lights. 0 ENHANCED STATIONS t,. iii!—►r 0 ENHANCED FARE Enhanced amenities include + COLLECTION SYSTEMS 111111 raised platforms,tactile treat- ` Off-board fare collection using ments,off-board fare payment. / -- ticket vending machines,card real-time arrival information, -- readers,and other tools at larger shelters,bike parking,and 'r Pi stations allow passengers to information in audio,visual,and , I load without waiting in line to tactile formats pay their fares. © BIKE PARKING -.�" O RUNNING WAY Bike parking and GREENbike „��� IMPROVEMENTS bike share at stations increase Could include bus-only lanes the reach of transit. - . that separate transit from traffic /r, ,, and are clearly marked or queue _ -'- jumps. >`� , ill ! `` SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Capital 13-6 Stop Spacing Stop spacing refers to the distance between stops on a transit route or corridor.The number of stops is a tradeoff between access and speed.A shorter distance between stops increases access to a transit line,but reduces speed.This tradeoff often varies by mode,as shown in Figure 3-4.Access is a priority for local service—stops can be spaced as close as 1/8 mile apart.Services along the FTN,however,place a greater emphasis on speed.Bus Rapid Transit and Enhanced Bus corridors that serve relatively straight corridors across the city should have longer stop spacing. Higher-quality stops spaced 1/4 to 1/2 mile apart on average mean that few passengers have to walk more than about 1/4 mile to a stop along these corridors. TRAX serves longer-distance regional connections and therefore has longer stop spacing.In areas with dense destinations,such as downtown,FTN stop spacing can be more frequent. Decreasing stop spacing to significantly less than 1/4 mile(e.g.,an average walk of less than 1/8 mile,or one typical Salt Lake City block,to reach a stop along a corridor)negatively affects the actual and perceived travel time for all riders.Implementation of changes to stop spacing would consider the surrounding context,and in all contexts would attempt to provide access to stops within a quarter mile(or no more than half-mile spacing).Providing limited stop service on alternating trips is also a potential tool that could be used to balance travel speed and access considerations for certain corridors/routes. Figure 3.4 Stop Spacing Guidelines by Mode 1/8.114 mile Stop Spacing LOCAL BUS •—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—•—• FREQUENT TRANSIT NETWORK 1/4.1/3 mile Stop Spacing BUS PLUS/ ENHANCED BUS • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1/3-1/2 mile Stop Spacing BUS RAPID TRANSIT 1/2-1 mile Stop Spacing TRAX •� � .— LIGHT RAIL Stop Spacing Case Studies Reducing the number of stops on a route can result in significant actual and perceived time savings along a route, particularly where spacing is less than every 1,000 feet. Savings can range from 5 to 20% of the total running time on a route. • Seattle, WA: King County Metro designed RapidRide stops to be about a half-mile apart. Stops are between 500 and 1,000 feet apart in some downtown locations. Metro does not operate parallel local service along RapidRide corridors, although some route segments have other local service. • Kansas City, MO. Kansas City Area Transportation Authority MAX BRT service has quarter-mile average stop spacing. KCATA phased out local underlay service on its Main Street BRT line; most passengers were boarding at BRT stations. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN Capital 3-7 Bus-Rail Integration Transit agencies use various techniques to integrate bus and rail services to improve the passenger experience. Because UTA operates both rail and bus services, Salt Lake City does not have some of the inter-agency coordination challenges that exist in other cities, such as fare integration. Opportunities to improve bus-rail integration in Salt Lake City include timed connections, signage and wayfinding, shared stops, and transit information. • Timed Connections. Bus and rail schedules can be A ' • coordinated to enable efficient connections for key travel patterns served by bus and rail modes. .(a • Signage and Wayfinding. Maps and wayfinding signage • • A, can be designed to help passengers easily navigate 1 sv,5th6 between bus and rail stops. In Portland OR TriMet uses p , , 9 17 19 both techniques to facilitate bus and light rail transfers - along the 5th/6th Avenue Transit Mall. ?dirmF 4- ■ Transit Information. Real-time information displays and 1 apps can help passengers decide or make connections between modes. TriMet shows both bus and light rail arrival at Orange Line stations. In Minneapolis, Metro 3 Transit's app directs riders to the closest bus and rail stops f based on their GPS location. I c. , ME • Shared Platforms. Shared bus and streetcar stops enable convenient transfers and may allow passengers to take Wayfinding on the Portland Transit Mall. either mode for some trips. Station platforms can be Source:TriMet designed to accommodate both bus and rail vehicles. Key .27 design considerations include platform height, which needs to accommodate wheelchair ramps, and providing c ,5";A sufficient platform length to avoid delays. Buses and !* streetcars share stops in Minneapolis and Portland. r [`hlvg;fYigngx ;119p o447 R.,...,, 11. 41. 1 El P -it2uwr,/ rrl ... Metro Transit app identifies bus and rail stops. Source:Metro Transit SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN Capital 3-8 Transit Master Plan Transit Corridor Analysis Figure 3-5 illustrates a set of transit corridors that were evaluated to inform the frequent transit network (Chapter 2) and the capital recommendations provided in this chapter. • Phase I of the evaluation analyzed current and/or potential arterial roadway segments,created using logical breakpoints (e.g., key intersections). • Phase II of the evaluation analyzed the corridors, or combinations of segments, shown in Figure 3-5. • For the purposes of evaluation, all corridors were assumed to use a bus mode and operating characteristics (service span and frequency). • The metrics analyzed in Phases I and II included: Phase I and II Phase II Only • Existing ridership ■ Anchor/generator strength and accessibility • Transit Propensity Index (TPI) • Potential for travel time savings and/or • Land use density current (population and employment) improved reliability • Land use density future (population and employment) • Ridership potential (current and future year) • Lack of access to a vehicle • Redevelopment Potential ■ Cost effectiveness • Additional considerations related to capital investments included corridor right-of-way and congested/uncongested travel time. Appendix D provides additional detail on the evaluation. Figure 3-5 Phase II Corridors —Salt ,ke City— UTA Transit Service Analysis Corridors TRANSIT AonrRunner/ Streetrar/TRAX ��Analysis Comtlors ''� Transit Center Anchors and Destinations ,�51 Transrc ee MASTER -Pr=etl nee. Q Hospital 1 ' 0 Colleoe/Universltr f- Ir• N ' .,Ir ri ® CI Shopping Center Q 600N \ Yn ®Encertu nmen: 11 van Oft AVE ©Civic Building Salt Cake City I I rwu un'•' cea... O Library/Rcscarth Fatdoy Urc6Nay Sr Pdme 1m O OM AYE UnrvmledCunR InternationalAirpart raenw.�e� tm _ wm„rv(1r+Ne Xospsd — Nwyn9 13 Religious Center II IEIIPIF S7 k ®Stadium r• • • 8 £ +1fP F S t1Wr Pqm.' YS `�'v „SIEM�LE +A.1ru G+nr ��'}; 2 *• � Uniwrs ry of Utah © _ _ ore •o ..'D 900SOI Cltye mits k �.l 400S ,1 rcru3 400E•--• •_• • e° O ill • � • I,�nw,ar O INDIANA AVE kvan ka` AhdrM(ern. 4n I', l Q MS 900S I e a (A(IFOANIA AVE I • _A 13001 0 r. O 1310S 'Cr Ann.WNm:V Et) 0' 1 U O lit e D n li li 0 11c 1700S fafWkrommun o Yctno/n'Cd1a 2 algr M e I O O0S A West Valley City it p South ®� _ .----------'--N- il l Salt Lake ( 1r 7 it o ii 0 ill d Data Sources',UTA.Utah AGRC,SRI SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 1 Capital 1 3-9 TRANSIT CORRIDORS The Transit Master Plan corridor analysis,which was used to develop the recommended frequent transit network,was also used to develop priorities for capital investments in transit corridors.This section addresses three categories of corridor projects: • Transit Master Plan Priority Corridors.High priority corridors for the City to support with capital investments in transit speed and reliability improvements and amenities.The plan includes an assessment of viable mode(s)for these corridors. • Additional Corridors Aligned with the Plan's Goals.Additional corridors planned by UTA or the City and supported by the Transit Master Plan. • Other Capital Projects.Additional corridors planned by UTA or others,but with more of a regional emphasis and not necessarily supported by the Transit Master Plan analysis. Transit Master Plan Priority Corridors for Capital Investments Transit Master Plan capital investment recommendations support investments in frequent service and long hours of operation on key travel corridors and help address challenges identified through the plan's gaps analysis. Figure 3-6 illustrates Salt Lake City's highest priorities for transit corridor capital investments,including facilities and corridor management strategies that enhance transit speed and reliability and amenities that improve passenger comfort.These priorities are grounded in the plan's transit corridors analysis(see sidebar above)and an assessment of high performing corridors based on the capital investment principles defined above.In many cases these corridors are aligned with and support the recommended FTN described in Chapter 2.Figure 3-7 identifies these corridors in a table along with an assessment of compatible modes.A first step in developing capital improvements on these corridors would be to conduct a more detailed corridor study to refine the mode(including potential applicability of a rail mode), specific alignment,and design.The plan analysis identifies corridors where transit capital investments would be the most successful.Capital investment corridors with connections to the existing rail system can serve as a potential framework for a streetcar network. • 200 S.200 S is a key east-west transit corridor for bus(and potentially,future Bus Rapid Transit and/or streetcar)service between downtown and the University.Following the City and UTA's previous capital investments in improved amenities the corridor saw an increase in transit ridership. Developing 200 S as a major transit corridor is envisioned as an initial implementation priority for the City and UTA. • North-south corridors. Several Enhanced Bus corridors are recommended to create a north- south transit grid with approximately half-mile spacing between corridors,including the existing TRAX line in the 200 W corridor.These corridors extend from southern city limits through the downtown core to major destinations further north,including the State Capitol,LDS Hospital, and into the Avenues neighborhood. — State Street.An Enhanced Bus corridor or Bus Rapid Transit on State Street,currently served by UTA route 200,would connect to the State Capitol. — 50o E and 90o E. Enhanced Bus corridors on 50o E and 90o E would extend beyond the downtown core to serve the Avenues neighborhood,including LDS hospital.One or both corridors would serve a recommended transit center in the vicinity of 200 S. • 400 S.A continuous east-west bus corridor along 40o S would connect Redwood Road and the University.A bus corridor along 40o S would run parallel to TRAX between Main Street and the University. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN Capital 3-10 • 9Oo S and 1300 S/California. Continuous east-west cross-town bus corridors in the center of the city would provide service to the Poplar Grove and Glendale neighborhoods,link major retail centers along 30o W,and help develop the frequent service grid. (An at-grade freight railroad crossing currently precludes using 90o S as a continuous bus corridor;freight crossings can cause significant transit delays and bus bunching,especially for frequent service.In the near-term,the recommended FTN corridor could connect 1300 S/California and 900 S using 300 W.In the long-term,this plan supports providing a grade-separated crossing on 900 S that would enable continuous frequent transit service on this corridor). • North/South Temple.A combination of N.Temple and S.Temple Streets is recommended as a continuous east-west bus corridor,supporting development of the frequent service grid.N and S Temple,200 S,and 400 S provide east-west corridors approximately a third-mile apart(i.e.,less than a quarter-mile walk)through downtown and connecting to the University. • Redwood Road. Redwood Road is a significant regional and local transit corridor on the western side of the city.It has an important role connecting neighborhoods with high transit propensity to the frequent grid,including recommended east-west FTN corridors. Redwood Road also serves employment areas west of Redwood Road,between I-8o and south city limits,that are expected to grow in the future.This corridor is recommended as an Enhanced Bus corridor. • Foothill Drive.Foothill Drive is an important regional and local transit corridor serving the University,Research Park,Foothill Cultural District,and Medical Center,and serving neighborhoods in the southeastern part of the city.Current land use patterns and accessibility are challenging to serve effectively with local transit service.This corridor is recommended as an Enhanced Bus corridor,including treatments to optimize transit travel in the congested peak travel periods.The Foothill Drive Corridor Study was completed in 2008;the City,UDOT,UTA, the University of Utah,and other partners completed an Implementation Strategy for the corridor in 2017.As the study has strong stakeholder and community support,it is suggested that project partners consider moving forward with near-term implementation of the study's significant transit,bicycle and pedestrian supportive elements.Salt Lake City will also participate as a key stakeholder in developing updated University of Utah transportation plans.The City will partner with UTA and the University to seek resources for further study of bus,rail,and shuttle service connecting to and within campus,Research Park,VA Hospital,and Foothill Cultural District in the context of planned land use changes. • S-Line Streetcar Extension.Extend the line to improve its utility,to 1700 S(consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan)with a connection to the 900 E FTN corridor.A future extension along 900 E could connect to TRAX service at 400 S. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 1 Capital 1 3-11 Additional Local and Regional Capital Investment Priorities UTA and Salt Lake City have already developed plans for a subset of the corridors included in the Transit Master Plan analysis and identified as Salt Lake City's priorities for transit corridor investments.These corridors were not directly included in the plan's mode assessment because they emerged from local or regional plans that have already conducted a detailed study to refine the preferred transit mode for the corridor.This section identifies additional priority capital investments and assesses how well additional planned projects align with Salt Lake City's transit investment priorities,based on the capital investment principles identified above. Additional projects supported by Salt Lake City include: • TRAX improvements including the Black Line and other downtown network enhancements.These enhancements would resolve capacity issues necessary to enable direct TRAX service between the Airport and the University,two of Salt Lake City's major travel demand generators. • Downtown Streetcar connecting to the University of Utah.The Transit Master Plan corridor analysis supports transit investments in a downtown streetcar including a connection to the University.The analysis showed strong demand for east-west travel between Downtown and University of Utah.The locally preferred alternative includes portions of 200 S(west of W Temple Street),100 S,and S Temple Street.In partnership with the University,Salt Lake City will pursue more detailed study of the eastern segment of the downtown streetcar corridor and its connection to campus.An additional consideration for the project could include coordination with the plan's recommendation to develop a transit center in the vicinity of 200 S and 50o E. • Extended Enhanced Bus or BRT corridors south of Salt Lake City limits,e.g.,on State Street,500 E,and 900 E. • Additional Enhanced Bus corridors consistent with the UTA Network Study and the Regional Transportation Plan,e.g.,on 1300 E(including south of city limits)and 2100 E/21oo S. 1300 E is a key corridor connecting to the University of Utah from Sugar House and the site of forthcoming University facilities just north of I-80.Transit investments will be considered as the City works to reconstruct this corridor.Partnership with the University in improving this corridor for transit would further enhance it as a high-quality connection from points south of campus. • 40o West(South Davis Corridor),where a locally preferred alternative has been selected, with BRT through South Davis County and Enhanced Bus in the 40o W corridor.In addition to improving regional connections to Salt Lake City,this project could provide infrastructure that would support additional Enhanced Bus service to the University of Utah. • Mountain View Corridor Transit Project is a joint effort between UTA and UDOT to develop bus service along 560o West from the Old Bingham Light Rail station to the International Center and from there to the Salt Lake International Airport and downtown Salt Lake City.The approved Phase i project was redefined to use a bus mode.This project will support significant planned employment growth in the Northwest Quadrant. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN Capital 3-12 Figure 3-6 Transit Master Plan Priority Corridors for Capital Investments 6 ,` —Salt Lake City- j ' North Recommended Capital TRANSIT Improvements Salt Lake UTA Transit Service ¢ High Priority Corridors Bus Route MASTERI 7 High Level of Investment Street ar/TR 2300 N Streetcar/TRAX Moderate Level of Investment ® Intermodal Hub P I. A N _ TRAX Upgrades Park&Ride r 1 J ® (UTA) I-7 \ Grade-Separated i I e Freight Rail Crossing O (Other)Ride �_t 4. PS Planned Transit Center 'iV Jl SaitlakgIG tv 4 Frequent Transit Network lntemattonai (rport o 1000 N i Tier t I ,, ' 184 Tier 2 • 1 !IIIiti600N 1 _ Stare 11TH AVE Th, AMEIJ EA'HART DR I P Utah State p+ ShrinersHos iralfa Children FaicGrounds alt Palace 1J Ds ' • P MPLE STO U COnennce' Temple Hospital I • • • • 0Centr ' Square r SaltlakeRegional ` 1 �. 'MeakalCenter._, .UniversityMCa d — Gateway • • y PtimaryChildenshospital 80 . Shopping ,ntr 0®K d Univers' f i l CJ Creek Center o_fUtah 1 Irvan i_..: . . ! of t • ' .. ....-.Ls�1� Arena? ... 4l l r� *, % 0 •■ * ��•►, ' • ' ',Rexarrh Park l66 .• .• 7 . • • EW+shrngt jn NI 1, f f�) rr■ ■ �ga�re � < INDIAN AVE •.• Tare 900 S ® o' � � 900S ' i 9D0 S +V'F hs?i i ‘I'' 11' 7-‘ '..4;* - :187: 1' L_Ii ' ' 1 LALIf$QIIlAdVf ^''' "_ '1 raltiake = 13 S .-.— „•_, 8 ® "ommamty -ill- - afoot-hill Mg Colle e ffi • Walmart mrtlis g 1 :atlParkI Q 11005 R Westminster 1 SOUTH FRONTAGE RD ® College / o v . _ I O I S 0T v T 01 1- • • • : • • • `, Sagar Hoase • e BavnessDisrirt Walmcrr4 c...___S — E t o South LL - West Valley City ',, Salt Lake R Brikyard "olos 41 o t 2 i Plaza I Miles `, Data Sources:UTA,UtahAGRC,ESFj4-1 Y� , 1 1 e SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Capital 13-13 Figure 3-7 Transit Master Plan Priority Corridors for Capital Investments and Compatible Modes Recommended Mode Options[1] Past Previously Corridor Corridor Notes I Order-of-Magnitude Cost Previously Primary Source Plans or # Name Rail BRT Enhanced Estimate[2] MapP an IDS 3 Planned Project PMcded Studies Bus p [ ] 1 200S X X BRT:$61 M-$182 M; Enhanced Bus: N 200 S E Enhanced UTA Network Study[4] $12M-$4M Bus South 2 -- -- X $11 M-$45 M n/a n/a n/a n/a Temple Continuous bus corridor from Redwood Road to University($22 M $87 M). 400 S TRAX Downtown in Motion; 3 400S TRAX - X TRAX extension also identified in H TRAX Extension Sustainable Salt Lake City corridor(see additional projects, Figure 3-9). A continuous connection to Redwood Road on 900 S is not possible in the near-term due to an at-grade freight rail 4a/b,7 900 S and -- -- X crossing. Portions of these corridors n/a n/a n/a n/a 1300 S implemented in the near-term could be connected using 300 W(see Chapter 2).$31 M-$124 M,both corridors, not including grade separation. BRT:$59 M-$176 M; Enhanced Bus: State Street Downtown in Motion; UTA 8 State X X $12 M-$47 M C EnhanBcRT Bus/ BRT Network Study 9a/b 500E -- -- X $14 M-$55 M J 500 E Enhanced Enhanced UTA Network Study Bus Bus 11a/b 900E -- -- X $17 M-$68 M K 900 E Enhanced Enhanced UTA Network Study Bus Bus 12 Foothill X $13 M $53 M 0 Currently under Enhanced Foothill Drive -- --Drive study Bus or BRT Implementation Strategy 14a Redwood -- -- X $20 M-$81 M B2 North Redwood Enhanced UTA Network Study project Bus 14b Redwood -- -- X $13 M-$53 M B1 Redwood BRT BRT West Side Master Plan; UTA Network Study SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Capital 13-14 Recommended Mode Options[1] Past Previously Corridor Corridor Notes I Order-of-Magnitude Cost Plans Previously Planned Primary Source Plans or Name Rail BRT Enhanced Estimate[2] MapID 3 Planned Project Mode Studies Bus [ ] Capital improvements to signals and existing track would provide a fourth TRAX line connecting the Airport and University of Utah and would increase frequency on the 400 South TRAX segment(assuming no changes to other 6 Black Line TRAX -- -- lines).This would require additional I Black Line TRAX TRAX n/a operating funds and training.Adding lines, revising termini,or increasing frequencies on existing lines thereafter would require duplicative N-S and E-W rail connections and additional study. Estimated cost of$5.5 M. Included as an element of 900 E S-Line Sugar House Master Plan; corridor in plan's evaluation.A future S-Line Streetcar 11c Streetcar Streetcar extension along 900 E could connect to F Phase II Streetcar Sustainable Salt Lake City; Extension TRAX service at 400 S. UTA Network Study Not specifically analyzed, but 100 S corridor performed well in plan's Downtown analysis. Estimated cost of$92 M for Downtown Downtown in Motion; 1 &2 Streetcar Streetcar -- -- 1.67 mi, including five vehicles and a E Streetcar Streetcar Sustainable Salt Lake City; maintenance facility that comprise about UTA Network Study $32.5 M of the cost(2014,Year of Expenditure). Notes:[1]Compatible modes based on Transit Master Plan corridors analysis and capital investment principles;recommendation to be refined in a more detailed study of each corridor. [2]Order-of- magnitude capital cost estimates for BRT and Enhanced Bus use unit costs of$15 million per mile for BRT and$3 million per mile from the UTA Network Study(2013)for the low-end of each cost range.The high-end of the cost ranges is set based on per-mile costs of$45 million and$12 million for BRT and Enhanced Bus,respectively,from data from other bus corridor projects nationally. The UTA Network Study unit costs are within the range of other bus corridor projects.[3]See Figure 3-8 illustrating the relationship between Transit Master Plan priority corridors and previous plans. [4]Bus Plus is equivalent to Enhanced Bus. Order-of-magnitude capital costs for implementing all the bus corridors identified in Figure 3-7 range from about $175 to $970 million. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Capital 13-15 Figure 3-8 Relationship of Transit Master Plan Priority Corridors to Other Local and Regional Capital Improvement Plans Salt Lake City- - North Recommended Capital Past Plans TRANS 1 T Salt Lake Improvements Proposed/Planned Transit Service _ o TMP Priority Corridors - TRAX O MASTER o$ High Level of Investment Streetcar 2300 N 0 Moderate Level of Investment - Bus Rapid Transit PLAN Enhanced Bus' TRAX Upgrades Regional Rus Grade-SRaileparatedCrossing 'Represents Bus Plus Network from • Freight UTA Network Study(2013) G (q Planned transit Center Existing Transit Service F \� FronlRunner/ Streetcar/TRAX Salt Lake Gty International Airport 1000 N ® Intermodal Hub la • 600N State AMELIA EARHART DR Utah State CaFaoi O I ITH AVE Fair Grounds SoftP:ntoe 0 1DS 6TH AVE /+,ShrinersHospaallaUlldren N EMPLf ST�p Carventan 'rtnplr Ho ital tifir I SST! _ i Center „Square Salt Lake Regonal ...r : —S-TFMPlI---MedicoKenieL UnirersrtyMCand • Gatewr r1 • +TPrimaryChildmnsHospitol • J_ I Shopping(enter £♦€ � 1 7 -7 Unm r51t • • iun! �f'r en!er N ni+2ai,* olUtaA3� 4005 n`,trend �• 4005 --�- 0 s® H E•7 • • • • • Research Park '`. n . ' .r.. sa` INDIANA AVE G areasfirb�� VA 5a die 1 s 7z 900 S Q _ • .9005 1 Sacae• 900 S —Cedter Medkal • — 1 89 O •IM 154, aCALIFORNIA AVE Salt Lake: 1300 S p Community • iet fanlMUVilI qe ,UnOrr SO"th5 College J Q ballpark 01700 S 1TOOS Westminster go SOUTH FRONTAGE RD College zo 21005 F T. 201 O O O Sugor tlouse ll 0 Oi lrasinessDistrkr Wolmart 0 s Meg 0C e 2700 S West Valley City 3 7C4 9 South a A Salt Lake e - e• 30105 O O K N O o J r Piom To Millcreek U t 2 Data Sources. . ? JTA,Utah AGRC,ESRI o V V , V' 0 Mks SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Capital 13-16 Figure 3-9 Assessment of Capital Investments in Other Corridors and Compatibility with Transit Master Plan Goals Corridor Past Plans Previously Mode Supportive of Notes Primary Source # MAP ID Planned Project the plan's Goals Plans or Studies Additional Projects Supported by Transit Master Plan 10 L 1300 EBUs anted Enhanced Bus Aligned Part of the recommended FTN. UTA Network Study 2100 S/1700 S 2100 S/2100 E shows strong demand in this analysis and is part of the UTA Network Study; 5 M Enhanced Bus Enhanced Bus Aligned recommended FTN.2100 S west of 1-15 did not show strong local demand WFRC RTP in this analysis, but could have regional utility. This is a regionally-significant project that has been studied by UTA.The UTA Network Transit Master Plan focused on local needs and therefore did not consider Study; Davis SLC n/a D South Davis BRT BRT Aligned this corridor; however,the local portion of the project,which recommends Community Enhanced Bus along the 400 W corridor,supports the plan's local transit Connector Study recommendations. 400 S TRAX Part of recommended FTN;the Transit Master Plan will support evolving Downtown in 3 H Motion; Sustainable Extension TRAX Aligned capital recommendations over time. Salt Lake City TRAX"outer Part of recommended FTN; but not included in capital recommendations; Downtown in n/a G loop"of TRAX Aligned the Transit Master Plan will support evolving capital recommendations over Motion; UTA Downtown[1] time as development patterns and market demand changes. Network Study 5600 West/ This is a regionally-significant project that has been studied by UTA.The UTA Network Study; n/a A Mountain View Express Bus Aligned City supports the Phase 1 Mountain View Corridor project,from the Old Mountain View Corridor Transit Bingham Light Rail station to the International Center,Salt Lake Corridor Record of International Airport,and downtown Salt Lake City. Decision(ROD) Regionally-Significant Projects with Limited Local Transit Implications This is a regionally-significant project that has been studied by UTA.The n/a P 2700 W Corridor Enhanced Bus Neutral Transit Master Plan focused on local needs and therefore did not consider WFRC RTP this corridor. Mountain Sustainable Salt n/a xx Transportation N/A Neutral This is a regionally-significant project that is currently being studied, but is Lake City; UTA System outside the scope of the Transit Master Plan Network Study Notes:[1]TRAX lines on 700 South from 200 West to 400 West,and then continuing north on 400 West connecting to the existing system near Gateway—completing outer loop that serves Downtown and the emerging southwest quadrant. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 1 Capital 1 3-17 IMPLEMENTATION OF BUS PRIORITY CORRIDORS Transit Priority Toolbox Figure 3-io provides a list of potential roadway,stop,and vehicle treatments for Salt Lake City that can reduce system inefficiencies and improve the functionality of the transit.This toolbox can help guide future investments along the identified Transit Master Plan corridors.The toolbox is generally consistent with the NACTO Transit Street Design Guide,'which provides additional design options and implementation details. Figure 3-10 Transit Priority Toolbox Treatment Definition Benefits Constraints Roadway Treatments Transit signal priority At traffic signals,vehicles Reduces travel time Less effective when . - i (TSP) communicate with the traffic signal and delay for buses at signals are operating at ;; system to provide a green signal intersections.This capacity. indication to an approaching vehicle. could be particularly �'' This often works better in conjunction beneficial given long i t _ _ with a far-side transit stop. traffic signal times. I Queue jump lanes At signalized intersections,a bus is Buses"jump"the Lane must be as long as provided with a lane adjacent to queue of waiting cars, the typical queues.TSP general purpose traffic and an reducing travel times. makes these much more __ —• advanced green signal indication to effective, particularly if 'V bypass congested areas. there is no far-side --- - _.---- - - __ receiving lane.May increase pedestrian Queue jump lane. crossing times. Source:Nelson\Nygaard 1 http://nacto.org/publication/transit-street-design-guide/ SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 1 Capital 1 3-18 Treatment Definition Benefits Constraints Dedicated bus lanes A lane is reserved for exclusive use by Reduces travel times. Conflicts with right turn I. '! 1,', ��"' buses. It may also be used for general and delivery vehicles. CURB _ ,t))! ' LANE .jr ! "a �, purpose traffic right-turn movements Potential opposition from BUSES N- . 1, _ __- • i onto cross streets and for access to businesses that may lose ONLY s . 9, adjacent properties. on street parking. 3-6 P M EXCEPT SAT -HUL BICYCLES ON (RIGHT TURNS l PERMITTED , Left:Peak-hour business-access-and-transit signage in Seattle, WA.Right:Bus-only lane in New York City. Sources:Left—Flickr user Oran Viriyincy;Right—NelsonlNygaard Dedicated bus A median lane is reserved for Reduces travel times. Conflicts with left-turning Ii median lanes exclusive use by buses.This treatment vehicles. Signalization .''il .117 ‘,i speeds bus travel times. challenges. fr Dedicated median bus lane in Cleveland,OH. Source:NACTO Reversible or contra- A reversible transit lane is a dedicated Helps transit get Loss of roadway �• flow lanes transit facility that operates in the peak around bottle-necks or capacity. Pedestrian . `t• • travel direction.A contra-flow bus lane access limited access safety considerations. * , •; �, . • a i � %- is a dedicated lane of an otherwise facilities.Applies Signalization challenges. one-way street reversed for buses and roadway capacity to �N.v- „ - other mass transit.Contra-flow lanes meet peak-direction sc� ' can also be reversed to add capacity travel needs. in the peak travel direction. --- iiiv Contraflow bus lane in Boston,MA. Source:NelsonlNygaard SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Capital 13-19 Treatment Definition Benefits Constraints Transit priority streets A street that is dedicated to transit or is Highly effective for Loss of roadway .,tAim, designed primarily as a transit corridor. moving high volumes capacity. Limited number ' in urban centers, of streets in - particularly during geographically ,."""""" "!' I I peak hours. constrained areas. KID . c ' c" . , '_ . .• • ..its Ili or ,i r""gli — Transit priority street in Minneapolis,MN. Source:NACTO Limited or time GP turning movements are restricted Helps implement peak Impacts on other prohibited general at all times or during peak periods. period queue jump roadways from diversion public(GP)turning May be implemented with queue jump lanes or transit only of GP traffic/turning movements or dedicated bus curb lanes. lanes. movements. Can also benefit pedestrian safety. Innovative bus-bike Treatments to provide bicycles with Reduce transit delay Highly contextual and ' treatments safe routes along high volume transit on busy bicycle must be considered r .. - I - corridors, manage bicycle transit corridors and improve within balance of person �.r _ ' r h vehicle interactions,and allow bicycles bicycling experience. travel delay/benefit for r, �—" . to share transit lanes. Examples specific street or corridor I $ include shared lane markings,colored conditions. .._-- - - - - pavement,and bicycle-only signals. , S1%. Innovative bus-bike treatment in Eugene,OR. Source:Nelson\Nygaard SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 1 Capital 1 3-20 Treatment Definition Benefits Constraints Stop Treatments Curb extensions/bus Sidewalks are extended into the street Minimizes delays from Only applicable where an _ f,� bulbs/boarding so that buses would stop in the lane of merging back into on-street parking lane i platforms traffic.This prevents buses from traffic lane.This also exists. Impacts to traffic getting trapped by passing vehicles, reduces the pedestrian flow must be taken into _:_ unable to return to the flow of traffic. crossing distance. account. Boarding islands A transit access point constructed in a Removes side friction Pedestrian safety and lane that allows buses to use the faster caused by right-turning ADA access _ moving left-lane of a roadway. vehicles,parking requirements. Effects on - maneuvers,and overall traffic due to ---- delivery vehicles. taking an additional lane. Bus boarding island in Seattle,WA,also routes cyclists around the stop. Source:Nelson\Nygaard Level boarding A boarding platform that is level with Reduces dwell times Mostly applicable to BRT ,,, platforms the bus to enable easier and faster and travel times. and rail systems where - �....a., boarding, particularly for passengers vehicle and platform , fi 'i with mobility impairments, using design is standardized. _� . c� wheelchairs,or bringing a stroller on- - . - `` board the vehicle. — ti I • Level boarding platform in Eugene,OR. Source NACTO Defined platform Defining the locations where doors will Reduces dwell times. May be most effective in loading locations open allows passengers to wait in a proof-of payment nearest proximity to their bus or train. system where passengers may board through any door. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Capital 13-21 Treatment Definition Benefits Constraints Defined bus loading Defining the platform loading locations Reduces dwell times. Most effective with positions at a stop allows passengers to more "platooned"bus arrivals quickly find/walk to their bus and (e.g.,buses timed to ensure that a bus is correctly leave a common origin positioned to be able to depart before point at the same time). a bus in front of it. - - Bus stop Reduces the number of stops on a Reduces dwell times ADA and elderly/disabled �p—l� consolidation route, particularly where spacing is and travel times. access.Grades must be II 11 '' ��r�j 11 less than one stop every three blocks. taken into account. - „: , , ,;F, f_ri r 410 .U., I, Off board fare Users can pay their fare before Speeds boarding and Capital and O&M y .j �� ` C. payment boarding the vehicle.On-vehicle fare allow full utilization of expense of off-board payment typically delays the loading all doors. payment machines. and unloading of buses,as only one Passenger safety at - door may be used. night. - Defined platform loading locations for SWIFT BRT in Snohomish County,WA.Longer stop spacing often accompanies Enhanced Bus or BRT lines.Industry experience is that passengers are often willing to walk longer distances to high-quality stations with good amenities.Amenities at SWIFT stations include off-board fare payment. Source:Nelson\Nygaard Vehicle Treatments Low floor,wide door Low-floor vehicles(including Wheelchair lifts on Wide-door vehicles are ( g in vehicles conjunction with level boarding low-floor vehicles most effective if - 1111 ,- platforms)allow passengers to board operate more quickly. implemented in Sier I 7- more quickly without climbing steps, Wide-door vehicles conjunction with prepaid 1 _ ' particularly for passengers with allow passengers to fare payment. mobility challenges. enter and exit vehicles ��� t'� 'I more efficiently. • ... On-vehicle perimeter On heavily loaded routes,increases May increase vehicle More appropriate for —____ U seating standing capacity,makes more carrying capacity and shorter-distance routes. - efficient use of seating capacity,and reduces dwell times. allows passengers to exit the vehicle more quickly. Low-floor vehicle in Los Angeles,CA. Source:Wikimedia User METR096 SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Capital 13-22 Application of Transit Priority Toolbox Figure 3-11 identifies which treatments might be applicable to Transit Master Plan priority corridors(Figure 3-7)identified as likely bus corridors and provides examples of locations where treatments have already been implemented or could be applied.Treatments that require construction should be simultaneously completed with other street reconstruction projects.A corridor study would need to be conducted to develop a detailed plan for each corridor.General phasing recommendations are provided in Chapter 7. Figure 3-11 Treatments for Transit Master Plan Priority Bus Corridors Potential Treatments li a) ci) ci) O cn O J O `p 7) O CO N , CL a) -O_ a) is ` �' -0 W m p Corridor 0_ = a > — Cl) � -- -2 = CO 0- # Corridor Name Specific Examples (I) c a) ct 0 1- � = 0 00 do c� 1 200 S ©©©- X © X X 2 South Temple ©■■ . X 3 400 S Queue jump at 700 E ©©■ -■- X 4a/b,7 900 S and 1300 S ©©■ -■ X X 8 State ©©© -© X X 9a/b 500 E Queue jump at 400 S ©©■ -© X X 11 a/b 900 E ©©■ -© X X 12 Foothill Drive Queue jump at Sunnyside;Stops at Kensington X X X X X Ave S&Bryan Ave S are less than 500 feet apart 14a/b Redwood Queue jump at N.Temple X X X SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Capital 13-23 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS - TRANSIT CORRIDOR AND FACILITY CAPITAL INVESTMENTS High priority strategies are highlighted in blue. Figure 3-12 Transit Corridor and Facility Capital Investment Recommendations Recommendation Who is When should # What is the recommendation? Why do it? category responsible? it happen?* Develop design standards for Provides a distinctive identify Lead: City Priority Corridors 3.1 Enhanced Bus and BRT corridors, for high-quality transit Support: Near term including branding for vehicles and services that offer faster, stations. reliable travel times. UTA Engage with City traffic engineering Develop a TSP standard with Lead: City Priority Corridors 3.2 staff to identify the level of transit Near-term signal priority that can be provided. staff level support. Support: n/a Develop a pilot Enhanced Bus Demonstrate the benefits of corridor project with coordinated frequent service and capital Lead: City Priority Corridors 3.3 frequent service and capital Support: Near-term improvements in a corridor investments.200 S has been with near term readiness. UTA discussed as a potential project. Work out detailed concepts Conduct corridor studies to refine for each corridor and engage Lead: City or Near to long- Priority Corridors 3.4 mode,alignment,and other design the public to work through UTA(varies) term(varies elements for each corridor. design tradeoffs and secure Support: n/a by corridor) broad community support. Develop a coordinated approach to implement priority corridors, including coordination with other Develop a realistic modal plans,targeting three implementation plan for the Lead: City or Priority Corridors 3.5 corridors every two years. Focus Transit Master Plan priority UTA(varies) Near term initial investments in corridors that corridors(additional guidance Support: n/a do not require major service is provided in Chapter 7). restructuring or other logistical challenges. Partner with the University of Utah Support planned growth and to develop and/or advance plans for expansion of University the downtown streetcar connection facilities,and help the City Lead: City Priority Corridors 3.6 to the University,and other key and University meet goals to Support: Near-term transit corridors serving the reduce single-occupant University of University, including Foothill Drive vehicle trips to one of the Utah, UTA and 1300 E. major commute destinations in Salt Lake City. Endorse the NACTO Transit Street Design Guide and incorporate its Ensure that facilities are Lead: City Facility Design 3.7 guidance into design of transit designed consistent with Near-term facilities and bicycle and pedestrian industry best practices. Support: n/a access to transit. *Note:Near term=within 2 years;medium term=3-5 years;long term=6-10 years High priority strategy SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN Capital 3-24 I ' I WI UTAGBUS : I likal • Ln -...--------- - 1,--. 11...•• • ' NO IDLIN e a.. ... un I •r- . '1i-='.4, ,•=-:r. T•••-'9: ET=t:ri.,if-ir rsi,:,-•-e.r-:u i I .. FREE FARE ZON - -- (1) I , . . . . F.. 2 ii i..-...,-. ....•L•E.F.-1.i 1 . . r,i-.. ..•,.: , .., .11 ., ' ..... A f . 'No_ H 1 , \ _ • . $ JAIiiisti ___________, ___ . . In .i=1,--.Ir.= . -..1...- . r.or-- •.7:-- r.....--•- :.. .: --.. _ ( • (.1) -•••,....... 1 1 ..mi.,La.• -....,.. _ I I . I IC I i'i •,, 1 • .NI ( < I / 1 \, I .• .) V _..... E ,., ..,: ... 1.,.. . __ ... ,1, 1 . . 1 • , ion" 1111111i...,.llow L. I'll -- , lii 1\ %. -/ - a „ lie H 1 1 ci lio, / 9iCitiDUNKIN. . , 0 I • ," 0 0 ' . I 1 1 •-•. -1.....7-‘ 3,....) 4111, • t 'INA- (r) .i.','. •' . Amm, (I) •'., 4, !!, 1 .,-, -. ...•...,, W , I* '111111.110 . . , . • i .1 '....__..... ......m... .• - '.,",:,, , .• 'Cr • -'4-J. '.,,, - ,.,A. i......,.4 - • 17—•••••.- _ el,.... ,-t•..:. -' -. .--r.f.J...“ [,...„-,, ,, -- .....„7:r -" ,-,'.4,,,..,:rig.4.-",:..14L,. ,.s,,,..:4.-:.:•".`.7g;Y:•-cf,-::5•a'',4-..4"---,'•.,•' '• • - ---.-.,...,,r,..,„, . ,.• ..:-. -, --. — ,---•••,...4,:".. • . .c., '.,...4:- . •-•- •. ,-.• -..,,-- --,,-0.-...,.(.— . • •- —?",";.‘.-'..,,ri•-,, ...3•44et. A - • -....),,•••,.• •.-..,.. -5--,,,,..%:.•-•- • .,..,,_.:. ,•-••••„-.. ••,....„.-.7.-.-,;_v- -,-,,.g...•.,,.......:4,,,... -..„.„..7.-;.:,.--„,-„,-. eiro,-, ,.... •:„. .A..tv,_ • •,.._. ,:;,,,,,-::f.„.,;;-:--rk,.,,I. -- L-.• ‘-----,,,,----rx,spetn.,.**,p,..-:,3,7-4-,if.,_:, ..--c..0 . ,. : „i.•„. , '-; 0.1)0- -' '.--- -410ifirfteOk-- • ... ..3-....-44,,,•.4-1--s-2--- .4,, -- -4,..••.....- •44r-,.......*.....• . ,..---.,?..-,,r,..... -;.."..y.,-,0-.:,.•••„•.,.,...4 .,..,_. .- „..$...-...,..v.o..,.•.„-iii.4..„.,..,..-_,••-,............ ......,,.,.,.-,,,,, •-,4.-,-4',. .k.f..,01,., T-:04•---:---,--4.r-•• -- 4 '..-',i',' ''.•• ''‘''''',-i";:''''':"..4,'"'"Z.."..*: - ,..k..',...f.-7-1'. ;ty:."' -T. ...', ., • ,4,/":-.--.-- ,i ,•. , / - ..- _..-# „.,.=.-:-/* . .4:14-0t. ,-..... t, -. ----e-• 1;--A.-.7 ...........1.,-ft....... - ...-,.- .. --.......-71,----4, 47-...----7, -,.,r- .--,..,p.A. • ... .. .:1;:: ,idu:-.1-..,>,-....;,-'-. ,-.•-•,-f-i. ..4,. , -.f.-... .,- . .,,,.----:T..•••-•. - .''-•• • -_A5. . -..,:t—. . .4t.-,q4,•,--0,7,...,,,,.-_,,4,-,7-7:_.: .,. T-5,-r..--"-,....-.:•-•'"--i'4,1X{:" .,'''',.. '.:' 4 ACCESS TO THE TRANSIT SYSTEM A safe and connected network of pedestrian and bicycle facilities is a foundation of a complete transit system.Providing safe,comfortable access to public transit is critical to attract new riders and improve the overall travel experience for existing riders.While Salt Lake City does not manage transit service,it does manage the streets that connect people to transit. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ACCESS The need for safe,convenient,and comfortable 660 pedestrian and bicycle access to transit stops and stations has been identified through public outreach efforts for the Transit Master Plan and past Salt Lake $ City planning efforts.Forty-three percent(43%)of participants in the Design Your Transit System Tool identified"improved access to transit on foot and by bike"as a priority.' Salt Lake City 922' N Pedestrian Access g Every transit trip begins and ends as a pedestrian trip. New York City Safe,comfortable sidewalks that connect directly to 300' destinations can be a deciding factor for transit riders ‘a 300' N when choosing whether or not to take transit at all, especially for those with the option to drive.A quality Phoenix Chicago pedestrian network includes sidewalks that are well-lit 400' and buffered from traffic and streets with well-marked ti 200' crossings at frequent intervals.Compared to other U.S. g g cities,Salt Lake City has long blocks(see graphic at Denver Portland right).For example,Portland's blocks are 200 feet by Salt Lake City has much larger blocks than cities 200 feet,while Salt Lake City blocks are more than like New York,Phoenix,and Chicago. three times as long-66o feet by 66o feet.Salt Lake Source:http://greatergreater.com/files/2010/gridposter.pdf City's long blocks have been identified as a key barrier to pedestrian mobility in the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan and through community outreach for the Transit Master Plan. "My motivation for taking transit is so I can bike to work and get physical exercise; otherwise it is cheaper, quicker, and more convenient for me to drive. I am a big advocate of alternative modes of travel, but it has to make economic sense for the users." - Design Your Own Transit System"Survey Respondent 1 Of note:for Salt Lake City residents that took the survey,this number jumped to 48%who selected improved access to transit on foot and by bike as a priority. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Access to Transit 1 4-1 Characteristics of good pedestrian access to transit are outlined below.The Salt Lake City Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan and the Salt Lake City Bus Stop Design Guidelines include recommendations and guidelines addressing pedestrian and transit stop access and safety; specific Transit Master Plan recommendations for improving pedestrian access in Salt Lake City are presented in Figure 4-1. Well-marked intersection and mid-block crossings that provide a safe and visible place for pedestrians to cross the street.Mid-block crossings are especially important where blocks are long to provide more opportunity for pedestrians to cross the street safely and cut down on walking time to reach transit stops.Pedestrian-specific signals, such as RRFB(Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons)and HAWK(High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk),are traffic control devices used to stop traffic and allow pedestrians to cross safely either at intersections or mid-block. ■ Traffic calming measures such as curb bulbouts and median refuge islands reduce crossing distances,vehicle speeds,and the number of travel lanes pedestrians must negotiate to cross the street. ■ Exclusive pedestrian phases at intersections with high walking activity allow pedestrians to cross the street in both directions at the same time.A leading pedestrian interval(LPI)gives pedestrians a 3-7 second head start entering an intersection to increase their visibility to turning motorists. ■ Pedestrian-scale lighting near transit stops allows riders to see and be seen,and improves both perceived and actual safety and comfort. ■ Wayfinding along the frequent transit network improves access to transit and helps passengers connect to key destinations from transit(also see Recommendation 5.4 Wayfinding in Chapter 5). ■ Designing for Disability(also known as universal or inclusive design)refers to designing the built environment so that it can inherently be used by all people to the fullest extent possible,regardless of ability.In the context of transit accessibility,this includes ensuring that sidewalks have adequate width and are not be impeded by bus stops or other elements; curb ramps that facilitate movements between the sidewalk and street crossings;reducing driveway cross-slopes;tactile treatments on curb ramps,stop platforms,and other conflicts points;providing information in audio,visual,and tactile formats,considering cultural and language differences as well as people with restricted mobility,visual,and/or audible ability(e.g.,signage,audible stop announcements on vehicles and at stations,real-time information,etc.). Pedestrian accommodation is most important within a quarter-mile radius of transit stops. Taking into account bus stops as well as rail,this includes most of the downtown,business areas, and neighborhoods of Salt Lake City.The map in Figure 2-8 in Chapter 2 highlights the quarter- mile buffer around the frequent transit network. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Access to Transit 1 4-2 \ '0 r it'l { '. 'v r a 4'. a F..x � ' 'irik �/ : yz . _ yTy� a _ Oil _ \ */W--. e., ` iv., : ...... .... . .__ , ._ \ Y . _. , • . ...• ..„,,. ,_ .?... .. • . .. ..•. . Pedestrian flashing beacons(left)and high-intensity activated crosswork(HAWK)signals(right)alert drivers to crossing pedestrians. Source:Salt Lake City - / , -� ' `,_ .... nib 09:09 1 r 77%) ..uc:ATaT 4 13:03 etl + 92'ri�r ® Ir&ti <Back Mt Auburn St @ Boylston St O Close Devonshire St @Milk St Done ROPE]I — -J NexTrip . R r Iii. , R Y - Q Next bus in min. 'u. Route]t t0 Harvard IIW e e , You are within 5O0 it. 6PS accuracy is fair'El 4 { �� Every bus stop is unique. Approaching the stop with the street on e your left. I- a :a t - Please tell us about the bus stop sign. 1 Before the stop,there Is a bench. '� 9 0, ,\ I . _ Thin pole 2 Closer to the stop,there is a ... garbage can. ,- Q Thick pole Metal 1 ;) The bus stop sign is on a square , - " • On building W ole. • p ... e® _R�fV No sign 4 Beyond the stop,there is a metal '.�=� Other pole. 5 Further past the stop,there is an 'intersection. : le'''. On grass or dirt Bus stop accessibility features include audible"next bus" Crowd-sourced information is used to provide visual and announcements,activated using a button on the stop pole, audible clues through the BlindWays mobile app(currently and a level-boarding platform with tactile strips. available for MTBA in Boston),that allow transit riders to locate Source:Metro Transit their bus stop sign post to within a four to five foot distance. Source:Perkins School for the Blind SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Access to Transit 14-3 Bicycle Access Safe and direct bicycle facilities that connect to transit increase the catchment area of transit service by providing important first mile/last mile connections—extending up to three miles for routine travel such as commuting.The on-street bicycling environment must be safe and comfortable for people with a broad range of skills and for all ages.On-street bicycle improvements and off-street facilities should be prioritized along the FTN. Key components that comprise good bicycle access to transit are outlined below; specific recommendations for improving bicycle access in Salt Lake City are presented in Figure 4-1. • Protected bike lanes provide a dedicated space for bicycling that is separated from the roadway by a physical barrier,such as the curb,a flexible plastic post,and/or plantings. Salt Lake City built its first protected bike lanes on Broadway(300 South)and 200 West in 2014 and 2o15. • Protected intersections improve safety and visibility when bicycle facilities cross a roadway.Features can include bike ramps,forward waiting areas,corner refuge islands, setback crossings,and bike signals.In 2o15,Salt Lake City built the second protected intersection in the U.S.on the corner of 200 West and Broadway(see photo below). • Bicycle lanes and boxes are another technique to provide dedicated space in the street for cyclists and to increase driver awareness to the presence of cyclists.Increasingly,cities are using colored pavement treatments to designate bike lanes,either by coloring the beginning of the lane,the entire lane,and/or boxes at intersections.Cities are also providing a striped buffer to provide more separation between the bike lane and the roadway. • Neighborhood byways are low-traffic streets that have been optimized for use by both pedestrians and bicyclists.A variety of traffic calming elements and signage are used to reduce car volumes and speeds,fostering a safe bicycling environment.Additionally, signals and other pedestrian and bicycle-specific treatments provide safe crossings of major streets. • GREENbike bike share provides an important mobility option for people taking transit—either by extending the reach of transit,allowing riders to complete the first and last segments of their trip easily,or by providing a transportation option for other short trips during the day. • Smart placement of transit stops near bike facilities help bicycles access transit seamlessly. --aa ,:,' R.-, ,fir - z T"� � " 001--•:: pp... __. , 101 ii. . - ' ,., gi '....itt4 fi„.„ ii. In 2015,Salt Lake City opened a protected intersection on the corner of Bicycle signal treatment along 600 E 200 West and Broadway. neighborhood byway. Source:Salt Lake City Source:Salt Lake City SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Access to Transit 1 4-4 UTA First/Last Mile Study Demonstrates Need for Improved Access to Transit A survey conducted in 2014 as part of UTA's First/Last Mile Study demonstrates passenger priorities for improved access to transit. Priorities identified included bike paths, improved crosswalks, improved passenger waiting areas, and UTA shuttles as the most important features at or near rail stations. Additional access strategies are needed to support first/last mile access to the FTN. Bicycle Amenities Bike parking,end of trip facilities such as showers and lockers,and bike racks on buses also help passengers seamlessly connect to transit by ensuring cyclists have a secure place to park their bikes at the transit stop and/or by allowing them to bring their bikes on board. vir 11P_______w — Is ®Parking o I o NYC Cycling Map 11 il 10 ii r - ��� 0 CO ti :r.. I - . -7- ' '. tit ,. ,,- .•,.., _ , . , i f A !11111411.7- „.-7/1a. '' I / / „il ..,,i, „.,,,... . _ ._ „,„,.. . Covered bicycle parking is provided along the SelectBus BRT line in New York City. Source:Wikimedia Commons,User Jim Henderson Key components that comprise good bicycle amenities are outlined below;specific recommendations for improving bicycle amenities in Salt Lake City are presented in Figure 4-1. ■ Bike parking allows transit riders to use bikes for the first and last mile of a transit trip without needing to transport the bike on bus or rail vehicles.Solutions range from simple outdoor"U"racks that are suitable for short-term parking to secure parking in locked, covered cages.Bike lockers are available at most TRAX and FrontRunner stations. Salt Lake City's bus stop guidelines specify basic bicycle parking at every stop.Chapter 6 recommends policy guidelines for bike parking at different types of transit facilities, including secure parking at Intermodal Hubs,Transit Centers,and Mobility Hubs,and at TRAX or BRT stations as appropriate based on the station land use context.The City's existing guidelines recommend increasing bike parking capacity at stations and stops to meet the level of demand. Design guidelines should also ensure that parking is attractive. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Access to Transit 1 4-5 • Bikes on transit allow passengers to bring their bike on board transit vehicles.All UTA buses are equipped with a bicycle rack and bicycles are allowed on TRAX and FrontRunner trains even during peak commute times.Providing bike parking at stops and stations helps ensure that on-vehicle capacity is available for riders who need their bike on both ends of their transit trip. • Other end of trip facilities such as bike maintenance stations allow passengers to do routine bike maintenance right at the transit stop.Amenities include repair tools and a bike pump.Showers and changing facilities can also help improve the biking experience. The City can work with employers to add these amenities and could provide them at high ridership locations. L rr — „_ • • 111 117d .. Al I. is' t' '� �j �; J 44# r I }• 41 4741 — 5 M1 * - a- ' * . , ' iri.: - ' 0 tit , . : :,. , • . ,xtaii.„,,. : . . .„ ,, t +5 I .� . . ___;.• , ( ::....:,\ , I . 41 .)414 ,.... __ IN•'•., . - , y' •- • ti. .. .. - A bike maintenance facility—called Bike Fixtation—is provided at Metro Transit Lake Street/Midtown LRT Station in Minneapolis. Source:Bike Fixtation SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Access to Transit 1 4-6 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS - PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ACCESS The following table outlines specific improvements that are recommended for improving bicycle and pedestrian access. High priority strategies are highlighted in blue. Figure 4-1 Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Recommendations Recommendation What is the Who is When should category recommendation? Why do it? responsible? it happen?* Per the Salt Lake City Blocks are long in Salt Lake Pedestrian and Bicycle Master City; mid-block crosswalks Plan,create pedestrian and can help create a more bicycle routes using mid-block well-connected,fine-grained Mid-Block crossings and passageways, street network that enables Lead: City Crossin s 4.1 wide sidewalks,and signage;1 shorter and more direct Ongoing g prioritize mid-block crossings walking connections, Support: n/a along the Frequent Transit provides greater choice of Network;designate routes,and is easier to neighborhood byways to serve with cost-effective connect to the FTN transit Treat bike share as an GREENbike has proven to be an important extension of the transit system Lead: GREENbike and prioritize expansion of bike complement to Salt Lake GREENbike Integration 4.2 share to provide access and City's transit system, Su ort: Ongoing allowing people to take pp connection to the Frequent transit and ride the rest of City and UTA Transit Network the way by bike In partnership with the City's Pedestrian and Bicycle Program,designate a well- Paths of travel to and from Bike/Transit connected network of multiuse transit facilities should be Integration 4 3 paths; buffered and protected comfortable,safe,and Lead: City Ongoing bike lanes; neighborhood direct to expand the Support: n/a byways;and regular bike lanes catchment area of transit that provide direct connections service to local destinations and the Frequent Transit Network Per the Salt Lake City Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan,encourage installation of Bike parking at transit stops bicycle parking spaces, and stations allows Lead: City including secure parking,such and UTA passengers to easily Bike Parking at as bicycle lockers and secure connect to transit by bike, Support: Transit Stops 4.4 parking areas,at high-demand providing a safe and Private sector Near Term transit stops1 Work with UTA to convenient place for them as ensure cost for secure bicycle to park their bike before development parking is affordable and riding transit occurs commensurate with the cost and site footprint of providing a vehicle parking stall. I Salt Lake City Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan(2015). *Note:Near term=within 2 years;medium term=3-5 years;long term=6-10 years High priority strategy SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN Access to Transit 4-7 Recommendation What is the Wh do it? Who is When should category recommendation? y responsible? it happen?* Coordinate with UTA to Ample capacity for bikes on continue to provide bicycle transit vehicles facilitates storage on buses and light rail first and last mile Lead: UTA Bikes on Transit 4.5 Near Term allowing Support: n/a vehicles and ensure continued connections by accommodation of bicycles on passengers to take their future commuter rail trains1 bikes with them Establish an ongoing funding program that identifies and A Safe Routes to Transit Lead: City Safe Routes to 4 6 constructs bicycle and program prioritizes safety Support: Medium Term Transit Program pedestrian safety improvements along the UTA improvements along the Frequent Transit Network Frequent Transit Network Strengthen the City's existing The City's existing Complete Streets Ordinance Complete Streets Lead: City Complete Streets 4.7 (per the Salt Lake City Ordinance does not include Near Term Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Support: n/a Plan)by integrating transit transit Support bike access to transit by including connections to low stress and other bikeways as a criterion for locating bus stops Stop Siting Near along the FTN, particularly Locating transit stops near Low Stress and 4.8 when the transit street lacks a low stress bikeways Lead: City Near Term Other Bikeways bike facility. Incorporate supports bike/transit Support: n/a proximity to connecting integration bikeways as a design criterion in the City's Bus Stop Guidelines(Design Element #12). Consider the finer details of accessibility as improvements are implemented. Evaluate best practices in accessibility treatments(using resources such as Center for the Blind, Utah Independent Living Designing transit and pedestrian access facilities Center, Epilepsy Foundation) Lead: City Bus Stop and update the Bus Stopand for universal access makes Accessibility 4.9 p the transit system more Support: Near Term Bike Share Design Guidelines inclusive and benefits all UTA accordingly. system users The guidelines should be reviewed by the City's Accessibility Council biannually (every other year, not twice a year)and updated,as appropriate. 1 Salt Lake City Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan(2015). *Note:Near term=within 2 years;medium term=3-5 years;long term=6-10 years High priority strategy SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Access to Transit 14-8 Recommendation # What is the Wh do it? Who is When should category recommendation? y responsible? it happen?* Encourage UTA and the Salt Bus driver training Lake City School District to programs ensure that Lead: City train their bus drivers about drivers know about laws how to safely drive near Support: Pedestrian and Bike related to walking and UTA,Salt Safety 4.10 pedestrians and bicyclists. bicycling,and understand Lake City Near Term Sample Programs include Bus safe vehicle operation School Operator Education(Portland, around pedestrians and District OR)and Frequent Driver bicyclists. Education(San Francisco,CA). y 1 Salt Lake City Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan(2015). "Note:Near term=within 2 years;medium term=3-5 years;long term=6-10 years High priority strategy Beaverton Transit Center Bike SPA:Beaverton, OR Beaverton Transit Center's Bike Secure Parking Area (SPA) offers a secure bike parking facility 4'' ' � at the transit station. The large facility is conveniently located at the transit center and is 4 0 5 0 secure. There are a total of 100 bike parking r ''` spots that are accessed using a BikeLink card. s This keycard allows a rider to pay a one-time $5 [, 3 activation fee and then pay $.30/hr. 8am-8pm J ' _ 4 weekdays; $.01/hr. all other hours. IP 1 ` I - SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Access to Transit 14-9 OTHER ACCESS TO TRANSIT SOLUTIONS2 Car share and park-and-ride facilities are another opportunity to improve access to transit: • Car share service,particularly point-to-point service,allows passengers to connect to or access transit.The point-to-point model,such as Car2Go,allows passengers to pick up a shared car near their home(for example)and drop it at the nearest transit stop. Enterprise car share is currently offered in Salt Lake City,although this is a fixed point system where members are required to pick up and drop off the car in the same location. • Park and ride facilities allow people to use transit for some or most of their journey, especially for express bus and commuter rail services.Ideally,park and rides should be located between where people live and where they are traveling to avoid out-of-direction travel that increases total travel time.For transit users who need to commute by car for a portion of their trip,park-and-rides can be a useful option.They are not the sole solution for encouraging transit ridership as they combat the air quality benefits that taking transit helps to provide.To reduce automobile trips,park-and-rides can also provide high quality bike parking and bike share stations to connect bicyclists to transit.See Chapter 6 for further details. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS - OTHER ACCESS TO TRANSIT SOLUTIONS The following table outlines specific improvements that are recommended for improving access to transit. Figure 4-2 Other Access to Transit Solutions Recommendations Recommendation What is the Wh do it? Who is When should category recommendation? y responsible? it happen?* Car sharing needs to Explore the feasibility of be flexible;point-to- implementing a point-to- point options,such Lead: City point car sharing as Car2Go,allow Support: Car Share 4.9 service that allows users to reserve cars Private car Near term users to pick up and up to 30 minutes in share drop off shared cars advance and drop off companies within the"home"zone cars anywhere within the"home"zone Park and Rides See Recommendation 6.12 in Chapter 6 *Note:Near term=within 2 years;medium term=3-5 years;long term=6-10 years 2 Note:Other first/last mile strategies such as on-demand ride services and shuttles are discussed in detail in Chapter 2 Service. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN Access to Transit 4-10 • j� ?e 0 f i �a yt� a f a�"j'! .F. i, K' I 'ma's, Q S s .... • ..,...,.: ........, .4.k.. '....,,, •‘,e\''''''., . ' ' ,e,....k, , . .0:4x. : . ' ''''' ,,, iqiit y_ ,° • . LL{fi" • .' UT i : r: AN.,... �:a • ` - A�eu ,. ",• 3 , 1 K ` ` • CZ .� a lu is , !�' kp " .- *.`ti.•..: ,•.' " 01.888• v ' r " r�' Iww�AIDE•UTA t - - ,. -• locAnoM _ a , Xzpo�o 8S • 3 4erw< i L • Y A ..4.,• • ya • ONLY ,, , �., ..•. .f • ,� '� r YM1110YR151 sFmC['.. C .t 3 =; • • ;fin tea_ �i !1 i. , 4 '- r - ., ‘,IsiWz: . (ir -A .r ......, .,.::41,,,,,„,.., .7.7. -._____ .., • . . _ it---- KB- CL4. CL-- - •.. •'4. OW-44114 —.-.,i.. - 7,:.----- .' '_ --.------;.l : ..71111. )111).:-..------ ----":-.-----''...-------- - .:'------.' . — - —-----: --- D —� r ' - a�.+ mac ." ----'� - ,. -C�'•C? - v� ��` �..'�� i.. -ice V -- _ • i 5 SUPPORTIVE PROGRAMS & POLICIES Access to clear information about public transit improves system legibility,helps customers navigate the system,and allows informed transportation choices.Knowing where and when transit operates,when the next bus will arrive,how long it will take,and how to integrate with other modes like bike share makes it easy for people to take transit.Good information can increase and sustain ridership when paired with easy-to-use tools and targeted and tailored education and outreach programs and messaging campaigns.Fare and pass programs provide a seamless and often more affordable way for passengers to access the transit system. Finally,parking management strategies,such as parking pricing and availability,are needed to fully leverage the City's transit investments. This chapter describes recommendations for a range of programs and policies that support the frequent transit network and enhance the usability and attractiveness of the public transit system in Salt Lake City. TRANSIT INFORMATION AND LEGIBILITY For people to be able to use transit,they must first know what services exist and understand how to use those services.Providing clear and concise information in multiple formats is a fundamental element of a high-quality transit system. Branding Effective branding of transit service can — improve awareness and understanding of the Elements of a Branded Transit System transit system.A consistent brand that Salt Lake City's Frequent Transit System should visually unites transit vehicles,stops,and be branded, including: stations with print and online information • Logo and overall look and feel reinforces the value of the service and • improves system legibility.In April 2°16, Marketing campaigns •UTA underwent a comprehensive"brand Online engagement refresh and update"effort.UTA published its • Customer feed back systems Customer Information Standards brand • Information systems (e.g., website, real- guide and is in the midst of updating all time information, and mobile apps) existing materials and signage as well as • Buses adding new customer information materials. • Stops and stations As the City and UTA implement the frequent • Maps and trip planners transit network and enhanced services such as bus rapid transit and enhanced bus(see Chapters 2 and 3),a unified branding approach will reinforce existing UTA SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 1 Programs&Policies 1 5-1 branding efforts to create a dynamic,attractive public image for these high-quality transit services,and help the City and UTA retain and attract riders and cultivate support in the community. One branding opportunity is to clearly delineate the network of transit services that meet standards for high frequency and a long service span,as defined in Chapter 2.The FTN provides an opportunity to create a recognizable subset of services that communicates quality,comfort, and convenience,regardless of mode.Establishing a distinct brand for the FTN will also communicate that the city's highest quality transit network is a permanent,integrated part of city infrastructure.The FTN brand should be implemented across vehicles,stops,stations,and schedule information,but could also be consistent with regional branding for high-frequency service and will need to recognize that frequent service on some routes may not extend the full length of all routes,e.g.,outside of Salt Lake City limits. The UTA website indicates which bus routes have a frequency of 15 or 3o minutes but this is not as visible to users riding the system.While UTA currently identifies 15 minute routes with green signs and a"15 minute"marking,comments from the general public indicate that it is not readily understood.Visible branding paired with accessible information improves awareness of the system and helps riders navigate and understand how to use the FTN.This could include an FTN map,logo,bus stop signage,or bus wraps. In addition,the UTA website uses colors to distinguish bus route frequency,but these colors could be confused with the colors used to identify rail lines. Other agencies with bus and rail systems use icons to distinguish frequent service routes. The sidebars below provide examples of frequent service branding in Portland and Minneapolis. `;:' M1 .. {' ' k K 1 ~ti • ti' 5 Wan ONLY • :. • •.• . • is . r UTA currently indicates frequent routes with a green route sign and a small"15 minute" indicator on the sign.More prominent frequent service branding that is visible to both people driving and walking helps promote the service and improve awareness of transit. Source:Salt Lake City SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN Programs&Policies 5-2 Frequent Transit Network Examples The frequent transit network maps provided below highlight the subset of each transit agency's bus and rail lines that provide high-frequency all-day service. In most cases these maps integrate frequent service branding used on bus stop signs or vehicles to help establish a unique branding for the service. UTA has studied many peer examples and discussed implementing such a system, highlighting that there is a shared goal between UTA and SLC. Two examples are described below—Portland and Minneapolis. TriMet—Portland, OR sip MA% 6 , TRI ® MET °ine b. Frequent Service m" Nod Una ■ g FORLSI tl GROVE 0 MAX Blue Un• �' MAz Blw uro c+ • r '_1-r7 H II IS NO RO • v GRESHAM F:F.9VFR10N v' 3 I: I oe i MILWAUKIE Il TIGARD j CLACKAMAS C TriMe s Frequent Se vice hus lines arxl FStrrvvice r1Alt light Rail run every 15 minutes a better most or the day.every day. OREGON CITY Portland's transit agency,TriMet,provides a separate map to easily highlight frequent bus and rail lines that operate every 15 minutes or better every day.The"Frequent Service"branding is also applied to other printed and online material and signage at bus stops.TriMet's frequent bus routes carry about 55%of all bus riders.In 2014,weekday ridership on frequent service bus lines increased by over 10%,and over 11%on weekends.By comparison,overall bus ridership increased by slightly less than 7%. Source:TriMet SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Programs&Policies 15-3 Metro Transit,Minneapolis-St.Paul,MN Celumbla Height. rI�, :l 4cA ;I111`fret 1 ' Little Canada ]AEM fp \I . — ICMMI t (• �. t •^ huM M 19 I 1 i y � r�PI•,.,�,oe Downtown rsi.. 1 Minneapolis r* Heights { 111 . •,•••*1 cp I ,1 / di •P femme• St,Paul n yr• ----'u. u • ,/' s F 7 'r •e� •! ✓ •yy��, r • r . , o , _..... r A CD---1=1.2 '/ Ott*di / se 4, / < i IMwnmwn 3 6 4, balm St.Paul • a (iaw •—•I ; • . { CD/ •earns ./� Legend ETRO haven 1 O MM. • Gorraar a t C..:54.n 141 _...... .1E•1 14 Pada 6 fild• -il' 0 • ,,,,....ht.r...., .15' "'Ir:••• • — :+`Richfield T:t :•...OM _ enact a. t to Tei•e G 1 f m1•. _mln. W Q s HI-FREQUENCY PROMISE hiIQ G 5erviww mints(or 15 mi (or better) NI of Ro.ita 54 arb METRO BIIue Lgina and METRO Gn nprw RI W� ebdryv 6•.m.to]p.m. .R•r rrrrr•.wr.y..mc•. U' —5,a.1P.11.19.19.RI.M,R4 and St5— SMrdWc9.,m.b6P.m. .11612 3'33,3, rr .. R�.re.,..•..„wI]. 0MetoTransit Bus mrMcnw rFafulm.viol roelrovana g Metro Transit in Minneapolis operates high-frequency bus and rail routes.Some t ill, routes operate at a lower frequency outside of the map area.Metro Transit's five e— highest-ridership bus routes are part of the high-frequency network. PiPla• Source:Metro Transit .- • SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 1 Programs&Policies 1 5-4 A second branding opportunity is to provide unique branding for the enhanced bus services that UTA plans to develop in Salt Lake City.UTA already has a distinct brand for MAX Bus Rapid Transit service.It could similarly develop a unique brand for Enhanced Bus service.Both of these services would also be part of the frequent transit network,but would have additional transit priority features to improve bus speed and reliability,along with other amenities to enhance the passenger experience.Just as TRAX and FrontRunner are highly recognizable brands that communicate the regional role of these services,distinct branding would differentiate these two families of bus services.The sidebars below describe the RapidRide brand in Seattle and UTA's existing MAX BRT line. RapidRide,Seattle, WA RapidRide is one of Seattle's bus rapid transit systems, including fully branded vehicles, stations, and maps. Corridor improvements are geared toward reducing passenger travel time and increasing convenience. There are five existing lines (A, B, C, D, and E) and additional lines are planned. King County Metro implemented RapidRide service and capital improvements in three Seattle corridors between 2010 and 2014. All corridors have been successful in attracting new riders to the system, with increases in weekday ridership as high as 75% over the baseline service. (��} " RAPIDRIDE 0 Line • '' ‘,is IIIIIME , ! nMN. j y 1 — NrrIY.Awl II; OOMNNILL £ WS%Y ( M H. �' i -.'4. i '�c � IMAM .! PM wr w..u. r NN.H.y MY Y.H + •NN I..ry./ .g _ 1 t � �R _ I, ;lio MPw«H �. - M�4N.N! �� - Y...H QU!!N MINN .Mee*H! 441 IV Woo.H Z D01111110,01 (L a� w 3. .N 1 4Vi� 1D . a os. 4 e Source:King County Metro, http://melro.Kingcounry.gov/travel-options/bus/rapidride/ SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 1 Programs&Policies 1 5-5 MAX,Salt Lake City, UT UTA launched MAX Bus Rapid Transit service in Salt Lake City in 2008. The current 10.8 mile route along 3500 South connects Magna and West Valley City with the 3300 South TRAX station. The route operates every 15 minutes between 5:30 a.m. and midnight. Using bus-only lanes between 2700 West and 5700 West and transit signal priority, MAX BRT has increased ridership by a third, reduced travel times by 15%, and linked MAX to TRAX to provide passengers with an efficient bus to rail connection. The service has a distinct look and feel to improve awareness and highlight its distinguishing features. 3501,�„xnu i aa.. -- • 1 ♦1„ • _ - *%6. - i _ y )14 � � 444 • • • Sources:UTA Fact Sheet,ITS America http://www.itsa.org/awards-media/press-releases/779-smart_solution_spotlight_winner- _salt lake city%E2%80%99s max 3500 south bus rapid transit (brtLline Information and Tools Information and tools are a critical component of a legible transit system.UTA currently has two real-time information tools available at bus stops.The RideTime SMS texting service allows riders to text their stop ID to UTA-UTA(882-882)and receive a response with the next three bus departures at that stop.Information about RideTime is at http://www.rideuta.com/Rider- Tools/Ride-Time and signs are posted at bus stops.The signs also include a QR code'so people can simply scan the code and receive the information.The new Vehicle Locator feature on UTA's redesigned website(launched Feb 2o16)also allows users with a mobile device to see where their bus is in real time. In addition to the real-time information tools available at bus stops noted above,the City can work in partnership with UTA and the business community to install real-time information displays at bus stops.These should be prioritized along the FTN and other high ridership stops. Real-time and other information should be designed with tactile and audible options to make this information easily accessible to people who are visually-impaired(see Chapter 4 for examples). A"QR code"is a machine-readable code consisting of black and white squares typically used for storing URLs or other information that can be read by a camera or on a smartphone. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 1 Programs&Policies 1 5-6 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS - TRANSIT INFORMATION AND LEGIBILITY Below are specific recommendations to improve transit information and the overall legibility of the transit system in Salt Lake City.High priority strategies are highlighted in blue. Figure 5-1 Transit Information&Legibility Recommendations Recommendation What is the When category # recommendation? Why do it? Who is responsible? should it happen?* Provide real-time information displays at bus stops along the FTN; partner with the Real-time information allows business community to help people to travel without a Lead: UTA Real-Time 5.1 sponsor real-time information schedule by letting them Support: City Near term Informationsigns(see Chapter 6 for know exactly when the next businesses Stops and Stations bus will arrive recommendations in Figure 6-3 and Bus Stop Guidelines in Figure 6-4) Establish a frequent transit network(FTN)brand that is A unified, unique visual highly visible and representation of the FTN distinguishable from other on the street and in all service types; brand should printed/online materials will Frequent Transit expand UTA's existing Lead: UTA 5.2 help existing passengers Near term Network Brand frequent service branding to understand where frequent Support: City include: printed and web/app- transit service is and will friendly maps and schedule build recognition among information, branded potential new customers vehicles,and branded stops1 (see Rapid Ride side bar) As the FTN is implemented, it will be important to clearly Partner with UTA to add FTN communicate where service is located to existing and Lead: UTA Transit Maps 5.3 level services to existing potential transit riders, Near term maps Support:City especially in neighborhoods with a high propensity to ride transit Implement on street On-street wayfinding is an wayfinding to direct people to initiative that the City can transit service; integrate with lead to help people access Lead:City Wayfinding 5.4 GREENbike wayfinding and transit and help passengers Support: Downtown Medium term Downtown and Sugar House connect to other businesses parking wayfinding initiatives2 destinations in the community 1 It will be important to coordinate with UTA to determine how the FTN brand will be implemented on routes that extend beyond Salt Lake City boundaries. 2 The Downtown and Sugar House Parking Study(2016)recommends a parking communications plan focused on wayfinding,information,and branding. *Note:Near term=within 2 years;medium term=3-5 years;long term=6-10 years High priority strategy SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Programs&Policies 15-7 Recommendation What is the When category # recommendation? Why do it? Who is responsib should it happen?* A comprehensive mobility Support development of a platform that integrates real- mobility platform that pushes time information for transit, real-time transit, rideshare, bikeshare,and car share Lead:App developers car share, bike share, Uber helps people understand the Support: City and 5.5 and Lyft,and other mobilityvarious transportation Medium term Y p UTA to provide open service data to web and options available and how source data mobile platforms; integrate they can be linked together with the GREENbike app to serve their transportation needs Mobility Platforms &Transit Screens Transit screens displayed in the lobbies of major employers, hotels,the Work with private developers airport,residential to install real-time transit developments,and at local Lead: City 5.6 screens at central locations eating establishments help Support: Developers Medium term to display mobility platform improve awareness of and businesses data transportation options throughout the community and improve the usability of the transit system Work with UTA to develop a A multimodal trip planner multimodal trip planner that allows passengers to better helps transit riders plan trips understand how biking, Lead: UTA Multimodal Trip 5 that link seamlesslybetween walking,or driving can help Planner them link to the transit Support:City and Long term modes; integrate with the a developers GREENbike app system,especially if transit pp p service is not available at their front door Promote development of integrated technology, With increased reliance on including mobility kiosks, technology,transit agencies Integrated reader boards to assist and partners will need to Lead: Private travelers with mobility developers Technology 5.8 keep abreast of emerging Long term planning,shared payment Support: City and Development opportunities,and opportunity technology,providing tools UTA for other evolving technology that help travelers transition applications,including seamlessly between modes designing for disability l It will be important to coordinate with UTA to determine how the FTN brand will be implemented on routes that extend beyond Salt Lake City boundaries. 2 The Downtown and Sugar House Parking Study(2016)recommends a parking communications plan focused on wayfinding,information,and branding. *Note:Near term=within 2 years;medium term=3-5 years;long term=6-10 years High priority strategy SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Programs&Policies 15-8 EDUCATION AND OUTREACH Education and outreach programs that strategically distribute transit information and resources to target audiences are another fundamental element of a complete transit system.A lack of knowledge and understanding are often the greatest barriers to transit use.Continuing to build on Salt Lake City's"transit culture"and improving the availability,effectiveness, and delivery of transit information through education and promotional programs is a powerful way for Salt Lake City to increase the number of people riding transit for more trips. "We should do more to encourage students using mass transit. This saves parents time, helps with air quality and creates new habits of using mass transit for future generations." - "Desi.gn Your Own Transit System"Survey Respondent Salt Lake City has had great success with its 2014 Smart Trips Program in the Sugar House neighborhood. Building off of this success,the City can develop a broader transit marketing, education,and outreach program that educates the public on the benefits of transit.Strategies might include targeting specific neighborhoods along the frequent transit network as service enhancements are made and engaging in partnerships,such as economic development organizations and schools,to promote transit use. Salt Lake City SmartTrips Program In 2014, Salt Lake City launched a Smart Trips campaign to educate Sugar House households on the benefits of transportation options. SmartTripsi The goal was to get at least 15% of targeted households to use Oe Salt Lake City I public transit and active transportation. Residents were provided with customized information kits on how to ride the bus, bike, and walk. Drive-alone trips decreased by 21% among SmartTrips participants. Source:Salt Lake City, http://www.slcgov.com/and https://smarttripsslc.wordpress.com/ LA Metro"Naughty/Nice"Campaign,Los Angeles, CA In August 2008, Los Angeles Metro launched an aggressive public information campaign to educate people about the benefits of transit and the social ills resulting from auto dependency. LA Metro created an in-house ad agency that focused exclusively on communicating the benefits of public transit and improving the � � , I ' i passenger experience. The goal was (Naughr itiiir l) to improve the public's perception of Bitter transit and increase the number of Problem Solution discretionary riders. � ( �� Metro's "Opposites" campaign Stress. m Relief. included online content, billboards,t- Sweet Nice shirts, and on-board graphics to create a consistent brand. The brand communicated that Metro was the solution to many of the community's problems (congestion and greenhouse gas emissions, for example). Estimates show that the newly branded system and information campaign resulted in an increase in discretionary ridership from 22% to 36%. LA Metro also sponsors a public art campaign in which they contracted with over 200 artists to beautify transit stops and stations. Source: LA Metro"Promoting Mass Transit Video. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 1 Programs&Policies 1 5-9 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS - EDUCATION AND OUTREACH Below are specific recommendations for developing an education and outreach program for the transit system in Salt Lake City. High priority strategies are highlighted in blue. Figure 5-2 Education&Outreach Recommendations Recommendation What is the Who is When category recommendation? Why do it? responsible? should it happen?* Establish a transportation Education and outreach, Centralized options program that provides particularly to employees Lead:City and schools,can be a Support: Transportation 5.9 information,education,and Near term powerful way to increase the Business Options Program resources to residents, number of employees,and visitors people taking community transit Expand on UTA's existing Lead: City public information campaigns Public to educate Salt Lake City Lack of information is often a Support: UTA, Information 5.10 residents,employees,and key barrier to riding transit employers, Near term Campaign visitors on the benefits of neighborhood transit groups Individualized marketing Continue to develop an programs are proven to shift individualized marketing/ travel behavior;aligning SmartTrips program that targeted marketing with targets neighborhoods along service enhancements Lead: City leverages transit Targeted the frequent transit network Support: 5.11 investments;a new resident Near term Marketing as service improvements are targeted marketing program Neighborhood made;a new resident provides information on groups and UTA program is also an effective biking,walking,taking way to reach residents when transit,and sharing rides the move to the city before new travel behaviors are established. Develop a SmartTrips for Cities like Portland,OR, Business program that have had great success with provides information and their SmartTrips for Business Lead: City resources to Salt Lake City programs;commute trips are Support: Large Business often the easiest to influence 5.12 employers related to transit, employers, Medium term Outreach carpooling, bicycle parking, because they are predictable Downtown walking and biking routes, and often occur during times Alliance and other transportation that auto travel is least options information attractive due to traffic congestion "Note:Near term=within 2 years;medium term=3-5 years;long term=6-10 years High priority strategy SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN Programs&Policies 5-10 Recommendation What is the Who is When category recommendation? Why do it? responsible? should it happen?* Partner with tourism Engage with other key organizations to promote use partners such as tourism of transit for visitors starting organizations,high schools, from the airport;partner with and the University to educate high schools to develop people about transit options student passes like at West Lead:City and incenti use of the High to get students riding Support: Other Outreach 5.13 transit system.This should the bus at an early age; Tourism groups, Medium term include education and partner with universities to high schools, outreach to help people include transit information as universities,and access transit trip planners, part of new student non-profits real-time information,and on- orientation; partner with non demand ride services on both profits who work with desktop and mobile devices populations that may not be comfortable with transit technology applications. *Note:Near term=within 2 years;medium term=3-5 years;long term=6-10 years High priority strategy SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Programs&Policies 5-11 FARE AND PASS PROGRAMS Fare and pass programs can provide a seamless and more affordable way for individuals and families to ride transit.Improving the affordability of UTA fares for intra-Salt Lake City trips, large families,youth,and low-income residents was identified as a high priority for Salt Lake City residents during public outreach. Salt Lake City's Hive Pass program has been a success to date.Hive Pass holders take more trips by transit.In a before and after survey conducted at the conclusion of the first year of the Hive Pass Program,the percentage of respondents who rode transit daily doubled once they had a Hive Pass.After improvements were made to the program in the second year,the number of daily riders jumped from 20%before the pass to 5o%afterward.Similarly,the survey showed that people who rarely or never used transit before the pass were riding at least three days per week once they had a pass. I"I would not be able to keep my job and get to work every day without [my Hive Pass]. I would not be able to afford the bus fare every day to get to and from work. The Hive Pass : r __. ` has really helped me to be successful."—A Hive Pass holder Current UTA Payment Methods A _ ,� Tickets .,, iJ IRO I.....�........ II lilt- U T A . i -T3 UTA .' - Tap and Ride ME -- 1929 9 i L M4gf . - -- % ' VISA - `nab.. Y Currently,UTA riders can purchase tickets at ticket vending machines,at Pass Sales Outlets,or online.Riders can also purchase a reloadable FAREPAY card to pay their fare.FAREPAY users simply tap the card reader when they board and tap off when they alight the vehicle. Source:Nelson\Nygaard SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 1 Programs&Policies 1 5-12 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS - FARE AND PASS PROGRAM Below are specific recommendations for improving fare and pass programs in Salt Lake City.High priority strategies are highlighted in blue. Figure 5-3 Fare and Pass Program Recommendations Recommendation What is the Who is When should category recommendation? Why do it? responsible? it happen?* Promote the HIVE Pass The HIVE Pass Program HIVE Pass Program to get more passes provides an affordable option Lead: City Expansion 5.14 into hands of people who are for people to ride transit in Near term p p p p p Support: UTA not currently using transit Salt Lake City The standard$2.50 fare is high for many Salt Lake City Explore fare affordability; families,especially for short work with UTA to determine trips within Salt Lake City. This undermines the next steps for establishing Lead: UTA Fare Affordability 5.15 more affordable fare options competitiveness of transit Medium term Support: City for intra-Salt Lake City trips1 against other transportation options,especially in areas where parking is free;a simpler and more equitable fare system is needed Mobile ticket applications Work with UTA to develop a make it even easier to ride transit by allowing Mobile Ticket App 5.16 mobile ticket app that allows Lead: UTA passengers to download Medium term people to download all types tickets on their smart phones Support: City of passes on a smart phone2 at the click of a button—no exact change is needed Work with UTA to develop an integrated fare payment system that allows public transit,bike share,and car A truly multimodal share users to use a single transportation system would ticket or pass and/or launch allow travelers to use a Integrated Fare Lead: UTA Payment System 5.17 a multimodal access pass single ticket or payment Support: City Long term that integrates mobile method for bike share, ticketing and membership for transit,car share,and transit,bike share,car share, parking etc. (see Recommendation 5.8 Integrated Technology Development above) 1 UTA's 2020 Strategic Plan highlights the need to"develop new fare products and equitable fare policies." https://www.rideuta.com/uploads/2020Strateg icPlanFinalWebVersion.pdf 2 As of August 2016,UTA is in the process of procuring a vendor to develop mobile ticketing capabilities as well as developing a comprehensive strategic plan regarding all the fare payment options available(cash,paper,FAREPAY,electronic fare payment systems,mobile ticketing,etc.). 'Note:Near term=within 2 years;medium term=3-5 years;long term=6-10 years High priority strategy SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Programs&Policies 1 5-13 What is an Integrated Fare Payment System? Fare integration between transit, bike share, and other transportation services reduces barriers to using transit by enabling the use of one payment media on multiple public and private transportation services. Simplifying fare payment can reinforce transit, bike share, and car share as an easy-to-use transfer option. Some systems coordinate fare policy—such as a discounted fixed-route transit fare for passengers who use bike share to access the route—to drive revenue and improve connections. These types of strategies are being investigated throughout North America and have been implemented in Europe and Asia. Several European examples are outlined below: Location Description Paris, The Navigo pass is an integrated transit fare payment method France1 introduced in the Ile-de-France region (which includes the city of Paris) in 2001. Bike share rental fees are structured similar to those of U.S.systems,however all membership types can be attached to a Navigo transit card as well. Both annual-subscription RFID cards and the Navigo transit card can be used at card readers at Velib stations.A separate bike share pass must be purchased, but it can be stored on the same physical card as a transit pass/ticket. Navigo Source:Navigo uses the Calypso standard2 and is an account-based system. Individuals can also rent a bike using direct debit (their personal debit card); a €150 fee is held against their card until the bike is returned (within 24 hours). Montpellier, The Velomagg system has 50 stations,with several hundred bicycles France3 • di available for short-term use,which are operated by and•,� co- [_ 4 branded with the transit agency.The fully integrated fare structure g, offers free day use for transit pass holders. Users can track their •o$ :• '\ i account information online by using an account number and date of �,�+ i birth.The Velomagg program also includes electric bicycles,trailers •• �. • for children,and long-term (12-month) rentals. Transit rides more Source:Transports de than doubled over a 10-year period with the fare and branding ('Agglomeration de Montpellier integration. Bordeaux, Bordeaux's bike share system—Vcub—has 1,500 bikes and nearly France^ 150 stations. It was designed in conjunction with transit,with 90%of figiA stations co located with transit stops. The regional RFID transit card can also be used to check out bikes at a discounted subscription Source:Tram et Bus de la Cub rate.The bike share launch was held back five months to wait for the new bus and tram lines to launch at the same time. London, ` Transport for London (TfL) is considering adding Santander Cycles to - England5 their transit smartcard (the Oyster Card).The Oyster Card has been in use for over a decade.To make this integration work,TfL would sal % require Oyster Card users who use the bike share system to store a• deposit on their cards to secure against stolen bikes. Source:Transport for London http://www.bikearlington.com/tasks/sites/bike/assets/File/Arl ington_County_Capital_B ikeshare_TD P_FY2013-2018_Nov2012.pdf 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calypso_(electronic_ticketing_system) 3 Darren Buck."Transit with Bike Sharing:Overview of Practice and Potential."October 16,2012.Presented to Rail-Volution Conference. https://bikepedantic.files.word press.com/2012/08/railvolutiondgboct2012.pdf 4 http://bike-sharing.blogspot.com/2010/02/bordeauxs-new-v-bike-sharing-flirts.html 5 http://cycle.travel/city/london/news/hire_a boris bike with your oyster_card SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN Programs&Policies 5-14 PARKING MANAGEMENT The quantity,location,and price of parking has a significant impact on the use of all transportation infrastructure.Large amounts of low-cost or free parking incentivizes travelers to drive and park,rather than walk,bike,or take transit. Parking management policies that support transit use include pricing parking relative to demand and availability of transportation options,shared parking between uses,unbundled parking from unit costs in housing developments,and removing minimum parking requirements for new development or even implementing maximum requirements in higher-density neighborhoods with ample transportation options available. Salt Lake City already has several parking policies in place that support transit: • No minimum parking requirements in Transit Station Area districts:Within the"core"of Transit Station Area(TSA)districts,no minimum number of parking spaces is required for any use. • Shared parking:The zoning code recognizes that different land uses have different periods of peak demand,and different uses can share parking supply to reduce the overall number of spaces provided.Chapter 21A.44.o4o.B.1 provides the required methodology for determining shared parking supply based on land use,time of day,and day of the week. • Parking reductions for pedestrian-friendly development:Chapter 21A.44.040.B.8 also allows for a reduction in parking spaces if the proposed development includes elements that improve walkability near the project.The provisions only apply to "recreational,cultural or entertainment"or"retail goods and services"land uses in the CB,CN,RB,MU,R-MU,R-MU-35,and R-MU-45 districts. • Parking reductions for proximity to mass transit:The minimum number of spaces can be reduced by 50%if the project(new multi-family residential,commercial, office or industrial land uses are eligible)is located within 1/4 mile of a fixed transit station. • Parking reductions for transportation demand management plans:To reduce the number of single-occupant vehicle trips,the parking code(Chapter 21A.44.o50) allows for adjustments to the parking requirements if TDM programs are included.The provisions only apply to uses requiring at least five parking spaces.A 25%reduction or increase in parking is allowed if"major"or"minor"strategies are utilized. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Programs&Policies 15-15 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS - PARKING MANAGEMENT The figure below includes a recommendation to improve parking management policies to support the recommendations of the Transit Master Plan. High priority strategies are highlighted in blue. In addition to these new recommendations,the Salt Lake City Downtown and Sugar House Parking Study includes a number of transit-related recommendations(see sidebar below). Figure 5-4 Parking Management Recommendations Recommendation What is the Who is When should category recommendation? Why do it. responsible? it happen?* Initiate additional parking Parking studies for areas beyond Model new studies on the Lead: City Management 5.18 Downtown and Sugar Salt Lake City Downtown and Su ort: n/a Near term Studies Sugar House Parking Study PP House to support the FTN Consolidate management of the City's parking functions to improve overall Parking Effectively utilize parking Management coordination of parking assets and support the City's Lead: City 5.19 policies,align parking Near term Oversight and supply with demand,and overall transportation and Support: n/a Coordination enhance the convenience mode choice goals and ease-of-use of parking systems *Note:Near term=within 2 years;medium term=3-5 years;long term=6-10 years High priority strategy Salt Lake City Downtown and Sugar House Parking Study(2016) The Downtown and Sugar House Parking Study (which is scheduled to be completed in Fall 2016) includes several strategies that support transit: • Ensure that parking is appropriately regulated with effective parking enforcement near transit stations and stops. • Prioritize active space over parking in the areas immediately around transit stops; effective enforcement is a critical element. • Coordinate transportation policies across modes to support parking management. Put transit, bicycle, and pedestrian considerations on equal footing with decisions about parking in transportation impact review and other land-development processes. • Ensure that decisions about parking requirements, pricing, and design are coordinated with overall mobility goals and multimodal investments. • Revise minimum and maximum parking requirements to simplify the parking code, incentivize shared parking, and modify electric vehicle and bicycle parking requirements. • Require a TDM program for any new residential development with 10 or more units and any new non-residential development with more than 20,000 SF of net new space in the D1-D4, TSA, and G-MU districts. • Require that all shared parking be "priced" in D1-D4,TSA, and G-MU districts via unbundling and direct pricing. Source:Draft Salt Lake City Downtown and Sugar House Parking Study(2016) SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Programs&Policies 15-16 7 r ilyr ' it,,,., ,� ^fir / \ • -.1 •. -`�? .4 ,- --,: ----- ,,--2. ' ' 74ir ' 4:7- . ... _ _ _ • ......17.:--""..,,::„..4.4.1.74,,,,,-:i--;',:;;;;• r j • t •••• • il R 'c.f ter, us: .�, •• • • i L :rip.:.-• ' (c ,•.1 r - •••` •' 'p - £ u s '� ;`. W ., , • .. -• - • SI. ( .-S' .. •'ie '..---• •.'2' -- .---% .c., 4,' y,, it, T '�Yl'•;•i. �l I l� /� 1 -4 r 1 f f `:11 ,• 4'ter`.. r - II, lit..--_ ,4 f. • • : t s « ' * :, 1 fit 1141;r i .ipior 74,Ilk — • —.,,, L) i . ; 4 -1.. , . , ....-.-17-ls : / 'ailiti- 1 ° ' � • 6 LAND USE & PLACEMAKING Continued investment in Salt Lake City's transit system is critical to providing equitable, affordable mobility options for residents,workers,and visitors.Transit also supports economic development and opportunity to create safe,walkable,and vibrant neighborhoods.This chapter supports existing City goals and policies to coordinate community planning and design efforts in the areas surrounding transit stops and stations. TRANSIT-SUPPORTIVE LAND USE AND DESIGN Attractive and convenient transit service is not just about how often the bus arrives and where it goes;it also depends on the attractiveness of the street,the density and mix of land uses,and a connected street network and safe and convenient crossings that allow bicyclists and pedestrians to easily and safely access transit service.Past Salt Lake City planning efforts have prioritized the connection between transit,land use,and community design,including the following: • Encourage transit-oriented development(Plan Salt Lake,2°14) • Create a system of connections so that residents may easily access employment,goods and services,neighborhood amenities,and housing(Plan Salt Lake,2o14) • Encourage development of transit oriented development(TOD)through form-based codes and allowed increased density within a io-minute walk of TRAX,streetcar and high-frequency bus routes(Salt Lake City Downtown Community Plan(2°14) • Support transit-oriented development as well as adequate,reliable public transportation so that residents may easily access employment,goods and services,and housing(City Council Philosophy Statements,2012) Land Use and Design - Key Concepts Building off of existing plans and policies,the Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan recognizes the importance of land use,street connectivity,and placemaking to implement a well-used and attractive frequent transit network(FTN).The FTN must be supported by a concentration of land uses,connections to key destinations,a rich mix of uses,and interconnected streets.The Transit Master Plan embraces these concepts to help achieve the City's goals to increase transit ridership in Salt Lake City.Key land use and design concepts are described below. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN Land Use&Placemaking 6-1 Concentrate and intensify activities near frequent transit.High density development should be encouraged in areas served by the FTN. There is a strong correlation between land use density and transit demand. Residential densities should be at least 10-12 households per acre for corridors that receive high-frequency transit investments and/or have more than 12-16 jobs per acre(see Figure 6-i).For example,the dense market between the central business district and the University support high ridership on multiple bus and rail lines. Align major destinations along reasonably direct corridors served by frequent transit.An efficient transit route connects multiple high- demand destinations in a reasonably direct line to minimize out-of-direction •� travel.It connects major trip origins and destinations along the route and has major activity centers at each endpoint,providing a steady flow of passengers boarding at all points.The proposed FTN was identified based in part on the presence of major activity centers along transit corridors.Transit must efficiently connect to destinations and be accompanied by a walkable street environment,a mix of uses,and safe and convenient access to transit service. Provide a rich mix of uses that support street-level activity throughout the day and night.A diversity of land uses(including ■.■ residential,commercial,industrial,institutional,and recreational uses) '-.. ::•• ••;• promotes walking and transit ridership,and reduces driving.A mix of land • • •• uses allows more daily needs to be met within shorter distances,encouraging people to walk and take transit for more trips.Land use diversity also creates a more interesting and active urban environment that makes walking and taking transit feel safer and more attractive at all times of the day and night. Support transit access by providing safe and convenient crossings. Every transit rider is at some point a pedestrian,whether they are dropped off at a park-and-ride or walk from their home to access transit. Research published by Transit Center in July 2016(see sidebar)found that 8o%of transit riders walk to transit.Safe and convenient access to transit is essential to building transit ridership.Of utmost importance is to ensure that crossings are conveniently located and well-marked.Strategies include interior block connections and mid-block crossings,in addition to other strategies discussed in further detail in Chapter 4. Interconnect streets in a grid pattern shorten distances between transit stops and destinations. Intersection density strongly influences •• • transit ridership.Short blocks and well-connected streets make it easier and faster to access transit and contribute to a high-quality pedestrian • experience. Block length is a challenge in Salt Lake City;the recommendations in Chapter 4 support safer and more accessible streets that will help people access transit more easily and feel safe doing so. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN Land Use&Placemaking 6-2 Who's On Board 2016: What Today's Riders Teach us about Transit that Works A study published by Transit Center in July 2016 supports the importance of comfortable and convenient access to transit and locating transit near a mix of uses: • 80% of "all-purpose" transit riders walk to transit • All-purpose ridership —or those who ride transit for all types of trips— is stronger where it is easy to walk to transit and where transit is frequent and provides access to many destinations within walking distance Source:Transit Center."Who's on Board 2016:What Today's Riders Teach us about Transit that Works."http://transitcenter.org/wp- content/u ploads/2016/07/W0B-2016-7_12_2016.pdf - ' II 1. '`I'' I 4A tl i Ti �1 11 p��� i),` - s rum \ I f iiih I.— ' .-k.--i'• • I I lt-,, ._ . : . - -.,-.. 1. II - I ' -- - 1 tea` Transit service and land use should complement each other.Transit service is most efficient in areas that have a moderate-to-high density of people and jobs,a variety of destinations,and good bicycle and pedestrian access. Source:Lance Tyrrell SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Land Use&Placemaking 16-3 Land Use Density and Transit in Salt Lake City The value of investment in the frequent transit network is exponential when supported by land use policies and strategies that facilitate activity density where transit service quality and capital investment is highest.In any growing city,the success of transit in attracting riders is dictated by the type and density of development and the other characteristics of urban form.Similarly, higher-density development depends on high-quality transit service to move large numbers of people efficiently on limited street right-of-way.Therefore,it is advantageous to develop land use and transit policies in concert to ensure their mutual benefit and success.Salt Lake City should work with UTA to ensure quality transit will be available when land use and street design take transit-oriented forms. While transit service and infrastructure investment are primarily controlled by UTA,Salt Lake City can influence development along the FTN.Furthermore,Salt Lake City can work with UTA to ensure that transit service levels are adequate to support areas as they grow and become more transit-oriented.The Transit Master Plan does not dictate priorities for land use plan updates; rather it provides information for coordination of land use plans,to ensure that future land development patterns are supportive of Transit Master Plan goals.' As a living document,the Transit Master Plan will continue to evolve as land use conditions change over time.Development that occurs throughout the city could impact travel patterns and alter transit needs;this is particularly expected to be the case in the Northwest Quadrant,given significant new employment growth that is already occurring.The City should encourage developers to pursue transit-supportive design throughout the development review process but also maintain flexible transit policies that can adapt as the needs of the area change. The thresholds outlined in Figure 6-i relate density of households and jobs to transit service quality(based on industry standards for when service and capital investments are justified). These thresholds were used to develop FTN recommendations and can be adjusted over time as land use changes.The densities outlined in Figure 6-i should occur on average in an area;there may be much higher concentrations adjacent to stations and lower concentrations further from station areas.As areas in Salt Lake City reach certain densities,service levels should be adjusted. I Note:The Transit Master Plan does not include any specific land use or zoning recommendations;area master plans could be re-visited to bring density to match desired transit service levels. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Land Use&Placemaking 1 6-4 Figure 6-1 Transit Mode&General Frequency by Gross Density D, a, U U RI CO LAoft O .0 -C + D1 N H M 7 O tD i L rl U U (6 CD + 1.-O v\i v, N C p 0 L 2 `-I f° s o 0 0 cu N •\ \ v, H 0 N "0 O .1 O O 01 n-I 3 O .1 O (D - - + 0 N ..%.-10 D1 4J C tv u u CO 0:3 -C L C • O '--I N LID i1 CO i L D! Dl U U Q L (D (D \ \ _c -0 C O CD _k., _• — Ili• • 13 DENSITY Light Rail Bus Rapid Bus every Bus every Bus every Transit 15 mins 30 mins 60 mins TRANSIT MODE & FREQUENCY Source:Adapted from TCRP Report 100:Transit Capacity and Quality of Service manual,TCRP Report 102:Transit-Oriented Development in the United States,and other sources;employment is converted from household density based on a typical relationship of 4 jobs:1 dwelling unit. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Land Use&Placemaking 1 6-5 Standards for New Development Salt Lake City also plays an important role in working with developers to set standards for new development.These standards can help ensure land uses support the FTN,including: • Parking management policies:The number of parking spaces and whether or not parking is free for employees and visitors(see Chapter 5). • Transportation Demand Management(TDM)policies: Integrating TDM plans and strategies into the approval process for new development can ensure that developments of certain sizes,that meet certain thresholds,or that are located in certain places implement TDM strategies(such as subsidized bus passes,on-site transportation coordinators,etc.). • Bicycle,pedestrian, and transit improvements: Depending on the size or location of the development,the City could require specific bicycle and pedestrian improvements or bus stop improvements be implemented as a requirement of development approvals. • Pedestrian-oriented design: Identify design standards that promote pedestrian- oriented urban design features,such as active frontages built right to the street with parking located at the rear of the building and landscaping that provides a buffer between the sidewalk and the street. See Chapter 4 for further details on pedestrian improvements to the right of way. ".1116111111Pa\A H lip, ,, �; «<,. ,,,_,,....,. ,, ,, , Ittt t III A 4 i. i 1 p 7. .:...i '' 4 A 1 ' A t : - i. , 11.7136- 1 .i , la I \ r S soreciit _ LANCE TYRRELL City policies that promote pedestrian-oriented design support use of transit. Source:Lance Tyrrell SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Land Use&Placemaking 16-6 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS - LAND USE The recommendations below provide guidance for how land use policies can support success of the Transit Master Plan.High priority strategies are highlighted in blue. Figure 6-2 Land Use and Placemaking Recommendations Recommendation # What is the recommendation? Why do it? Who is When should category responsible? it happen?* Concentrate and intensify uses Lead: City 6.1 along the Frequent Transit Density is a key driver of Support: Ongoing Network transit ridership Developers Establish density thresholds that Lead: City 6 2 indicate when certain frequency Density is a key indicator Support: Near term levels are justified(see Chapter for transit ridership UTA 2 Service) Continue to monitor zoning Zoning can help support along the FTN to ensure transit transit service with mixed is supported by a mix of uses, use development, Lead: City Land Use 6.3 Near term adequate densities, parking streetscape elements,and Support: n/a requirements,and other transit transit-supportive parking supportive elements1 requirements Providing a mix of housing options along the FTN is Provide a mix of housing options critical to affordability and 6.4 along the FTN to support diversity of residents, Lead: City Medium term housing affordability and leading to better, more Support: n/a diversity active public spaces and the creation of an equitable city 1 Zoning around the FTN could include:increased development capacity,maximum zoning setbacks,outdoor seating,active frontage buildings,increased bicycle parking requirements,reduced minimum parking requirements,and limitations of driveways that cut across sidewalks where pedestrians access transit.Salt Lake City's Transit Station Area Development Guidelines(which has been successfully applied along North Temple and 400 S)provides guidance for development near transit stations,including mix of uses,housing affordability,development density,accessibility,parking,and other urban design elements. *Note:Near term=within 2 years;medium term=3-5 years;long term=6-10 years High priority strategy SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Land Use&Placemaking 16-7 Recommendation Who is When should # What is the recommendation? Why do it? category responsible? it happen?* Provide interior block connections, mid-block A well connected crossings,and a pedestrian and pedestrian and bicycle Lead: City 6.5 bicycle network that connects to network supports access Ongoing destinations and transit stops pp Support: n/a (See Chapter 4 Access, to transit recommendation 4.1) Direct economic development Lead: City activities to locate transit- These types of uses 6.6 supportive uses,such as cafes, contribute to an attractive Support: Near term restaurants,shops,etc.along streetscape Business the FTN community Create community gathering Placemaking& places around transit stops and Design stations(such as plazas, Community gathering Lead: City 6 parklets,squares,or parks), places near transit make Support: Ongoing consistent with the City's Parklet transit a more attractive Business Pilot Program Design option community Guidelines.2(See also parklet sidebar) Invest in shade treatments, weather protection, pedestrian Provision of these scaled lighting,street furniture, Lead: City bus shelters,street trees,and elements makes the street 6.8 a more attractive and safe Support: Near term public art to enhance the place and facilitates Business attractiveness and safety of the access to transit community street environment surrounding the FTN Integrate transportation demand TDM plans ensure that management(TDM)strategies transit-supportive Lead: City Development into the development review programs and Support: Standards 6.9 process by either requiring or infrastructure are Development Medium term incentivizing TDM Plans for new implemented as service community developments3 enhancements are made 2 Salt Lake City Outdoor Design Guidelines&Parklet Pilot Program,Parklet Pilot Program Design Guidelines,Summer 2013,p 9 of PDF. http://www.slcdocs.com/planning/projects/odpf.pdf 3 This would require an assessment of which new developments would be required to develop and implement TDM Plans(either based on geographic location and/or number of employees,number of residential units,or square footage). *Note:Near term=within 2 years;medium term=3-5 years;long term=6-10 years High priority strategy SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Land Use&Placemaking 16-8 Seattle's Parklet Program A concept originated in San Francisco, parklets re-purpose street space for people instead of cars by providing space for the general public to sit and enjoy the street where existing narrow sidewalks would preclude such occupancy. The City of Seattle launched its Pilot Parklet Program in summer 2013 to evaluate how well parklets would serve neighborhoods and businesses in Seattle. The evaluation showed that the pilot program was a resounding success. Today,the now permanent program has enabled dozens of parklets across the city. Parklets are paid for by the businesses that sponsors them, including design, materials, construction, and maintenance costs, as well as review and permit fees (about $1,000 for the first year). Additionally, businesses pay $1.56 per square foot for the use of the space each year (the same fee as for a sidewalk café) since the business is making money by using the right-of-way. If the parklet is in an area with paid parking,there is also a fee of $3,000 per space per year for the recovery of lost parking revenue. 5� „ 'ry' r I t 11 .. MAN I F E ST0/ 11, 111° Mt lef -_ . :. i ,,, d ITII m. t . 44 1 -L-:-.:„,r, i r 1 ,..,......„0.0._ , tti Iltta\ . :� NW ` I 1 "I I 1 'i4.,/ .�' 1 1 /I' 1 IL1 �i wive -4Per \ ..... _... :.....1711,...volo, , „iiiii,...v ems Lk. .... A 016. _ This parklet in Seattle provides a comfortable and inviting place for people to dine and visit. Source:City of Seattle �C1 1401 iI ft 1E_ ,' , it '' -.• ' 1 Vat I s .--. ITIVIre•-':440IPM -2: 41 '6 i 4 ' ' _ ' Li il .'' 'I,- 1 alik' 1, . . -anta 1.....— t 777; �/'• "� .`_ >r .... :.' ' ,; ,,. le, IV____ -___ ' * ' I - Y > 'x,,,,w d t .t . iii *. -ct Temporary parklet created in the 21st and 21st business district under Salt Lake City's pilot program.A permanent design is being developed for this location. Source:Salt Lake City SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Land Use&Placemaking 1 6-9 STOPS AND STATIONS Transit stops and stations are important destinations that can bring people together and build community.More than just a connection to the transit system,stops and stations must be comfortable,weather-protected,and safe(e.g.,well-lit).Salt Lake City supports,encourages,and collaborates with UTA to enhance safety and security of transit within city limits,such as through the City's Bus Stop Design Guidelines(summarized below),which include elements such as proximity to existing lighting in bus stop relocation criteria. Figure 6-3 and Figure 6-4 provide recommendations for a range of transit facilities in Salt Lake City,including: • Intermodal Hubs.Existing facilities at Salt Lake Central and North Temple Station support connections between FrontRunner,TRAX,and local and regional bus routes,as well as with intercity transit providers at Salt Lake Central.A small park-and-ride facility is located at Salt Lake Central.UTA is working to develop the Depot District Clean Fuels Center on UTA-owned property adjacent to Central Station,which would provide additional layover space that would support the Transit Master Plan(see Chapter 2 for additional detail).UTA plans to develop a small park-and-ride facility at north Temple Station;this would be integrated into new development. • Transit Center.As described in Chapter 2,two transit centers are recommended to support transfers on the FTN.These include one in East Downtown,in the vicinity of 200 S and 700 E,and on the University of Utah campus. • Mobility Hubs.As described in the sidebar below,mobility hubs facilitate transfers between intersecting bus lines and other mobility options including car and bike sharing. • Transit Stations.Transit stations provide a higher level of passenger capacity and investment in amenities at TRAX light rail and Bus Rapid Transit stations.For TRAX stations,the UTA First-Last Mile Study differentiated between Multimodal and Urban/Institutional Stations based on urban context; existing park-and-ride facilities are located at several of the Multimodal TRAX stations,including Ballpark and Central Pointe Stations. • Transit Stops.While stop amenities are better in Salt Lake City than throughout the UTA system,of the over 1,200 bus stops in Salt Lake City,only 17%of bus stops have a bench or a shelter for people to wait for transit to arrive.Salt Lake City recently adopted Bus Stop Guidelines(which were adapted from the UTA guidelines);see Figure 6-6.The Transit Master Plan supports the implementation of these guidelines for prioritizing stop improvements based ridership levels and also recommends prioritizing improvements on a corridor basis along the Frequent Transit Network. There is also an opportunity to leverage support from the private sector;for example,as new developments are built,the City can provide business owners and developers with incentives if they sponsor and/or build transit stops and stations. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Land Use&Placemaking 16-10 Fi ure 6-3 Facilities Hierarch and Ameni Prioritization Guidelines Modes Access(Context-Appropriate) Other Amenities[2] Station Typology Existing 1 Front- TRAX 1 Car Bike Shelter and Information and Facility Type [1] Location(s) Proposed Runner Streetcar Bus Park&Ride Share Share Bike Parking[2] Seating Fare Technology Intermodal Multimodal Salt Lake Existing X X X X X X Bike racks and Custom Real time information; Hub Central secure parking shelters pre-board fare Multimodal N.Temple Existing X X X Future X X payment Transit Center Urban/Institutional 200S&700E Proposed - - X - X X Urban/Institutional Univ.of Utah Proposed - X X - X X Mobility Hub Urban/Institutional Various—see Proposed - X X - X X Bike racks and/or Based on stop map secure parking guidelines Transit Station Multimodal Various Existing or - X X Context X X Bike racks and/or Custom (TRAX/BRT) Future Appropriate secure parking shelters Urban/Institutional Various Existing or - X X - X X Bike rack Future Transit Stops Tier I (>200 Various Various - X - - X Bike rack Custom Shelter [2] boardings per day) Tier II(150 to 199 Various Various - X - - X 16'ADA shelter boardings per day) Tier III(100 to 149 Various Various - X - - - 12'ADA shelter boardings per day) Tier IV(15 to 99 Various Various - X - - - 8'ADA shelter Schedule;real-time boardings per day) info.access panel Tier V(1 to 14 Various Various - X - - - Bench or Real time access boardings per day) Simme Seat[3] information panel Notes:[1]A station typology for TRAX and FrontRunner stations was a key outcome of the UTA First-Last Mile Study,including Urban,Multimodal,and Institutional station types in Salt Lake City. These designations are based on the built environment are each transit station.A map is provided in Figure 6-5 of the Fact Book(See Appendix A).[2]The Salt Lake City Bus Stop Design Guidelines,adapted from UTA's bus stop guidelines,prioritize stop amenities based on boarding thresholds and provide additional details on the types of amenities recommended for each stop tier. Amenities are also prioritized based on available funding.[3]A seat that is incorporated into the bus stop sign. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Land Use&Placemaking 16-11 Figure 6-4 Facilities Map Salt Lake City �` North Salt Lake Existing and Recommended Facilities TRANSIT r— __-- Existing Recommended (- -� - UTA Transit Service Bus Stops without Shelters MASTER i- Front Runner • 1pp+daily hoardings 13DD N O Streetcar 15-99 daily hoardings ._ PLAN L- •o- TRAX — Frequent Transit Network — Bus Routes I - ® Intermodal Hub ,k: Planned _ Transit Center J 'c• © Park&Ride • Mobility Hub ..:,4 Salt lake Gry ----)•_ International Airport o 1� .�.T 000 N 1 ,1,1,ii\ ,, • k ! `�AMELI4 EAI TART DR • I l j E. 6TH AVE i +ShrmrvsHospitalmrcnothrn -�7. • N MMPLESI•C� • III (_,i ,iy•�.�YIi MI �.441411 4 ❑ �❑•�r �tita•iS[.,,a+tom 1 sib�, -- '1 •1 r JL;itifloAX,ii i•i• 41041 ...- . • "i ••N • •� H •� ••• a • • • .is + _• • t�C ❑5 0' �an•t: c INDI h AVE ■ • • VA 900 5 2° Ii900S ; i900S "21 r /�.a..- © c ■ r' - Oark�Y 8II e I J (Au ill.L IA AVE ID 1 = 130i S p • 1 O (Sait take • /" m (ommun' • ! ❑ foodiliflage I ;o W is a& Snarl 1 floHWrk-00ege A, ) .e '� 1700 S o it • .� 170CS ,__ a �Or y d y __SOUTH FRONTAGE RDA--- • 21015 — / I ---- / - g{o3----_, V i,•.4C3 I • 1el/ . rQ - a I Mrse --- • 'i rstlii W • t‘t :100s sc v .--�= .�..1 West Valley City South ;_J Pry O Salt Lake 0 t 0 2 u❑ro Souses: t Lake V 1, O r I❑ - .Miles UTA,Tait AGRC,ESRI 1-1I l r—r— t SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Land Use&Placemaking 16-12 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS - STOPS AND STATIONS Recommendations related to improving stops and stations are described below. High priority strategies are highlighted in blue. Figure 6-5 Stops and Stations Recommendations Recommendation Who is When should # What is the recommendation? Why do it? category responsible? it happen?* Implementing stop enhancements along an entire corridor in conjunction with Stop and station upgrades enhancements to the Stop and Station should be prioritized along the frequency of transit service and other UTA/City Upgrades Along 6.10 FTN, in alignment with the Near term elements to support a Partnership the FTN Network priority corridors recommended coherent look and feel for service upgrades along a corridor work in concert to allow transit service to be more accessible,comfortable, and attractive Initiate a Transit Shelter Transit stops and stations Lead: Private Transit Shelter program that allows a private are improved and company Program 6.11 company to own/maintain transit Medium term maintained at no cost to Support: stops and stations in exchange UTA or the City UTA for advertising space Create incentives for developers This program ensures Lead: City Developer 6 12 to build or improve transit stops transit stops are built and Support: Near term Incentives as part of the development improved where new UTA review process development occurs Lead: City Implement mobility hubs along Support: the FTN that integrate high Mobility hubs are UTA, Mobility Hubs 6.13 ridership stops,bike sharing important focal points for Wasatch Long term stations, bike fixit stations,and community and Front car sharing options transportation activity Regional Council (WFRC) Integrate shared use park and Context appropriate park Park and Ride ride into new development at &rides at intermodal hubs Lead: UTA Facilities 6.14 North Template intermodal hub help commuters access Support: Long term as opportunities arise. regional transit,e.g., City Frontrunner *Note:Near term=within 2 years;medium term=3-5 years;long term=6-10 years High priority strategy SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Land Use&Placemaking 16-13 Salt Lake City Bus Stop Design Guidelines Salt Lake City developed guidelines for bus stops and bike share stations in 2014. These guidelines are aligned with UTA standards and ridership thresholds for prioritizing improvements. Figure 6-6 Salt Lake City Bus Stop Guidelines and Ridership Thresholds #of Average Tier Bus Stop Amenity Daily Boardings Tier I Custom shelter with bench; bike rack;trash receptacle;shielded >_200 boardings lighting;current bus schedule; real-time bus data; pre-board fare pay per day facility;vegetation1 Tier II 16'ADA compliant shelter with bench; bike rack;trash receptacle 150 to 199 shielded lighting;current bus schedule; real-time bus data;pre-board boardings per day fare pay facility;vegetation1 Tier III 12'ADA compliant shelter with bench;bike rack;trash receptacle; 100 to 149 shielded lighting;current bus schedule;real-time bus data;pre-board boardings per day fare pay facility;vegetation1; Tier IV 8'ADA compliant shelter with bench;bike rack;current bus schedule; 15 to 99 boardings route information panel with instructions on accessing real-time arrival per day data;vegetation1 Tier V Seating(bench or Simme Seat2)on hard surface;bike rack;route 1 to 14 boardings information panel with instructions on accessing real-time arrival data per day Notes:[1]Shade tree,or planter at least 36"diameter and 24"tall with maintained vegetation within 10'of primary bus stop feature.[2]A seat used by UTA that is incorporated into the bus stop sign.See guidelines for examples. Source:Adapted from Salt Lake City Bus Stop Design Guidelines,which are based on UTA Bus Stop Design Guidelines SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Land Use&Placemaking 6-14 What is a Mobility Hub? The goal of a Mobility Hub is to fully integrate the transit network with multimodal access and connections at the intersection of Frequent Transit Network corridors. Mobility Hubs include pedestrian and bicycle improvements and other sustainable modes (e.g.,car or bike sharing) designed to connect transit passengers to adjacent neighborhoods and nearby land uses. Key elements of a Mobility Hub include: ■ Accessible, universal design allows people of all physical abilities to access transit stops/stations and nearby destinations ■ Shared mobility services—including bike share stations,car share vehicles, and loading space for other private or shared mobility services—enable access outside of the stop walkshed ■ Integrated mobility technology—including kiosks, reader boards with real-time information on transit and other modes, and shared payment interfaces—assists travelers with trip planning and arranging shared rides, and provides opportunities for other evolving applications ■ Placemaking elements, such as public art and seating, active street environments with a mix of land uses, and strong land use anchors invite social interaction and vibrant business opportunity ■ Secure,covered bicycle parking and access to the surrounding bicycle transportation network ■ Excellent pedestrian infrastructure within a quarter- to half-mile walkshed ■ Context-appropriate parking, including shared and/or paid on- and off-street parking The image below illustrates a mobility hub developed in Hamburg, Germany. Hamburg,Germany - klicis. „,..4aggr— , ". ...... __..., ...,‘ ......„.„..,..„ . _ _ ,_ . . . . ....t___ .....4,-- , t . ,,,_ . : , . = , , . . „ • ______00.-„1,-,---- 01?--..;_—.# -‘,... -....-.. •r. '-'.--_. e°,111) 4- 10 41r. - • A. , kr -,- . milli s \ \\ ‘74.1.SIII: Source: NISTO SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Land Use&Placemaking 1 6-15 Transit Shelter Program,San Francisco,CA San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) was one of the first transit agencies to develop a formal shelter program in 1987. The purpose of the program was to replace old shelters in San Francisco with new shelters that provide improved travel information, seating, lighting, and weather protection and to maintain the shelters on an ongoing basis to keep them in good repair. Previously, many shelters were not well maintained and had become covered in graffiti. SFMTA initiated its shelter program through an innovative arrangement with a private contractor, CBS Outdoor. Under the arrangement,the contractor owns and maintains the shelters and pays for improvements. SFMTA does not pay the contractor to manage the shelters; the contractor pays for the improvements by selling advertising, which is placed prominently in the shelters. In 2007, SFMTA entered into a 15-year contract with Clear Channel with the option of one 5-year renewal after 2017. The contract with Clear Channel requires that the company install between 1,1 10-1,500 new shelters over five years, replace 39 kiosks, provide 1,500 traffic controllers, and install 3,000 solar-powered customer-information signs. It stipulates that the contractor make a one-time signing payment of $5 million and pay $500,000 for administration costs. In addition,they will make minimum annual payments to the agency during the duration of the contract—for example,they will have to pay $8.6 million to SFMTA in 2010. Note: In these types of partnerships it is important to have clear guidelines written into the contract that indicate where stops are upgraded to make sure these shelters are equitably distributed to neighborhoods based on Salt Lake City's prioritization scheme not based on advertising markets. WWI gm-- ._ - _ •-�..I -- teal lei 1691,1 7 .f / � G .,eq ae Pim° � -—� --�` --_,ram r SFMTA bus shelters are made of recycled materials and include energy efficient LED lighting,wireless internet,real-time arrival information through NextMuni,and Push to Talk capabilities for customers with low vision. Source:Jamison Wieser on Flickr SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN Land Use&Placemaking 1 6-16 V Z 0 Z wroi r p6 w. }— — ... IV I r VI - - - _ 1 I I �� � CL d .4f - % I 1 994 T - -- __ • r...... -imic,: ,;. _..4 - 7 IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING This chapter highlights key strategies to implement the service,capital,and programmatic recommendations and policies in the Transit Master Plan.It provides additional guidance on implementation and outlines potential revenue sources the City and UTA can use to fund these enhancements and programs,and options for structuring the relationship between the City and UTA to most effectively meet Transit Master Plan goals. IMPLEMENTATION The previous chapters of the plan summarize the implementation strategies.This section highlights the overall priorities for the City,identifies key strategies to build momentum for the plan in the first year following adoption,and provides additional guidance on how the City and UTA can implement the frequent transit network(FTN)and employer and residential-oriented local shuttle and ride services partnerships to improve connections to the FTN. Key Transit Master Plan Strategy Areas Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan strategies fall into four basic categories.Within each strategy area,the City and UTA should look to implement relatively quick"wins"that are achievable given current funding levels,make the transit system more usable,and demonstrate the benefits of faster,more reliable,and frequent service that operates all day every day. ■ Implement a frequent transit network to provide reliable,efficient,and frequent transit service all day every day that takes advantage of the City's strong street network grid.The FTN would be implemented through enhanced or new fixed-route service, including longer hours of operation on weekdays and on weekends,increased frequency, service on new corridors,and route extensions to more directly serve key destinations. Initial priorities include: — "Buying up"evening service on key routes.One of the most significant gaps in transit service is on weekday evenings(see Appendix A,State of the System Report, Figures 4-5 and 4-n). Providing service longer into the evenings makes transit more usable for both work and non-work trips. (The concept of buying up service is described below.) — Implementing frequent service in the 200 S corridor,in coordination with capital improvements(see below for more detail). • Develop pilot programs and partnerships for employer shuttles and on- demand ride services that extend the reach of fixed route service for employment areas or neighborhoods that lack sufficient density or demand to support cost-effective frequent transit service. • Develop enhanced bus corridors that help transit run faster and more reliably and offer high quality stop amenities that make riding transit comfortable and attractive.An initial priority is to implement more frequent service and capital SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 1 Implementation&Funding 1 7-1 improvements on 200 S,a primary east-west transit corridor for bus(and potentially future bus rapid transit and/or streetcar)service between downtown and the University. The City and UTA have already partnered to enhance stops on 2ooS and UTA provides a relatively high level of service(15-minute weekday service from about 6 am to 8 pm). Enhancing service and facilities on this corridor is a key step in implementing a grid transit network since it enables convenient transfers from routes serving north-south transit corridors. ■ Implement a variety of transit-supportive programs and transit access improvements that overcome barriers to using transit in terms of information, understanding,and access(including pedestrian and bicycle facilities and affordability). Initial plan priorities include: Developing a highly visible frequent service brand and focusing access improvements,rollout of real-time transit information,and targeted transit marketing programs on corridors that will be prioritized for FTN service enhancements. Implementation of the Frequent Transit Network FTN Implementation Strategies There are three basic approaches that Salt Lake City could follow to implement frequent service on the corridors identified in Chapter 2,as well as coordinated capital improvements and transit- supportive programs and policies.UTA already plans to implement frequent service on its"Core Route Network,"which will overlap with a number of the corridors identified in the Salt Lake City FTN.These approaches may be focused to develop frequent service where UTA does not provide the City's desired minimum level-of-service.Illustrative examples are given below;further analysis will be needed to determine actual routing. ■ Restructure existing service. Redesigning existing routes,e.g.,changing the streets on which they operate or modifying route terminal locations,is the most cost-effective approach to providing frequent service.The City will work with UTA to consider ways to use existing operating funds to implement the plan's priorities.For example,UTA operates service on N.Temple Street,too S,and 200 S,which are each 500 feet apart. Route 220 serves too S between 13oo E and State Street.Route 209 operates on S. Temple Street between 90o E and State Street(it turns west from 90o E onto S.Temple). Route 6 also serves N.Temple Street,east of 90o E.A potential scenario where Route 220 would move from too S to N.Temple Street,illustrated in Figure 7-1,would have the following benefits: — Provide a continuous route on N.Temple Street connecting downtown and the University with approximately a quarter-mile separation from 200 S;this is a more appropriate spacing between routes(consistent with recommendations in Chapter 2). — Focus ridership on N.Temple Street stops,allowing those stops to meet ridership thresholds for a higher level of amenities. — Provide better service along the southern edge of the Avenues neighborhood and potentially enable better service to LDS Hospital by allowing Route 209 to be extended north(given a frequent service grid that offers convenient transfers,e.g.,on N.Temple and 200 S). — Potentially support future implementation of a downtown streetcar,which is planned to run on too S between W.Temple Street and 50o E. Some changes could be cost-neutral or reduce costs(as with N.Temple and goo S),while others may require additional operating cost and/or vehicles. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 1 Implementation&Funding 1 7-2 • City service buy-up.Salt Lake City could provide UTA with a financial contribution to increase frequency or span of service on a route. If the change does not require additional vehicles,i.e.,increasing midday or evening service to the same level of service provided at a different time period,no additional vehicles would be required.For example,Routes 205,209,and 220 already provide frequent service on 50o S,90o S,and i3ooS, respectively,during weekday daytime hours;increasing frequency on weekday evenings would not require additional vehicles.However,Route 228,which provides service along 400 S between the University and Salt Lake Central,only operates with 30-minute frequency and additional vehicles would be required. Where the City desires to buy-up service on routes that extend beyond Salt Lake City limits,the City would invest only in service that is within city boundaries.UTA would be responsible for how that service is connected to the rest of the system.For example, service increases that the City buys up could terminate at/near city limits.It is anticipated that once service is demonstrated to meet UTA service standards,the agency would take over provision of that service,as funding allows.UTA and the City would need to document any such agreements in a memorandum of understanding. • Introduce new service. Service on new transit corridors that cannot be achieved through restructuring existing routes would be the most costly option in terms of both operating and capital costs. For example,extending Route 228 to provide continuous service along 40o S between Redwood Road and the University would likely require additional operating resources for the Redwood Road to 600 W portion of the route,as well as to increase service to frequent levels.Additional vehicles would also likely be required.Providing service when and where there wasn't service before requires an analysis and possible implementation of paratransit service as well. Figure 7-1 Service Restructuring Example: Existing Service on S.Temple,100 S and 200 S 3RD AVE W.' 2ND AVE 1ST AVE H H H H , H i.7 , , N , H ~ • Q W ' C. O O N N — N N.. N N N N N 1 H O�NC CO V O S — Y 1 S.TEMPLE ST ® 100S 200 S J 1 z 300 S 4 O O O O O 3 Q O O O O O O IINIVFRSITY BLVD 400 S o e Weekday Average UTA Transit Service Daily Boarding (Bus Only) TRAX Dec 2014 - Bus Routes 10 500 1,000 0 0.25 0.5 • Less than 10 = Zero Boarding Miles UTA Routes 2,220,and 209 serve 200 S,100 S,and S.Temple Street,respectively.As described above,restructuring Route 220 to serve S.Temple Street is an example of cost-neutral or low cost changes to existing service that can help implement the FTN. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Implementation&Funding 1 7-3 Figure 7-2 summarizes needs and applicability of implementation strategies to FTN corridors along with key considerations. FTN Cost Estimates In 2016, UTA provided a cost estimate of $6 per vehicle-mile for additional service that could be operated by the existing bus fleet, such as midday, in the evening, or on weekends. The number of buses required to operate a route is typically driven by peak periods when service is the most frequent. The estimated cost is $7 per vehicle-mile if additional vehicles are required, such as to operate new service on a corridor or increase frequency during peak periods. The net incremental cost to provide frequent service on the Tier 1 FTN is $4.1 million annually, and $3.6 million annually on the Tier 2 FTN ($7.7 million total), based on an order-of-magnitude estimate using the latest information available at the time of analysis (Spring 2016). This cost does not include portions of the FTN corridors where UTA had existing plans to provide frequent service, i.e., the estimate represents the additional cost to extend frequent service beyond existing plans, nor does it include costs for any additional paratransit service that may be required. For example, the total annual cost to provide frequent service on a one-mile route segment of an existing transit corridor would be approximately $240,000 (roughly 40,000 annual vehicle miles at a cost of $6 per mile), comprised of approximately $1 80,000 for weekdays, $40,000 for Saturdays, and $20,000 for Sundays. For service on a new corridor, this cost would be $1 per mile higher, or an additional $40,000 per year. The net cost accounts for existing or planned service on some corridors, and may be significantly lower than the total cost if only enhancements to midday, evening, or weekend are required. Fi•ure 7-2 Incremental Cost Estimates to Im•lement FTN Vision Daily Vehicle Miles Incremental Annual Costs* Tier Weekday Saturday Sunday Weekday Saturday Sunday Total 1 1,800 2,100 800 $3,000,000 $800,000 $300,000 $4,100,000 2 1,500 1,800 700 $2,700,000 $700,000 $300,000 $3,600,000 1+2 3,300 4,000 1,500 $5,700,000 $1,500,000 $600,000 $7,700,000 Notes:*Based on$6 per vehicle mile for service if no additional vehicles are required,or$7 per vehicle mile if additional vehicles are required,and 40,000 annual vehicle miles. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN Implementation&Funding 7-4 Figure 7-3 FTN Implementation Considerations FTN Service Needs Potential Implementation Strategies Potential Primary Mid- Sat! UTA Core City Service New Corridor Time Frame Route(s) Peak day Eve Sun Network* Buy-Up Restructure Service Key Elements!Considerations 1 200 S(Transit Tier 1 2 X X X X • Possible initial joint City-UTA project Spine) • Incorporate clean vehicles(UTA"No-Low" Emission vehicle grant) • Bulb-outs,other amenities,community-oriented features North/South Tier 1 220,3,6 X X X X • Consider restructuring 220 to consolidate east- Temple west service on North-South Temple • Consider restructuring Route 3 to terminate at North Temple Station,or serve SLC Central via 600 W 500 E/900 E;to Tier 1 205,209 X X X X X • Identify potential layover location near LDS LDS Hospital and • Coordinate with 200 S and N.Temple corridors Avenues (frequent east-west connections) Neighborhood State Street;to Tier 1 200 X X X X X • Part of larger BRT project;could SLC portion be State Capitol advanced as the initial segment of a broader project • Consider rerouting Rt 200 to serve State Capital in the shorter-term,e.g., in conjunction with 200S transit spine • Identify potential layover location 400 S Tier 1 228,500 X X X X X X X • Identify Redwood Road terminus options(e.g., N. Temple) SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Implementation&Funding i 7-5 FTN Service Needs Potential Implementation Strategies Potential Primary Mid- Sat/ UTA Core City Service New Corridor Time Frame Route(s) Peak day Eve Sun Network* Buy-Up Restructure Service Key Elements 1 Considerations California/300 W/ Tier 1 9 X X X X X X X • Identify Redwood Road terminus options(e.g., N. 900 S Temple) Indiana(west of Tier 2 • Consider modifying Rt 9 to serve California 300 W) segment(e.g.,split tail of Rt 9 between California 1300 S(east of Tier 2 and 300W portion, 1300S—Central Pointe 300 W) Station,or serve via alternative route).West end of Route 17 could also potentially be rerouted to serve 300W between 1700S&Central Pointe Station ■ Western segment of 900 S contingent on grade- separated freight rail crossing 1300 E Tier 1 220 X X X X • See also N./S.Temple Rose Park Tier 1 /2 519,520 X X X X X X X 2100 S/2100E Tier 1 21 X X X X Redwood Road Tier 1 217 X X X X X • See also 900 S/California and 400 S corridors 1700 S Tier 2 17 X X X Foothill Drive Tier 2 228, X X X X X X • Although Foothill is identified as a Tier 2 corridor, 313,354 a recent implementation study has been completed and it has strong stakeholder and community support. It is therefore suggested that project partners consider moving forward with the implementation of that corridor, including its significant transit, bicycle and pedestrian supportive elements,in the nearer term. TRAX Tier 1 X X • 15 minute weekend service *UTA is in the process of defining its Core Route Network. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Implementation&Funding 17-6 Implementation of Alternative Service Pilot Projects Establishing partnerships with employers and ride services companies are key steps in developing pilot projects to provide employer-and residential-oriented services to extend the reach of fixed route service in Salt Lake City.The City and/or UTA will need to foster partnerships with employers and non-profits and develop agreements with private transportation providers to develop these pilot projects.The following sections outline key implementation steps and parameters that should be addressed in these agreements. Employer-Oriented Service The City and/or UTA will need to work with employers to structure effective shared ride shuttle services to employment sites that cannot be served effectively by the FTN.As described in Chapter 2,Transportation Management Associations(TMAs)are often effective ways to organize employers to coordinate schedules and provide funding for shuttle programs.Key information required to plan an employer-oriented shuttle program includes: • Primary employee shift times(start and end) • Employee origins(home locations)and the rail or FTN station(s)that would most efficiently provide connections for the most employees A TMA can also provide the City and UTA with a more centralized way to facilitate education and outreach to employers and employees,and foster incentives to use transit including company- sponsored passes(such as the Hive Pass)which can be supported by an employer-sponsored guaranteed ride home program.Although employees use guaranteed ride home programs relatively infrequently,they remove a key barrier to use of transit and employee shuttles;if a participating employee unexpectedly needs to leave work early or late,the program would cover the cost of a taxi or shared ride home or to the transit station. Residential-Oriented Service As described in Chapter 2,residential-oriented ride services would extend the reach of the FTN in Salt Lake City.A number of issues and concerns emerged in early discussions of the concept of partnering with ride services companies to offer subsidized shared ride services.These concerns could be addressed through the contracting/procurement process for such a partnership,i.e.,ride services companies would need to be able to address these concerns in order to be eligible for the subsidized ride program. Figure 7-3 summarizes the likely service parameters and issues/concerns along with potential resolution of those issues. UTA would need to determine whether this model is specific to Salt Lake City or could be applied elsewhere in the UTA service area. Residential-Oriented Shared Ride Cost Estimate The cost to subsidize an on-demand shared ride service in the conceptual residential service zones identified in Chapter 2 would vary depending on contractual arrangements with ride services companies,service parameters (geographies and hours of availability), and residents' demand for the service. Based on rough assumptions,the net cost to Salt Lake City could be on the order of $500,000 to $900,000 to subsidize rides for such a service for the full operating hours of the FTN (17 hours Monday-Saturday and 12 hours on Sundays) in the identified zones. Assumptions include that average daily rides would total 1% of residents in the zones and that residents would pay a small premium over the cost of a transit fare. The current, unsubsidized cost of a single person on-demand ride to a nearby transit station ranges from $5 to $8 for each of the zones. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN Implementation&Funding 7-7 Figure 7-4 Ride Services Partnership Service ParameterslConcerns Issue/Concern Principle or Contractual Stipulation to Address Service Parameters,e.g.,where and when is the service available? Eligible Origins • Defined areas outside of the geographic coverage of the FTN(see Chapter 2) Eligible Destinations • Rail and FTN stations(i.e.,connections available to Salt Lake Central or other major transit stations) ■ Potentially direct access to other key nodes defined within each service area,e.g., neighborhood shopping area Eligible Hours of Operation • Hours of FTN service,i.e., 17 hours per day Monday-Saturday and 12 hours per day Sundays(see Chapter 3) ■ If an area has only partial frequent service,e.g.,daytime but not evenings,trips could be made eligible for a subsidy only outside of actual frequent service hours(the model could also potentially be used in this way to extend service hours in other neighborhoods in Salt Lake City) Other Considerations Fare Payment ■ Desirable to integrate with Hive Pass Fiscal Sustainability • Program availability would need to be constrained by available funds and estimated costs; testing the program in a pilot neighborhood or zone would help refine the budget Environmental Sustainability • The service would balance shared rides(to maximize sustainability)with efficient travel times in order to avoid the perception that the service offers single-passenger rides ■ Align with SLC Sustainability Goals, i.e.,shared ride,clean vehicle requirements or incentives ■ A premium subsidy or preferential allocation of rides could be offered to incentivize clean- fuel vehicles Equity ■ Address potential or perceived equity implications of providing shared ride services program in some neighborhoods that may be generally higher-income than others, i.e., providing better(door-to-door)service to a higher-income area than is available in lower income areas ■ Address potential equity concerns related to accessibility for people without smart phones (e.g. partner with a third party to allow riders to schedule via the web instead of a smart phone) Accessibility ■ Availability of accessible vehicles Technology ■ Desirable to integrate into development of a shared mobility platform SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Implementation&Funding 7-8 FUNDING STRATEGIES Implementing the service,capital,and programmatic recommendations of the Transit Master Plan will require the City and UTA to develop new,sustainable transit funding sources.This section describes potential funding mechanisms including federal,state,and local sources as well as public-private partnerships. Existing Funding Sources Existing funding for transit in Salt Lake City is primarily provided by UTA.UTA revenue sources for the FY 2015-2016 budget year,illustrated in Figure 7-4,total approximately$347 million and include: • Local option sales tax: Largest revenue source for UTA,imposed by service area and varies by county—Salt Lake County: 0.6875 cents per dollar in retail sales;Weber,Davis, Box Elder counties: 0.55 cents;Utah County: 0.526 cents;Tooele County(select cities): 0.3 cents.Sales tax revenues were projected to increase by 4.2%from 2014 to 2015.1 • Federal grants:UTA has secured nearly$1.7 billion in discretionary and formula federal grants over the past decade.2 • Passenger revenue: UTA recovers 17%of transit operating costs from fares.3 This percentage is an average and includes all modes.Fare revenues are projected to increase based on growth in ridership. • Advertising: From lease of exterior space on the sides and rear of bus and light rail vehicles. • Investment income: Interest earned on invested operating funds not yet expended and funds held for future capital expenditures. • Other income: Income from rents and leases on the right-of-way.4 Salt Lake City pays for transportation investments using primarily general funds—there are no funds dedicated to public transit.Funding contributions from the City for FY 2015-2016 include:5 • $2.2 million for Transportation Operations including one HIVE program administrator6 • $50,000 of general funds for Ground Transportation • $1.8 million for Bikeway Infrastructure projects including: - $1.77 million of general funds - $46,000 of impact fee funds Additionally,the City dedicates$7,500 to a Rail-Volution Partner level membership,which further supports future transportation investments in Salt Lake City. UTA.2015 Budget Document. Retrieved from http://www.rideuta.com/uploads/2015MasterBudgetDoc.pdf 2 Utah Transit Authority.UTA Year in Review 2014. Retrieved from https://www.rideuta.com/uploads/UTAYearinReview2014.pdf. 3 National Transit Database. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/ntd/tap/2013_Utah_Transit_Authority_I D8001.pdf 4 UTA.2015 Budget Document. Retrieved from http://www.rideuta.com/uploads/2015MasterBudgetDoc.pdf 5 Salt Lake City.Capital and Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2015-2016.Retrieved from http://www.slcdocs.com/budget/bookFY16.pdf 6 The Hive Pass is a program provided by Salt Lake City through an agreement with UTA that allows residents to purchase reduced cost monthly or annual transit passes. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN Implementation&Funding 7-9 Figure 7-5 2015 UTA Operating Budget Federal Grants Other 16%_ 1% Investment_ 1% ■ Sales Tax Advertising_ ■ Passenger Revenue 1% ■ Advertising ■ Investment Passenger • Federal Grants Revenue • Other 15% '_Sales Tax 66% Source:UTA 2015 Master Budget Potential Funding Sources A variety of funding sources exist to help support public transportation.Program eligibility, match requirements,and use of funding vary by program and whether distributed at the federal, state,or local level. This section describes the funding sources available,some of which the City already receives,and some which would be new sources of funding. Federal On December 4,2015,President Obama signed into law P.L. 114-94,the Fixing America's Surface Transportation(FAST)Act. Funding surface transportation programs at over$305 billion for fiscal years(FY)2016 through 2020,the FAST Act continues many of the streamlined and performance-based surface transportation programs established in the Moving Ahead for Progress in the list Century Act(MAP-21).Federal transportation funding is generally formula or discretionary-based.Formula-based programs have a pre-determined amount of funding allocated each year to states and metropolitan planning organizations,whereas discretionary programs are competitive and provide grants to communities that submit funding applications. The following formula-based programs for urbanized areas are relevant to Salt Lake City,and unless otherwise noted,generally require a 2o%local match for capital assistance and a 5o% match for operating assistance(if applicable). Revenue from these funding sources is typically allocated at the regional level;UTA is the recipient for these funds. Urbanized Area Formula Program(FTA Section 5307).This program is primarily intended to fund fixed-route transit projects.For urbanized areas over 200,000 in population, SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Implementation&Funding 7-10 5307 funds can only be used for capital expenditures,including preventative maintenance.?In addition,certain expenses associated with mobility management programs are eligible and some Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA)complementary paratransit service costs are considered capital costs.Up to io%of 5307 funds can be applied to ADA Paratransit service;up to 20%of program funds can be used for complementary paratransit service if certain conditions are met.A 20%local match is required for all capital expenditures;the local share may be lowered to 10%for the cost of vehicle-related equipment attributable to compliance with the ADA. Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities Program(FTA Section 531o).This program provides formula funding for services to seniors and persons with disabilities that go beyond traditional fixed-route services and ADA paratransit. It can be used for operating and capital costs. In general,this funding source requires a 20%local match for capital and a 50%local match for operating expenditures,however only a 10.27%match is required for purchased transportation services. A sub-component of this program created in the FAST Act is a new discretionary pilot program for innovative coordinated access and mobility.This pilot program is open to 5310 recipients to assist in financing innovative projects for the transportation disadvantaged that improve the coordination of transportation services and non-emergency medical transportation(NEMT) services;such as:the deployment of coordination technology,projects that create or increase access to community,One-Call/One-Click Centers,etc.In the first year of the discretionary program(2016)Congress appropriated$2 million,followed by$3 million in 2017, $3.25 million in 2018,and$3.5 million in 2019. Buses and Bus Facilities Grants Program(FTA Section 5339).There are three components to this program.The first is a continuation of the formula bus program established under MAP-21 that provides funding to states and transit agencies to replace,rehabilitate,and purchase buses and related equipment and to construct bus-related facilities.The FAST Act added two new components:a bus and bus facilities competitive grant program based on asset age and condition and a low or no emissions bus deployment program.Both the formula and competitive funding require a 20%local match and are only eligible for capital expenditures. A pilot provision in the FAST Act allows designated recipients in urbanized areas between 200,00o and 999,999 in population to participate in voluntary state pools to allow transfers of formula funds between designated recipients during the period of the authorized legislation. Capital Investment Grant Program.This program is the primary federal funding source for development of new major transit capital investments.The program funds fixed guideway transit projects including:commuter rail,light rail,heavy rail,bus rapid transit,streetcars,and ferries. There are three components to the program:New Starts,Core Capacity,and Small Starts;projects can be grouped into"Programs of Interrelated Projects"that are comprised of any combination of two or more New Starts,Small Starts,or Core Capacity projects. ■ New Starts projects must have a total capital cost over$30o million or request$loo million or more in funding. 7 Capital projects include:planning,engineering,design and evaluation of transit projects and other technical transportation-related studies;capital investments in bus and bus-related activities such as replacement,overhaul and rebuilding of buses,crime prevention and security equipment and construction of maintenance and passenger facilities; and capital investments in new and existing fixed guideway systems including rolling stock,overhaul and rebuilding of vehicles,track,signals,communications,and computer hardware and software.In addition,associated transit improvements and certain expenses associated with mobility management programs are eligible under the program.All preventive maintenance and some ADA complementary paratransit service costs are considered capital costs. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Implementation&Funding 17-11 • Core Capacity projects are major capital investments in existing fixed guideway systems that increase capacity on corridors that are at capacity today or will be in five years.8 • Small Starts projects must have a total capital cost of less than$30o million and seek less than$ioo million in funding. Local match requirements are 20%of that total cost;in recent years the FTA has been pushing recipients to pay closer to a 50%local match. Communities seeking funding under the capital investment grants programs must complete a series of steps over several years to be eligible for funding.New Starts and Core Capacity projects have two phases: (1)Project Development:the evaluation of alternatives leading to the selection of a locally preferred alternative,and(2)Engineering: during which cost and designs are finalized and environmental issues are addressed.The process can take five or more years from initiation of an alternatives analysis(AA)to execution of a full funding agreement. A pilot program in the FAST Act allows communities seeking funding or that recently received funding under the Capital Investment Grants programs to apply to the Pilot Program for Transit- Oriented Development Planning.This program funds local community initiatives to integrate land use and transportation planning to improve economic development and ridership,foster multimodal connectivity and accessibility,improve transit access for pedestrian and bicycle traffic,engage the private sector,identify infrastructure needs,and enable mixed-use development near transit stations. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality(CMAQ)Program.Administered by the Federal Highway Administration(FHWA),this program funds a wide variety of surface transportation projects—including transit—that contribute to air quality improvements and provide congestion relief in areas that do not meet federal air quality standards(non-attainment)or former nonattainment areas that are now in compliance(maintenance areas).Funding is provided to the State,which has discretion to prioritize and fund projects.Salt Lake County is a non-attainment or maintenance area for some pollutants,making it eligible for funding under this program. Surface Transportation Block Grant Program.Also administered by the FHWA,this program can be used by the State and larger metropolitan regions to fund a wide variety of transportation projects.A percentage of the program is set aside for bicycling and walking projects(called"Transportation Alternatives")and there is a requirement that at least half of each state's funding be provided to geographic areas in proportion to their relative shares of the State's population. TIGER Discretionary Grants.The U.S.Department of Transportation's Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery(TIGER)Discretionary Grant program invests in projects that address national objectives in safety,economic competitiveness,state of good repair, quality of life,and environmental sustainability.DOT also evaluates projects on innovation, partnerships,project readiness,benefit cost analysis,and cost share.The eligibility requirements of TIGER allow project sponsors to obtain funding for multi-modal,multi jurisdictional projects that are more difficult to support through traditional federal programs.There have been rounds of funding each year since 2009.However,since the program is not authorized,it is subject to the annual appropriations process year to year.A TIGER grant was used to develop the Sugarhouse Streetcar(see sidebar). 8 FTA calculates capacity for light rail and heavy rail projects as useable space per passenger in the peak hour in the peak direction.Levels below 5.7 square feet are considered to be at capacity now or within 5 years and is eligible. More information on the calculations can be found on page 85 of the Final Capital Investment Grant Program Interim Policy Guidance,June 2016 available at www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/FAST Updated Interim Policy Guidance June%20 2016.pdf SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Implementation&Funding 17-12 Public Transportation Innovation(FTA Section 5312).This program provides annual discretionary funding to develop innovative products and services to better meet the needs of transit agency customers.For the first round of the program,the FTA announced$8 million in funding for Mobility on Demand Sandbox.The FTA seeks to fund project teams to innovate, explore partnerships,develop new business models,integrate transit and mobility on demand solutions,and investigate new solutions,enabling technical capabilities such as integrated payment systems,decision support,and incentives for traveler choices.Future grant opportunities could be pursued to help develop the recommended on-demand ride services partnership to extend the reach of frequent transit service. Sugarhouse Streetcar Funding Partnership The S-Line was funded through a partnership between Salt Lake City, South Salt Lake, and UTA. • UTA received a $26 million TIGER II grant in 2010 and provided the three streetcar vehicles (valued at $12 million) and the right-of-way (valued at $6.3 million) at no cost to the cities of South Salt Lake and Salt Lake City. • The gap in funding to complete the project ($1 1.1 8 million) was shared between Salt Lake City ($5.38 million), South Salt Lake ($4.2 million), and UTA ($1.6 million). Salt Lake City and South Salt Lake also shared in the cost of operating the line along with UTA for three years. Source:http://www.shstreetcar.com/files/MasterStreetcarTransmittal.pdf State Funding State funding for transit operations and capital projects can be a good local match for federal sources and also provides stable funding over many years. Gas Tax. During the 2015 General Session,the State of Utah passed H.B.362 which increased the statewide gas tax by 4.9 cents from 24.5 cents per gallon to 29.4 cents per gallon.9 In addition, beginning in 2016,there is an additional 12%sales tax on wholesale gas that will fluctuate based on the statewide average wholesale pretax price of a gallon of regular unleaded motor fuel during the previous three fiscal years,not to exceed 4o cents.The new taxes provide an annual adjustment as the statewide average wholesale price of fuel fluctuates within the floor($2.45)and ceiling($3.33)prices. These revenues are deposited into the state Transportation Fund and Transportation Investment Fund and project funding decisions are made by the Transportation Commission each year. Utah's transportation commissioners are appointed by the governor and serve as part of an independent advisory committee.The local option sales tax provision of H.B.362 is discussed below under Local Funding. Sales Tax.Counties within the Utah Transit Authority service area assess sales taxes that are earmarked for transit,including both operations and for the local share of capital expenditures. Approved local option sales taxes include: • Salt Lake County o.6875% • Davis County o.5500% • Weber County 0.5500% • Box Elder County o.5500% • Utah County o.5260 • Tooele County 0.3000% 9 http://www.wfrc.org/new wfrc/index.php/resources/house-bill-362-transportation-infrastructure-funding SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Implementation&Funding 17-13 Salt Lake City SmartTrips Salt Lake City's SmartTrips program is an on-the-ground effort to educate and encourage local residents to use public and active transportation for their travel needs. This program targeted households and businesses in the Fairmont and Westminster neighborhoods of lower Sugar House. Residents were educated on the importance of decreasing polluting activities associated with driving. One goal of the program was to empower at least 15% of the targeted households to successfully negotiate barriers to adopt and sustain the use of public and active transportation to reduce vehicle emissions. The Salt Lake City Sustainability Division applied for a Utah Clean Air (UCAIR) grant to support six activities of this program: 1. Community Listening and Collaboration Cultivation 2. Business Recruitment 3. Participant Recruitment 4. Participant Engagement 5. Community Partnering Events 6. Evaluation/Feedback Of the $29,424 originally granted to SmartTrips by UCAIR, $8,852 (approximately 30%) was spent on personnel costs. The remaining $20,571 (approximately 70%) was used for program materials. Source:2014 SmartTrips Salt Lake City UCAIR Final Grant Report Local Funding Options Many recent capital projects in the United States have relied largely,if not solely,on local funding for construction and operations.Avoiding complex requirements associated with federally-funded construction projects has allowed many cities to implement more cost-effective and rapid construction and implementation of service.The following are some of the potential local sources of funding for constructing and operating transit projects. General Obligation Bonds.Bonds are a primary source of funds for constructing major capital improvements.Voter-approved bonds are sold to provide up-front funding for transportation projects,including street and transit corridor improvements.A set of projects may be grouped into a"bond package"that goes before the public for voter approval.General obligation bonds could be supported through the city's existing property tax base,or backed with incremental increases in universally-applied city taxes,such as those on sales or property,or parking meter revenues. Taxes Sales Tax General sales taxes can provide a large source of funding for transit operations or capital projects, though revenues tend to fluctuate with the overall economy introducing uncertainty year to year. While transit agencies have traditionally relied on sales tax commitments from local governments,many agencies are moving to diversify their revenue sources after the economic downtown in 2008 severely impacted operating budgets,service levels,and fares.As described above under the statewide sales tax section,H.B.362 allowed counties to impose a 0.25%general sales tax for transportation,with voter approval.Salt Lake City(urban area)and UTA would each receive 0.10% (a tenth-cent)of the sales tax increase,and Salt Lake County would receive 0.05% (0.05 of a cent);however,Salt Lake County voters did not approve Proposition 1 on November 3, 2015 so this potential funding source is currently not available to UTA and Salt Lake City. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Implementation&Funding 17-14 Payroll Tax In this scenario,a payroll tax is imposed directly on employers served by transit.It is based on payroll for services performed within a transit district,including traveling sales representatives and employees working from home.This tax applies to covered employees and self-employed workers.Advantages include flexibility of revenues(capital and operating purposes), administrative ease,and equity. Employee Head Tax While not a common source of transit funding,employee head taxes can be a way to tie transit benefits to employment and economic growth.Head taxes charge employers a flat tax on each worker,typically annually.An example is the Employers'Expense Tax in Chicago,which applies to employers with more than 5o employees.The rate is $2.0o per employee per month. (This tax was repealed in 2014.) Usage Fees Congestion Pricing and Toll Revenue Congestion pricing and toll revenue can provide a potential funding source for transit when coupled with improvements to transit services along the same corridor.It also increases the cost of driving,which can make transit more cost-competitive. Revenues are often flexible(operating or capital purposes)but in some cases their use is limited to a specific corridor or zone.Typically, tolls are only implemented on new roads or roads that have recently undergone major improvements. Vehicle-Miles Traveled(VMT)Fees The recently passed H.B.362 included provisions directing the Utah Department of Transportation to study the feasibility of a mileage-based user fee.VMT fees have been considered by many states and municipalities,but none have been implemented for personal vehicles in the United States.Unlike tolls,VMT fees are distance-based fees that are not facility- or zone-specific. Vehicle Registration Fee Many communities levy a fee on residents who register a car within the jurisdiction to cover the costs associated with using the local transportation system.The revenues from this fee can be directly tied to improvements in the transportation network that benefits drivers,including transit projects and service improvements.Utah currently levies a uniform fee based on the age of the vehicle between$io and$i5o as well as a registration fee based on vehicle type,fuel type,and county. Travel and Tourism Fees Visitors traveling within the Salt Lake City region place demands on the transportation system. This fee would assess a tax on rental cars or hotel rooms to account for these costs and provide revenues to operate the transit system.Utah state law allows a county,city,or town to impose a transient room tax on the rental of rooms in hotels,motels,inns,trailer courts,campgrounds, tourist homes,and similar accommodations for stays of less than 3o consecutive days. Transit Access(Utility)Fee A transit access(utility)fee is paid by households and businesses and is a stable source of support for the transit agency over time.While only a handful of cities have adopted this revenue source,a transit access fee could be assessed for all households within the city and generate significant SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Implementation&Funding 17-15 revenues.Transit access fees are typically a monthly charge of between$i and$5 per household. For equity reasons,a discounted rate for low-income households would need to be considered. Corvallis Transit Operation Fee In the City of Corvallis, Oregon the Transit Operation Fee (TOF) is a monthly charge to City of Corvallis utility customers to generate revenue for the exclusive purpose of funding Corvallis Transit System (CTS) operations. This revenue source was developed to replace property tax funds that previously supported transit operations and transit fares revenues. Single-family residential customers are charged $2.75 per month and multi-family residential customers are charged $1.90 per housing unit per month. Fees for commercial and industrial customers are based on the type of business. The fee has generated consistent revenue with $1,200,000 in FY 2013-14 and slightly less than $1,200,000 in FY 2014-15. This approach provides significantly more revenue than the property tax revenue, which previously provided about $400,000 in annual revenues. Source: City of Corvallis.Transportation Operations Fee.January 2016.Retrieved from http://www.corva I I isoregon.gov/mod u les/showdocu ment.aspx?docu mentid r4248 Development Impact Fees Municipalities often tax developers based on the impact of a new development on the transportation system.These fees are used to pay for infrastructure improvements that will mitigate the level of service concerns brought by the new development.This is a common fee used for road infrastructure but is increasingly being used to fund transit or transportation demand management(TDM)measures associated with new development.San Francisco,for example, collects fees to ensure the new development receives adequate transit service. Depending on local implementation,use of this revenue source can be flexible,paying for operating or capital improvements. Salt Lake City has an impact fee mechanism with funds eligible for streets,parks, and public safety projects,but not for maintenance of existing facilities.A one-year moratorium went into effect in Fall 2015 while the City updated policies to ensure funds are used within six years,as required by the impact fee ordinance. Utah Foundation Report: Fueling Our Future, 2013-2040: Policy Options to Address Utah's Future Transportation Needs The Utah Foundation published a report in February 201 3 (Report Number 713: Fueling Our Future, 2013-2040: Policy Options to Address Utah's Future Transportation Needs) that outlined the following potential transit funding options: • Sales tax increase of 0.25% ($3.8 billion over the next 30 years) • 1% increase in hotel taxes ($1 39 million over the next 30 years) • 1% increase in rental car tax ($71 million over the next 30 years) • Transit property tax of $0.1 for counties in the UTA service area ($5.8 billion over the next 30 years) Source:UTA Network Study,p.91 SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 1 Implementation&Funding 17-16 Special Districts Business Improvement District A business improvement district(BID)is an area within which businesses pay an additional tax to enhance the area within the district's boundaries. Often used to support streetscape improvements and to activate parks and open spaces,some BIDs have funded circulator buses, transit shuttles,and bus stop amenities that improve access and enhance the sense of place in the area. Parking Benefit Districts Pricing parking provides a stable revenue source and also reduces reliance on single-occupant vehicles. Parking meter revenue may be prioritized to support transit services in the area where the parking fees were collected.Many cities are exploring these funding approaches for downtown areas,universities,and employment centers that have specific transit service needs. City of Seattle Transit Benefits District In 2010,the Seattle City Council authorized the creation of a transportation benefit district— the Seattle Transit Benefits District (STBD). Voter approval of the STBD in November 2014 authorized a 0.1% sales tax increase and a $60 annual vehicle license fee (VLF) per registered vehicle. The current VLF stands at $80 per year, with a $100 cap. Based on state legislation, funding sources that may be used without voter approval include an up to a $20 annual VLF and a transportation impact fee on commercial and industrial buildings. Subject to voter approval,the following additional revenue sources are available: • Property taxes (one-year excess levy or an excess levy for capital purposes) • Sales and use tax (up to 0.2%) • Annual VLF of up to an additional $80 ($100 total) per vehicle registered in the district • Vehicle tolls This funding mechanism is expected to raise $45 million per year to address overcrowding and reliability issues with Metro service and to add frequency to meet demand for more transit. Source:SDOT.Seattle Transit Master Plan.2016.Retrieved from http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/TMP/final/TMPSupplmtALL2- 16FINAL.pdf Public-Private Partnerships Public/private partnerships are agreements between public and private partners that can benefit from the same improvements.While traditionally considered primarily for the construction of large transit projects,they have been used in several places around the country to provide public transportation amenities within the public right-of-way in exchange for operational revenue from the facilities,such as sidewalks,bike lanes,and multi-use trails,in addition to transit services. Transit agencies can work with major employers and trip generators to help pay for transit service and facilities. Advertising/Sponsorships UTA permits the sale and placement of ads on many of its vehicles as a means to generate additional revenue. Revenues from advertisement currently make up approximately 1%of total revenues. Institutional Partners Institutions can provide financial contributions by helping fund transit operations,partnering on capital projects,and purchasing transit passes.The University of Utah is a significant demand SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN Implementation&Funding 17-17 center for transit in Salt Lake City with more than 30,00o students and more than 1.7,000 faculty and staff.Four TRAX stations and more than 15 bus routes serve the campus and approximately 35%of University trips are made by transit.The University operates eight free campus shuttles, an express shuttle to Salt Lake Central Station,and provides staff,faculty,and students with transit passes.'°The University can partner with the City and UTA to develop a recommended transit hub with layover space for UTA buses.UTA and City could also work with the University to identify high trip generators on campus and throughout the city that might warrant additional levels of service,such as the University of Utah Research Park and the University of Utah Health Sciences Center. Other institutional partners could include the VA Salt Lake City Health Care System,state and county government offices and city agencies,or other educational institutions,such as Westminster College.Finally,the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,with locations throughout the city could be an important potential service partner with UTA,particularly for special events and major functions. Transit Oriented Development and Joint Development Property access fees,and benefit assessment districts are approaches to sharing transit costs with owners of property located near a transit resource(e.g.,a transit station or a park and ride)who benefit directly from proximity to the transit resource.These funding mechanisms,sometimes referred to as land value capture,provide a way to finance transit through taxes or fees paid by nearby private development,where property values are expected to increase as a result of transit investments.Implementing strategies to capture a portion of the increase can be used to help fund public transit infrastructure.These revenues can be used for operations,administration,and capital expenses. 10 State of the System Fact Book,Appendix A.See p.4-20. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Implementation&Funding 17-18 Summary of Existing and Potential Funding Sources A number of the potential transit funding sources that have been used to fund transit in other cities and regions are currently available or could be available to the City and UTA.Some of the potential options may be less appropriate for Salt Lake City.Figure 7-5 displays a conceptual assessment of these options,organized based on their revenue potential and likely ease of implementation(estimates for revenue potential are based on high-level assumptions for illustrative purposes). A number of the"easy"sources are already in use for existing services and programs,but a package of relatively small and easy sources is likely to be the best path to increase funding for transit in the near term.The"big and challenging"sources shown in the upper left quadrant are likely to be challenging to implement for various reasons,but could be longer term sources to contemplate.The"small and challenging"sources shown in the lower left would likely be low on the City's list of potential transit revenue sources. Qualitative considerations affecting ease of implementation include: • Cost(initial and ongoing operation)and complexity of implementation • Time frame to implement • Need for partnerships • Potential need for local government(e.g.,City Council),state government(Legislature), and/or voter approval • Likely political support Issues of affordable,accessible transportation,affordable,accessible housing,and strengthening the local economy are interrelated.As funding options are considered,their applicability to a variety of City plans will allow for a more comprehensive,cost-effective approach. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Implementation&Funding 17-19 The illustration of potential transit revenue sources is based on funding mechanisms used in other regions. Some of the options may be less appropriate for Salt Lake City. Figure 7-6 Conceptual Illustration of Funding Sources by Revenue Potential and Ease of Implementation Big and challengingI I I I I VMT FEE I • I I I I I I i CONGESTION PRICING 8aLL I TO REVENUE I r I EMPLOYEE HEAD TAX I I UTILITY FEE PAYROLL TAX I • I SALES TAX I • I PROPERTY TAX • MOTOR VEHICLE I GAS TAX • •--- REGISTRATION FEE I PUBLIC PRIVATE I BUSINESS PARTNERSHIPS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT • • INSTITUTIONAL PARKING BENEFITS DISTRICT - • PARTNERS I DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE TOD&JOINT DEVELOPMENT I ADVERTISING SPONSORSHIPS Small and easier I Ease d Assumptions used for conceptual purposes in developing order-of-magnitude estimates of revenue potential included: Utility fee:Monthly fee of approximately$3 per housing unit(range of$1 to$5 monthly possible based on peer cases. Gas Tax:Rate of 2 cents per gallon;current Utah statewide gas tax is 24.5 cents. Property Tax:Rate of 0.01%;current tax rate is 0.015288%. Sales Tax:Rate of 0.01%.As noted above,H.B.362 allowed counties to impose a 0.25%general sales tax for transportation,with voter approval.Salt Lake City(urban area)and UTA would each receive 0.10%(a tenth-cent)of the sales tax increase,and Salt Lake County would receive 0.05%(0.05 of a cent);however,Salt Lake County voters did not approve the tax. Payroll Tax:Rate of 0.01%,applied to covered private employment(i.e.,subject to the National Labor Relations Act). Employee Head Tax:Rate of$12 per employee annually at firms of 100 people or more. Congestion Pricing&Toll Revenue:$0.50 charge per vehicle within a downtown zone for 250 days per year. VMT Fee:Rate of 1 cent per mile,applied to per capita VMT of about 9,339(Source:Salt Lake City Carbon Footprint Report,2010). Development Impact Fee:$75 per new residential unit and$0.25 per square foot of new commercial development. Parking Benefits District:Assumes 25 cents per hour over 12 metered hours per day with parking occupancy of 60%. Motor Vehicle Registration:$5 fee per year.As noted above,current fees in Utah range from$10 and$150. Business Improvement District,Public Private Partnerships,Institutional Partners,and TOD&Joint Development:Revenue potential is highly dependent on specific cases. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Implementation&Funding 17-20 TRANSIT SERVICE DELIVERY Cities around the country are investing resources in their transit systems and expect greater accountability from their transit provider.A key outcome of the Transit Master Plan is to define an approach to delivering local service that is more responsive to Salt Lake City's needs and desired outcomes.A focus of the Transit Master Plan has been to build on the strong existing partnership between the City and UTA,and implementation of the Transit Master Plan relies on continued collaboration and partnership between the City and UTA.This section explores a range of options for how the City could structure its relationship with UTA and influence the delivery of transit to achieve the plan's goals—most importantly,to achieve the highest quality public transit services for current or potential future passengers. Transit Master Plan Recommendation Given the already strong City-UTA partnership that the plan has built upon,the Transit Master Plan recommends developing a local service delivery approach that strengthens this relationship and provides the City with additional accountability.The City and UTA should develop an agreement or memorandum of understanding(or a set of agreements)that comprehensively and clearly outlines mutual responsibilities,decision-making structure,and commitments to promote transparency and ensure accountability.The FTN,which represents the City's policy vision for frequent service corridors and service levels,is a key area that could be addressed in such as agreement.The City can provide local funding support to increase frequency and hours of operation on high priority corridors and implement capital improvements that enhance transit speed and reliability;the City controls management of streets and public right-of-way and is well- positioned to take on such a role.UTA can commit to maintain frequent,stable,and consistent service on FTN corridors once implemented,provided service standards are met.The City and UTA can also partner to implement specific services such as the recommended on-demand ride services partnership.Funding partnerships,described above,would help the City work with UTA to support implementation of the plan vision,similar to what cities such as Boulder and Seattle have done to support their priorities. On the other hand,contracting local service would entail a host of complex funding and governance issues that Salt Lake City would need to resolve,and risks making the transit passenger experience more complex.These issues include: • Lack of a substantial dedicated local funding source for transit operations,which is necessary to ensure stable and consistent service;the operating cost for local bus routes serving Salt Lake City was nearly$16 million in 2014 11 • State or other legal restrictions,including restrictions on accessing federal funds • Service coordination/integration between local and regional services,including service that crosses city limits. • Fare/fare policy implications,including transfers and revenue sharing • Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA)implications,including responsibility for bus stops and complementary ADA Paratransit service • Significant cost and staffing requirements • Control over decision-making and plan implementation 11 State of the System Fact Book,Appendix A. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Implementation&Funding 17-21 City-UTA Collaboration The City and UTA have been working in close collaboration throughout development of the Transit Master Plan. Continuing to build on this working relationship, grounded in a mutual commitment to providing high-quality transit service will be critical to carrying out and securing funding for the plan's recommendations. Several of the key areas identified in the plan where a range of City departments and UTA will need to work together include: ■ Jointly develop the 200 S corridor as an initial, pilot branded bus corridor, with coordinated service, capital facility, and transit-supportive improvements ■ Develop an approach for improving service on FTN corridors (i.e., where the City would like to prioritize frequent service) that are outside of the UTA Core Network of frequent service routes ■ Develop a standardized branding approach for frequent service corridors, including an approach for routes/corridors that extend beyond Salt Lake City ■ Prioritize implementation of the next phases of frequent service, enhanced bus, and/or BRT corridors ■ Define the parameters for and work to establish partnerships for pilot employer- and residential-oriented shared ride services ■ Rollout real-time information and improve pedestrian and bicycle access to transit stops along the FTN and other corridors ■ Develop (or support private sector development of) a multimodal trip planner that helps people link seamlessly between modes ■ Pursue a potential funding measure to provide funding for transit operations, capital improvements, and supportive programs The City and UTA will need to define areas of mutual agreement and areas that will require joint decision-making. While some of these areas can be anticipated, most importantly the City and UTA will need to adapt to changing circumstances throughout the life of the plan, and address issues and concerns as they emerge. Potential Service Delivery Options A range of potential service delivery structures are available in Salt Lake City.Options range from maintaining regional agency operations(the status quo),strengthening a City-Transit Agency partnership(recommended approach), and contracting all local service(to UTA or a third-party). Operating transit in-house is not considered.These options are briefly described below including the key benefits and challenges,and peer examples. Regional Agency Operation (Status Quo) Similar to today,a single regional agency,UTA,would operate both local and regional transit service in Salt Lake City.This service delivery option would maintain the benefits of the current service delivery structure. It would not entail a significant effort to reorganize transit governance and operations,as would be required with some other options. It is important to recognize that UTA has been an engaged and closely involved partner throughout the City's Transit Master Plan process and shares many aspects of the City's transit vision and goals. However,UTA must also balance meeting regional obligations and manage its own internal constraints,such as union rules. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Implementation&Funding 17-22 Description UTA,the regional transit agency for a six-county service area,operates local and regional transit service within and to/from Salt Lake City Key Benefits • UTA has been a willing and engaged partner in the City's Transit Master Plan process and shares many aspects of the City's transit vision and goals li • City staff can focus efforts on implementing Transit Master Plan recommendations rather than on a potentially major reorganization of transit service delivery and governance;the City does not need to take on the large-scale infrastructure and staffing needed to directly operate transit • Trips across city boundaries are transparent to the customer;people focus on where they want to travel to and from • Maintains a unified local and regional system, including fare policy and transit information Key Challenges • More limited opportunity for the City to influence service planning,design,and implementation compared to a City-led local service delivery model • As a regional provider, UTA must balance regional obligations with Salt Lake City's needs • UTA may not be able to overcome organizational or institutional barriers that prevent it from being more responsive to Salt Lake City's needs • In Denver,CO,the Regional Transportation District(RTD)provides local and regional service in the city. • This service model is prevalent in many cities and regions.Additional examples highlighted within the discussion of other models include a large number of cities and regions where cities have developed incremental transit programs or contracting approaches,often in partnership with the regional provider. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Implementation&Funding 17-23 City-Transit Agency Partnership (Recommended) In various cities where the local and regional transit system is primarily operated by a regional agency(i.e.,UTA),cities have incrementally expanded oversight and management of selected local transit routes or services.This provides the city with more influence over these services and ability to meet local transit needs. It also creates potential challenges such as multiple fare systems,local and regional system coordination,additional responsibilities for existing staff or additional costs for new staff,and more complex governance of transit service. In some cases, cities partner with regional transit agencies to implement this type of structure,which can reduce the barriers and complexity. Description City provides targeted local service through an interlocal agreement with the transit agency or a third-party contractor. (This is similar to the GREENBike model used in Salt Lake City or the peer models highlighted below.)UTA would continue to operate other local and regional service. Key Benefits • City has more control over selected local transit services • City may be able to deliver local services at lower cost if operated by a private contractor Key Challenges • Potential issues include local and regional service coordination • Additional responsibilities for existing city staff and more complex governance Peer Examples In Seattle,WA, SDOT(City)owns and operates the Seattle Streetcar through an interlocal agreement with a regional transit provider, King County Metro.The City of Seattle developed a transit master plan to articulate local transit priorities and developed local funding sources to support these priorities.The City partners with King County Metro to invest in bus service frequency and service span.The City developed the Seattle Transit Benefits District(STBD)to provide funding for service investments.SDOT pays for additional Metro service through this local funding source, purchased on a per-hour basis (with a fully-loaded cost including capital).City staff also plan and implement transit capital improvements,working in close coordination with King County Metro. In Boulder,CO, RTD provides both local and regional transit service.The City of Boulder developed the Community Transit Network(CTN),which includes seven local bus routes operated primarily by RTD,but with smaller,community-oriented buses and a high level of service.The City subsidizes,or buys-up,service on selected routes.When high service levels are warranted based on RTD's service standards,the agency has assumed financial responsibility.The City contracts operation of one CTN route,the HOP,to a local non-profit, VIA. In Portland,OR,TriMet provides local transit service within the city of Portland and regional service to in a tri-County area.The City of Portland owns and operates Portland Streetcar, in partnership with TriMet.The City contracts with a non-profit entity, Portland Streetcar, Inc., that manages and operates the Streetcar.Operations staff include both City and TriMet personnel. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Implementation&Funding 17-24 City Contracts Operation of All Local Service Salt Lake City could assume responsibility for all local service and contract it out.This would maximize its control over local transit service delivery,but entails a variety of practical issues. There are two potential options,contracting service to UTA or contracting to a third-party contractor. (Alternatively,Salt Lake City could operate service in-house instead of contracting to a third-party;this option is not discussed in detail,but entails a significantly greater level of effort and commitment than contracting service). Related to all of these options,it should be emphasized that Salt Lake City lacks a dedicated,long-term transit funding source,an essential element to make any of these approaches feasible given the need for service to be stable over time. City Contracts Operation of Local Service to UTA If the City contracts with UTA to operate local service,UTA would continue to operate the majority of local and regional service.The City would be able to define how service is provided, but as a single provider UTA could determine how to provide it most efficiently. Description City contracts with the regional transit agency(i.e.,UTA)to operate all local service through a formalized procurement process, resulting in a contract between government agencies known as an interlocal agreement;this is a more formalized agreement and requires legislative approval. Key Benefits • City exercises more control over local transit service provision • Maintains local and regional transit service under a single provider I . Passengers experience little change in transit service operations • Maintains a unified regional fare system and transit information Key Challenges • Additional responsibilities for existing City staff and more complex governance • Requires development of a dedicated local transit funding mechanism;funding and potential legal and legislative issues are likely to be significant and require extensive study Peer Examples SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Implementation&Funding 17-25 City Contracts Operation of All Local Service to a Third-Party Alternatively,the City could contract all local service to a third-party transit provider,either a non-profit or a private operator.UTA would continue to operate regional service.The City would have more control over local service but it would likely be challenging to integrate multiple providers to ensure a seamless passenger experience,including local/regional service coordination,fares,and transit information. Description City contracts with a third-party to provide local service through a formalized procurement process(e.g., Request for Proposals). UTA continues to provide regional service. UTA could also bid on and be awarded the contract,which would result in the previous option. Key Benefits ■ City exercises more control over local transit service provision through a formalized procurement process Key Challenges ■ With multiple providers,need to resolve issues including service across city limits, i.e., UTA routes currently provide local service within Salt Lake City ■ Increased complexity of local and regional service coordination,fare policy, responsibility for ADA Paratransit service,and responsibility for bus stop conditions and ADA accessibility ■ Significant expanded responsibilities for City transit program staff and additional administrative staff time and resources would be needed to transition to a City-led local service delivery model ■ Requires development of a dedicated local transit funding mechanism;funding and potential legal and legislative issues associated are likely to be significant and require extensive study ■ A competitive bidding process carries the risk that the lowest bid may not provide the best value from a customer perspective;the procurement process should incorporate a best value selection approach. ■ In Phoenix,AZ,Valley Metro provides regional and local transit(bus and rail). It has statutory authority to allocate some funds to separate municipal transit providers.On behalf of Valley Metro, First Transit provides bus service for the City of Tempe. First Transit utilizes the Valley Metro fare system and brand, providing a seamless travel experience for users across the region. ■ In Alexandria,VA,the DASH System operates local service within city limits.Arlington County also operates transit service to several other cities within the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority(WMATA)service area.A regional fare collection system is in place to ensure revenue sharing between the transit providers. ■ In Chapel Hill,NC,Chapel Hill Transit(CHT)provide bus service to the cities of Chapel Hill and Carrboro as well as the University of North Carolina(UNC)campus while regional transit is provide by Triangle Transit. ■ In Los Angeles,CA, LADOT(City)operates a local and commuter express bus service known as the DASH that supplements the regional transit system.This service has been incrementally expanded,replacing transit routes formally served by the regional transit provider,the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority(Metro). lit ■ In both the Portland,OR,and Minneapolis, MN regions,state and/or regional legislative mechanisms have been developed that allow smaller jurisdictions to withdraw or opt-out of the Metro Transit service district.These providers have the option of contracting service or operating it in-house. None of these jurisdictions are comparable in size to Salt Lake City,however. Note:Some of the peer examples include cities that operate local transit in-house.These options are instructive as to the benefits and challenges of operating local service;however,Salt Lake City does not desire to operate service in-house due to the significant staff and financial resources required to become a full-service transit provider. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Implementation&Funding 17-26 MEASURING SUCCESS Salt Lake City will work closely with UTA to develop a performance monitoring process that documents continued progress toward the vision laid out in the Transit Master Plan.Building off of UTA's Year in Review,which provides an overview of system performance,special projects,and upcoming initiatives,Salt Lake City should publish an annual Report on Transit Master Plan Progress. Some measures will track the quantitative performance of the UTA transit system in Salt Lake City,while others will more qualitatively track how transit has supported economic development and placemaking.Capturing the complete picture of success—how transit supports vulnerable populations,job access,environmental goals,and overall quality of life—will help communicate progress to the public and position the City and UTA to continue to invest in a high quality transit system in Salt Lake City. Figure 7-7 provides a summary of the goals outlined in Chapter i and associated performance measures and data sources to document progress toward Transit Master Plan goals. Figure 7-7 Transit Master Plan Performance Measurement Process Transit Master Plan Goal Goal Description Performance Measure(s) Data Source I Improve air Reduce vehicle miles • Per capita vehicle miles Federal Highway Administration or best quality traveled per capita traveled(VMT) local source for VMT estimates; e.g. ■ Transit mode share regional model, SLC Carbon Footprint, etc. (VMT) Census(transit commute mode share) Increase the Make transit useful for • Percent of transit trips for UTA On-Board Survey number of more types of trips work or school (If a question does not already exist, people riding • Percent of transit trips for consider adding a question about trip transit non-commute or school type) Improve competitiveness of • Ridership UTA(ridership,on-time performance, transit with auto travel • On-time performance service hours) • Service hours in Salt Lake Google(travel time competitiveness) City • Travel and access time for transit trips compared to auto trips for 3-5 key origin/destination points Provide a safe Improve bicycle and • %of streets that have Salt Lake City and comfortable pedestrian access to transit sidewalks within''/2 mile of a transit access frequent transit network stop and waiting • %of frequent transit network experience stops that are within'h mile of a bikeway or low-stress bikeway Improve the transit waiting • Passenger comfort rating UTA On-Board Survey experience and universal • %of frequent transit network (If a question does not already exist, accessibility of stops and stops(that meet ridership consider adding a question about the stations threshold)with shelters transit waiting experience) Salt Lake City&UTA SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Implementation&Funding 1 7-27 Transit Master Plan Goal Goal Description Performance Measure(s) Data Source Provide access Design a transit network • %of transit dependent Salt Lake City&UTA to opportunity that supports daily needs populations that live within'/4 American Community Survey for vulnerable including access to jobs, mile access to frequent populations education,etc.,for transit- transit network dependent populations • %of transit dependent populations that work within 1%mile access to frequent transit network Provide affordable transit • Cost of transit fares UTA options, particularly for low- • Discount pass usage income households Create Align transit investments • %of new office, mixed-use, Salt Lake City economically with transit-supportive land and multi-family housing vibrant,livable use policies and development within'/mile places that development of a frequent transit stop support use of Catalyze economic • Job growth within'/4 mile of Salt Lake City transit development and jobs in the frequent transit network Salt Lake City by providing • Amount of new or effective transit service that redeveloped square footage employers,businesses, within'/4 mile of frequent and the development transit network community can depend upon SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN Implementation&Funding 17-28 H Z w I w CD w J 0 z U Q ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Salt Lake City Mayor Jackie Biskupski Salt Lake City Council James Rogers, District 1 Andrew Johnston, District 2 Stan Penfold, District 3 Derek Kitchen, District 4 Erin Mendenhall, District 5 Charlie Luke, District 6 Lisa Adams, District 7 The Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan is a Salt Lake City document. It has been prepared by the Salt Lake City Transportation Division in coordination with multiple City divisions and other community and regional organizations. Executive Steering Committee Salt Lake City:Mike Akerlow, D.J. Baxter,Vicki Bennett, Liz Buehler, Ed Butterfield, Ben Davis, Paul Dowler, Lani Eggertsen-Goff, David Everitt, J.P. Goates, Robin Hutcheson, Jill Love, Sarah Lyman, Debbie Lyons, Peter Makowski, Nick Norris, Art Raymond, Mike Reberg, Matthew Rojas, Clayton Scriver,Mary DeLaMare Shaeffer, Nora Shepard, Jeff Snelling, Robyn Stanczyk, Jessica Thesing, Nole Walkingshaw, Russell Weeks, Kevin Young UTA:Mike Allegra, Jerry Benson, Clair Fiet, David Kailas, Steve Meyer,Andrea Packer,Matt Sibul Project Management Team Julianne Sabula, Cris Jones (SLC), Kerry Doane, Hal Johnson, Jennifer McGrath (UTA),Tom Brennan, Cathleen Sullivan, Oren Eshel, Brie Becker (Nelson\Nygaard) Technical Team Salt Lake City: Nick Britton, Bill Knowles,Amy Lyons, Jerelyn Midthun, Blake Perez, Colin Quinn- Hurst, Becka Roolf, Dave Secrist, Tracy Tran,Alexis Verson UTA: Joseph Alsop,Marc Bowman, Richard Brockmyer, Eric Callison, Christopher Chesnut, G.J. LaBonty, Jeff LaMora, Lynze Lenio,Todd Provost, Bryan Romrell, Chad Saley, Erika Shubin, Jacob Splan, Grey Turner, Jim Wadley, Jonathan Yip SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Acknowledgements Transit Master Plan Stakeholder Representatives Salt Lake City would especially like to thank the individuals who participated in the Transit Master Plan Stakeholder Interviews for their assistance in the development of this plan: Rachel Otto (SLC Transportation Advisory Board/Breathe Utah) Shawn Beus (Business Advisory Board) Bill Tibbits (Crossroads Urban Center) Betsy Byrne (Envision Utah) Jesse Dean, Ryan Evans, Jason Mathis,Michael Merrill (Salt Lake City Downtown Alliance/Chamber of Commerce) Paul Schulte (Salt Lake City School District) Carlton Christiansen, Wilf Sommerkorn (Salt Lake County) Dwight Rasmussen (Salt Lake County Aging and Adult Services) Sharen Hauri, Dennis Pay (South Salt Lake City) Alma Allred, Jonathan Bates, John McNary,Mike Perez, Gordon Wilson (University of Utah) Jason Davis, Danny Page (Utah Department of Transportation) Keith Bartholomew (UTA Board of Trustees, SLC Representative) Christian Harrison, Deb Henry, Chris Stout (Utah Transit Riders Union) Annalisa Holcomb (Westminster College) Andrew Gruber, Ted Knowlton, Jon Larsen, Collie New, Greg Scott (WFRC) Additional thanks go to all of the people of Salt Lake City and the region who provided input through surveys, community events, meetings, and comments throughout development of the Plan. Consultant Team Lead: Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc.: Thomas Brennan (Project Manager), Cathleen Sullivan (Deputy Project Manager), Brie Becker, Oren Eshel, Maggie Derk, Corinna Kimball-Brown, Tomoko Delatorre, Kevin Ottem Supported by: Fehr and Peers: Jon Nepstad, Lauren Beckwith SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 1 Acknowledgements t ' 1111011 RfYNUUNU► iA BUSESMCI PAX 0- f \ SALT LAKE -. \\\\ CENTRAL TILT• _' F,.. I I, an m i _ .., . , mi .,, ___ , - up $ . ,,, \ ,,,.. L y _ - ,��. _,,, „,sz Q t 1 - .1)� [1P I_ L_ I --_ l L. • 1t1,1„d l''.I_i_i1t1 ''-,,���'I I I I '',A,•111.",�% co_ salt Lake City TRANSIT MASTER PLAN Appendices c 3 ura 8 r 6lenTA 44 J I. n ' I Ar a� s ....v1ipir .aria s-wirw- ,. I __ Ille aL •t - 1 . `\ ter; li : • y ,ry"� A {_yam ,- -,� :`-y y = 1 \. ' - t * L\A \ , A+ H APPENDICES APPENDIX A: STATE OF THE SYSTEM APPENDIX B: COMMUNITY OUTREACH APPENDIX C: GAPS ANALYSIS APPENDIX D: TRANSIT SCENARIO ANALYSIS . , .IIIM :.• :iii • • .::,:. . . .. : :':11 ii:ii ir".1:hi •li.:1;'it.1:ii•11:ii ii:ii irii , Lll ,4, H 1' ! 44. ...0 .... J 1.\11 W , t •520 TO ROSE PARK '• 5 3 1 f:al ' e s 1 I I II 11111 , .41 it 4 I-1-1 1 1 ..•,' . . 'r . .. ",, e,. • 11; ' P ' ill' 1 - , .. - ii71.04.- i , '.54-`1 ', - ' ,.. 0 '1'4 ' ,... - ..,.•- .., ..:.,k- ' _______, ‘ \ z . ...... _____. _.......---------__________ - ;61' 0 _ tr, ;c4.._ _ .,,‘ - I 1. ::•:':: . , . ':r.:.• 4 , i' p .4.::•) ...... W \ ........—. 'N... < aml.........•, ........ X 75 ,C - .., C ., . -_ a) a a < Salt Lake City TRANSIT MASTER STATE OF THE SYSTEM n 1 I\ M • r- me 1- re Fact Book FINAL June 2015 N .., - ___ IE. - - _, 00 , . . 1. '•,' ; 0 ',.. l':;7: . .4- I . \ • 1 I I! ' ' ,1 1 rk _ .'i: .. '1_ , i iltilli - 1 ,-.1.. ! ' ......ii_ t_is .—.4-4.2 ---_,,__ . - r -'''14)1,i., i, -.7 v (.. i - . , 1 I 1 ; ' 1 ‘ _ - _ • Ara., 1 .--! . , ._ . : • • --- - ..:.e*)-,- • I, ,., . -• . 001WrIPPOP# •„:,.'F.'''' ; , ::. .:,, ___. —A, ILI__ ___ ., t ',...) ,.1001e : ' . ......;‹; . ..,. ... ,._a. , — ..__: .,.-,,7:',`:::0":ii-1:7' ..,.,'.0 01-'4.-,';••• --,.;:i'V‘_: __.„,__ - , '-. :•-•-"....,: r.Iild'cli';',',.t4 '•' :::',4-- - : -1 ' '14 .... , .... .. , . .. _. .... _ . .._„. .._.... ,. _. .,,. . . _ _• . _ , . ._ ----- _ -- -- -- _,4410. 0rAir .• . _ „.,....,___ ., . . _ _. AILLLSON . ' a-4, - , r_. on 100%recycled paper . AARD STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I TABLE OF CONTENTS&TABLE OF FIGURES Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Table of Contents Page 1 Introduction 1-1 Background 1-1 Project Overview 1-1 Report Organization 1-2 2 Existing Plans, Policies, and Goals 2-1 3 Travel Demand & Transit Market Analysis 3-1 Introduction 3-1 What Are the Existing Land Use Patterns? 3-2 Where Do People Live and Work in Salt Lake City2 3-4 How Will Population and Employment Change by 2040? 3-6 Where Is Salt Lake Expecting To Grow? 3-8 Where Are Salt Lake City's Transit-Dependent Populations? 3-10 Where Do Employees in Salt Lake City Live and How Are They Traveling? 3-12 Where Are People Boarding Transit? 3-14 Where Are People Traveling? 3-19 Local Travel Patterns—All Modes (2011) 3-20 Future Projected Local Travel Patterns—All Modes (2040) 3-22 Local Travel Patterns— Public Transit (2011) 3-24 Future Projected Local Travel Patterns— Public Transit (2040) 3-26 Local Travel Patterns—Commute Trips (2011) 3-28 Local Travel Patterns— Non-Commute Trips (2011) 3-30 Regional Travel Patterns—All Modes (2011) 3-32 4 Transit Service in Salt Lake City 4-1 Overview of the Utah Transit Authority 4-1 Overview of Transit Service in Salt Lake City 4-2 Transit Service Characteristics in Salt Lake City 4-1 2 Transit Performance 4-21 Transit Travel Time vs. Drive Time 4-31 Planned Transit Service 4-32 Salt Lake City Transit Facilities 4-35 5 Who Rides Transit in Salt Lake City? 5-1 6 Amenities, Fares, and Access to Transit 6-1 Bus Stop Amenities 6-1 UTA First/Last Mile Study 6-5 Physical/Geographic Transit Barriers in Salt Lake City 6-7 Transit Information and Legibility 6-9 UTA Fares and Fare Payment Options 6-10 Supportive Programs 6-12 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. i STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I TABLE OF CONTENTS & TABLE OF FIGURES Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan 7 Initial Findings and Considerations 7-1 Review of Existing Plans and Policies 7-1 Land Use and Growth 7-2 Overall Travel Patterns 7-2 Transit Use 7-3 Transit Service and Connections 7-4 Transit Performance 7-5 Transit Rider Demographics 7-6 Fare Payment 7-7 Access and Amenities 7-7 Appendix A: Inventory of Plans and Policies Appendix B: Route-Level Performance Measures (2014) Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. I ii STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I TABLE OF CONTENTS&TABLE OF FIGURES Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Table of Figures Page Figure 1-1 Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Schedule 1-3 Figure 2-1 Key Themes and Targets from Prior Planning Efforts 2-3 Figure 3-1 Existing Land Use 3-3 Figure 3-2 Existing Population and Employment Density (2015) 3-5 Figure 3-3 Future Population and Employment Density (2040) 3-7 Figure 3-4 Salt Lake City Major Growth Areas 3-9 Figure 3-5 Summary of Demographic Characteristics in Salt Lake City (2010) 3-10 Figure 3-6 Transit Use Propensity Index 3-1 1 Figure 3-7 Salt Lake City Employee Home Locations (2003 — 2011) 3-1 3 Figure 3-8 How Salt Lake City Residents Travel to Work (2000 — 2013) (Logarithmic Scale) 3-13 Figure 3-9 How Salt Lake City Residents Travel to Work Compared to the Region (2010) 3-1 3 Figure 3-10 Average Daily Transit Ridership by Stop in Salt Lake City 3-15 Figure 3-11 Average Daily Transit Ridership by Stop in Central Salt Lake City 3-16 Figure 3-13 Average Daily Transit Ridership by Stop in Central Salt Lake City (Bus Only) 3-18 Figure 3-14 2011 Major Local Travel Patterns for All Trips (All Modes) 3-21 Figure 3-15 2040 Major Local Travel Patterns for All Trips (All Modes) 3-23 Figure 3-16 2011 Major Local Travel Patterns for All Transit Trips 3-25 Figure 3-17 2040 Major Local Travel Patterns for All Transit Trips 3-27 Figure 3-1 8 2011 Major Local Travel Patterns for Commute Trips (All Modes) 3-29 Figure 3-19 2011 Major Local Travel Patterns for Non-Commute Trips (All Modes) 3-31 Figure 3-20 2011 Major Regional Travel Patterns for All Trips (All Modes) 3-33 Figure 4-1 Existing Transit Service in Salt Lake City 4-3 Figure 4-2 Bus Routes Serving Salt Lake City 4-5 Figure 4-3 UTA Quality of Service Standards 4-7 Figure 4-4 201 3 UTA Network Study Recommended Services Standards 4-8 Figure 4-5 Summary of Transit Service Span and Frequency in Salt Lake City—Weekday...4-13 Figure 4-6 Summary of Transit Service Span and Frequency in Salt Lake City—Weekend....4-14 Figure 4-7 Service Frequency (AM Peak Weekday) 4-15 Figure 4-8 Service Frequency (Midday Weekday) 4-16 Figure 4-9 Service Frequency (Saturday) 4-17 Figure 4-10 Service Frequency (Sunday) 4-1 8 Figure 4-1 1 Service Frequency (Evening) 4-19 Figure 4-12 Total Annual Weekday and Weekend Transit Ridership and Revenue Hours in Salt Lake City (201 1-2014) 4-22 Figure 4-13 Salt Lake City Total Annual Weekday and Weekend Transit Ridership Compared to Revenue Hours, 201 1-2014 4-23 Figure 4-14 Total Annual Weekday and Weekend Boardings and Revenue Hours (All Modes, 2011-2014) 4-25 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. I iii STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I TABLE OF CONTENTS&TABLE OF FIGURES Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure 4-15 Annual Weekday and Weekend Boardings and Revenue Hours (SLC Bus Only, 2011-2014) 4-25 Figure 4-16 Breakdown of 2014 Total Annual Weekday and Weekend Salt Lake City Transit Revenue Hours and SLC Boardings 4-28 Figure 4-17 Breakdown of 2014 Total Annual Weekday and Weekend Salt Lake City Bus Revenue Hours and Boardings 4-28 Figure 4-18 Salt Lake City Bus Route Productivity (riders per hour) and Cost Efficiency (cost per rider),Average Weekday (2014) 4-29 Figure 4-19 Salt Lake City Bus Route Productivity (riders per hour) and Cost Effectiveness (cost per passenger mile),Average Weekday (2014) 4-30 Figure 4-20 Drive Time vs. Transit Time 4-31 Figure 4-21 Planned Transit Service in Salt Lake City 4-34 Figure 5-1 Age of Transit Riders 5-1 Figure 5-2 Transit Dependent Riders vs. Choice Riders 5-2 Figure 5-4 Race and Ethnicity (UTA Passengers vs. Salt Lake City Residents) 5-3 Figure 5-5 Household Income 5-4 Figure 5-6 Employment Status 5-4 Figure 5-7 Trip Frequency 5-5 Figure 5-8 Fare Payment 5-5 Figure 6-1 Bus Stop Amenities in Salt Lake City 6-2 Figure 6-2 Salt Lake City Bus Stop Guidelines by Tier 6-3 Figure 6-3 Salt Lake City Bus Stop Amenities 6-4 Figure 6-4 Recommended Strategies by Typology for Salt Lake City TRAX and FrontRunner Stations 6-5 Figure 6-5 Station Typology for Salt Lake City 6-6 Figure 6-6 Transit Constraints in Salt Lake City 6-8 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. I iv STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan 1 INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND The Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan responds to community and policy mandates to improve public transportation for the benefit of all members of the community.The City's overall Transportation Master Plan emphasizes providing choices in travel and reducing dependence on the single occupant automobile.Both the City Council and the Mayor have adopted policy statements about the importance of continued improvements and investment in public transportation.Finally,residents and other community leaders have also expressed strong support for accessible,safe,reliable,affordable public transportation. In September 2013,the Salt Lake City Council crafted goals to enhance transit quality and transit passenger experience for Salt Lake City residents and workers.The Transit Master Plan was initiated to help the City and Utah Transit Authority(UTA)partner to meet Council goals and find new resources to expand transit use and value to the community.The project officially launched in January 2015.The schedule for the project is shown at the end of this chapter. PROJECT OVERVIEW The Transit Master Plan will help Salt Lake City and UTA set priorities for the next 20 years, guide decisions about the timing and location of capital investments,and increase the use of transit citywide.The Plan will include an in-depth analysis of how people are traveling today,the strengths and weaknesses of the current mass transit system,and projections for future growth to identify a network of corridors for investment. Salt Lake City is leading the Plan and is focusing on identifying transit needs,desires and investments that will benefit the whole city rather than any one neighborhood.However,it will build on and coordinate with other local and regional planning efforts and will be developed in close coordination with Utah Transit Authority,city departments,and regional agencies.The Plan also hinges on an inclusive public process to ensure community needs and desires are captured. Why a Transit Master Plan for Salt Lake City" • Increase safe, reliable, and affordable transportation options for city residents • Foster business relationships and economic development • Accommodate urban growth in a sustainable, cost-effective manner • Provide access to jobs, housing, and recreation • Enhance partnerships with UTA • Represent the community's ideal network of buses, trains, and streetcars Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 11-1 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan REPORT ORGANIZATION This report describes existing conditions for transit and identifies key factors—such as travel demand and land use patterns—that affect the performance of transit in Salt Lake City.It serves as a foundation for service and capital policies and recommendations to be developed in later phases of the project. This report is organized into seven chapters: 1. Introduction: Overview of the Transit Master Plan,its goals,schedule,and key outcomes,and introduction to this report 2. Existing Plans, Policies and Goals: Summarizes the preceding planning and policy work upon which the Transit Master Nan will build 3. Travel Demand and Transit Market Analysis:Analyzes current travel behavior and a variety of factors that influence current and future travel behavior 4. Transit Service in Salt Lake City: Provides an overview of existing transit service in Salt Lake City and its performance as well as transit system expansions and enhancements planned for the future 5. Who Rides Transit: Describes the demographics and other characteristics of current Salt Lake City transit riders 6. Amenities and Access to Transit: Summarizes access to transit and amenities that are available at transit stations and stops 7. Conclusion: Summarizes findings from the review of existing conditions Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 11-2 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure 1-1 Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Schedule Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan - KEY MILESTONES 2015 JAN 2015 GOALS&EXISTING CONDITIONS41, O IDENTIFICATION OF SYSTEM GAPS & KEY CORRIDORS DEVELOPMENT OF EVALUATION FRAMEWORK ° Or TECHNICAL EVALUATION& PRIORITIZATION INITIAL FINDINGS& ) ° RECOMMENDATIONS O C DRAFT/FINAL TRANSIT MASTER PLAN • Current ® Complete v OFuture DEC 2015 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 11-3 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 2: EXISTING PLANS Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan 2 EXISTING PLANS, POLICIES, AND GOALS Salt Lake City has done considerable planning that is relevant to the Transit Master Plan.This chapter summarizes key themes from these prior efforts.This review of past plans will be used during the next phase of study to inform development of the Transit Master Plan's goals and priorities.A full summary of the purpose,goals/vision,policies/principles,and recommended strategies from each of the previous planning efforts is included in Appendix A.The following plans were considered in this summary: Salt Lake City Transportation Plans/Policies: Utah Transit Authority — City Council Goals for Transit(Retreat 2013) Plans/Policies: — Complete Streets Policy(2010) — UTA First/Last Mile Study(in — Downtown in Motion (2008) progress) — Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan (1996) — Five Year Service Plan (2013) — DRAFT Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan (2015) — UTA Network Study(2013) — Sugar House Circulation and Streetscape Amenities Plan — UTA Strategic Plan (2013) (2013) — Sugar House Alternatives Analysis (2013) Salt Lake City Land Use/Sustainability Plans/Policies: Regional Plans/Policies: — Sustainable Salt Lake Plan (2015) — Wasatch Choice for 2040 — DRAFT Salt Lake City Downtown Community Plan: Story — Wasatch Front Regional Council of Our Future (2014) Regional Transportation Plan — DRAFT Plan Salt Lake(In progress) (2011) — West Side Master Plan (2014) — Utah's Unified Transportation — Mayor's Livability Agenda(2012) Master Plan (2011) — City Council Philosophy Statements (2012) — Envision Utah — North Temple Boulevard Master Plan (2010) — Downtown Rising (initiated in 2006) — Sugar House Master Plan (2005) — Central Community Master Plan (2002) Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 12-1 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 2: EXISTING PLANS Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Key Themes from Prior Planning Efforts Transportation,and public transit specifically,are prevalent throughout Salt Lake City's planning efforts.Throughout prior and current plans,the availability of safe,high quality,convenient transportation choices is seen as a critical tool to support achievement of broader outcomes,e.g. health,economic competitiveness,and quality of life.Several plans also include goals,policies, and specific targets that address design and performance of the public transit system. Common themes that appeared in past planning efforts related to transportation were: • Providing transportation choices • High quality transit system • Multimodal transportation • Opportunity for all(equity) • Health and safety • Economic vitality/economic development • Efficiency/effectiveness • Sustainability • Quality of life and culture • Engagement/inclusivity/community building • Coordination/partnership The Transit Master Plan will refine the transit-related goals and further clarify how transit can support the broader goals under each of these themes.One of the next phases of the project is to refine the goals adopted by the City Council in 2013,shown below.The information presented here will be used to support this effort.Fortunately,there are many commonalities among the goals and aspirations put forth by Salt Lake City,UTA,and the regional agencies related to performance of the transit system which provides a solid base on which to build. The figure on the following page provides more specifics under each key theme,and calls out specific numerical targets from past plans related to each theme. City Council Adopted Goals for Transit (2013) • Ease of Use: Anyone in Salt Lake City can get from Point A to Point B using only one transfer • Affordability: Cost for service should be scaled to the length of each trip —or everyone should get a transit pass • Destinations: Everyone should be able to get to two transit routes within a quarter mile of where they live or work • Time of Day: Mass transit hours of operation should mirror the times people leave and return from work and play • Immediacy: Mass transit service should be available every 10 minutes so people can presume service • Route Reliability: Routes should remain stable so residents and developers can make transit part of their long-term housing choice Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 12-2 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 2: EXISTING PLANS Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure 2-1 Key Themes and Targets from Prior Planning Efforts Salt Lake City Plans UTA and Regional Plans Specific Targets Relevant to Transit Quality Transit System • Frequency: Frequent enough service that riders don't have to consult • Frequency: Increase route frequency(UTA) • Every downtown resident/worker within a schedules • Service span: Increase daily service span(later in 1/4 mile of a light rail,street car or bus • Service span: Match breadth of service to all people's daily needs(not evening),add weekend service(UTA) route with 15 minute service or less(Salt just commute trips) • Easy to use and understand: Improve system Lake City Downtown Community Plan) • Easy to use and understand:System is legible and convenient; simplicity;establish frequent transit network(UTA) • Public transit within quarter mile of all increase awareness of system • Connected and direct: Improve route directness homes(Plan Salt Lake) • Connected and direct:Allow for one-seat rides to major destinations (UTA) • Two transit routes within a quarter mile of • Access: Improved amenities at bus stops and access to stops; improve • Access: Improved amenities at bus stops and every resident's home or work(City Council last mile connections access to stops; Improve last mile connections 2013 goals) (UTA) • 10-minute service frequency(City Council • Coverage:Service for all Salt Lake residents 2013 goals) • Stable and reliable: Limit services changes and provide service people • Increase service: Increase service to major • Creating an interconnected network of can count on activity centers and to target new customers(UTA) routes with 10-minute headways(UTA Network Study) Multimodal Transportation • Provide transportation choices • Improve first mile/last mile connections(UTA) • Double transit ridership by 2020 and • Complete streets(safely accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists) • Active transportation improvements, integration double it again by 2040(Salt Lake City • Optimize pedestrian experience, prioritize walking as core mode of with transit(UTA) Downtown Community Plan) transportation,pedestrian-oriented design • Variety of interconnected transportation choices • Double transit ridership(UTA Five Year • Parking policies that support multimodal transportation system (regional) Service Plan, UTA 2020 Strategic Plan) ■ More evenly balanced mode share(Salt Lake City Downtown Community Plan) Opportunity for All(equity) • Transportation system should be accessible to all income levels • Develop new fare products and equitable fare • Reduced-cost transit pass program for Salt • Access to opportunity for all regardless of age,ability,or income policies(UTA) Lake City residents(Salt Lake City • Housing and transportation choices for people at Downtown Community Plan) all life stages and incomes(regional) • Expand fare-free zone(Downtown in Motion) Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 12-3 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 2: EXISTING PLANS Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Salt Lake City Plans UTA and Regional Plans Specific Targets Relevant to Transit Sustainability Sustainable transportation choices • Reducing use of single-occupancy vehicles/decrease auto dependency ■ Increase transit ridership ■ Transportation services that result in a zero • Providing incentives for the use of transit and other non-auto modes ■ Attract new markets for transit riders(UTA) carbon footprint(Sustainable Salt Lake) ■ Reduce Single Occupancy auto trips(Plan Salt Lake) ■ Reduce growth in per capita vehicle miles of travel(Wasatch Choice 2040) ■ Vehicle emissions resulting from the transportation projects proposed in the 2040 RTP may not exceed the level or "budget"set for them in the SIP(WFRC Regional Transportation Plan) Sustainable growth ■ Sustainable growth,e.g.transit-oriented development ■ Partner to support UTA station area planning ■ Encourage sustainable mixed-use urban living processes and transit-oriented development(UTA) ■ Increased intensity/density ■ Compact development(regional) ■ Jobs/housing balance(regional) ■ Integration between local land use and development centers with regional transportation (regional, UTA) Clean air/emissions/environmental initiatives ■ "Green"city ■ Clean air initiatives(UTA) ■ Reduce emissions ■ Balanced fleet of alternative fuel vehicles(UTA) ■ Alternative fuels for mass transit systems for cleaner air ■ Protect and enhance the environment(regional) ■ Zero carbon footprint ■ Integration of green infrastructure into rights-of-way and transportation network Health and Safety ■ Encourage active transportation modes ■ Ensure public health and safety(regional) ■ Decrease pedestrian, bike,and auto ■ Promote bicycling and walking as ways to enhance personal health accidents(Plan Salt Lake) ■ Clean air ■ Zero fatalities(UDOT Unified ■ Provide parks and natural spaces Transportation Master Plan) ■ Safety for all modes of transportation Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 12-4 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 2: EXISTING PLANS Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Salt Lake City Plans UTA and Regional Plans Specific Targets Relevant to Transit Economic Vitality/Economic Development 1.1 • Support a vibrant economy • Promote economic benefits of transit(UTA) • Investment in high quality street • Transportation investments that yield economic benefits • Enhance/strengthen regional economy(regional) infrastructure yields increases in residential • Utilize transit as a catalyst and commercial property values and retail • Mobility as a competitive advantage in 21st century economy activity(North Temple Boulevard Master Plan) Efficiency/Effectiveness • Integrated,efficient system for all modes • Service efficiency/effectiveness(UTA) • Increase levels of service by 50%(UTA • Reduce duplication of service(UTA) Network Study, UTA 2020 Strategic Plan) • Efficient public infrastructure(regional) • Reduce average customer trip time by 25% • Maintain and preserve infrastructure(regional) (UTA Network Study, UTA 2020 Strategic Plan) ■ Improve reliability on key bus routes(UTA Network Study) Quality of Life and Culture • Reinforce community identity,enhance quality of life,e.g.through art • Strengthen sense of community(regional) and high quality design • Keep Utah beautiful,prosperous, healthy,and • Livability neighborly for future generations(regional) • Memorable streets that help define unique character of the city and of neighborhoods • High aesthetic standards, high quality public spaces • Encourage vibrancy and interaction • Welcoming,green, international community • Embrace arts,culture,and entertainment Engagement/Inclusivity/Community Building • Inclusivity,engagement,and community building • Support broad community engagement • Facilitate civic,cultural, recreational,and economic interactions • Stronger relationships(local businesses,entertainment,and arts organizations) Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 12-5 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 2: EXISTING PLANS Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Salt Lake City Plans UTA and Regional Plans Specific Targets Relevant to Transit Coordination/Partnership 1111 • Balance regional/local needs: Ensure travel within Salt Lake is as easy • Public-private partnerships to leverage UTA assets as travel to Salt Lake from other regional destinations to generate revenue that can support more transit • Integration of jobs, housing,and transportation planning service(UTA) • Partner with communities and external stakeholders(UTA) • Promote regional collaboration(regional) • Integrated decision-making based on comprehensive understanding of impacts (regional) • Coordinate transportation with regional employment, housing,educational and activity centers(regional) Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 12-6 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 3: TRAVEL DEMAND Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan 3 TRAVEL DEMAND & TRANSIT MARKET ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION Assessing the current market for public transportation—within Salt Lake City,between its neighborhoods, and between Salt Lake City and the region—is a foundational component of the Transit Master Plan.The population of Salt Lake City is projected to grow by 19%to 250,80o by 2040. Employment is also projected to grow by 8%to 313,30o by 2040.1 Understanding how transit can serve a growing population and workforce is a key outcome of the Transit Master Plan. Extensive industry research shows that the built environment significantly impacts travel behavior; this includes land use density and mix of uses, neighborhood form and urban design, and connectivity in the transportation network. Demographics (income, household size, age, etc.)are also important determinants of transit demand. This chapter explores travel patterns, demographic trends,land use patterns, and how these factors influence demand for transit in Salt Lake City. Each of the following topics is explored in turn to reveal the current and emerging transit markets in Salt Lake City: • Existing and future land use patterns • Existing and future residential and employment density • Major growth areas • Transit-dependent populations • Current mode choice and employment patterns • Transit use patterns • Overall travel patterns A note on terminology: For clarity, the term "downtown"in this document is defined according to the area's master plan.A large portion of this zone does not have much density or travel demand today, but is planned to have substantial future growth. Downtown includes the Central Business District, Central City, and East Downtown, which are the densest concentrations of population and jobs in the whole city. 1 Wasatch Front Regional Council Population and Employment Projections.These projections show 210,381 residents and 291,121 employees in Salt Lake in 2015.www.wfrc.org/new_wfrc/index.php/resources/data Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 13-1 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 3: TRAVEL DEMAND Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan WHAT ARE THE EXISTING LAND USE PATTERNS? Figure 3-1 shows existing land use designations in Salt Lake City. ■ Mixed-use development is concentrated in and around downtown Salt Lake City, extending northward into Capitol Hill, and along the TRAX Green Line to the airport in the west. — Zoning transitions from mixed-use business in the core of downtown to more residential mixed-use character in east downtown. — Sugar House Business District is also zoned mixed use business. ■ The TRAX light rail lines are generally supported by mixed-use residential and business designations throughout the city. — The S-Line streetcar and Redwood Road corridors are also zoned for business. ■ The west third of the city, west of Highway 215, is designated industrial. ■ Much of the rest of Salt Lake City is zoned residential. — Most neighborhoods are low density residential. — The areas east and north of downtown are medium density residential (including East Central to the University of Utah,the Greater Avenues, and Capitol Hill) Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 13-2 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 3:TRAVEL DEMAND Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure 3-1 Existing Land Use —Salt Lake City— Current Land Use l� - North Salt Lake Residential Industrial T o // _ Very Low Density Light Industrial RA��A■ Low Density r Industrial CM c ��' / 2300 Medium Density Heavy Industrial �� r ��/ , - High Density Other �� , l, - ■■', 2100 111 -Institutional Business f- ME t1, re ' Service Commercial -public - General Business r Open Space il 170, `� Mixed Use -Agricultural 1 r ��_ -Mixed Use Residential R Airport 109TAVE ■-. , -Mixed Use Business 90 Salt Lake City � r""' � O Transit Hub International Airport o o 1000 VP 1, \� - I I. Hospital o ' c_ r o o i • Middle/High School 4 700 N. - 6; 13TH AVE 4 College HAROLD CATTY OR 15600 N II I I ;�■ Hi ill rlT„gp • Shopping Center AMELIAEARHARTDR i o In 1 1 m 500 • F Shriners Hospital for Children • Other Utah State 0% State Capitol .- '1~ F'airGrounds ■�� �� 300 + City Limits •�! • 5III I�III'i s,oJij 1r��3r grill •RDAVE Salt Lake Regional University MC and _ 1� I�■l p i,JA^�■ C .(ynter_;, ;SST MedicalCeter II 80 ■ GatewayShop'pinTenter ■n iL'im + Primary Hospital ;. 1■■11ffira llli■■IIMI Convention University BO // 1 onvention ■■1�1t I� of Utah I! d rens n % 400 ZI i mora®■■an■a�o1. I 1A Salt LakeCent,al■■111■■Il■■■11■n,M' Research Park ruiulnnn , y • . 0 68 ARAPAHOEAVE '■■1I�■■■n fi9� ®: + 700 A "' , ■■■111:■1:. Trolley j 700 VA ," e' i _ ■11■■■■■■r_.. Square Medical Center 17 I :` I'■■■Illlllli _90D..... "1_._s_. ■e 900 � 1000 M `;�_mUllP.LiIII •'• SUNNYSIDE AVE DIRECTORS ROW o I ® CALIFORNIA AVE 11..1 1 �` a �OOI ��Nf j� N�1300 1300 ■II .y 1525 Q 1500 ,1 CA�RNIAAVE �� , hn II��� °Ni ® lr @rnothilPlillage Ill ss + II 1730 a 1700 1 1700 J ' E."._iii IVY r, ;• 1700 �� • 1020 �AIiiii! it-1111 u ti �', _._.__ II ©� — it A Westminster College N ` F �,,'. •I I C7� 11 SOUTH FRONTAGE RD a•• ------------- ------------- 1 - -------- ----- •_._._._7._._._._s l_ 1110..__aru. .AIIL it 2100 ,.. ., 2100 03) — IrnNN9`®• A o\ 2400E 4 4 IN '. ! o o Business District - g o PARKWAY BLVD -. 2700 m 2700 •. re, West Valley City o South O 3100 - Salt Lake 3010_ j B;ii kyaidPlaza 0 1 2 Data Sources: Pioneer VallyHospital o Miles Salt Lake City,UTA,Utah AGRC,ESRI r Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 13-3 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 3: TRAVEL DEMAND Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan WHERE DO PEOPLE LIVE AND WORK IN SALT LAKE CITY? Population and employment density have a significant impact on transit demand. As density increases, incentives to use transit (or disincentives to drive) such as traffic congestion, parking availability, and parking costs tend to increase. In addition,the more people there are,the more cost effective it is to provide frequent transit service. Figure 3-2 shows population and employment density in Salt Lake City (people and jobs per acre), illuminating the realities of where people are living and working in Salt Lake City. Areas that are the darkest represent the highest concentration of both population and employment combined. ■ Major employment centers are: — University/Research Park — Central Business District — North-West quadrant: o Airport o International Center o 2200 West corridor ■ Areas of high employment and residential density (mixed-use areas) are concentrated in downtown and east downtown, extending east along the 400 South corridor towards the University. There is also a higher density mixed-use node in Sugar House along the S-Line. ■ Areas of high residential density with moderate employment mixed in are found in the central southeast part of the city (East Liberty Park, Liberty-Wells),the inner parts of the Greater Avenues and Capitol Hill, and the Fair Grounds and Glendale neighborhoods. ■ Areas of high residential density only are found in the northwest and southwest areas of the city (in parts of Poplar Grove, Glendale, and Rose Park).2 2 Population density is measured in terms of people per acre.Therefore large family size can make areas have higher population density,despite a relatively"low-density" development pattern,as occurs in Poplar Grove and Glendale neighborhoods. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 13-4 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 3:TRAVEL DEMAND Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure 3-2 Existing Population and Employment Density(2015) -Salt Lake City— -- North Population & Employment Density (2015) T!, A A I■ I■ 1 - fi '1LA�►1�NM7� II I o ______ i / Salt Lake Pop./E Density Matrix UTA Transit Service + Hospital m! '—'—'—'—'—'—'—'—'—'—'—'—'—'—'—'—'—'—'—', ——•— (by TAZ,2015) FrontRunner i : Middle School/ - ! / in High School ! 2300 Streetcar l l A1►1.1. I t_ _ j College !' N /\ a■ i_._.-.; 2100 111 o d TRAX �' �� `o„ I ® Shopping Center r- 1 t� ?» ,p - Bus Routes o d I • Other i 1700 0°o o � Park&Ride i i o—2-12-►4s4 (UTA) i _ - r City Limits J Employment Density Park&Ride \dr1 o jobs per acre O (Other) — - �� DUPONT AVE O,y`q _ 0 1 2 Miles ^� N Data Sources:Wasatch Front Regional Council,Utah SaIt lake City Automated Geograph c Reference Center, ® Utah Transit Authority,Salt Lake City International Airport o VP 100o i i CD i 700 - a o _ 13TH AVE — HAROLD CATTY DR • - 600 i- — State Capitol /Ir 500 Utah State 500 300 H4kt A LIAE RHARTDR I • o FairGrounds LT, SaltLa- Regional Shriners Hospital for Children ! Medical ! Center ! o - 3RD AVE 1 • •e • • • URI University Wand 80 ' N TEMPLE • • ter S TEMPLE ST • +Primarsiyhildrensuospilal Gateway Shopping Center i �7 100 •Salt Pal, �I 200 ni rsity ' 80 1 • Conventio —� ottah • iM 1 400 1 ' Center •l _—� ! 500 Sa/tL1akeCentral I i' If•7 • • 1 [• ♦� arch Park 700 gg ARAPAHOEAVE 600 fig I % , i I Troll, 700 4 i--'-- -- DI VA 900 ® o • Squa e Medical Center ^� i r 1000 L • 900 900 DIRECTORS ROW o SUNNYSIDE AVE o a m _ i CALIFORNIA AVE 19 "' CALIFORNIA AVE N o o - a o 1300 - Q Ballpark Station 1300 1300 i 1525 a 1500 CALIFORNIA AVE NVo % Foothill Village 1730 d 1700 I700 1700 1700 N P Hof ; NI- N e \ 1820 630 a N Westminster College yes SOUTH FRONTAGERD _ - , ,f- --_--'r -' 01- - -- N =.______ Central Pointe Station 2100 O 2100 2400 0 • •1 i Sugar .e 9lF West Valley City o __ , 3 ,.i o Busine I rict �I r a 80 i PARKWAY BLVD �I L 0 2700 2700 i ---`� ! r----{ m • - ___ i i , i South i ,- 3100 - 0 i._.� i ',a. .`y 301Q, rc Salt Lake r • Decker Lake Station ! Pioneer Val*ley i./1Hospital o I r. Millcreek5tation Bii&kyardPlaza / I 1-" I ` -`irk I t Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 13-5 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 3: TRAVEL DEMAND Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan HOW WILL POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT CHANGE BY 2040? Population and employment in Salt Lake City are expected to grow substantially. By 2040, more than 40,000 new residents and 20,000 new employees are expected in Salt Lake City (19% and 8% growth respectively).3 This growing population of residents and employees will change demand for transit service. Figure 3-3 shows future projected population and employment density in Salt Lake City (2040). ■ Residential growth is expected in existing higher density mixed-use areas in and around downtown. — Population and employment intensity will increase around Salt Lake Central Station in the Granary and Depot Districts. ■ Growth is also expected in the following areas: — Along the State Street corridor and along 900 South in the Central Ninth neighborhood — Along North Temple to the northwest of downtown — Along 400 East near the Central Pointe Station — In the Sugar House District ■ The industrial areas west of Redwood Road are expected to see employment growth. ■ Much of the rest of Salt Lake City is not expected to change significantly in terms of overall density of jobs or residents. 3 Wasatch Front Regional Council Population and Employment Projections.These projections show 210,381 residents and 291,121 employees in Salt Lake in 2015. www.wfrc.org/new_wfrc/index.php/resources/data Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 13-6 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 3:TRAVEL DEMAND Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure 3-3 Future Population and Employment Density(2040) 1 L_ i IF -Salt Lake City— North Projected �� ,� ■ _ Salt Lake Population & Employment Density (2040) 11 P• LA I' _._._._._._.. -j '__ _ 1 ________ ______ ____ Pop./Emp. 1 Major Growth . ` m1 Density Matrix UTA Transit Service r _ Areas r�I�" , i 2300 (byTAZ•z°4°) �T FrontRunner + Hospital i i 2100 / °i Streetcar /M a• i_._._.; R Middle School/ �� ire " re o d ini TRAX : High School 0 - qo — Bus Routes College i i 17 i I ® Park&Ride 0 Shopping Center l DI s � o—2-12-.464 (UTA) • Other \'.. I o ii� Employment Density O )Other Ride _--_ -NI DUPONT AVE lOy` jobs per acre ___ City Limits 9p 0 1 2 Salt Lake City ® -' Miles Data Sources:Wasatch Front Regional Council,Utah International Airport o qr I000 Automated Geographic Reference Center, /-♦ Utah Transit Authority,Salt Lake City / o o C I I o e" i 700 -I_ I = E i^; .- 13TH AVE i HAROLD GATTY DR • I - 600 I '° i 100 Utah State State Capitol ,7THApF AMELIA E RHART DR Illf I Fair o ; ref m Shriners Hospital for Children co I I Salt La• i 1 Y' 300 Regional ry a 3RD AVE Center i 80 0 ' d 0NTEMPLE • • ,''r"r" '.m. • +Pimary University drensuosp'Wand i �"., Gatewgy I ping Cente r r - 11 1 100 t MI ni•rsity i 80 • 4,0mits Jo_ —II • at i 111 ! i L , 500 SSItLake,_Central it i ler..•I' • I • 1 D• ♦4 arch Park 1 700 I I - 600 I 68 • ARAPAHOEAVE 'AV-- I I Trolley 700 1_._ I K I ® ► I ]I,, I Squa e VA 4 III I 900 b t I ;t • - 900 900 Medical Center ^11-- i 17 1000 I II t �r ` / SUNNYSIDE AVE i I I DIRECTORS ROW E I o I ._6� I 6 o e I '3 .., I o 0 ,Lr CALIFORNIA AVE 15 F CALIFORNIA AVE I 1300 o 0 0 o 1300 i I I r 1 0 Ballpark 1300 1525 a I I 1500 I : CALIFORNIA AVE I I I o Foothill Village it I °' I I Et I t ® I FII I 1730 d 1700 i 1700 ``-• I 11700 • 1700 P,oy of N e `\ / 1820 r I o ■� N ; II Westminster0ollege �� / SOUTH FRONTAGERD i I ► I _._._._._._._. .-.-•-•-__•r -'- 01- ---'- I • Qptral'RohiteStation O = __ 21Ab 2100 2100 0 ails i �i I t•I r o o Aq o • I MIM '!��� 9lF -t West Valley City 2400o i _ nsin < o - `I i.i o Busine I vict i- 1 PARKWAY BLVD mi i L o a 2700 2700 80 ice_._--`�I --'- ! - i ter= • i r'1 j-'- i i. 1 I o i. South 1 i ca — i A 3010. 1 1--a1 3100 = 0 i._. -' N Salt Lake r �..- t Decker Lake Station '1 i.11 Pioneer Val*ley/1Hospital o r0 Milkreel Station Brickyard Plaza I t Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 13-7 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 3: TRAVEL DEMAND Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan WHERE IS SALT LAKE EXPECTING TO GROW? Salt Lake City has been planning to accommodate growth in several areas. Planned development areas in Salt Lake City include economic development areas managed by the Redevelopment Agency4 and several other areas that are experiencing growth: ■ Central Business District, East Downtown, and 400 South Corridor: As the central core of the city and economic hub of the region, downtown will continue to see a large amount of mixed-use development. The Redevelopment Agency is also working to bring a number of performing arts facilities to downtown including the Utah Performing Arts Center and create a "Cultural Core District" to promote all of the performing arts facilities in the downtown. ■ Depot District: The Depot District is located on the western edge of downtown, just east of Interstate 15, and includes Salt Lake Central Station. Plans for this area envision a mixed-use development area and preservation of historic buildings. ■ Granary District:This district is located south of the Depot District west of Interstate 15 and east of 300 West. This district is also envisioned to be a mixed-use neighborhood that supports commercial businesses and reclaims open space. ■ North Temple: North Temple is a corridor heading west from downtown to the airport. This corridor is envisioned to maximize transit-oriented development and redevelopment opportunities brought by the presence of the TRAX Green Line to the airport. Guided by the North Temple Boulevard Plan,this corridor is planned to be a vibrant,walkable, mixed-use community. ■ Sugar House: Sugar House is envisioned to be one of the city's mixed-use business districts. There are a number of potential redevelopment sites in the neighborhood. This area is ripe for transit-oriented development since the introduction of the S-Line streetcar in 2013 and improved access to open space, retail, restaurants and entertainment options. The area is already experiencing significant transition at both the Salt Lake City and South Salt Lake City end of line stations. ■ West Capitol Hill: The West Capitol Hill area is located north of West High School and west of 300 West.The area includes 88 acres of privately owned property including a mix of residential,commercial, and light industrial uses. The focus of this area will continue to be residential while at the same time strengthening the commercial business corridor along 300 West. ■ Redwood Road: The Northwest area of the city is also anticipated to change, especially along the main corridors (e.g. Redwood Road, 2200 West, 700 North) and at the smaller nodes in the neighborhoods. ■ State Street: Growth is expected along the State Street corridor and in the Central Ninth neighborhood. ■ Westside job growth: The Westside Master Plan identifies a potential mixed-use area east of Redwood Road around the Glendale Golf Course (mix of apartments,condominiums,office,commercial, and light industrial) and along 900 West. — West of Redwood Road will continue to develop to have a growing concentration of jobs. ■ The East Bench area has a master plan under way; growth is expected along the corridors, mainly Foothill and Parleys Way, however change may be relatively limited due to the lack of major opportunity sites. 4 These development areas utilize tax increment funding to fund urban renewal projects. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 13-8 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 3:TRAVEL DEMAND Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure 3-4 Salt Lake City Major Growth Areas —Salt Lake City— ( North Salt Lake Major Growth Areas T�C,���� ' o UTA Transit Service . Major Growth Areas li .r:al • FrontRunner I I. Hospital of Utah � al AK ! 2300 / �� Streetcar r/ 1 , m lin TRAX � , �' a� 2100 Bus Routes Middle School/High School - 1.... 6 to I College - Park&Ride 1700 (UTA) ® Shopping Center OPark&Ride (Other) • Other 111 DUPONT AVE `/`loy` City Limits 49 NW — EMNIMA Salt Lake City _- MP International Airport e o wooP . ► = e m 700 0 4E, _ 13TH AVE HAROLD GATTY DR 600 West /7T Redwood snn Capitol 500 H44. Hill ShrinersHospitalforChildren ANELIA E[RHART DR Road �tahState o 1 `-� 300 PoirGrounds State Capitol °° 4TH AVE o 13-- 1 • N TEMPLE Si 3RD AVE r • NorthTemple 1 Sdt`akalCenter University MC and CityCreekfmter S TEMPLE ST {4ldicalCenter +Primar ChildrensHos tal 80 Gateway 100 + I • y P k _=.=k Shopping Center Salt Palace East 80�� Depot Conventic- Downtown Um tty • District Center CBD oft ah •I ieiMINMP 500 ( 400 St1+L$(eCentral 500 4OO South 400• C arch Park 700 gg ARAPAHOE AVE 600 Trolkly l pp Granary o Sgua eli VA —� Medical Center 17 900 J District Central 900 900 r IOoo Job Growth a Ninth I SUNNYSIDE AVE DIRECTORS ROW a• e _, CALIFORNIA AVE ® CALIFORNIA AVE ® Westside MI. 13 im M o a o 0 o a m �� Ball lion m 1300 othillVillage 1525 o CALIFORNIA AVE South r State 1730 o 1700 Street 700 O 1700 P 1820 W 1700 ■ • o o Westminster College o oo� SOUTH FRONTAGE RD / 3 ® m Q n r 01 ----__.__-- -- mi \J Centnl to Station 2100 2100 2100 P 0 0 �r Sugar e e a 2400 • I House •T .ill. r `.. 4,pl�`Y --- oik q o a ::tcF 53, WAYBLVD 2100 West Valley City o South - 3100 p Salt Lake A__3.ol0_ N Data ources: _ j Qlickyard'la 0 2 UTA, Jtah AGRC,ESRI, Pioneer Valley Hospital r o Decker Lake9ation Fa ilkree4 Station ' l�,'_. Miles Rede)elopment Agency of all Lake City Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 13-9 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 3: TRAVEL DEMAND Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan WHERE ARE SALT LAKE CITY'S TRANSIT-DEPENDENT POPULATIONS? The demand for transit is determined in part by the demographic make-up of the community. • Youth, the elderly, and college-age populations typically depend more on transit to access their daily needs because they are either too young or too old to drive or do not have the means to own a vehicle. • Residents with lower incomes or residents who do not have access to a vehicle are more dependent on transit. • The disabled population is also more likely to be transit dependent if their disability does not allow them to drive a car. Figure 3-5 provides a summary of demographic characteristics in Salt Lake City that likely affect the demand for transit. Low-income households (those whose income is below 150% of the poverty level) represent over 32% of the Salt Lake City population. Seniors currently account for over 9% of the population and this number is projected to increase as the Baby Boomer generation reaches retirement; Utah's population of seniors over 65 is projected to double by 2050.5 The transit use propensity index, illustrated in Figure 3-7 below, combines the strongest indicators of transit demand noted above (low-income households, persons with disabilities, and seniors aged 65+) with rates of access to automobiles. Analyzing how the TUP aligns with the existing transit network will be a key component of the Gaps Analysis, which is the next phase of this study. In Salt Lake City, TUP scores are the highest in: • Neighborhoods between downtown and the University • Southern portion of the Capitol Hill neighborhood • Portions of Liberty Wells • Western Salt Lake City (Rose Park, Glendale, and Poplar Grove neighborhoods) Figure 3-5 Summary of Demographic Characteristics in Salt Lake City(2010) Demographic Category Population (2010) Unit ok Total Population 186,440 Persons -- Seniors 65 or older 17,516 Persons 9% People with disabilities(aged 16-64) 12,836 Persons 10% Low-income* 60,776 Persons 32% Zero vehicle households 9,257 Households 12% Source:Census 2010(total population and Seniors 65 or older);ACS 5-Year Estimates(2008-2013)(people with disabilities,low-income,and zero vehicle households) `Note:Population whose income is below 150%of the poverty level 5 Utah Foundation.A Snapshot of 2050:An Analysis of Projected Population Change in Utah (2014) Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 3-10 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 3:TRAVEL DEMAND Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure 3-6 Transit Use Propensity Index Salt Lake City— _ �`- r North Salt Lake Transit Propensity Index TRANS o _.__._.__ -- � ____________ ______ Transit Propensity Index* + Hospital - p. ' (by Census Block Group) Middle School/ �i --------- Lowest High School MAST ! i 23001 4 e g Colle A �� -! 2100 • Shopping Center MN A� • Other i Highest = University of Utah i j 1700 i This index is based on combined j ! ,� III IL densities of: City Limits i -i& G -Low-income households AVE t,.■v `loq� Zero vehicle households UTA Transit Service p0 / -Seniors(aged 65+) FrontRunner Salt Lake City _ o a ® -Disabled population mOls International Airport o g IIII streetcar _ TRAX i *, I iri.——ii _ 13THAVE — Bus Routes HAROLD GATTY DR • I 600 J_ S ® Park&Ride 500 __ - tiVii/441/ (UTA) A LIA E RHART DR_ • • y� Shriners Hos ital Park&rRide • Utah State m r rstateCapitolp 0Other)il � l o Fair6rounds'W1 �� forChildren • j IL1`' rV i _ • O^ O (� O I�. University MC and i 0. NTEMPLEST • • CityCre'a e'nai • +PrimaryChddrensHospi�al �� GatewayShoppirgCenfer =� .■ .•SaltiP.alaie •U L i r.daulll i I 1 H ! 80 • Convention University • !l �/® 1 ,i i I oA I Center 01 I Z•I-A7 _ L I of Utah 0' ! 500 = Salt Lake •Central ®�•� r o • ' • r ,• �� Research Park 700 n -i-i i--Lip , El ill.__, ■� �_ �r N Trolleys 700 i !_._ I 3 .0 •L uI i •mi nSquarr— Medical Center 900 • ■■•■ • 111111E 1 I 900 r 7 1000 _ 1 SUNNYSIDE AVE l o DIRECTORS ROW E JI iJ - a . o e o _ o v ■_ c c _ M Q o o — o CALIFORNIA AVE M 0 — - m 1300 CALIFORNIA AVE 130 _O Ballpark Station 1300 .ri 1525 e - 1 I500 IV = io — _ Foothill Village i' 1730 d 1700 1700 + _ 00 1700 0 I-g ,ii, 1820 * �� ® Westmiegollege o SOUTH FRONTAGERD0 ilia: o 2400 o i ■ Sugar(Housei- <yq` i.j Business Hirtrict _ i r ^ 80 ! ! l i .. 0, PARKWAY BLVD i E. 27D0 2100 i "_._._.`\ • West Valley City m South t A c - 3010. I !-- 3100 - i._ .--,--- . Data Sources: _-- Salt Lake r.:�L- j'Biiekyafcrelgg, 0 1 2 UTA,Utah AGRC,ESRI, "' n : i,L�(` Miles o 9 : U.S.Census Bureau Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 13-11 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 3: TRAVEL DEMAND Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan WHERE DO EMPLOYEES IN SALT LAKE CITY LIVE AND HOW ARE THEY TRAVELING? Salt Lake City is the region's employment hub. Every day,the population in Salt Lake City nearly doubles with commuters from around the region. This in-commute population has been growing slightly over the last decade as shown in figure 3-7). Of the 81,000 employees who live in Salt Lake City, approximately half work within Salt Lake City limits and half commute out of the city. One outcome of the Transit Master Plan will be to determine how to increase the number of these trips made by transit. Although Salt Lake City has not set mode share goals, numerous local plans and policies call out the need to increase the number of people who bike, walk, and take transit to support a sustainable Salt Lake. For example, Plan Salt Lake—the city's vision plan for the next 25 years—sets a goal to reduce the number of single occupancy auto trips, increase the mode share for public transit, bicycling, walking, and carpooling, and provide public transit within VI mile of all homes. For more than a decade,the mode split for Salt Lake City residents' commute trips has remained relatively steady at 81% auto (69% drive alone, 1 2°A) carpool) and 6% transit (Figure 3-8). Regionally,transit ridership has kept pace with population growth so transit mode share has stayed reasonably steady as well.° Overall, employees who live in Salt Lake commute by transit at a higher rate than those who work elsewhere, illustrating the Salt-Lake City-centric orientation of the regional transit network (Figure 3-9). Transit mode share is highest for commuters who work in Salt Lake City and live outside the city at 6.5%. Employees who both live and work outside of Salt Lake City have a much lower transit mode share, between 1%-3% depending on the county.? According to the 201 2 Utah Household Travel Survey, mode share varies by district within Salt Lake City: ■ Transit mode share is well above the city-wide average in University of Utah (1 8.4%) and the Airport district (1 3.2%). ■ Transit mode share is aligned with or slightly above the citywide average in downtown (6.4%) and areas surrounding University of Utah (7.4%). ■ Transit mode share is below the city-wide average in Capitol Hill/Avenues (3.3%) ■ Transit mode share is well below the city-wide average in the following districts: Sugar House/East Bench (1.6%), Rose Park (1.6%), and Glendale/Poplar Grove (0.7%) (notably, bike share is highest in Glendale/Poplar Grove at 7.5%)8 6 UTA. 7 US Census,Transportation Planning Products,2006-2010 CTTP.Note:these numbers do not include more recent rail expansions in the SLC region. 8 2012 Utah Household Travel Survey Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 13-12 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 3: TRAVEL DEMAND Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure 3-7 Salt Lake City Employee Home Locations(2003—2011) 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 #of %of #of %of #of %of #of %of #of %of Jobs Jobs Jobs Jobs Jobs Jobs Jobs Jobs Jobs Jobs Total Jobs 206,943 100% 213,062 100% 219,913 100% 219,451 100% 227,846 100% In-Commuters 162,007 78% 168,136 79% 175,746 80% 173,656 79% 186,759 82% Live Here/Work Here 44,936 22% 44,926 21% 44,167 20% 45,795 21% 41,087 18% Out-Commuters 36,355 18% 38,801 18% 46,486 21% 46,502 21% 38,970 17% Source:LEND On the Map"Inflow/Outflow Analysis for All Jobs" Figure 3-8 How Salt Lake City Residents Travel to Work Figure 3-9 How Salt Lake City Residents Travel to Work (2000-2013)(Logarithmic Scale) Compared to the Region (2010) Drive alone ••«•Carpool Public transit ♦Walk tWork from home ' •Bike ♦Other Transit Mode 1 ooaio ome Location Work Location Share • • • Drive Alone 69' Salt Lake City Resident Salt Lake City 6% 10% « • • • Outside Salt Lake City 4% Non-Salt Lake City Salt Lake City 6.5% d--------- -b Resident 1% Outside Salt Lake City 1%-3%* Source:US Census,Transportation Planning Products,2006-2010 `Depending on the county of origin. 0% - 2000 2005 2010 2013 Source:Census 2000 SF 3 Table P030:Means of Transportation to Work for Workers 16 years and over;2005 ACS Table B08006:Sex of Workers by Means of Transportation(Workers 16 years and over);2006-2010 ACS Table B08301:Means of Transportation to Work(Workers 16 years and over);2009-2013 ACS 5-Year Estimates Table S0802:Sex of Workers by Means of Transportation to Work Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 3-13 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 3: TRAVEL DEMAND Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan WHERE ARE PEOPLE BOARDING TRANSIT? To understand current use of the transit system, Figure 3-10 and Figure 3-1 1 illustrate the location of existing transit boardings. TRAX: ■ In Salt Lake City, transit ridership is highest in downtown and at the University of Utah, especially along the TRAX lines. Transit demand tends to be highest at ends of the lines, where park-and-rides are located, and at major transfer points between bus, TRAX, FrontRunner, and Streetcar lines. ■ TRAX stations in downtown get the highest usage. The most boarding activity occurs along Main Street (100 N to 400 S). Courthouse Station has the highest ridership, other high usage stations, in descending order are: City Center, Salt Lake Central, Arena, Gallivan, and Temple Square. ■ There is also high TRAX usage at the Airport, Stadium Station at the edge of the University, and Central Pointe (due to the park-and-ride. there are also high bus boardings). Bus Ridership: ■ The highest ridership bus corridors are: 200 S between downtown and the University and State Street. Other high bus ridership corridors are: Redwood Road, 500 E, 900 E, and 2100 S. — Major transfer points between these corridors have particularly high boardings. — Other key transfer nodes appear to be Redwood Road where it meets: 1700 S, North Temple, and 1 300 N. ■ In downtown, the majority of bus boarding activity is on State Street from 200 N to 400 S, and at Salt Lake Central. ■ Other key bus nodes are (north to south and west to east): 200 N and 500 W, 2nd Ave at 300 W and between State and Main, 300 W and 200 S, and at the University of Utah. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 1 3-14 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 3:TRAVEL DEMAND Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure 3-10 Average Daily Transit Ridership by Stop in Salt Lake City Salt Lake City - f/ Average Daily Boarding (All Transit) North Salt Lake Weekday Average UTA Transit Service A is I■NII Daily Boarding !1 �� Ir■ ■ o ,-- Decaia • FrontRunner iiPc.•.►!.,I.—II • • Streetcar NII� ,m i I�r. it a 10 500 1,000 2300 (Proportionally Sized) mOn TRAX �� 2100 • Less than 10 — Bus Routes II , ', r_ Mu " 0 Zero Boarding Park&Ride + Hospital (UTA) 700 Park&Ride I u Migh iddlSchoole School/ O (Other) H G College - University of Utah IUPI,TAVE /0 4,- ® Shopping Center _; City Limits Salt Lake City� ® - • Other International Airport of ® Pr- El CENTER CITY MAP IIII I ofCD 1 700 a 13TH AVE HARROOLDDGATTYDR - I 600 N State Capitol y/Ay .► 500 » Utah State o A�F ShrinersHospitalforChilllren ANELIA RHARTDR l P 1 Fair Grounds �M N Salt La 0 Regional 1 «a.• • ', Medical : x RD? Center etsttyMCand y TEM'. City Creek Center STE PLll aryChildrensHospital 80 Gateway ShbppingCenter® • ® i sr AMIIP I Salt Palace P �� ' 80 , Convention O Center .AI - ,„,,...A J„• IN T. 500 `�� Park 700 0 • R PAHOE AVE ; 700 parch ® Squae VA 900 o 10Medical Center r Cit 1000 • i • • i SUNNYSIDE AVE .„ DIRECTORS ROW o - _, i s o 0 • 13 i i 0 (Mon -1.1 1300CALIFORNIA AVE M "' CALIFORNIA AVE • _-1525 e 41500 CALIFOR IA AVE •4 ® } - 1300 0 � Foothill Villagem Er, • a F. N1730 _ _ d _1700 1700 • tril0 d P'O,• 1820 Westminster o o I o SOUTH FRONTAGE RD a 01 •-r---• 110 ' I n 2100 2400 • ,, A • -tiarraniall 7, g P99lF�A El r ` Busine ► ict 80 PARKWAYBLVD 2700 •2� C �� West Valley City South % p 3100 O DeckerL keStation Salt Lake 30100 • - . - • • ¢kT�kyard o t 2 Data -urces: • Pioneer ValleyHospital t' o MrcreekSta Q % Miles UTA, tahAGRC,ESRI 1 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 13-15 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 3:TRAVEL DEMAND Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure 3-11 Average Daily Transit Ridership by Stop in Central Salt Lake City —Salt Lake City— / 16ni \ Average Daily Boarding r, ,� �: is�D / Weekday Average UTA Transit Service T�"� I' DailyBoarding r _ I S� 1\W. Dece 2014 FrontRunner ,- IMP M (713TH AVE Streetcar PI AKZ , 1= I 13 12TH4VE 10(ProportionalySiSized) 0 1,000 TRAX . Less than 10 IS , l7 �� - r 1THAVE `y4yoZF o Zero Boarding Bus Routes f— fa ,10TH AVE >o� Park&Ride A r 506- 9TN AVE + Hospital (UTA) i i i i + r Middle School/ O Other)Ride •. •` teCapitol + RTHAVE i High School _ _ • LDS Hos,ital, 7TH AVE i College FIB University of Utah •• ` 300 Ng 300 • 61AVE ♦ ` - ID Shopping Center City Limits I Wel High School s 5TF AVE • Other 200.r. 11, (] 4TF AVE • c' T PFyPO T ® 3RD AVE = • �`ci. a n3RC LYE • ilir, 2ND. E 2ND AVE 7i 852 // - W N = s — Y J • d N UnivChlldy MC HandPtal Childress Hospital Gateway o ary Shoppin,Cenwer I V — J .00 er — I + Saltlake o .alt Pa ac; 100 Regional Medical CentP oyllu .• Contention Ce• ll • - I• • 1 0 'r . - f • �91�y ' PA �d` = e ^� o„ ' 1111111W. lillIllgbalniffili.11M1 ,- 200 a of Utah •1UNIVERSITY BLVD 3-' 411.1111.1er ' 400 r \111 • 1 �� 500 500 • ' i 500 = , Trollej Square - l 600 ® • 0 1 4 N • • �ludgeMemorial a + \ z — _atholic High School 3 7.1 esSalt Lake City • • . • 700 • VA Medical Center L co 1 • o a = ^ i = e 804 East High School — --,,,,,East SUNNYSIDE AVE I e • P00 a 900 900 • • 90 • •�MICHIGAN E HERBERT AVE } - e e \ .o o co YALE E • �� HARVARD AVE N i -� YALE AVE ol 0.25 1 0.5 o/ • o • h IIMiles o , ' PRIN(ETONAyE • JJ Data'ource UTA,U IBC,ESP.! 3 i i^ ■ • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 13-16 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 3:TRAVEL DEMAND Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure 3-12 Average Daily Ridership by Stop in Salt Lake City(Bus Only) _ Average Bus Daily Boarding Salt Lake City North Salt Lake T�, �f �1 ; Weekday Average PLAl�► r I T Daily Boarding ©(UTAj Ride Dec 2014 Park&Ride j • • yO (Other) r�4�rF1► I I 2300 / 10 500 1,000 + Hospital n u 4, a. _.____ 2100 (Proportionally Sized Middle School/ /� • Less than 10 High School r- merr■ II1A — Zero Boarding t College I 700 UTA Transit Service ® Shopping Center ilE Bus Routes • Other II UP'N AVE dTrOe` -University of Utah Salt Lake City 9p __ City Limits International Airport of V Lo p SEE CENTER CITY MAP 700 - o 0 HAROLD CATTY DR 600 13TH AVE • 500 State Capitol 7IT Utah State l �HApf 111, Shriners Hospital for Chi�lren AMELIA E RHART DR I i p Fair Grounds �~ G 0 Regional i e 1; Medical P - e. Center e�sityMCand ®NTEMPLE 1 "Ol''. 'r IN , ayChildrensHospital 80 Gateway Stpi A' 11 ����111.fir Me� 1 •7•irzJ' 4T`.�' ` 80 mi, 500 ` il15 er71 L. f l� Aibi arch Park 700 0 ,R'PAHOE AVE '�I�� gg 111* +� m A Troll: 0, ® Squa• VA �� 900 r l 0 Medical 1000 .. ,., DIRECTORS ROW oF SUNNYSIDE AVE . 131 l O Ballpa tation ' 1300 CALIFORNIA AVE 15 — CALIFORNIA AVE i 1525 1500 (ALIFOR IA AVE •i ® {{}}�� = 1300 diFoothill Village m U..' Wit• • Ro . `730 _ _ d 1700 1700 •• 00 p • 17 0 ' p 01 < _ 0 • • •l ` 1R2 Westminster Ilege o i N SOUTH FRONTAGE RD P• 01 • i 1.10.1 r lu 2100 • 01 - 'i O ®�) ® i E E '° 2400 r ® ' �� r �9lFf illik Ma• Busine ► id A ............5o1 : 80 __rr • • PARKWAY BLVD _qp \`+ J • West Valley City South '_u_3010 O • _ _ _ pa_ 3100 • • O Decker L�keStation Salt Lake Z ` �kickydrd'r 0 1 2 Data ources: ' Pioneer V+yHospital o Millcreek5ta, Q `-� % Miles UTA, tah AGRC,ESRI r Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 1 3-17 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 3:TRAVEL DEMAND Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure 3-13 Average Daily Ridership by Stop in Central Salt Lake City(Bus Only) 800 16TH.. Average Daily Boarding (Bus Only) N , Weekday Average ®Park&Ride S� Daily Boarding (UTA) \ r 13TH AVE Dec 2014 O Park&Ride 11 (Other) 1 / 12TH AVE T • y (Other) i r) 10 500 1,000 T Hospital "' L 9\ 10THAVE _ THjVE `y9yZO9 •(Proportionally Sized) r Middle School/ ✓.. , p9 High School 500_ • 9TNAVE ° Zero Boarding 4 College V ~ .-rA g 8TH AVE UTA Transit Service ® Shopping Center y + FrontRunner LD'Hospital, 7TH AVE • Other Streetcar �' Universityof Utah ` 300 •d ✓ , `� • bT AVE ' ' TRAX ST AVE Bus Routes City Limits II — Weft High School -K., - F e A ,/-- 200... p 4T AVE �� , Adgo i - 1��1�� ♦ �� 3RD AV .-i c ' 7 852 • 2ND tE ME AVE V1I ® • • 1ST AVE University Pri Children(MC Hospital Gateway a CC ® + Shopping Center �i� iy �. • • City r ter Salt Lake if �rr o00 ,alt Palace 100 + Regional�ledicalCentiik /vyo9 ® • Con iention lei ter - �•' 1 l 0 _ t - ♦ �fZl /200 ® IL200 0 o II altLa N. _ o University of Utah et011 ' Centro I • • UNIVERSITYBLVD I,'. � - ��_ c ' 0. 400 • l lik • 500 ••� 500 500 TrollejSquare r 600 El • o � 4 N Judge Memorial • + \ z SchooltathalicHigh _ 3 III Salt Lake City I i 700 • VA Medical Center 111—— a � i e a o- - 80l 0 -• 1 • - j East High School 0 4, . SUNNYSIDE AVE 900 900 901 WI fir vi li Ill - ---'1'-P e G o 1- m MICHIGAN�1(E ® \ e HcRBERT AV / —01 0.25 0.5 . _. HAR i YALE• E • / YALE AVE S E , d �, Miles ' ' PRINCETON AVE • Data Sources:UTA,Utah AGRC,ESP,' I 3 0 O I I • i 1 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 13-18 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 3: TRAVEL DEMAND Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan WHERE ARE PEOPLE TRAVELING? A key goal of the Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan is to increase transit use. To plan effectively, it is important to know where trips start and end today and how trip making might change in the future. It is also important to understand how transit trips differ from trips made by other modes and how commute trips differ from non-commute trips. Further analysis of the information presented here will be a key part of the Gaps Analysis, which constitutes the next phase of this study. To understand the point-to-point travel patterns both within Salt Lake City and from the region to Salt Lake City, a travel pattern analysis was conducted based on the Wasatch Front Regional Council regional model using origin destination data for the year 2011 and a forecast of trips for the year 2040. The analysis is illustrated in Figure 3-14 through Figure 3-20 below. It explores trip making from several different angles: 1. Local trips (Salt Lake City only): a. All trips by all modes (2011 and 2040) b. All transit trips (2011 and 2040) c. Commute trips (2011) d. Non-commute trips (2011) 2. Regional trips to/from Salt Lake City a. All trips by all modes (2011) Origin Destination Map Methodology In this section,the origin destination data is summarized and illustrated in a series of maps to describe major point-to-point travel patterns between Salt Lake City neighborhoods and between Salt Lake City and the region. For the local Salt Lake City maps, data was aggregated at the TAZ level and combined to create neighborhood zones. It is important to note that the arrows on the maps point to neighborhood zones, not to individual destinations. Trip paths are shown "as the crow flies" between the centroid of the different neighborhood zones. The top 50 origin-destination pairs are displayed (i.e. the origin-destination pairs that have the highest volume of trips being made between two destinations). For the regional map, Salt Lake City was segmented into four analysis areas (downtown,the University of Utah, southeast, and west). All trips within Salt Lake City were eliminated on the regional map. Trip paths are shown "as the crow flies" between the centroid of the cities in the region (or the centroid of each of the four analysis zones in Salt Lake City). The top 50 origin-destination pairs are displayed (i.e. the origin-destination pairs that have the highest volume of trips being made between two destinations). Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 13-19 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 3: TRAVEL DEMAND Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan LOCAL TRAVEL PATTERNS - ALL MODES (2011 ) Figure 3-14 illustrates major local travel patterns for all modes of travel in 2011.9 Key findings include: ■ The highest origin-destination pairs in Salt Lake City are between Central City East Downtown and downtown, and Capitol Hill and downtown ■ Other notable trip pairs are: — Sugar House Southeast and the University of Utah — Greater Avenues and the University — Greater Avenues and Central City East Downtown — Central City East Downtown and East Central — East Central and the University ■ The airport attracts trips from several residential neighborhoods in eastern Salt Lake and from downtown. ■ There is significant internal zone travel within downtown, Central City East Downtown,the University of Utah, Sugar House Southeast, and Glendale. ■ Major feeders to the University of Utah include Sugar House Southeast, Central East Downtown, and Greater Avenues. ■ Central City East Downtown has the highest overall trip demand, which reflects its mixed-use character including office,commercial, and some of the city's highest density residential. 9 This is consistent with the 2012 Utah Household Travel survey findings,illustrated in the Travel Almanac provided by Salt Lake City staff. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 13-20 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 3:TRAVEL DEMAND Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure 3-14 2011 Major Local Travel Patterns for All Trips(All Modes) —Salt Lake City North Salt Lake - IFF4:r:vi1S1 i r I. r re II11 1� rr=. ,i - �* Salt Lake City _ Rose Park �� Westpointe International Airport 1a iri WI SL International Airport ', I Capitol Hill i Fairpar ., ,,,,,,,i,..--.:1% Greater Avenii,.. ..ues ■I 4*IF t....„„s„,, , .„, I� _ w1��� __,, ___,_ _ .,..0..,......,..p.,. _ . 80 1 t+ /M — N7 ... iCRW \ —. �:�. 80 Down . „� University of Utah 011k 1/ — , I East Dow '. Ea ipri, ' _i_ I l• 1 Ci) . r Li/ ‘ ....„, 1 1 E���'1L1 7 ,I ......!!!...„,,,,...,., 1 441 z s III"P0_ Central City/Liberty-Wells :' rr — Ea .Am Foothill/Sunnyside East L2 -- - East Library Park - A S ., Yalecrest —, Glendale( '� � I 0 ' I l: I n-i i I i Ball Park ! - - r, AL•,, Wasatch Hot Bonneville Hills - . _,_____ ... ■, East Bench VP ' I Liberty- i ___ ,,,,L 01 2011 Major Local Travel Patterns for All Trips(All Modes) --- Top 50 Origin Destination Pairs Southeast 80 <1,000,000 Neighborhood — _, 1,000,000 to 1,500,000 City Limits South : _ 1,500,000 to 2,000,000 Salt Lake -- 0' ': -- Data Sources: 0 1 2 >2,000,000 UTA,Utah AGRC,ESRI _1. Miles Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 13-21 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 3: TRAVEL DEMAND Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan FUTURE PROJECTED LOCAL TRAVEL PATTERNS - ALL MODES (2040) Figure 3-15 illustrates major local travel patterns for all modes of travel in 2040. Key findings include: ■ In 2040,the major travel patterns are projected to be similar to those in 2011; however the intensity of trips between key destinations is projected to increase. ■ Several trip pairs are projected to intensify by 2040: — Downtown —Central City East Downtown — University of Utah — Capitol Hill — Downtown — Sugar House Southeast— University of Utah — Ballpark— Downtown y — Poplar Grove—Glendale — Poplar Grove - Downtown — Airport— Poplar Grove ■ Internal zone travel in many neighborhoods intensifies as well. ■ New trips in the top 50 — Airport—Westpointe — Poplar Grove—Capital Hill — Liberty Wells— Downtown — Sugar House Southeast— East Bench Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 1 3-22 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 3:TRAVEL DEMAND Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure 3-15 2040 Major Local Travel Patterns for All Trips(All Modes) —Salt Lake City— .---- North Salt Lake II PLAUSUT ik■ 11�-I�..I. - !_ - IS I A� D EL-- no _� r� §:k•• ( - _H )0P"---- �/ . / , Salt Lake City Rose Pa International Airport 1a i I r:3 SL ational Airport I I II AII .pitol Hill Fairpark Greater Avenues 8 II 1 Nall i —L. 1" I—1 $H '< University of Utah Pop• • e i / tropV fstDA Ea entral - -\ al Lity erty Wells (® s alecrest Foothill/Sunnyside East Glendale East . .ry Park II-� • Ball'ark T I �� r_'i \ l: Wasatch Hal Bonneville Hills E. ;ouch Liberty --- IV v� 0) I- --- ---- -- `7 01 \ J 2040 Major Local Travel Patterns for All Trips(All Modes) - _Southeast Top 50 Origin Destination Pairs 80 <1,000,000 Neighborhood 1,000,000 to 1,500,000 South - w City Limits 'V 1,500,000 to 2,000,000 Salt Lake -_ Data Sources: 0 1 2 >2,000,000 UTA,Utah AGRC,ESRI 1 Miles Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 13-23 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 3: TRAVEL DEMAND Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan LOCAL TRAVEL PATTERNS - PUBLIC TRANSIT (2011 ) Figure 3-16 illustrates major local travel patterns for trips made on public transit in 2011. Key findings include: ■ Transit trips account for just over 2% of all trips in Salt Lake City in 2011 and 6% of work trips.10 ■ Downtown, Central City East Downtown, University of Utah, and Sugar House Southeast are the most significant generators for transit trips in Salt Lake City. ■ Eight of the 10 origin-destination pairs with the highest number of trips'' include an end at the University of Utah, making it one of the most traveled to destinations in the city on transit. ■ A number of key travel patterns shown in Figure 3-1 2 above (that represents all trips) do not show up as key travel patterns on the transit map in Figure 3-14. This gap indicates that the market for travel is there, yet these trips are not currently being well served by transit. The majority of these key transit gaps are located to south and west of downtown. Top origin-destinations that may not be well served by transit include: — Glendale—Salt Lake City International Airport — Poplar Grove— Salt Lake City International Airport — Glendale— Ball Park — Glendale— Poplar Grove — Glendale—Sugar House Southeast — Rose Park— Salt Lake City International Airport — Liberty Wells— Ball Park — Sugar House Southeast— East Liberty Park 10"All trips"per the Wasatch Front Regional Travel Demand Model includes all types of trips(commute and non-commute)for all people in Salt Lake City(including residents, employees,and visitors)."Work trips"per the Regional Travel Demand Model includes commute trips for all employees in Salt Lake City(including those who live in Salt Lake City and those who travel in to Salt Lake City).The regional travel demand model data for transit work trips is consistent with the mode share from the American Community Survey noted on page 3-15. " "Highest transit trip pairs"refers to the origin and destination with the highest number of trips.This is the top 10 of the top 50 that are mapped. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 13-24 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 3:TRAVEL DEMAND Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure 3-16 2011 Major Local Travel Patterns for All Transit Trips —Salt Lake City North Salt Lake lin Ilyg■r 1 E— - V Le la ill Salt Lake City _ Off �� Westpointe — � International Airport VP L .••r � top � � _ I 1 Q' Capitol Hill ■■I-II II I Fairpark ue■i!_! °,';five i - r �1 niii`._lFF . �fie.■■._ , m. iiir-dm ,,,,. / I I at,7.•.,....z.g0r.: b:r4"• frif \411% ,,E,q,„ I, , Ws_ "mmilmipL.,07 —;„.....ki I, up-ishs.....sraiim...7.rm. 1. . 80_ �► mi■��r■- i of Utah _L -. Sri 11 :urt111z �ma�I r ill 11\Mir -`a�ii:._i-� 1'! � _..Ira �.., ...r■■■ ►��7■i:�` L�,IarG, �- =��-w'i Ln V = - `\ ■�lmi' I k `fi" \■EWLS � � ' J‘ O. !jjpjjP! 'i&R � ■�■mi � � �� — � ., prelim l ■ 1i mgr. - put mE virr—k., I. 0 �i A• • ■f I I;n e L 11. ill r. i i .i. I �� 1i1!I1 IiIYP!it!!I!! V ill ir,N7.4 ■■_� , `te a �'� ■�ui aui uly�_ mi of I / M r■�►�74 mub �11..Mr ,_� ■ 2011 Major Local Travel Patterns for All Trips(Transit) on. 50 Origin Destination Pairs Southeast 80 ` <17,500 Neighborhood _, 17,500 to 35,000 South - 35,000 to 70,000 City Limits Salt Lake - >70 000 CD Data Sources. _ 0 1 2 UTA,Utah AGRC,ESRI -1 Miles Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 13-25 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 3: TRAVEL DEMAND Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan FUTURE PROJECTED LOCAL TRAVEL PATTERNS - PUBLIC TRANSIT (2040) Figure 3-17 illustrates major local travel patterns for trips made on public transit in 2040. Key findings include: ■ Transit trips in 2040 are projected to account for 5% of all trips in Salt Lake City (up from 2% currently). ■ Transit travel patterns in 2040 are projected to be similar as they were in 2011, although vastly intensified, as would be expected given that the share of trips is projected to more than double and population is expected to grow. ■ Some new trip pairs that emerge in the future are: — Rose Park-Downtown — Rose Park-University — Capitol Hill-Airport — Fair Park-Downtown Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 13-26 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 3:TRAVEL DEMAND Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure 3-17 2040 Major Local Travel Patterns for All Transit Trips —Salt Lake City North Salt Lake TRANSIT MASTER ; PLAN Salt Lake City Rose Park W 5/International Airport VP il 1e ` il Ilk S lotational Airport , ,l -L . I --.....A rGreater Avenues kv v■.._ _o.o s41% 80� � �� �r � I L _ \\` , =�Y,, ��,V41I ors__ i of Utah �' — ge h IlL•1,l111 111►1� . . 'lar "�, ���■.-- ea nnnn4111 cr 1 1 �,�■ ■■a ► a 91r L INNER;I NITai�/Aei 1 �, M —_l ■►..d■■L\■� 11,1� ..., CIIL `91�J .., .�► sippol I _r�l� 11 ' Itr NP .;N� _ x' irra ,iiiiiiiiiiall I■, I' Ball Park n� I„ !. .._1-11L+.1" 1r Jl.4I.n B,1 wm.a—ss1.n 1.M, i, E. " Bonneville Rills ____.__ ,1,, U i. IM .' t' 1 East Bench A,N • - �i■■!w!►�f1+Rllm Wilk .k •■ . ce. iii F '4 "ad 41141011,w A 111:- / 4..Ai lith ' f • iii II ''''-,- - ' APP. - ..7.m. . .mw . :M IL , „d°~11. j ; I B pn.... Z ■ 01 ■■r 1,I . ■ 1 •"L ' Tp►'. NM ! \ 2040 Major Local Travel Patterns for All Trips(Transit) _ - — --- Southeast Top 50 Origin Destination Pairs 80 \\ `I <17,500 Neighborhood -- 17,500 to 35,000 ; City Limits South w 35,000 to 70,000 Salt Lake -- V Data Sources: -- 0 1 2 >70,000 UTA,Utah AGRC,ESRI Miles Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 13-27 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 3: TRAVEL DEMAND Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan LOCAL TRAVEL PATTERNS - COMMUTE TRIPS (2011 ) In Salt Lake City, as in many cities,commute trips actually comprise a very small portion of overall trip making. If transit systems can be designed to serve both commute and non-commute trips it can lead to greater efficiencies for the transit agency and better service for consumers. Figure 3-18 illustrates major local travel patterns for commute trips by all modes in 2011 (i.e. "home-based work trips" made from home to work): ■ Commute trips only account for 14-22% of overall trip making in Salt Lake City.12 — Home-based school trips account for another 5% of trips.13 — Non-home-based work trips account for another 1 8% of trips.14 ■ Downtown is an employment draw for the greatest number of travel markets. ■ After downtown, Central City East Downtown„the University of Utah, and Sugar House Southeast are the most significant work trip destinations. ■ Sugar House Southeast, followed by Central City East Downtown and the University of Utah are neighborhoods that see the most internal commuting (in zone trips from home to work/school). ■ Viewed in comparison to the non-commute trips map in Figure 3-17 below, the general travel pattern of commute and non-commute trips is similar. Key differences include: — The large number of commute trips between Sugar House Southeast and Glendale — Sugarhouse Southeast is a less common destination for non-commute trips than for commute — Ball park to Central City East Downtown emerges as a non-commute trip ■ Lower density neighborhoods such as East Bench have stronger attraction to the University of Utah than Downtown/Central City East Downtown. 12 The 2012 Utah Household Travel Survey shows that 22%of trips are home-based work trips,the regional model shows that 14%of trips are home-based work trips because it is calibrated to regional averages. 13 2012 Utah Household Travel Survey. 14 Ibid. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 13-28 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 3:TRAVEL DEMAND Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure 3-18 2011 Major Local Travel Patterns for Commute Trips(All Modes) —Salt Lake City North Salt Lake - TRANSIT , MASTER zi PLAN 1:k.. I, ._::,_„ r 111111—=1. / pr ' Salt Lake City _ �� + m ' International Airport 0 /►.1a1 i e► 'MIMI 111111 F Capitol Hill J Fairpark Pr ',Greater Avenues _— U7ir���_ 10 III , �I '11o■��liMIMO ~", . f, 80 1 A all14 Ir— 1A144WEINIIMMOIIIIIMII 2411 lifillIN ... _ vt iiiquiklip---- �/■in,• E.st 0 E , ......---„,_ 1 1 AAVW— 4 1,N A Ak . ‘ 77 'IV � �p Lib_ ! mE"izk' __�i 2 ' Central City/Liberty-Wells . _ - „ Yalecrest— Foothill/Sunnyside East ® ` .=®III a East Library Park ��; i1 ` � East Bench ki Ir ■L ._I1IFhhhhhuIIIIIi Ball Park ae l �� ���� Wasatch Hollow Bonneville Hills\� m� �r� - ' Liberty-' Hs , �■ N 1 pe _1 -i�_ il4 4 �' 01 i _. . irll r _. �utr_ . — tiri\ta �1111 �r� S.47 . 2011 Major Local Travel Patterns for Commute Trips(All Modes) _ --_ Top 50 Origin Destination Pairs Southeast 80 <100,000 J Neighborhood — -- 100,000 to 150,000 South , - 150,000 to 200,000 City Limits =_ ___ 0 ( — Data Sources: Salt Lake = __ 0 2 >200'000 UTA,Utah AGRC,ESRI Miles Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 1 3-29 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 3: TRAVEL DEMAND Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan LOCAL TRAVEL PATTERNS - NON-COMMUTE TRIPS (2011 ) Figure 3-19 illustrates major local travel patterns for non-commute trips by all modes in 2011 (i.e. those trips that are not for traveling from home to work). Key findings include: ■ The vast majority of daily trips made in Salt Lake City are non-commute trips (78-86%).15 ■ Neighborhoods that have the highest levels of internal trip making include downtown, Central City East Downtown,the University of Utah, Glendale, and Sugar House Southeast. ■ Relatively short north—south oriented trips between neighborhoods like downtown/Capitol Hill and the University of Utah are more significant for non-work travel than for work/school travel. ■ Residents of western neighborhoods such as Poplar Grove and Glendale are more likely to travel east-west to seek services. 15 The 2012 Utah Household Travel Survey shows that 22%of trips are home-based work trips,the regional model shows that 14%of trips are home-based work trips because it is calibrated to regional averages. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 13-30 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 3:TRAVEL DEMAND Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure 3-19 2011 Major Local Travel Patterns for Non-Commute Trips(All Modes) Salt Lake City North Salt Lake fi PLA.r' 711 Ii IL. . al...� �? In/yqur I �- -— �ll !E 1 /\ ■■ -- h ja i . .r West ointe Salt Lake City _I II�1��� ""P "mii. m International Airport s/;III y SL �It onalAirport J II1161 II i Capitol Hill VI < ' ,r ` 1:11 10 1- �1 ■T---- Greater Avenues r :111 Ira\ ■ .•iz ■■■- �, Y7\\ilIIII ■ �ti. s`o% _ - III ■JL%1111 Ill�,�e► ■r ■M. -MI4%4% - ---.4f6. %411411111111 -drillkurimNiii fewrilfgr 16-t- NA; • -- 11 liii—i i rl vn �Ill�jl — i of Utah .wI.� ._,t_.�%. F " " ' _ MMI6 ii�0'I MEE1147mnra!fl:71:14. - a r, ■■s l■11■IC■AU ig1■11111Y 111111 �...---..-,i■i►\��� 111■■Cd■AI�►1,111111■111�11 44i�r .: �-- �11:::�� —• illo • s ��, Central Lily/Liberty Well „�= MUW;T_!,� I Y ' ,' Foothill/Sunnyside East■ ■■ .. IpdI,,!!!'i East braryPark ►ralormomm..•�E a ti_7 17 I :' r-t 1)l 0ITI mmr" r, --mr fil Bal J 1 u■U-_= Wasatch Hollow Bonneville Hills Inn= ...timmilljt 1 ' �, ■ L:ini�.'r.�M= ImirakN East Bench 2011 Major Local Travel Patterns for Non-Commute Trips 1 J1111k%___r -A1 1Walk , — (All Modes) Southeast Top 50 Origin Destination Pairs so <500,000 j Neighborhood — --- 500,000 to 750,000 - City Limits South - `- 750,000 to 1,500,000 Salt Lake -- Data Sources: C) __ 0 1 2 >1,500,000 UTA,Utah AGRC,ESRI -1 Miles Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 13-31 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 3: TRAVEL DEMAND Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan REGIONAL TRAVEL PATTERNS - ALL MODES (2011 ) Figure 3-20 illustrates major regional travel patterns for all trips by all modes in 2011. Key findings include: ■ From a regional perspective,the majority of trips traveling into Salt Lake City come from West Valley City to downtown and the airport. ■ Other major travel patterns are between West Valley City and the Sugar House Southeast neighborhood,West Valley City and the University of Utah, and Murray to downtown and the University. ■ Overall,the majority of travel between Salt Lake City and the region is southward. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 13-32 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 3:TRAVEL DEMAND Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure 3-20 2011 Major Regional Travel Patterns for All Trips(All Modes) Salt Lake City T TO LAYTON TTO FARM! TO . NTERVILGE TRANSITST 15 MASTER �� gW IF J� WOODS R.SS PLAN BOUNTIFUL mate i _ CP .. ORT Ali r I i I ,-_I r-� ill 'JrI __ r I I SALT LAK 4 ` _ '_ VA �' f/ 7 /1 -I ,,,,,,::00,011V Vilipl;')%f/14 0 i l 80 74 -'-"'`--- WEST VALLEY I����.I�I �,,II�� • I ® `� ®1 OLLADAV 1.., f - ! WEST J•'7 ' '._..1 MIDVA. GRANTSVILLE r- -- " fit: '' SOUTH JORDAN + ,. _4' TOOE f _--- _ ... SANDY DV • r RIVERTO '-' \ \ 1 DRAPER 1 BLUFFD LE ----MAN ALPINE HERRI "-.-, I 2011 Major Regional Travel Patterns for All Trips(All Modes) Top 50 Origin Destination Pairs //L4.� 0 C500000 \ Salt Lake County LEHI \"��' - .,^� HIGHLAND CEDAR 500,000 to 2,500,000 �/ \ Municipality - HILLS 2,500,000 to 5,000,000 T. 0 3 6 Data TA,Sources: Miley >5,000,000 UTA,Utah AGRC,ESRI sARATOGA r /� , EAGLE MOUNTAIN SPRING vAMRERICAN FO�FjI.. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 13-33 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 4:TRANSIT SERVICE Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan 4 TRANSIT SERVICE IN SALT LAKE CITY Salt Lake City is home to a diversity of transit services managed and operated by the Utah Transit Authority.Transit service includes local and regional bus service,streetcar,light rail,and commuter rail.Over the years,the completion of several major north/south transit capital projects such as TRAX and FrontRunner have improved regional connections and accommodated the large numbers of commuters coming in to Salt Lake City from around the region every day. OVERVIEW OF THE UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY The Utah Transit Authority(UTA)was founded in 197o and its service area extends over 732 square miles'and six counties,serving over 1.8 million people.The population served by UTA accounts for nearly 80%of Utah's population.Geographically speaking, �' ®"'► M UTA is one of the largest public aT ,. . a a ' a transportation agencies in the country. Within Salt Lake City,UTA operates 44 bus routes,three light rail lines (TRAX),one commuter rail train (FrontRunner),and a streetcar line(the The UTA service area extends over 1,400 square miles along the S-Line).2 In addition to traditional Wasatch Front. fixed-route service,UTA operates one Source:Nelson\Nygaard flex route in Salt Lake City.UTA also provides complementary paratransit service. Organizationally,UTA is governed by a 16-member Board of Trustees,which is the legislative body of UTA and determines all policy questions.Twelve members of the board,including one nonvoting member,are appointed by each county,municipality,or combination of municipalities that have been annexed to UTA.The board also includes one member who is appointed by the State Transportation Commission and acts as a liaison between UTA and the Transportation Commission; one member of the board is appointed by the Governor;one member is appointed by the Speaker of the Utah State House of Representatives;and one member is appointed by the President of the State Senate. National Transit Database.Methodology is based on all area within 3/4 mile from all bus routes and rail stations. 2 UTA also operates two ski bus routes that originate in Salt Lake City and connect passengers to Solitude,Brighton, Snowbird,and Alta resorts on Fridays,Saturdays,and Sundays from December to April. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 14-1 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 4:TRANSIT SERVICE Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Operationally,UTA is divided into five separate business units—Mt.Ogden,Salt Lake, Timpanogos,Rail Service,and Special Service. Home to a key regional employment center and the University of Utah,the Salt Lake Business Unit(which includes Salt Lake City)accounts for a substantial portion of all of UTA's transit trips—nearly 7o%of UTA transit trips begin or end in Salt Lake County and 60%of weekday revenue hours operate within the county.3 UTA is funded by a combination of federal,state,and local sources,including local-option sales tax measures in all six counties or cities therein.4 Over the last io years,UTA has secured nearly $1.3 billion in discretionary federal grants.5 Several factors guide decision-making about the geographic distribution and levels of transit service within UTA's large service area.UTA Corporate Policy No. 1.1.9 states that"UTA annually compares the operating,capital,and administrative expenditures associated with transit service within each county with the revenue generated within that county according to an approved procedure."The policy goes on to direct UTA to make changes to or add service based on measures of quality and effectiveness such as: on-time and frequency of service,seat availability, vehicle type and age,transfers,ridership,investment per rider,and land use and urban design. OVERVIEW OF TRANSIT SERVICE IN SALT LAKE CITY UTA operates fixed-route bus,light rail,streetcar,and commuter rail services in Salt Lake City, illustrated in the map in Figure 4-1.The most service is provided on bus routes in terms of total number of service hours(shown in Figure 4-16). Physical Rehabilitation& _Il- - otir Ivy311111t 1 M' SOUTH tt ^ . . ,: \11",ate ' A network of local and regional buses serve Downtown Salt Lake City. Source:Nelson\Nygaard 3 UTA.Five Year Service Plan(2013) 4 Sales tax amounts for transit by county:Utah County—0.526 cent;Salt Lake County—0.6875 cent; Davis,Weber, and Box Elder counties—0.55 cent;Toole and Grantsville cities—0.3 cent. 5 UTA Year in Review(2013) Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 1 4-2 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 4:TRANSIT SERVICE Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure 4-1 Existing Transit Service in Salt Lake City 1 ,, Salt Lake City— ( North Salt Lake Existing Transit System •AmI■ � T ri ■A�� I'� UTA Transit Service + Hospital �` fi `�r�- r FrontRunner IIIY Middle School/High School i___l .)• Streetcar 2300 / College !� _ TRAX .gh , 1, M• 2100 ® Shopping Center r inra re - Bus Routes - � • Other Park&Ride gIFI1700 (UTA) - University of Utah CO (Other)ide --- City Limits ---' DUPONT AVE G/`�Oy System data current as of March 2015 �.p O , Salt Lake City International Airport o VP 0 moo0 o 700 o a HAROLD GATTY DR r 600 _ 13TH AVE 500 I CD 500 Op, AMfLIAE RHART DR W ,-4' Shriners Hospital for Children tah State State Capi m 300 3RD V o �� s 4TH AVE O • PLEST a e'e tona 9 University MC and P� City ter S TEMPLE ST edical Center +Primar Children Hos t al 80 Gateway i• •�_ 100 + • Y P K Shopping Center _ 80 • •�"� 200 O F Uni,sity ,ii ��i 1112�• 400 0 0 400 ofiaI arch Park 500 S d a' tral 50 •• •• • • 700 -. s8 ARAPAHOE AVE `` 60 CI) ® +` Trolley r 700 VA Mr K 7 I Squa e ^D 47 1000 a 900 0 • 900 900 Medical Center DIRECTORS ROW o SUNNYSIDE AVE a e e CALIFORNIA AVE CDm CALIFORNIA AVEo o 0 0 131 1 0 Ballpar;Station o 1300 1300 1525 a 1500 CALIFORNIA AVE el o Foothill Village W 89 6, 1730 a 1700 1700 1700 1700 P�0f 1820 #! --- g o ® 71 Westminster g SOUTH FRONTAGE RD - m f _ -� Cent JPtinteStation 2100 2100 Q N 111 2100 04 ' IMMO • • O •• • • j o 2. Aq9� ,.--- 2400 c • c u,., r Fpf.� n Rusin Di rid �� Ng 80 PARKWAYYBLVD 2700 2700 • 0 West Valley City o South ,- A 3010 3100 O0 Data Sources: Pioneer Valley Hospital DeckerLake.9Fation Salt Lake I j -�lifkyaidAla 0 1 2 UTA,fah AGRC,ESRI + : o / r—r II 111CreeK Station --�. Miles 1 "� Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 14-3 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 4:TRANSIT SERVICE Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Fixed-Route Bus UTA operates 44 bus routes in Salt Lake City,shown in Figure 4-2. Of these: ■ Seventeen of the routes are classified as"local"in terms of fare and operate within Salt Lake City only. — Of the seventeen,nine routes are UTA Route Numbering classified as"shuttle"or"flex"routes that provide specialized service to specific 100: Primarily east-west routes within employment sites and educational Salt Lake County destinations. 200s: Primarily north-south routes within • Ten routes follow a similar stop pattern as Salt Lake County local routes,but have one end-of-line in Salt 300s: Fast Bus routes within Salt Lake Lake City and one end outside city County boundaries. 400s: Inter-county routes— Express and • Eight commuter routes provide peak only Commuter directional service into and out of the city at a local fare price. 500s: Local circulator-type, shuttle, or flex route within Salt Lake County • Five are classified as"express"buses which 900s: Seasonal operate along major highways and connect park-and-rides to major activity centers and require premium fare. • Four are classified as"fast bus"routes which are similar to"express routes"in terms of operating hours and limited stops,however they operate on a combination of arterial streets and highways in one county and may not connect to park-and-rides. Bus routes that serve Salt Lake City account for about 45%of overall UTA bus service hours. UTA Service Standards UTA operates under Corporate Policy Number 1.1.19 Corporate Service Standards which define the quality of service UTA is committed to providing.The service standards are summarized in Figure 4-3. In addition to the quality of service standards,the Corporate Service Standards Policy outlines standards for UTA to track service effectiveness.These standards include: ridership,investment per rider,and investment per passenger mile.Light rail and commuter rail services are also evaluated on ridership relative to seating capacity.When planning new service,the Corporate Service Standards outline land use and urban design guidance to ensure new service is supported by existing land use. The 2013 UTA Network Planning Study recommended revising UTA's existing service standards for each type of bus service to ensure that service planning principles and performance measures are consistent across all UTA business units.These recommended standards,outlined in Figure 4-4 below,have not been put into effect to date. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 14-4 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 4:TRANSIT SERVICE Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure 4-2 Bus Routes Serving Salt Lake City Service Type 1 Route Description Service span 2 200 South All-Day 3 3rd Avenue All-Day 6 6th Avenue All-Day 9 9th Avenue All-Day 11 11th Avenue All-Day 17 1700 South All-Day 21 2100 South/2100 East All-Day 200 State Street North All-Day 205 500 East All-Day 209 900 East All-Day 213 1300 East/1100 East All-Day 217 Redwood Road All-Day 220 Highland Drive/1300 East All-Day 223 2300 East/Holladay Blvd All-Day 228 Foothill Blvd/2700 East All-Day 453 Tooele-Salt Lake Via Airport Peak-Only 454 Grantsville/Salt Lake Peak-Only 455 UofU/Davis County/Weber State Univ. All-Day 456 Ogden/Unisys/Rocky Mountain Express Peak-Only 460 Woods Cross Peak-Only 461 Bountiful via State Capitol Peak-Only 462 North Salt Lake Peak-Only 463 West Bountiful Peak-Only 470 Ogden-Salt Lake Intercity All-Day 471 Centerville Peak-Only 500 State Capitol All-Day 516 Poplar Grove/Glendale All-Day 519 Fairpark All-Day 520 Rose Park All-Day 551 International Center Peak-Only Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 14-5 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 4:TRANSIT SERVICE Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Service Type I Route Description Service span Fast bus 307 Cottonwood Heights Fast Bus Peak-Only 313 South Valley/U of U Fast Bus Peak-Only 320 Highland Drive Fast Bus Peak-Only 354 Sandy/U Of U Fast Bus Peak-Only Express 2X 200 South Express Peak-Only 451 Tooele Express Peak-Only 472 Ogden-Salt Lake Express Peak-Only 473 SLC-Ogden Hwy Express Peak-Only 902 Park City-SLC Connec Peak-Only 509 900 W Shuttle All-Day 513 Industrial Business Park Shuttle Peak-Only 919 Fairpark(West HS) Peak-Only 920 Fairpark(West HS) Peak-Only F522 2200 West Flex Shuttle Peak-Only Seasonal 951 Downtown SLC-Snowbird/Alta Seasonal 952 U of U-Snowbird/Alta Seasonal 954 Maverik Center-Snowbird/Alta Seasonal Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 14-6 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 4:TRANSIT SERVICE Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure 4-3 UTA Quality of Service Standards Quality of Service Standard Category Bus Light Rail Commuter Rail On-time 0 seconds early and no more than 4 0 seconds early and no 0 seconds early and no performance minutes and 59 seconds late 95%of more than 4 minutes and more than 4 minutes and the time 59 seconds late 98%of 59 seconds late 95%of the time the time Seat availability Corrective action shall be taken Corrective action shall be Corrective action shall be when the maximum number of taken when maximum taken when maximum customers on board exceeds 100% occupancy repeatedly occupancy exceeds 90% on more than 25%of the trips over exceeds 175%of north of the Woods Cross two consecutive months available seats on more Station more than 25%of than 33%of trips over 90 trips over two consecutive days consecutive months Frequency of service System-wide average number of System-wide average Average number of minutes between buses on number of minutes minutes between regional scheduled weekday fixed-route bus between light rail trains commuter rail trains shall service shall not exceed 28 minutes on weekdays shall not not exceed 30 minutes in (actual for August 2007)for the exceed 20 minutes peak direction during service plans implemented prior to peak commuting hours August 2015 and 25 minutes for the August 2015 service plan Vehicle type Over-the-road coaches shall operate on a minimum of 70%of express trips(excluding FastBus)between Utah County, north Davis County, Weber County,Tooele County and the downtown Salt Lake City/University of Utah corridor Vehicle age 12-year buses replaced before Replaced no later than Locomotives replaced no completing the 13th year; 10-year 30th year later than 20th year;rail buses replaced before completing cab cars replaced no the 11 th year;7-year buses replaced later than 30th year;rail before completing the 8th year coaches no later than 50th year Transfer UTA shall coordinate transfers at strategic locations as determined and documented by the coordination business units each service change period.A transfer is considered coordinated when the customer's out-of vehicle time is more than 2 minutes plus the walk time and less than 7 minutes(standard for on-time reliability and walk time contingency)plus the walk time. Source:UTA Corporate Service Standards Policy 1.1.19 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 1 4-7 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 4:TRANSIT SERVICE Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure 4-4 2013 UTA Network Study Recommended Services Standards Route Type Description BRT Frequent limited stop service with key investments supporting transit speed and reliability.Operates in dedicated lanes. Bus Plus*(proposed) Same as BRT except does not operate in dedicated lanes. Core Arterial Frequent local bus service,mostly providing direct service along an arterial. Arterial All day local bus service,mostly operating along an arterial. Circulator All day or peak hour service connecting specific destinations. Flex Routes Community or neighborhood service providing route deviation upon demand. Commuter Routes Any peak directional service for longer-distance travel,including Fast Bus and Express. i *Note: Bus Plus is a proposed network of high-frequency transit service in the UTA Network Study(2013).It is referred to as Enhanced Bus in the Regional Transportation Plan.See sidebar on the following page for more details. Source:UTA Network Study Transit is Fare Free in Salt Lake City's Downtown Downtown Salt Lake City has a Free Fare Zone where bus and TRAX service is free to use. The Free Fare Zone zone runs from Salt Lake Central Station on the RIDE FREE If you enter and exit the 500M n western border to 200 E to the east and from bus or team wnhln the boundaries sum' 1 A of the FREE FARE 20NE the State Capitol on the northern border to Temple Noah Tempe Courthouse Station to the south. Arena Square Station Station tMAr. I ..••,• • City • r� Planetarium el u ;;� Center• /, S Station : Station B . U T• l� `�• ••i GNnven 4 86 • / • . u DOWNTOWNSLC Center• o° c - Station ,0o s. UTA �N �� BRIDE- 3 ub ary (713-3882) u a "o s Station•. LOCATION C12 —f. ssa s 1 Bus and TRAX services are free within the Free Fare Zone in tREE FARE ZONEirl Downtown Salt Lake City. Source:UTA GT Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 1 4-8 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 4:TRANSIT SERVICE Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan TRAX ,�� �� � , ., • 1 ! � , ,---,,..,. . . - , :Li ,.,, - , _ v., ,,,,,. - 4 ,,,,.,, 1 .„-----: ,... ., ,,,,.. . , ,, , , , ,, lik , LitTlIt... _ ,.,, i 'Ill 1 um 11 !' 14-Iri'Vjjj. ' , I ism Iu. 16 le A ``" •� i liii t , '.2,`:;-;"-;- .-_, _______ y 4 '`t _. ,, „3,.. ,,, ihi: , .. .,.. . . _ /. ......_ _______,.- ___.......... ' - „. -----___ .. . , , __ „„-- . -...-„ , ... / . _ Awls . . ..._ . ,--tt ,. - - _ _ 77......„ ,zi_t iatilk:-.., -.3ka, _ ..____ . Three TRAX Light Rail lines provide service throughout the UTA service area connecting major destinations such as the Salt Lake City International Airport and the University of Utah to Downtown Salt Lake City. Source:Nelson\Nygaard UTA's light rail system—TRAX—opened in 1999 to connect the city of Sandy and downtown Salt Lake City.In 2001,an additional line(then called the University Line)opened to the University of Utah;in 2003 this line was extended to the university's medical complex.Two additional lines— the Red Line to Daybreak in South Jordan and the Green Line to West Valley City—opened in 2011.The Red Line became the new service to the University of Utah.The Green Line and Blue Line extensions to the Salt Lake City International Airport and Draper Town Center,respectively, opened in 2013. The TRAX system currently has three lines: • Red Line provides service between South Jordan,West Jordan,Sandy,Midvale,Murray, South Salt Lake,and Downtown Salt Lake,and the University of Utah campus. • Blue Line provides service between Draper,Sandy,Midvale,Murray,South Salt Lake, and downtown Salt Lake. • Green Line provides service between West Valley,South Salt Lake,Downtown Salt Lake City,and Salt Lake City International Airport. TRAX operates seven days a week,every 15 minutes on weekdays,and every 20 minutes on Saturdays and Sundays. Service is provided from approximately 5:oo a.m.to 11:3o p.m.on weekdays,from 6:0o a.m.to 11:3o p.m.on Saturdays,and 9:oo a.m.to 9:oo p.m.on Sundays. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 14-9 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 4:TRANSIT SERVICE Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan S-Line / • c . P a • • ■ • The S-Line streetcar connects South Salt Lake to the Sugar House Business District in Salt Lake City. Source:Nelson\Nygaard The S-Line(formerly called the Sugar House Streetcar)opened in December 2013 and provides service between the Central Pointe Station in South Salt Lake and the Sugar House Business District in Salt Lake City.The S-Line is funded through a partnership between Salt Lake City, South Salt Lake,and UTA.6 The streetcar is two miles long and has seven stops,three of which are located within the City of Salt Lake City.The S-Line operates every 20 minutes from 6:oo a.m.to 9:oo p.m.on weekdays and Saturdays and every 20 minutes from 9:oo a.m.to 7:oo p.m.on Sundays.During its first full year in operation(2014),the S-Line carried just over i,000 riders on average per weekday.7 6 UTA received a $26 million TIGER II grant in 2010;UTA provided the three streetcar vehicles(valued at$12 million) and the right-of-way(valued at$6.3 million)at no cost to the cities of South Salt Lake and Salt Lake City.The gap in funding to complete the project($1 1.18 million)was shared between Salt Lake City($5.38 million),South Salt Lake ($4.2 million),and UTA($1.6 million).Salt Lake City and South Salt Lake also share in the cost of operating the line along with UTA for three years.http://www.shstreetcar.com/files/MasterStreetcarTransmittal.pdf 7 UTA."Route Operating and Cost Indicators." Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 14-10 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 4:TRANSIT SERVICE Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan FrontRunner E ZONE >°' N\t. 5 a 5 " U T A • 71. rlr 4110 I NNN A FrontRunner stops at two stations in Salt Lake City:Salt Lake Central Station and North Temple Station. Source:Flickr Paul Kimo McGregor FrontRunner provides service from Provo to the south,through Salt Lake City,to Ogden to the north.FrontRunner makes two stops in Salt Lake City—at the North Temple Station and at Salt Lake Central Station. FrontRunner operates full-length service on weekdays from 4:50 a.m.to l0:2o p.m.every 30 minutes during the peak hour and every hour during the midday and in the evenings.On Saturdays,service is limited to every hour all day from 7:50 a.m.to 1:2o a.m.FrontRunner does not operate on Sundays.8 UTA considers FrontRunner a premium service and fares are distance based starting at$2.50 for travel to one station and$0.60 for each additional station.Within Salt Lake City,however, Frontrunner passengers can use either the North Temple or Salt Lake Central Station for the same fare.FrontRunner tickets can be used to transfer to all other UTA fixed route services at no additional cost. 8 The first FrontRunner train leaves Salt Lake Central Station northbound at 3:25am on weekdays,however full-length runs do not begin until 4:50 a.m.;on Saturdays,the first train leaves Salt Lake Central at 6:03 a.m.or 6:55 a.m. depending on direction and full-length service commences at 7:50 a.m. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 14-11 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 4:TRANSIT SERVICE Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan TRANSIT SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS IN SALT LAKE CITY Figure 4-5 and Figure 4-6 illustrate transit frequency and service span for each transit route provided by UTA in Salt Lake City.Transit frequency is how often vehicles arrive along a route and service span is how early and late transit operates.Frequency varies considerably between the peak and midday hours on weekdays and service span varies between weekdays,Saturdays,and Sundays.TRAX provides the most frequent service and longest span,but a core set of bus routes also provide frequent service(every 15 minutes)over a long span on weekdays.The number of core bus routes and their frequency and span are reduced on Saturdays and Sundays. On weekdays,bus service starts early in Salt Lake City—most routes begin between 4:30 and 6:00 a.m.Weekday evening service,on the other hand,tends to end relatively early,between 7:30 and 9:30 p.m.on most routes.Saturday service is more limited: express and Fast Bus routes do not run on the weekends and some local routes also are not in service.Saturday service starts running between about 6:30 or 7:30 a.m. Some Saturday routes end service at around 7:oo p.m. and about half operate until io:oo p.m.On Sundays,service is even more limited.Only nine bus routes operate in Salt Lake City on Sundays primarily between the hours of 8:3o a.m.and 6:30 p.m. Figure 4-7 through Figure 4-11 illustrate transit frequency geographically in Salt Lake City for the weekday morning peak and midday,Saturdays,and Sundays.These maps illustrate the major north—south and east—west arterial corridors that have service every 15 minutes all day on weekdays,while some other arterial corridors have service every 3o minutes all day.Service frequency on several routes varies over the course of the day.The midday,Saturday,and Sunday maps illustrate corridors that are not served during these time periods.Among corridors that retain service,the highest-frequency service is generally every 30 minutes on Saturdays and every 60 minutes on Sundays.An exception is service on State Street North,which runs every 15 minutes on Saturdays and every 3o minutes on Sundays. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 14-12 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 4:TRANSIT SERVICE Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure 4-5 Summary of Transit Service Span and Frequency in Salt Lake City—Weekday =7 Q . t . t h t t t 4 4 z, o N 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 0 .� N - 6� ROUTE DESCRIPTION EARLY AM AM PEAK MIDDAY PM PEAK EVENING/NIGHT 701 TRAX Blue Line 703 TRAX Red Line 704 TRAX Green Line 720 S-Line 750 FrontRunner 2 200 South 2X 200 South Express 3 3rd Avenue 6 6th Avenue 9 900 South 11 11th Avenue 17 1700 South 21 2100 South/2100 East 200 State Street North 205 500 East 209 900 East 213 1300 East/1100 East 217 Redwood Road 220 Highland Drive/1300 East 223 2300 East/Holladay Blvd M- 228 Foothill Blvd/2700 East 307 Cottonwood Heights Fast Bus MM 313 South Valley/U of U Fast Bus M= 320 Highland Drive Fast Bus 354 Sandy/U of U Fast Bus M 451 Tooele Express 453 Tooele-Salt Lake Via Airport 454 Grantsville/Salt Lake 455 U of U/Davis Countv/Wsu 456 Ogden/Unisys/Rocky Mtn.Express 460 Woods Cross 461 Bountiful Via State Capitol 462 North Salt Lake 463 West Bountiful 470 Ogden-Salt Lake Intercity 471 Centerville 472 Ogden-Salt Lake Express 473 SLC-Ogden Hwy 89 Express 500 State Capitol 509 900 W Shuttle 513 Industrial Business Park Shuttle 516 Poplar Grove/Glendale 519 Fairpark 520 Rose Park 551 International Center 902 Park City-SLC Connect M M 919 Fairpark(West HS) M 920 Rose Park(West HS) M F522 2200 West Flex Shuttle Frequency of service: 15 min 16-30 min 31-60 min No Service Note:Service hours are approximate,rounded to the nearest hour Source:Data from UTA and UTA schedules Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 14-13 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 4:TRANSIT SERVICE Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure 4-6 Summary of Transit Service Span and Frequency in Salt Lake City—Weekend Z ,Z .Z .Z ,Z ,Z Q Q 4 vs v� vs vs vs vs vs vs vs 4 4 Q vS Q Q Q Q Q Q Q o ., N 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 p .� N Q c"f cr h `o N co o% •� .•• .. .� N 0y 'cr h ,o IN co o% .� _ .... .� ROUTE DESCRIPTION SATURDAY 701 TRAX Blue Line -`703 TRAX Red Line M-. 704 TRAX Green line M-.720 S-Line -. 750 Frontrunner - IM - 2 200 South =- M 3 3rd Avenue -- MM 6 6th Avenue =- M 21 2100 South/2100 East -. 200 State Street North -- =M 205 500 East -. 209 900 East -_213 1300 East/1100 East 1 MM 217 Redwood Road 220 Highland Drive/1300 East 470 Ogden-Salt Lake Intercity T M 509 900 W Shuttle M 516 Poplar Grove/Glendale I=M 519 Fairpark I= 902 Park City-SLC Connect M- -M SUNDAY 701 TRAX Blue Line 1 703 TRAX Red Line 704 TRAX Green Line 702 S-Line 750 Frontrunner 21 2100 South/2100 East = 200 State Street North 205 500 East 209 900 East 217 Redwood Road 220 Highland Drive/1300 East 470 Ogden-Salt Lake Intercity -M 519 Fairpark = -M 902 Park City-SLC Connect M- -M Frequency of service: 15 min 16 30 min 31-60 min No Service Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 14-14 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 4:TRANSIT SERVICE Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure 4-7 Service Frequency(AM Peak Weekday) I; Salt Lake City— North Salt Lake Service Frequency (AM Peak Hours) I. I•�1 =15 min Limited Trips T�ApasI' - 16-30min No Service '� — 31-60 min during AM Peak Hours •r I.- 61 min or more m FrontRunner/Streetcar/TRAX ��/KZ, , IE 2300 + Hospital 11 , 210U Park&Ride /\ ■a�• I� - / (UTA) r Middle School/High School r— ~ `a ■ i al_ 1L�� ,sve Other]ide r College 11 M_ University of Utah ® Shopping Center City Limits • Other �_ DUPONT AVENe: �7SaltLakeCity International Airport o r E 1000 1 r o o 100 — 13TH AVE HAROLD GATTY DR I r 6001.7 r—V41 500 500 77THdPF Shriners Hospital for Children A LIA RHARIDR - r o Utah State StateCapirl• m + 300 Q F�ir6reurds • 3RD AVE 4TH AVE — T Salt Lake Regional ` University MC and 80 N TEMPLE ST • ueekC.r EST Medical Center \+Primary ChildrensHospi(al GatewayShoppi, -,nter 100 + , Salt"alacei L r P - ----- —SO al-0— Conv '+ I University Salt Lake Central I iCenter h� min mg of Utah tl00I / lil 500 li X _ D0 500 �� • n �� • i/ arch Park — 700 • ARAPAHOE AVE /1 600 MI♦`I` 6_, + A Troll. 700 m �� Squa a K 900 0I I 900 900 MedicaVA l Center �D 77 1000 i. DIRECTORS ROW 3 0 0 ' SUNNYSIDE AVE cx ® a o 0 0 - i 15 • 0 0 E. 0 0 F o CALIFORNIA AVE CALIFORNIA AVE 1311 P Ballpark1Station ^ a — 1300 I 1300 1525 a 1500 CALIFORNIA AVE i tg� o Foothill Village W 0 _ 1730 d 1700 —, 1700 p ■ E 1700 P of 1820 ..... ..2700 ■ yl IFI'liege SOUTH FRONTAGE RD f , A of._ �F_ Central Pointe Station P 2100 --/ --------\___—$ '9. J } — 0 D1- :i® l istrict N P9PlF 2400 _- — .• `J'T- 80 PARKWAY BLVD • 2700 2700 -I \ -_- West Valley City o South = \ 3100 — 3010 -- Salt Lake j - N Data Sources: Pioneer ValleyHospital Decker Lake Station o O Z P = MillcreekStation Miles UTA,Utah AGRC,ESRI + r 0 BII[ky PIZQ,_ _� 1 l Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 14-13 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 4:TRANSIT SERVICE Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure 4-8 Service Frequency(Midday Weekday) Salt Lake City— North Salt Lake Service Frequency (Midday) • I•�1 15 min Limited Trips •T�. — U o —16-30 min No Service ____ — 31-60 min during Midday a61 min or more m FrontRunner/Streetcar/TRAX Lff IMAM, , !, 2300 + Hospital �� , A, 210 i . \ Park&Ride (UTA) i Middle School/High School r— ~ `— 11 Esr O OtliV6 ide r College • M, University of Utah ® Shopping Center CI City Limits • Other DUPONT AVE 4" ,----? D Salt Lake City International Airport o C E 1omm L. (3 - 700 C. a \ 0 13TH AVE HAROLD GATTY DR --� 600 500 — 500 J ylTygvf AMELIA EARHART DR o ShrinersHospital for Children Utah State State Capitol• + 300 — r 2 F�i 6redrds 4TH AVE P _____!_p .0 ... � Q • � 3RD AVE Salt Lake Regional University MC and N TEMPLE ST �. — reek Center S TEMPLE ST Medical Center �� _' Gateway Shoppi enter 100 9 + +PrimaryChildrensHospial �:, _ Salt Palace! 1 �_ 80 Convention 200 Iri,e.ity ) !\I Salt Lake CentralCF Center 11 o o • ,h sir 500 �I 400 500 0 ��� iii arch Park 700 gg ARAPAHOE AVE 600 69 Trolley j 700 + \� o Square o Medical Center 17 1000 900 900 900 �, DIRECTORS ROW o o SUNNYSIDE AVE .L o o a m o 0 0 0 CALIFORNIA AVE 19 M CALIFORNIA AVE 41300 P Ballpark5tation o 0 0 0 1300 0 1300 1525 0 1500 CALIFORNIA AVE Foothill Village e 89 1730 — 1700 1700 1700 1820 4— C II1700 P oy g o ® WestminsterQollege r � SOUTH FRONTAGE RD Central Pointe Station Sugar House 2100 of ` P Business District -— _ - o i es o o c PARKWAY BLVD 2700 = 2700 West Valley City o South __, --, 3100 _ p Salt Lake r -= p_3010 Data Sources: Pioneer Valley Hospital Decker Lake Station -- o 1 O 2 UTA,Utah AGRC,ESRI + r I 9MilkreeiStation Bricky .YPlzqD. i Miles J Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 14-14 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 4:TRANSIT SERVICE Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure 4-9 Service Frequency(Saturday) , ,__ , r —Salt Lake City— ' Service Frequency(Saturday) North Salt Lake !, �� R>•I• I.1�1 15 min Limited Trips _16-30 min No Service on Saturday ILA31 60 min - IRS 61 min or more m FrontRunner/Streetcar/TRAX MI AMAIN/ , m_ 2300 + Hospital 1 2100 ,I Park&Ride �� ■■�� (UTA) r Middle School/High School 1.) L �� i O Park&Ride (Other) 4 College 1700 R. University of Utah Shopping Center I G City Limits • Other DUPONT AVE /�ro,Pp Pp Salt Lake City _ iiilf International Airport o 1000 700 a N ® 13TH AVE HAROLD GATTY DR 600 AMELIAEARHARTDR 500 0 500TVE . ITyq`F ShrinersHospitalforChildren ç\/;;;:J/) 0 o Utah State State Capitol m Fair Grounds3RD AVE PP S 56 t.aKe negtonal University MC and P �� + N TEMPLE ST Ir,_ yCreekCenter S TEMPLE ST dicallenter y 80 /in GatewaySho i enter 100 + +Prima ChildrensHos tal —' I \ It PrRalace t 7 �� C„�ntion l 1 200 0 o University Salt Lake Central Center o of Utah "" 400 a 400 500 500 - .1 " "� arch Park El 700 T 68 ARAPAHOE AVE 600 �69 Trolley r 700 VA K • Square _ 77 a 900 900 : 900 Medical Center 1000 -ii SUNNYSIDE AVE DIRECTORS ROW 3 _ o _, CALIFORNIA AVE 15 "° CALIFORNIA AVE ® 1300 o o 13ib Ballpark Station 17, o o a o 0 1300 1525 1500 CALIFORNIA AVE �� _ Foothill Village 1730 0 1700 1700 1700 (LIIr 1700 ry P bey N� 1820 ■ 11.1.11 �f-- o ll o N o MI a Westminster College N SOUTH FRONTAGE RD o Central Pointe Station u� __ �._,______ 2100 Sugar House 2100 11 2100 �] at -— _ i I Business District nt,. o 2400 Fps 3 o o \r PARKWAY BLVD a 2100 2700 \ �� rn� o a -' -...„,,..,,,,,\ r West Valley City o South I 3100 Q Salt Lake , 7_3o10 -- Data Sources: PioneerV+yHospital Decker Lake Station r �- 0'---' 0 1 2 UTA,Utah AGRC,ESRI o Millcreek5tation ® Miles P BricAyarrl Plaz Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 14-15 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 4:TRANSIT SERVICE Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure 4-10 Service Frequency(Sunday) —Salt Lake City - Service Frequency (Sunday) North Salt Lake 15 min Limited Trips 11 FtA SIT , 16-30 min No Service on Sunday — 31-60 min ,- C I�F m FrontRunner/Streetcar/TRAX — 61 min or more r�/M`/ I I m_ 2300 + Hospital 2100 © Park&Ride II , 4` (UTA) i Middle School/High School r `• `- ru O (Other Ride College 1700 S. University of Utah ■ il Shopping Center City Limits • Other D�'7 4,-DUPONT AVE Salt Lake City International Airport o 0 1000 o _ 700 o a o HAROLD GATTY DR r 600 "' 13TH AVE 500 500 N ,/44kF AMELIA EARHART DR Shriners Hospital for Children P Utah State �, StateCapi,.1• + 300 o (........... ds m • • 3RD AVE 4TH AVE = • Salt Lake Regional UniversityMCand N TEMPLE ST (-sty reek Center S TEMPLE ST Medical Center I N +PrimaryChildrensHospital Gateway Shopping Center ® 0100 + r' i Stilt"glace II 200 Uni sity I Salt Lake Central GI Center I = o ofah ^ 400 500 400 500 " ^00� ' 0� Research Park 700 0 68 ARAPAHOEAVE 600 I 69 ® + J Trolley :I: VA K 900 Square 900 Medical Center tT a 900 1000 SUNNYSIDE AVE DIRECTORS ROW oI o o _, a o 0 IV -2 CALIFORNIA AVE 19 ^° CALIFORNIA AVE 13 ©Ballpark Station N o a o 1300 0 1300 1525 ce 1500 CALIFORNIA AVE —CD o Foothill Village 0I 7. 1730 s 1700 1700 1700 1O 1700 P bf 1820 y ® L Westminster College N � SOUTH FRONTAGERD �� P Central Pointe Station 01 ._._ 2100 Or.0 • 2100 2100 01 .O Busine District o 2400 0 • o� Tat_<) ® N ��9�,,,,, o a 80 �\ PARKWAY BLVD 2700 2700 —_ �� West Valley City o South .- 3100 0 Salt Lake _ p__3010 w t 1'V Data Sources: Pioneer Valley Hospital Decker Lake Station -- 0 f 1 O 2 UTA,Utah AGRC,ESRI r nMdtcreekStation Rricky clPlazgn,_-�- Miles LI I;. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates,ss Inc. 14-16 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 4:TRANSIT SERVICE Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure 4-11 Service Frequency(Evening) —Salt Lake City— 17/ ,__ r Service Frequency (Evening) �El 4& I.is I■mil North Salt Lake im.15 min Limited Trips ii !MAIM!V'11 0 ill —16-30 min No Service on Sunday _i — 31-60 min ILA - IRS / 61 min or more m FrontRunner/Streetcar/TRAX irl AMAIN/ I �— -_ 2300 + Hospital 2100 Park&Ride II , 4` ■� A� // (UTA) r Middle School/High School No. J- ■ O Park e&Ride (Othr) 4 College 1700 \ - University of Utah Shopping Center ..‘, , Al City Limits • Other DUPONT AVE `� p,, Salt Lake City NIP International Airport — w 0 1000 = a N 18 700 13TH AVE HAROLD GATTY DR foiI_\ 600 7j500THApFShrinersHospitalforChildren A ELIAE,RHARTDR P oUtah State 2 State Capitol• m +III rFair Grounds 300 ts • : 3RD AVE 4TH AVE— 6-- SalteiakeRegionat UniversityMC and 80 N TEMPLE ST SaltPala e r" reekCen20e0r S TEMPLE ST Medical Center +Prima ildrensHos i al Gateway enter u % 1Q♦''"nnn + Primary p ��� _ ' I I University Salt Lake Central GI Center • o of Utah W _ '�^ " nnn a 400 �-, ��\ 500 500 ■■••_ J • arch Park 700 SS ARAPAHOEAVE 690 OEM I �69 ® J + Trolley r 700 VA K I I Square 900 Medical Center �f tT e • 900 : 900 1000 SUNNYSIDE AVE DIRECTORS ROW 3I o \ o -' CALIFORNIA AVE 15 CALIFORNIA AVE ® 13¢1 P Ballpark Station N = = = 0 1300 = 1300 1525 ° 1500 CALIFORNIA AVE CD o I®Foothill Village = W gy _ 1130 1700 1700 1100 '� O 1700 r of 1820 l �r — ® Westminster i liege SOUTH FRONTAGE RD Central Pointe Station o� - M 2100 Sugar House 2100 O 2100 - - - o 0 Business District = 2400 e �� r r Q N N a'<e,c 3 1 r �l PARKWAY BLVD 2700 West Valley City o South 1110 O3100 _ 0VilrTh Salt Lake r Data urces: PioneerV+yHospital Decker Lake Station1 2 UTA,Utah AGRC,ESRI r F�� Y n Millcreek5tation Brickyard Plan Lai Miles Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 14-16 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 4:TRANSIT SERVICE Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Transportation Services and Programs at the University of Utah The University of Utah is a significant demand center for transit in Salt Lake City with more than 30,000 students and more than 17,000 faculty and staff. With four TRAX stations, more than 15 bus routes, and eight free campus shuttles, university students, faculty, and staff have numerous transit options available. Currently, approximately 35% of university trips are made by transit.9 Further, Route 2 — 200 South that travels between the University Medical Center and Salt Lake Central Station is one of the most productive routes in Salt Lake City,carrying nearly 1,700 passengers per day and over 40 passengers per revenue hour.10 UTA Route 2X provides five morning express trips (for local fare) on this route. University transit programs and services include: • U-Card: Provides staff, faculty, and students access to TRAX, UTA buses, and FrontRunner. In order to be eligible to obtain a pass, an individual must have a valid University of Utah ID Card, and be either a current employee of the University of Utah or a student who has paid tuition and associated student fees for the current semester— including the transportation fee. As of 2009,the transportation fee was $23.16 per semester for a student registered for 12 academic hours and $33.60 for a student registered for 20 academic hours. • Free campus shuttles: The University operates eight routes. Service is generally provided between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.; the Gold and "0-Zone" routes operate until 9:20 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. respectively. A live tracker is available on The U website to provide real-time arrival information. • Express shuttle: The University also operates an express shuttle to/from Salt Lake Central Station that circulates the campus. This started as a pilot and has continued. The shuttle runs during the AM peak and makes six trips between 6:00 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. (once every 30 minutes). fie ' 1 - _ `— �. �"mnCl All(E•WALK • TRAIN • BUS 1 `I 'Ill 1 11 The University of Utah provides free shuttle service on campus for faculty,staff,students,and visitors. Source:Flickr Paul Kimo McGregor 9 Hal Johnson,UTA II)UTA. Route Operating and Cost Indicators(2014) Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. i 4-20 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 4:TRANSIT SERVICE Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan TRANSIT PERFORMANCE This section summarizes transit performance for UTA fixed-route transit in Salt Lake City, including transit ridership,revenue hours,and cost per revenue hour.An overview of how transit travel times compare with drive times from key local and regional destinations is also provided. This analysis includes data for all UTA rail lines, however bus data is limited to UTA bus routes that enter Salt Lake City limits. The analysis categorizes data as follows: • Total ridership/boardings includes: Bus routes that enter Salt Lake City limits, and S Line, FrontRunner, and TRAX boardings for the entire lines, not just within Salt Lake City boundaries. • Salt Lake City (SLC) ridership/boardings includes: Same bus data and S-Line data as total ridership, and TRAX and FrontRunner boardings only at within Salt Lake City limits. • Revenue hours include: Total revenue hours for bus routes that enter Salt Lake City limits, S- Line, TRAX, and FrontRunner. All boardings and revenue hour data came from UTA including route operating and cost indicators,historical and current boarding and ridership data. Trends in Transit Ridership and Revenue Hours Overall transit ridership and service hours trends from 2011 through 2014 of UTA services serving Salt Lake City are shown in Figure 4-12.Total transit ridership on UTA services that operate in or through Salt Lake City increased by 28%between 2011 and 2014—a slightly higher rate than the increase in revenue hours over this time period(26%).Transit boardings that occurred within Salt Lake City also increased,but at a slower rate(13%)than boardings on the full lines.Ridership increases were largely due to several new lines that opened. Figure 4-13 through 4-15 show annual average ridership compared to revenue hours for Salt Lake City bus routes,TRAX,FrontRunner,and the S-Line from 2011 to 2014,including both weekdays and weekends.Overall,over this four-year period: • Bus ridership(Salt Lake City routes)decreased slightly(-3%)despite a 14%increase in revenue hours.This drop occurred between 2011 and 2012;ridership has held steady every since.The trend varied by type of bus service—but was driven by a decrease in local ridership,which comprises the majority of bus ridership and service provided. • TRAX ridership and revenue hours increased,reflecting extensions in 2011 and 2013. • FrontRunner ridership and revenue hours increased,reflecting the opening of extensions in late 2012. • S-Line streetcar opened in late 2013 so trend data since 2011 is not available. A sidebar on the following pages gives an overview of major historical changes in UTA service in Salt Lake City,providing some additional context for historical trends. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 14-21 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 4:TRANSIT SERVICE Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure 4-12 Total Annual Weekday and Weekend Transit Ridership and Revenue Hours in Salt Lake City (2011-2014) -0-Total Boardings —0—Total SLC Boardings —0—Total revenue hours 40,000,000 1,500,000 FrontRunner S Line Streetcar South December 2013 33,635,000 December 20121,799,000 ..-- 1,250,000 30 000 000 28,581,000 ------ -- 26,235,000 ---Q- 23,765,000 Loupe •, �' 21,095,000 21,475,000 ',590,000 • _ -o - -• • o 20,000,000 - 750,000 2 0 .0m y O — ne C Q o-—— ——0 528,500 565,000 - 500,000 to,000,000 447,000 483,000 Q Red/Green Lines to Green Line to Blue Line to = 250,000 S. Jordan and West Airport Draper Valley City, Aug. 2011 April 2013 August 2013 o 1 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 14-22 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 4:TRANSIT SERVICE Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure 4-13 Salt Lake City Total Annual Weekday and Weekend Transit Ridership Compared to Revenue Hours,2011-2014 Bus TRAX -'-SLC Bus boardings -0-SLC Bus revenue hours ,-TRAX boardings -s..TRAX SLC boardings -a-TRAX revenue hours 12,000,000 600,000 25,000,000 -- 500,000 950,000 10,o00,000 9,556,000 9,287,000 9,264,000 9,277,000 -000,000 19,566,000 400,066 o n 21H0,000- 18,717,000 ._ _�,. 17,507,000 _- o-- 350,000 8,000,000 - - -400,000 N 15,065,000.. _____ r 406,000 5 15 _ a. 300,000 'o a 375,000 - _° a '1°0'0°1 12,997,000 x 355,000 359,000 y 12,420,000 -3 6 6,000,000 -300,000 v I1498000 250,000 o = ., 10,883,000 a, m v m io a, 0 0 Iq°8°,o0o 200,000 a 4,000,000 -200,000 3 a Red/Green o Lines to S. 150,000 Jordanand •O-__-_' --'"'" 5,900,000- noses 122,000 119,000 100,000 2,000,000 100,000 West Valley ie,000 City, Green Line to Blue Line to I 50,000 Aug.2011 Airiort Arril 2013 Draper,Aug.2013 0 0 0 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 Streetcar FrontRunner -Streetcar boardings - --Streetcar revenue hours - FrontRunner boardings--.-FrontRunner SLC boardings----FrontRunner revenue hours 1,000,000 50,000 5,900,000 200,000 9,462,000 900,000 FrontRunner 000,000 40,000 4,000,000 South to Murray 3,801,000 160,000 0000° Central&Provo December 2012 if 600,000 30,000 p 3,000,000 120,000 O o I a 'a 5oo,000 a, v I ' m 0 v 0 900,000 20,000 m 02,000,000 1.787,000 80,000 330a ,000 0 S 3 1,614,000 a 300,000 2 ¢ 1,161,000 0°.000 S-Line Streetcar 10,000 a 809,00o - a December 2013 ''00°'0°° 656,000 690,000 90005 ��� 7,000 31,000 33,000 Note:SLC bus boardings and service 100,00o g 17,0 hours are defined as any boardings or 0 0 ° -- 14,000 14,000 - o service hours on bus routes that pass 2011 2012 2013 2014 2011 2012 2013 2014 through or stop in Salt Lake City. Therefore,these figures include boardings and service hours on these routes that occur outside of Salt Lake City limits. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates,Inc.14-23 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 4:TRANSIT SERVICE Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan This page intentionally left blank. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates,Inc.14-24 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 4:TRANSIT SERVICE Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure 4-14 Total Annual Weekday and Weekend Boardings and Revenue Hours(All Modes,2011-2014) Chang 2011 2012 1 2013 2014 (2011-2014) Change Boardings SLC Bus[1] 9,556,000 9,287,000 9,264,000 9,277,000 (279,000) -3% TRAX-Total 15,065,000 17,507,000 18,717,000 19,566,000 4,501,000 30% TRAX-SLC Only[2] 10,883,000 11,498,000 12,420,000 12,997,000 2,114,000 19% FrontRunner -Total 1,614,000 1,787,000 3,801,000 4,462,000 2,848,000 176% FrontRunner-SLC Only(2] 656,000 690,000 889,000 1,161,000 505,000 77% S-Line -- -- 17,000 330,000 330,000 n/a Total Boardings 26,235,000 28,581,000 31,799,000 33,635,000 7,400,000 28% SLC Boardings(2] 21,095,000 21,475,000 22,590,000 23,765,000 2,670,000 13% Revenue Hours[3] SLC Bus 355,000 359,000 375,000 406,000 51,000 14% TRAX 81,000 111,000 123,000 122,000 41,000 51% FrontRunner 14,000 14,000 31,000 34,000 20,000 143% Streetcar -- -- 500 7,000 7,000 n/a Total Revenue Hours 450,000 484,000 529,500 569,000 119,000 26% Notes:(1)Bus boardings include UTA bus routes that enter Salt Lake City limits.(2)TRAX and FrontRunner boardings that occur within Salt Lake City limits.[3]Revenue hours for TRAX,FrontRunner,and S-Line include the entire systems,since all lines serve Salt Lake City. Figure 4-15 Annual Weekday and Weekend Boardings and Revenue Hours(SLC Bus Only,2011-2014) Change 2011 1 2012 2013 2014 (2011-2014) %Change SLC Bus Boardings All-Day Local/Shuttle 8,735,000 8,409,000 8,392,000 8,411,000 (324,000) -4% Peak-Only Local/ Shuttle/Flex 250,000 266,000 285,000 291,000 41,000 16% Express/Fast Bus 562,000 601,000 576,000 564,000 2,000 0% SLC Bus Revenue Hours All-Day Local/Shuttle 320,000 322,000 338,000 368,000 48,000 15% Peak-Only Local/ Shuttle/Flex 12,000 13,000 14,000 15,000 3,000 25% Express/Fast Bus 22,000 23,000 22,000 22,000 - 0% Note:Bus ridership and boardings include only UTA bus routes that touch Salt Lake City limits. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 14-25 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 4:TRANSIT SERVICE Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Overview of Historical Changes in Transit Service UTA makes changes to their system three times per year (3 "change days per year" is required by their collective bargaining agreement). Changes can include re-numbering of routes, re-routing of lines, and schedule adjustments. This can make historical route-by-route ridership and performance data difficult to compile (especially prior to 201 1). However, historical milestones can be noted based on information provided by UTA and Salt Lake City staff: • 2006/2007: The Salt Lake Central Intermodal Hub was completed and much of UTA's transfer activity moved from Main Street to the Hub. • 2007: UTA undertook a major redesign of their bus service network in 2007 in which bus routes were re-designed to feed rail lines, bus schedules were aligned to rail schedules to facilitate timed transfers, the route numbering system was changed, and a network of bus lines operating at 1 5-minute frequency was established. — Since then, UTA has made some changes to reestablish direct local routes and has established a more iterative scheduling process between rail and bus services. • 201 1: The primary downtown transfer point changed from Gallivan to Courthouse Station upon the opening of the TRAX Red Line and Green Line to South Jordan and West Valley City. This resulted in significant changes in TRAX boarding patterns in Downtown Salt Lake City as shown in the table below. TRAX Boardings by Station mma %Change Courthouse Station 1,068 6,616 520% City Center Station 2,251 2,800 24% Salt Lake Central Station 4,125 2,663 -35% Gallivan Plaza Station 3,883 2,009 -48% Salt Lake City Transit Performance in 2014 The relationship between ridership and revenue hours—productivity,or riders per revenue hour— is an important measure of transit effectiveness.Salt Lake City bus routes on average carry fewer passengers per revenue hour than the S-Line,TRAX,and FrontRunner,which operate with higher-capacity vehicles;however some of these routes are the most productive routes in the entire UTA system.Productivity on routes serving Salt Lake City is as follows: • Salt Lake City bus routes,on average,carried about 23 riders per revenue hour in 2014,slightly higher than average productivity for all UTA bus routes(21 riders per revenue hour).However,the most productive local and express bus routes carry 42 and 85 riders per hour respectively. • TRAX productivity averaged over 160 riders per revenue hour in 2014. • FrontRunner productivity was over 130 riders per revenue hour in 2014. • S-Line carried about 50 riders per revenue hour in 2014. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 14-26 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 4:TRANSIT SERVICE Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan The list below includes the highest ridership and/or most productive bus routes with all-day service in Salt Lake City."In general,long bus routes,such as those that connect downtown Salt Lake City to Ogden and Murray for most of the day,and all-day local routes that serve University of Utah tend to have the highest average annual ridership. • Route 200—State Street North(900,00o weekday hoardings,32 boardings/hour)is a north—south route between Salt Lake Central Station and South Murray Central Station.It is the highest ridership route in Salt Lake City. • Route 217—Redwood Road(815,00o weekday boardings, 24 boardings/hour)is a north—south route on the west side of the city,serving North Temple and West Jordan TRAX stations. • Route 209—goo East(710,00o weekday boardings, 24 boardings/hour)is a north—south route between North Temple Station and Fashion Place West in Murray. • Route 205—50o East(590,00o weekday boardings, 28 boardings/hour)is a north—south route between Salt Lake Central Station and Murray North Station. • Route 21—2100 South/21oo East(520,00o weekday boardings,3o boardings/hour)is a north-south/east-west route between University of Utah and Central Pointe TRAX station. • Route 2— 200 South(500,00o weekday boardings,42 boardings/hour)is an east—west route connecting Salt Lake Central Station to the University of Utah.It is the most productive local bus route at over 42 boardings per revenue hour.An express version(2X)provides over 85 boardings per hour. • Route 6—6th Avenue(235,000,36 boardings/hour)is an east—west route connecting downtown North Temple Station to the University of Utah and the University Medical Center;it travels through the Greater Avenues passing the LDS Hospital and Salt Lake Regional Medical Center.This route's ridership is not as high as the others,but it is the second most productive route. Figures 4-16 and 4-17 show the breakdown of how much service was provided on each mode in terms of total revenue hours in 2014.Figures 4-18 and 4-19 illustrate performance of Salt Lake City transit in 2014 on several key performance measures:boardings per hour,cost per hour,and cost per passenger(average weekday).12 The charts illustrate how each route performs relative to the average cost and productivity for all routes.Both charts show productivity(riders per revenue hour)on the horizontal axis.Figure 4-18 illustrates cost per boarding on the vertical axis while Figure 4-19 shows the cost per passenger mile. The charts differentiate local and shuttle services that provide all-day service(darker blue circles) from routes that provide peak-only or limited service.In Figure 4-18,all-day routes are clustered along the top of the chart as they tend to cost less to operate per passenger trip.Figure 4-19 shows that express and other routes that provide longer-distance,peak-period trips are cost-effective on a per-passenger mile basis.Appendix B provides a table of performance measures for individual routes and services. Annual weekday boardings and boardings per service hour,2014. Boardings rounded to nearest 5,000. 12 Operating cost is the direct,incremental cost per service hour and service mile for each route. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 14-27 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 4:TRANSIT SERVICE Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure 4-16 Breakdown of 2014 Total Annual Weekday and Weekend Salt Lake City Transit Revenue Hours and SLC Boardings Service Type 12014 Revenue Hours I %of Total I 2014 Boardings I %of Total Bus 406,000 71% 9,277,000 39% TRAX 122,000 21% 12,997,000 55% FrontRunner 34,000 6% 1,161,000 5% S-Line 7,000 1% 330,000 1% Total Revenue Hours 569,000 100% 23,765,000 100% Note:Bus hours and ridership include only UTA bus routes that touch Salt Lake City limits.Revenue hours for TRAX,FrontRunner and S-Line include the entire systems,since all lines serve Salt Lake City. Figure 4-17 Breakdown of 2014 Total Annual Weekday and Weekend Salt Lake City Bus Revenue Hours and Boardings 2014 Bus I %of Total Bus Service Type Revenue Hours Hours 2014 Boardings %of Total All-Day Local/Shuttle 368,000 91% 8,411,000 91% Peak-Only Local/Shuttle/Flex 15,000 4% 291,000 3% Express/Fast Bus Rev Hours 22,000 5% 564,000 6% Note:Includes only UTA bus routes that touch Salt Lake City limits. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 14-28 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 4:TRANSIT SERVICE Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure 4-18 Salt Lake City Bus Route Productivity(riders per hour)and Cost Efficiency(cost per rider),Average Weekday(2014) $0.00 MOST COST EFFICIENT AND MOST PRODUCTIVE Bus average=23 riders per revenue hour TRAX:167 riders per hour. 919&920:1 20+riders per hour 2X:85 riders per hour $1.00 2 O S Line • 20 O 21 551 472 5 $2.00 • T5015 21 ✓ 460 Bus average=$2.38 iti 7 7 op 13471 451 per rider $3.00 v 213 354 c 520 >. 228-4) 463 m $4.00 513 313 u - 461 "' •456 U $5.00 453 40 - 454 $6.00 $7.00 — •Local/Shuttle-All-Day Express and Fast Bus-Peak-Only — Local/Shuttle-Limited or Peak-Only • S Line Streetcar • TRAX Light Rail Size of each circle represents the cost per passenger mile $8.00 I I I Note:Detailed ridership maps are provided in Chapter 3.Operating cost is 1 0 20 30 40 50 60 the direct,incremental cost per service hour and service mile for each route. Productivity(Riders per Revenue Hour) Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates,Inc.14-29 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 4:TRANSIT SERVICE Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure 4-19 Salt Lake City Bus Route Productivity(riders per hour)and Cost Effectiveness(cost per passenger mile),Average Weekday(2014) $0.00 MOST COST EFFICIENT AND MOST PRODUCTIVE Bus average=23 riders per revenue hour TRAX • • 167 boardings per svc.hour 456 • 919&920 2 453 1 20+boardings per svc.hour $0.25 454 313 47032�� 471 t15-5'I 354 V 460 551 Bus average=$0.42 $0.50 ® per passenger milc ^y 513 461 463 462 20 21 428 ® 1 co 0 c • w $0.75 21 S Line a • a O a CI) 3 EA- O $1.00 y 11 c a) 2X. 85 boardings per hour at W $1.25 — O 500 u �� _ - $1.50 0 •Local/Shuttle-All-Day Express and FastBus-Peak-Only Local/Shuttle-Limited or Peak-Only • S Line Streetcar • TRAX Light Rail Note:Detailed ridership maps are Size of each circle represents the cost per boarding provided in Chapter 3.Operating cost is the direct,incremental cost per service $1.75 I hour and service mile for each route. 10 20 30 40 50 60 Productivity(Ridven Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates,Inc.14-30 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 4:TRANSIT SERVICE Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan TRANSIT TRAVEL TIME VS. DRIVE TIME Anecdotally,using transit for east—west travel in Salt Lake City has been particularly challenging for riders.Figure 4-20 below illustrates a theoretical comparison of travel times by car and transit between several Salt Lake City neighborhoods and downtown and between key regional destinations and downtown.13 This comparison serves not as a specific illustration of travel time, but rather to highlight the neighborhoods where transit carries a particularly high time disadvantage compared to auto travel: ■ Sugar House neighborhood ■ Glendale neighborhood ■ East Bench neighborhood Figure 4-20 Drive Time vs.Transit Time How many Drive Transit times slower is Origin Destination Time Time transit Sugar House neighborhood Downtown SLC 0:11 0:26 2.4 University of Utah Downtown SLC 0:12 0:18 1.5 Rose Park Neighborhood Downtown SLC 0:08 0:13 1.6 Poplar Grove Neighborhood Downtown SLC 0:08 0:14 1.8 Glendale Neighborhood Downtown SLC 0:11 0:23 2.1 Greater Avenues Neighborhood Downtown SLC 0:11 0:18 1.6 East Bench Neighborhood Downtown SLC 0:16 0:36 2.3 Note:The times were calculated using the trip planning tool on Google Maps.Drive times were taken at 5 p.m.Transit times were calculated by selecting 5 p.m.as the beginning travel time for weekday trips.For the purposes of this analysis,Salt Palace Convention Center was selected as the default"downtown SLC destination."Walk times are not included for drive time or transit time. 13 Note:The times were calculated using the trip planning tool on Google Maps.Drive times were taken at 5 p.m.Transit times were calculated by selecting 5 p.m.as the beginning travel time for weekday trips.For the purposes of this analysis,Salt Palace Convention Center was selected as the default"downtown SLC destination."Walk times are not included for drive time or transit time. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 14-31 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 4:TRANSIT SERVICE Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan PLANNED TRANSIT SERVICE UTA participates in developing the Regional Transportation Plan(RTP)led by the metropolitan planning organization,Wasatch Front Regional Council.The UTA Network Study had been completed and the results were considered during the drafting of the most recent plan,due to be adopted in May,2015.The RTP is a fiscally constrained plan and many transit projects and services had to be moved to later phases due to revenue availability. The UTA Network Study completed in 2013 identifies the next group of capital and operating improvements that the UTA will focus on delivering after completion of the FrontLines 2015 program(see Figure 4-21).Planned capital and service investments by 2040 in Salt Lake City include a range of Bus Plus enhancements,new BRT routes,and a new downtown streetcar line: • Expansion of the Bus Plus Frequent Transit Network on the following corridors:�4 — Salt Lake Central Station to the University of Utah — Salt Lake Central Station to Sandy Civic Center south along State Street — Other Enhanced Bus improvements • New BRT routes on the following corridors: — BRT along Redwood Road to Sandy Civic Center — BRT from the International Center south along 5600 to the Daybreak TRAX Station — BRT from Salt Lake Central along State Street to the Draper FrontRunner Station • Downtown Streetcar along 100 South,200 South,or another parallel road in same travel corridor. • Direct TRAX connection from the Salt Lake Intermodal Center to the University of Utah via a new i-mile track segment from Main Street to Salt Lake Central Station via 400 South. 14 The Bus Plus Transit Network is a network of high-quality bus service(or BRT-light)proposed to expand the high- quality transit coverage. Bus Plus service would include all of the amenities of BRT without the exclusive lanes. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 14-32 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 4:TRANSIT SERVICE Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan UTA Proposed "Bus Plus" Network With the completion of FrontLines Proposed High-Duality,High-Frequency Map 2015 (UTA's 70-mile rail investment project), UTA initiated a Network Study to identify the agency's next round of major capital and operating improvements. Building on UTA's recent investments in light rail, streetcar, and commuter rail, the Network Study proposed a series of network priorities, including a proposed "Bus Plus" network of high- quality, high-frequency transit in Salt Lake City and beyond. Bus Plus, also called Enhanced Bus, is similar to bus rapid transit except that it does not irk operate in dedicated lanes. The proposed Bus Plus network J Ii proposes key north—south and east— west connections to TRAX, FrontRunner, and key destinations in Salt Lake City. The proposed network: Taoele 1. Expands the high-quality transit network mode Utah -commuter rail r\\ light rail 2. Increases service frequency —streetcar on key routes —bus rapid transit bus plus 3. Decreases travel time across -local bus -undetermined Salt Lake City �� L 4. Improves reliability on key Source:UTA Network Study(2013) routes using transit signal priority, reduced stops, and pre-board ticketing 5. Provides high-amenity stations including seating, shelters, and real-time information Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 14-33 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 4:TRANSIT SERVICE Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure 4-21 Planned Transit Service in Salt Lake City —Salt Lake City— ^ ■a North Future Transit Network T A I• I•�■ a; �a, Existing Transit Service Proposed/Planned Transit Service* fi 'MAMBA IIIo °°; ■t Salt Lake Phase I Phase2 Phase3 ■r c w; ■;: FrontRunner (2020) (2030) (2040) I� 0: c Streetcar Line Upgrade • I None I __ m 2300 1— TRAX ■■■■ None None i Pi I%�, , 1 2100 '—' TRAX Streetcar ■•■ None !' , A' ■a�■ c — Bus Routes Bus Rapid Transit ■.■ None Ia ■ Bus Plus Network ■.® (UTAj Ride 'As defined in UTA Network Study(2013) 1700: • O (Other)Ride + Hospital ♦♦♦p� r Middle School/High School DUPONTA� 4 r College • Salt Lake City ® ♦ ® Shopping Center limIlimil International Airport owil g 1.1011 o o g o • Other r • 700 — a a University of Utah 13TH AVE HAROLD GATTY DR • 600 _ �; �7 _ City Limits I 500 500 T4'4V Ah1ELIAE RHARTDR ••• g - Shriners Hospital for Children P tah5tate StateCapher L7 300 L� �_ o Salt Pal ■ 7 '4TH AVE ■ •• _ • • • Conven'on 3RD AVE t ' • • • • • r ae'egiona ... University MC and 1.112— {; ■•• ■ N TEMPLE -nter .TEMPLE ST dical Center ■ • +PrimaryChildrensHospital 80,%• '� Gateway Shopping Center _ ••_ 100 I � •z • .• .i �'80 r...Saltdake/entral • n m E m �j.iili° o ■ U rsity • ��—.� '•♦ • ai o ■ UUtah 7 400 ■■ O• ,II "ti ^ 400 ■ T. 500 i Pr• 1■**** 500 • •• • • • f• ♦♦ ' •arch Park 700 600 I ♦ • A 88 L APAHOE AVE ■ ••r • ■ I 69 Troll. t 700 : VA ■ 3 Squa e I 900 •• •...:2 900 900 Medical Center -s ^� 77 1000 a Jail ti•f _ ■�"T— SUNNYSIDE AVE DIRECTORS ROW ■ c o o ■ ■ m ■ o ■ ® N o o o■ o CALIFORNIA AVE 15 CALIFORNIRAVE gg 1300 ©gallpa�Station r �■ 1300 1300 1525 1500 CALIFORNIA AVE ■ 78 a foothill Village W 88 , ■ 1730 d 1700 ` 1700 1700 ■ 1700 ■ ik N \ 1820 r — ■ ri • ��! m1 ® ■ 4 Westminster College ,. zt ____ SOUTH FRONTAGE RD ":♦� 4 a ■ ■ ; ■ ■ 01 ■•.•� I6 Central�Int.5-0 it 210 I.■.•.. ■ 119.11 O ■ •\00 • 01 O .•■�7• ■ o o • • • •• •• •• ■ o °9q 2400 0 • iu■ Y■ Suga Hoye si4A • ' • m •, =i ro o a Busine DiYrict + .. fl. . PARKWAY BLVD r. d ;■ ■ 80 •.ss.••3•.....•• ..ss■ o......... � V c■ a.■ 2700 2700 f...) •..,. . . ••• . • South �: d o • West Valley City 3 i■ no T■ a Salt Lake a■ 'o 3010 w�, c 3100 O in c■ ■ Brickyard• '� To Mill eek ' o 1 Decker r r■ o■ Plaza a o 1 z „°., Data Sources: Pioneer Valley Hospital �„ �■ ®• UTA,Utah AGRC,ESRI +., j Lake Station �To West Valley Pity_ ... P •ill•reek�St t o:•�/■ '..*.■■■y,, ' r Miles Hi 12 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 1 4-25 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 4:TRANSIT SERVICE Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT FACILITIES Salt Lake City Central Station The Salt Lake City Central Station(also called the Intermodal Hub or"the Hub")is a multimodal transportation hub in Salt Lake City connecting UTA's TRAX,FrontRunner,and numerous buses. Amtrak service also converges at Salt Lake Central Station,along with Greyhound Lines and U Car Share. - o M i1'(N Il-- Ie.--emu I� mom- _ am� :r • f_ • r n.. 1 e Salt Lake Central Station(also referred to as the Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub or"the hub")connects bus,commuter rail,light rail, and other regional transportation services. Source:Flickr Matt'Johnson North Temple Station The North Temple Station is a multimodal transportation hub just north of Downtown Salt Lake City that connects UTA's TRAX,FrontRunner,and numerous bus routes. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 14-35 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 4:TRANSIT SERVICE Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Park-and-Ride Facilities Park-and-ride facilities offer a convenient place for commuters and visitors to park their cars and connect to transit,ridesharing,and bike options.Park-and-ride locations are illustrated in Figure 4-1 at the beginning of this chapter.UTA manages 4o park-and-ride lots at TRAX and FrontRunner stations along the Wasatch Front.Three UTA park-and-rides are located within city boundaries: ■ Salt Lake Central Station in downtown Salt Lake City has 3o park-and-ride spaces and operates at 100%capacity.15 ■ Ballpark Station at W i3oo S has 193 parking spaces and operates at 80%capacity.16 Ballpark Station has a bus loop,but it is not currently utilized by any UTA routes. ■ Central Pointe Station has 71 parking spaces and operates at 100%capacity.'7 Central Pointe Station provides transfer opportunities between TRAX,the S-Line Streetcar,and buses. There are also a number of park-and-ride locations listed on the UTA website that are owned and managed by the LDS Church that serve the local bus routes.18 These include: • 1955 West 40o North: 171 spaces • moo North 90o West:no parking space data available • 630 East 100 South: 8o spaces available • 1651 South 110o East: 193 spaces available • 193o South 2100 East: 199 spaces available • 1565 Foothill Drive: 94 spaces available There is also the potential for a shared lot by the Fairpark(just to the West of the Fairgrounds) that UTA is currently negotiating.The park-and ride will not be available during the Fair,but will serve as a park-and-ride location the rest of the year. UTA Maintenance Facilities UTA has two maintenance facilities in Salt Lake City: Central Garage is the bus maintenance facility just north of Salt Lake Central Station and Warm Springs Service Center is a maintenance facility for FrontRunner locomotives located at 90o North just west of 50o West. 15 UTA.TRAX and FrontRunner Counts,Fall 2014. 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid. 18 LDS lots are based on a master agreement with the LDS church which is re-negotiated every two years—there is no guarantee that UTA will maintain access to these locations on an ongoing basis. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 14-36 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 4:TRANSIT SERVICE Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan UTA Operational Constraints in Salt Lake City Bus Layover In order to increase UTA service in Salt Lake City,especially in areas that already have significant amounts of service,such as Downtown and the University of Utah,UTA would need to identify additional bus layover locations.A layover location is an area where a bus and driver can safely wait after finishing a route,before starting the return trip. Sufficient layover time is required to keep buses on-time and to provide opportunities for drivers to take breaks. Layover locations,or lack thereof,can be a significant contributor to operational costs. The more centrally located a layover location is,the more operating costs are minimized. If layover locations are located far away,UTA must spend operating dollars travelling to and from the layover location. There are four primary"nodes"that would make the most sense for additional layover space operationally.However,each has a unique set of constraints that would need to be taken into consideration in development of recommendations of the Transit Master Plan.They are: • Salt Lake Central—This facility is at capacity for buses and cannot accommodate more bus activity at peak periods. Moreover,this location is not optimally located for layover purpose,as it requires out-of-direction travel for many routes to reach. • North Temple Station—This station appears to have capacity for additional vehicles. However,it lacks operator amenities such as bathrooms and/or food and it also lacks facilities for passengers waiting for buses. • Core Downtown—Layover facilities in downtown have been studied and recommended in the past,but these sites are no longer viable(e.g.potential site at 2nd S/State is being developed).Additional downtown layover would be needed for any increased service in this area,and would likely require transitioning on-street space for layover purposes. • University of Utah—The University is a major transit trip generator,but UTA does not have any dedicated operational facilities on campus.Currently,UTA uses three different areas for layover and none of them have sufficient capacity,including the University Medical Center,the Union Building loop,and at Fort Douglas on Hempstead Road. Additional UTA layover facilities would need to be taken into consideration for any expansion of service to/from the University. TRAX Capacity Issues TRAX is currently operating three lines through south downtown Salt Lake City. According to UTA,the TRAX interlocking(intersection where tracks come together)at 4th South and Main Street cannot accommodate any additional trains during peak periods. This severely limits the ability to add trains to any of the existing corridors and limits the ability to connect downtown directly with the University of Utah via TRAX. Both are important considerations for the Transit Master Plan. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 14-37 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 5: RIDER DEMOGRAPHICS Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan 5 WHO RIDES TRANSIT IN SALT LAKE CITY? This chapter analyzes the demographic data received in the 2014 UTA On-Board Survey for passengers who ride fixed route transit.For the purpose of this study,only respondents whose trips began or ended within Salt Lake City limits are analyzed.Of the 13,282 responses to the UTA survey,8,491 respondents(64%)meet this criterion.The other 4,791 responses are not included in this analysis. Gender and Age Transit riders in Salt Lake City are slightly more male than female at 58%to 42%respectively. Riders are also more likely to be young,due in part to the large population of students at the University of Utah: 62%of riders are 34 years of age or younger and nearly one third are 18 to 24 years old(31%).When compared to demographics of the Salt Lake City population as a whole,the percent of people ages 18 to 34 is higher for UTA passengers than it is in the city as a whole(31% compared to 14%). Figure 5-1 Age of Transit Riders UTA Passengers Salt Lake City 35% 31% 30% % 29% 25% % 23 0 20% 15% 4/r 140/9 4% 11%11% IOW 0% 10% 5% 5% 5% 1'/o 1 z% Under 18 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75 or older Source:2014 UTA On-Board Survey;2009-2013 ACS 5-year Estimates Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 15-1 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 5: RIDER DEMOGRAPHICS Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Transit Dependency For a variety of reasons,a portion Figure 5-2 Transit Dependent Riders vs. Choice Riders of the population is dependent on the transit system to meet their transportation needs.These include having a disability,not having access to a private vehicle, Choice rider Transit insufficient income to pay for other 48% dependent modes,or not having a driver's 52% license.According to the survey responses,more than half of UTA transit passengers in Salt Lake City (52%)are transit dependent (Figure 5-2).This means that Source:2014 UTA On-Board Survey without adequate transit service,these individuals would not be able to meet their daily needs. The remaining forty-eight(48%)of passengers are"choice riders"which means they have the ability to travel using a mode other than transit. A transit dependency map is provided in Chapter 3. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 15-2 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 5: RIDER DEMOGRAPHICS Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Race and Ethnicity Racially,Salt Lake City transit passengers are largely white.Approximately 79%classify themselves as white or Caucasian,followed by Asian(6%),African American/Black(3%),and American Indian or Alaska Native(2%).Ethnically,the majority of respondents indicated they are not Hispanic or Latino(of any race).Only 13%indicated they were Hispanic(Figure 5-3).The racial and ethnic makeup of UTA passengers in Salt Lake City closely matches the Salt Lake City population as a whole.These passengers are less likely to be Hispanic and slightly more likely to be white/Caucasian. Figure 5-3 Race and Ethnicity(UTA Passengers vs.Salt Lake City Residents) •UTA passengers ■Salt Lake City 90% o 80% 79/076% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 21% 20% 9%15% 13°/ 10% — o 6 ° 4% 3% 3% 2% 1 White/ Other Asian African American Hispanic (of Caucasian American/ Indian/Alaska any race) Black Native Sources:2014 UTA On-Board Survey;2009-2013 ACS 5-year Estimates Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 15-3 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 5: RIDER DEMOGRAPHICS Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Income and Employment The majority(61%)of UTA passengers in Salt Lake City have a household income of less than $50,000(Figure 5-5).This is due in part to the population of University of Utah students who rely on transit in Salt Lake City(students account for 25%of the transit passengers in the City). Only 48%of passengers are employed full-time(Figure 5-6).When compared to the income of Salt Lake City residents as a whole,UTA riders are lower income with 17%of UTA passengers earning$io,000 or less versus io%of Salt Lake City residents. Figure 5-4 Household Income ■UTA Passengers ❑Salt Lake City 30% 25%25% 25% - 20% - 19°/ 17% ° 18% 16/ 15% 14°� 0% IopIi1o/ 10% 5% 5% 2% 0% Under $10,000- $25,000- $50,000- $75,000- $100,000- $200,000 $10,000 $24,999 $49,999 $74,999 $99,999 $199,999 or more Source:2014 UTA On-Board Survey;2009-2013 ACS 5-year Estimates Figure 5-5 Employment Status 60% 50% 48% 40% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% - 60 .5% 0% Employed full- Student Employed part- Unemployed Retired, time time homemaker or self-employed Source:2014 UTA On-Board Survey Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 15-4 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 5: RIDER DEMOGRAPHICS Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Ridership Frequency and Fares Most Salt Lake City passengers(66%)use UTA five or more days per week(Figure 5-7).Eleven percent ride two or fewer days per week.The UPass is the most common method of payment for Salt Lake City transit trips(used by 35%of passengers),followed by cash,tickets and transfers (23%)1,FAREPAY(22%),and passes(20%)2 (Figure 5-8).Trips within the Fare Free Zone account for 2%of Salt Lake City trips. Figure 5-6 Trip Frequency 70% — 66% 60% 50% 40% 30% - 21 20% - — 11% 10% - — 1% 0% First time riding 2 or fewer days per 3-4 days per week 5 or more days per week week Source:2014 UTA On-Board Survey Figure 5-7 Fare Payment 40% — 35% 30% 23% 22% 20% 20% 10% 2% 0% UPass Cash,ticket,transfer FAREPAY Pass Free Fare Zone Source:2014 UTA On-Board Survey 1 Includes cash,tokens,one-way tickets,round-trip tickets,paper bus transfers and reduced fare products. 2 Includes day/group passes,Medicaid punch cards and paper monthly passes. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 15-5 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 5: RIDER DEMOGRAPHICS Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Hive Pass Survey Results In 201 3, Salt Lake City, in partnership with UTA, launched a one-year pilot project that allowed people living in Salt Lake City to purchase an unlimited annual transit pass for $360—called the Hive Pass. A total of 3,200 passes were sold during the pilot project; 233 Hive Pass users participated in an online survey following the pilot. Key findings from the survey include: ■ Among those who had ridden transit before,there was a significant increase in the frequency of transit use. ■ Seventy percent of Hive Pass holders use transit three times a week or more. ■ More than 90% of Hive Pass users are satisfied with their Hive Pass. ■ The majority of Hive purchasers live between State Street (west) and the University of Utah (east) and North Temple (north) and 400 South (south). ■ Hive Pass users primarily used the bus (51%) followed by the TRAX (38%), FrontRunner (9%), and Streetcar (2%). ■ Fifty one percent (51%) of Hive Pass purchases previously paid cash fares; 17% used Farepay cards; 23% purchased monthly passes, and 9% were new riders. Source:Salt Lake City Hive Pass Pilot Program Evaluation(2014) Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 15-6 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 6: AMENITIES AND ACCESS Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan 6 AMENITIES, FARES, AND ACCESS TO TRANSIT This chapter looks beyond transit service in Salt Lake City(e.g.where the bus goes and how often it arrives)and outlines elements of the transit system that relate to the overall passenger experience—what is it like to wait for transit to arrive?How easy is it to walk to a transit station? What information is available to help passengers understand the system?What multimodal options are available to connect passengers between transit and the places people start and end their trips? Salt Lake City plays an important role in ensuring safe and comfortable access to transit.The City controls sidewalks and rights-of-way that pedestrians and cyclists use to access transit stops and stations.It also controls much of the space where transit stops,stations,and amenities are located.A key outcome of this Transit Master Plan will be to identify strategies and investments that improve access to transit and make the overall transit experience more comfortable and convenient. This section includes an overview of: • Bus stop amenities _► • Physical/geographic transit accessIP barriers • Transit information and legibility '° srBu 1 1 . • Fares and fare payment options •701 AIM • Supportive programs 416, BUS STOP AMENITIES • -. Bus stops are a key component of building a — _ :------- complete transit system;they provide the Just 17%of bus stops in Salt Lake City have either a bench or foundation of a comfortable passenger shelter for people to wait comfortably for the bus to arrive. experience by providing a space for Source:Nelson\Nygaard passengers to wait comfortably,seek weather protection,access line and system information,buy fare media,and other practical functions. Bus stops in Salt Lake City range from just a basic sign at low ridership stops to a shelter with benches,trash cans,and other amenities at high ridership stops.Real time arrival information is available at bus stops via text message.(Real-time information signs are only available at TRAX stations.) Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 1 6-1 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 6: AMENITIES AND ACCESS Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan There are over 1,200 bus stops and stations in Salt Lake City.Figure 6-i provides an overview of the bus stops by level of amenity.Of the 1,227 bus stops in Salt Lake City,48 of them have a shelter and a bench, 15 have a shelter only,and 143 have a bench only.The majority(82%)only have a sign.Figure 6-3 below illustrates bus stops by amenity in Salt Lake City.High amenity stops are clustered in downtown,in the corridor between downtown and the University of Utah, and at the University of Utah. High amenity stops are also located at Westminster College,the airport,and along E 2100 South in the Sugar House neighborhood. All TRAX,FrontRunner,and streetcar stations include benches,shelters,and signs. Figure 6-1 Bus Stop Amenities in Salt Lake City .top Amenity milPercent Shelter and bench 48 4% Shelter only 15 1% Bench only 143 12% Sign only 1,008 82% No amenities 13 1% Total 1,227 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 1 6-2 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 6: AMENITIES AND ACCESS Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Salt Lake City Bus Stops and Bike Share Stations Design Guidelines (November 2014) UTA has Bus Service Design Guidelines, however in 2014, Salt Lake City adopted its _ own Bus Stops and Bike Share Stations Design • Guidelines, building on what .111t r " #11141111i UTA had developed. In •- • several instances,the City has / _i__ • 6 1) 111 additional or differing r - • preferences. Implementation of these additional - requirements often depends - - s upon identifying City funding Salt Lake City Bus Stop Design Guidelines complement UTA's Bus Service Design sources. Staff always seeks to Guidelines.Stops are prioritized based on the number of boardings per day. capitalize on existing Source:Nelson\Nygaard amenities whenever possible. Salt Lake's bus stop design guidelines based on the average number of daily boardings are provided below. Figure 6-2 Salt Lake City Bus Stop Guidelines by Tier #of Average Daily Tier Bus Stop Amenity Boardings Tier I Custom shelter with bench,bike rack,trash, >_200 boardings per day shielded lighting,current bus schedule, real-time bus data,vegetation,pre-board pay Tier II 16'ADA compliant shelter w/bench, bike rack, 150 to 199 boardings per trash receptacle day shielded lighting,current bus schedule, real-time bus data,vegetation, pre-board fare pay facility Tier III 12'ADA compliant shelter w/bench, bike rack, 100 to 149 boardings per trash receptacle,shielded lighting,current bus day schedule, real-time bus data, pre-board fare pay facility Tier IV 8'ADA compliant shelter w/bench, bike rack, 15 to 99 boardings per day current bus schedule, route information panel with instructions on accessing real-time arrival data,vegetation Tier V Seating(bench or Simme Seat)on hard surface, 1 to 14 boardings per day bike rack, route information panel with instructions on accessing real-time arrival data Source:Salt Lake City Bus Stops and Bike Share Stations Design Guidelines(2014) http://slcdocs.com/council/agendas/2014agendas/November/Nov4/110414A5.pdf Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 16-3 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 6: AMENITIES AND ACCESS Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure 6-3 Salt Lake City Bus Stop Amenities —Salt Lake City— (/ Bus Stop Amenities El I■�I North Salt Lake T, A LA 1•r�� _ I� o Bus Stop Amenities (wan S ilL Lake CnLy) UTA Transit Service 'FrontRunner • Shelter and Bench caw�l�A . , ! , m / Streetcar_ 2300 O Shelter only Elk , �, 2100 TRAX „ re iet • Bench only _ Bus Routes • Sign only r + Hospital 1700 • No amenities UP T AV l Middle School/High School • C ' 1: © Park&Ride l College ç q�, Salt Lake City ii 2... q0 O Transit Hub • Shopping Center �_ • • ® • Other International Airport 0,V, D o l University of Utah 700 �•• � e 13TH AVE HARC±ATTYDR _ • I 600 -' State Capitol `^ y • I I • 500 Utah State 1/1/4kF AMELIAF RHART DR, r Fair Grounds S Shriners Hospital for Children * I ' Roftentkn - I. Regional •-• (onuentan Regional ,N4 o o , T N T PLE Sl• •- Center ,i , M • Gateway i •Uhrt ST P $ W +PrimaryChildrensHospital Shopping Ce ter• � 80 \ • 4 r r' 6414. • •�; ■ I • �� o MR s • ' Research Park 500 • Salt Lake 0 � • t • 700 o �A PAHOE AVE n ra 601. • 68 • 1, ` I Tro1L r II VA • _ •Rune 11 K •900 0 • • •4 g Medical `T n 1000 lk e • j • •4-c• ` , '! C•nter • I SUNNYSIDE AVE DIRECTORS ROW d 1 I 15 n � o ® • a I � o 0 0 0 w CALIFORNIA AVE "' CALIFORNIA AVE I 1300 O 1300 • 1 1300 ,■`I■7r En 1500 CALIFORNIA AVE I •RVpark f • CD I o Foothill Village 1525 a „il \\ . • • •$y • I N • _ `730 _ _ \ • 1700 1700 ± ; 10 i I7 0 II • oor •4J I 9 o ^ Z • -Ii2U-- � • • ® Westminster I M r N SOUTH FRONTAGE RD 6+� a ••� 21 0 6 College 1 01 • jlg0,- 2100 u� • tra 'on?e 0 • o 0 c • 0 r •• 1 • _ : n P. - 2400 • SugarHous . o Business Di rid �qy. o _ _ ,...........yL 4 ^ 0 80 .- PARKWAY BLVD 2700 • 211� West Valley City o South 1 ., w' 3100 - p Salt Lake j • 3010 D 1 V 2 Data Sources: Pioneer Valley Hospital Decker Lake UTA,Utah AGRC,ESRI + PG 111cre ncky dPlaza®• Miles t I I� I I Nelson\ygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 16-4 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 6: AMENITIES AND ACCESS Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan UTA FIRST/LAST MILE STUDY UTA is currently undertaking a First/Last Mile Study,due to be completed spring 2o15.The purpose is to identify a list of prioritized strategies to enhance the first-and last-mile connections to the existing transit network in order to increase system ridership.Geographically,the study covers the entire UTA system,but is focused primarily on TRAX and FrontRunner stations,with very little attention to strategies for the bus network.First mile/last mile strategies identified during this process will be verified as part of this Transit Master Plan. First Mile/Last Mile Survey A survey conducted in 2014 as part of UTA's First/Last Mile Study demonstrates passenger priorities for improved access to transit.The priorities identified by survey respondents for each last mile category are listed below(i=highest priority;4 or 5=lowest priority).In summary, respondents identified bike paths,improved crosswalks,improved passenger waiting areas,and UTA shuttles as the most important features at or near transit stops. Bicycle Facilities (in order of priority) Station Facilities (in order of priority) 1) Bike paths (separated trail) 1) Improved passenger waiting areas (i.e. 2) Onboard bike racks (on train/bus) covered shelters, real-time info, etc.) 3) Bike paths (on road) 2) Lighting 4) Bike racks/lockers 3) Wayfinding and signage 5) Bike sharing (GREENbike) 4) On-site staffing Pedestrian Facilities (in order of priority) Carpool/Shuttle Options (in order of priority) 1) Improved crosswalks 1) UTA shuttles 2) Roadway lighting 2) Work-based shuttles (i.e. employer shuttles) 3) Pedestrian-specific signage 3) Carpools 4) Access improvements for wheelchairs, strollers 4) Carsharing programs (Enterprise Carshare) or people with health concerns(i.e. curb ramps) Note:Includes responses from entire UTA service area,not just Salt Lake City. Station Typologies A key outcome of the first mile/last mile study was a station typology for UTA TRAX and FrontRunner stations. Several built environment and ridership-based characteristics were used to identify the types,including connectivity around station areas,modes of transportation currently used by transit riders to get to and from the stations,amount of parking available,and demographic information.Six station types were identified:urban,multi-modal,institutional, suburban,suburban non-residential,and auto-dependent.Only three of these types are represented in Salt Lake City.These three types and the highest priority first/last mile strategies for these stations are shown in Figure 6-4(the high priority strategies are those which should yield the highest possible benefit for investment).Figure 6-5 shows a map of stations by type. Figure 6-4 Recommended Strategies by Typology for Salt Lake City TRAX and FrontRunner Stations Bicycle Ped. Rail/Bus Network Access Network Crossing Bike Car Stop Typology Wayfinding Improvem'ts Connections Improvem'ts Treatments Sharing Sharing Enhancem'ts Urban A A --- A A Multimodal A A A --- A Institutional A --- A Note:If a box is not"checked"above,it does not mean that this strategy is not important under this typology,it means that these features already exist at the stations in Salt Lake City. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 16-5 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 6:AMENITIES AND ACCESS Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure 6-5 Station Typology for Salt Lake City Salt Lake City North Salt Lake Front Runner / TRAX A � it�. --- - - Station Typology ...- I� II _ _I _____--____--________ Q Mutimodal Urban . ��II` , ■ I 1 2300 m Institutional • Suburban(Non-Residential) n , l' a■ 2100 ik m r- NI4 J' r■ ' fist, UTA Transit Service + Hospital -7h - FrontRunner 1700 Middle School/High School u Streetcar 4 College TRAX DUPONT AVE d/`fgyy. — Bus Routes Shopping Center 'fO •• Other Salt Lake City __ - ® ® Park&Ride International Airport 1 o 000 (UTA) University of Utah o P Park&Ride r o ® O (Other) , City Limits 700 HAROLD GATTY DR II 600 "' 13TN AVE ANELIAEIRHARTDR I P 500 tah State 2 State WE m 500 ,yTHAPf Shriners Hospital for Children 300 • '4TH AVE _ � R.' i a a� � N TEMPI Si ��D AV g � r dial Centex `� UniversityMCand 80 Gateway Shopping Center" Al Ii Primary ChildrensHospi(al „aid80 ,II`.'r� _I Uni it v 11111111111111111. Q ��IIN ! ;00"'F ii of i ah i i �n 500 I[�e • tral ®i tj�l i _I 4 •arch Park 700 0 ARAPAHOE AVE ♦ RI_4 gg +� qua 700 • VA • Squa 900 oJA Medical Center f 11 17 1000 < c - SUNNASIDE AVE DIRECTORS ROW 3 ... 0 ® a — 1300 CALIFORNIA AVE 15 M CALIFORNIA AVE 1 13 0 4 :albarkStat ion a 1300 1525 a 1500 CALIFORNIA AVE 7 o Foothill Village tn 111 tri ry 1730 d 1700 1700 1700 1700 P Oly 1820 - N g o ® Westminster Ilege n �� I■gi ,� SOUTH FRONTAGE RD f P P 01 Dt I 0 I al Pointe Stat•'rM ON• • 2100 o Pq 2100 2400 - l . o. 9lEyf�q o o Busine ► rict --- a g a LVD 2700 2700 C'-- PARKWAY West Valley City o South 3100 — ©• Salt Lake A_3ulo_ N Data Sources: Pioneer Valley Hospital Decker Lake Stall, ¢kicky/ar�d'la D 1 2 UTA,Utah AGRC,ESRI + r I-�o O �� r•ck ttntinn !r4, Miles Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 16-6 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 6: AMENITIES AND ACCESS Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan PHYSICAL/GEOGRAPHIC TRANSIT BARRIERS IN SALT LAKE CITY Salt Lake City has a number of physical and geographic City Block Size Comparison barriers that make accessing and planning transit service difficult.These barriers include large blocks,steep hills 1"':' (particularly in the residential neighborhoods to the east),freeways with a lack of undercrossings,and rail beds that slice through the middle of the city. ■ Block Size/Density: Block density is a key street connectivity measure.Blocks in Salt Lake City are among the largest of its peers. Large blocks or low-block density can discourage people to bike or walk because distances to Salt Lake City destinations are too long.Lack of mid-block 922 crosswalks can make riders have to walk very long distances to transit stops that are very close as the crow flies. New York City • Topography: Steep hills,particularly in 3011 neighborhoods to the east of downtown,are 300' quite steep.Steep topography limits people's desire and ability to walk and bike to transit. • Highway barriers: Interstate 15 slices Phoenix Chicago through the center of Salt Lake City,limiting the 400' opportunities for transit passengers,bicyclists, ti 200' and pedestrians to cross under or over the o P. highway when traveling east to west(see Figure 6-6). Denver Portland • Freight Line: Rail beds that run north—south Salt Lake City has much larger blocks than cities like New York,Phoenix,and Chicago. chop the city in half.Freight trains travel along Source:ttp://greatergreater.com/files/2010/gridposter.pdf the rail lines 30-60 times per day for several minutes up to half an hour,making east—west connections difficult in terms of operating efficient transit service and providing easy and comfortable bicycle and pedestrian connections to transit stops. • Built Environment:There are some significant built environment barriers that break up the street grid,such as the Salt Palace Convention Center,the Rio Grande building,the Gateway,and multi-block schools and parks. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 1 6-7 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 6:AMENITIES AND ACCESS Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure 6-6 Transit Constraints in Salt Lake City Salt Lake City I North Salt Lake Transit Constraints ri 4& AI•� MI IN T�"���� I' o Primary freight corridors r:_ -, ). -----------___ __- ♦1►East-west access across highway �nAIL.N. I j 1300 UTA Transit Service + Hospital !' , A a 2100E.1.I.4FrontRunner skt_i r Middle School/High School :- NO i re - �:e:: Streetcar Colle e 9 s s� \ I700 TRAX 1\ ® Shopping Center 1 _ — Bus Routes • Other DUPONT AVE ``Tqy` © Park&Ride University of Utah 9p O Transit Hub ----. Salt Lake City ® City Limits International Airport o LIII _ o ..\ (11) 1 0 HAROLD GATTY DR 600 a - — 13TH AVE 500 500 ,,THApF ShrinersHospitalforChildren A LIA EIIRHART DR tah State o St ate Ca i, s H P m 300 • a t RD: 4TH AVE • Q •t->► i� a e'egtona UniversityMCand ® P . TEMPLE F]► II • City ter STEMPLEST dicalCenter +PrimaryChildrensHospi#al ,,n ,,' • enter 1 0 •�j,lt air• ii l 400 Cli A • •• •400' 400• • of a�• arch Park 700 gg ARAPAHOEAVE 60 0 s5 Trolly r 700 � Squa e 900 o Medical Center y ' 42) 900 1000 o �� M� SUNNYSIDE AVE DIRECTORS ROW o _, o CALIFORNIA AVE 15 "' CALIFORNIA AVE © v N o o M o 1300 aL. 1300 1525 1.41r o 1500 CALIFORNIA AVE 89 Foothill Village cr 1730 \\\ d I7000 1700 1700 1700 COI 0 0 \ 1820 "� 9 --- - N 9 ® Westminster College N 0 SOUTH FRONTAGE RD 01 1 ._._._.__ 2100 2100 2100 �• • • • • • •\m E r �� s 9eF 2400 o Sugar Ho a _ �fp o Busine Di rict��� �� 0 o a .....5t. 80 _ PARKWAY BLVD 2700 2700 - 1� West Valley City o South ,-- '1 _3010 w 3100 = p Salt Lake „ 1�1 j tlr��kyaPe la 0 1 2 Data Sources: Pioneer Valley o to " i-,a Miles UTA,11tah AGRC,ESRI t Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 16-8 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 6: AMENITIES AND ACCESS Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan TRANSIT INFORMATION AND LEGIBILITY Key to accessing transit is a legible system with tools to help people understand where,when,and how often transit service operates.Transit passengers and potential passengers have a range of tools available to them in Salt Lake City,including real-time information at some stations and on private apps,an online trip planner,and a mobile app center. Carrier 11:15PM Route Search RED LINE Schedule Information Thursday,Mar 14 NorthBound and Trip Planner Individual route maps,a systemwide map,a Q.City downtown map,and the University of Utah map are all available on the UTA website.Route schedule 2 • 2gnao • information is available,however the user has to know the route number or name and type it in to the website SUGAR FACTORY RD @... O Next Stop at 11:20 p.m.NorthBound in order to obtain the information(no drop down �+ _ menu is available). Route maps are also difficult to 0 W� Cottonwoc use.These maps only show the major destinations . . Heights along the route,making it difficult for passengers to so'; Jordan0 °Sandy Si orient themselves. Riverton° 0 Draper UTA's online trip planner underwent major o luffdale renovations in 2o13.The tool now allows users to engage in both map-based and address-based trip - • planning and provides improved address recognition. lir 0 ® l The trip planner also features walking directions and allows users to plan trips by preferred mode. Routes Apps help passengers understand the UTA system at Real-Time Information a click of a button on their smart phones. Source:ksl.com UTA's Ride Time SMS text message service gives riders real-time bus departure information for more than 7,50o stops throughout the UTA service area.Real-time arrival information is not available on the UTA website,however.It is just available through text or using one of the apps in the mobile app center(see below).Some high ridership TRAX,FrontRunner,and streetcar stops do have real-time information signs. Mobile App Center UTA made its real-time data feed available to private developers in 2012.This has resulted in over 3o mobile apps for Android,Apple,and Windows users that help UTA passengers use the system in real time. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 16-9 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 6: AMENITIES AND ACCESS Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan UTA FARES AND FARE PAYMENT OPTIONS Eliminating the hassle of having to keep exact change to ride transit is often a key to attracting choice riders.Over the last several years,UTA has developed pass programs for different travel markets. UTA FAREPAY UTA Fare Structure In October 2013,UTA unveiled its UTA fares can be purchased online or at any of the UTA Pass Sales Outlets. The fare structure for local bus, new FAREPAY reloadable,prepaid TRAX, Streetcar, express bus, and FrontRunner is fare card. FAREPAY is available for outlined below. Fares vary significantly depending on purchase at the UTAwebsite and at the type of service selected. more than 30o Wasatch Front retailers.This system allows Local Fares (Local Bus, TRAX, and Streetcar) customers to load a contactless fare • One way fare: $2.50 • card with any amount between$5 and Senior and reduced one-way fare: $1.25 • $500.Customers can also schedule Day pass: $6.25 automatic fund reloading and manage • Roundtrip (TRAX only): $5.00 their account balance online.To help • Adult monthly: $83.75 drive the adoption of FAREPAY,UTA • Senior and reduced fare monthly: $41.75 offered a 20 percent fare discount to • Student 30-day pass: $62.75 passengers using the card.By the end • Minor monthly pass: $62.75 of 2013,nearly 5,40o FAREPAY cards • Route deviation (Flex Route) one-way fare: $1.25 had been sold at 170 retailers • Route deviation (Flex Route) punch pass: $1 2.50 throughout the UTA service area. Premium Fares (Express Buses and FrontRunner) • One-way fare: $5.50 Electronic Fare ■ Senior and reduced one-way fare: $2.75 UTA's electronic fare collection system • Adult monthly: $198 allows passengers to"tap on"and"tap ' Senior and reduced fare monthly: $99 off'when boarding and exiting TRAX • Minor monthly pass: $148.50 and FrontRunner stations.Card taps ' FrontRunner one-way fare (distance based): $2.50-$10.30 provide data about trip origin and • FrontRunner senior and reduced roundtrip: $2.50 - $10.30 destination so that UTA can better • Individual monthly upgrade*for pass holders: $1 14.25 evaluate and improve service. • Student 30-day pass: $148.50 Passengers can use this electronic fare *The Individual Monthly Upgrade when presented with another valid pass System with the followingelectronic is good for unlimited travel on all buses including Express buses, s y FrontRunner,TRAX and Streetcar for one calendar month.The Upgrade fare products: student passes,Eco Pass is valid with an Eco/Ed/Med Pass,Salt Lake Community College Ski UTA FAREPAY Semester Pass,Student Monthly Pass,Minor Monthly Pass,or Horizon Passes, Passes, Monthly Pass. cards,contactless credit or debit Source:rideuta.com March 2015 cards,smart phone applications including Isis and Google Wallet.The card will be"charged"the appropriate fare(for FrontRunner,the fare will be charged for only the distance traveled). Electronic fare collection is available on all buses,FrontRunner,TRAX,and streetcar services. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 16-10 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 6: AMENITIES AND ACCESS Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Transfers UTA local fare tickets can be used to transfer to other local fare services for up to two hours from purchase.An upgrade is required to transfer to premium service.A premium ticket may be used to transfer to any other service,also if used within two hours of purchase. Discount Pass Programs UTA works with local jurisdictions,businesses,and universities to promote transit through five discount Salt Lake City HIVE Pass pass programs. Pilot Program ■ Eco Pass is an employer-sponsored annual pass In 201 3, Salt Lake City, in issued to employees for use on bus and TRAX partnership with UTA, launched a services.Eco Passes must be purchased for all one-year pilot project that allowed employees and the cost of the program is based people living in Salt Lake City to on the level of transit service at the work purchase transit passes for $360. Of location.Eco Pass users can also use the pass on the 8,500 passes available for the express buses and FrontRunner,but are pilot project, over 3,200 passes were required to pay an additional fare on top of the activated during the seven month pilot project period indicating high $2.50 it guarantees. interest in the program. The program • Eco Trip Rewards is another employer- added approximately 300 new sponsored annual pass,but employers only pay transit riders to the system and for the trips employees take. 160,000 new boardings during the • Student Passes is a program in which seven month pilot project period. students,faculty,and staff at participating Ninety percent (90%) of HIVE Pass schools can obtain a pass to ride UTA services. users were satisfied and indicated they would purchase it again. Valid school IDs are required to use the pass. The University of Utah partners with UTA to In March 2015, HIVE 2.0 was provide the U-Pass.As of September 2104,there approved. This new program will make monthly passes available to were 49,127 active U-Pass passes distributed to Salt Lake City residents. The cost will University of Utah students,faculty,and staff. be shared by the purchaser (who • Co-Op Transit Pass is a discounted pass pays 50% of the cost), Salt Lake City available to employees of participating (who pays 30% of the cost), and UTA companies.UTA discounts the cost of the passes (who pays 20% of the cost). For Salt by 20 percent and the company pays for another Lake City residents, that means 3o percent of the cost.Employees purchase the passes will be available for $42.00 passes at 5o percent of the price they would pay a month compared to $83.75. if they purchased it themselves. Source: Salt Lake City staff; Salt • RideVan Plus is a pass program that is Lake City Hive Pass Pilot Program of available to passengers who use both UTA Salt Lake City and the Utah Transit transit services and the RideVan program to Authority Evaluation travel between home and their place of work. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 16-11 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 6: AMENITIES AND ACCESS Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan SUPPORTIVE PROGRAMS Transit service in Salt Lake City is supported by a number of programs that help people meet their daily travel needs.These programs range from bike share to car share to rideshare applications. This section provides an overview of these programs. GREENbike Share Program GREENbike is Salt Lake City's bike share rw.0M ' 1'' system in downtown.The system J • .. launched with 10 stations and 8o bikes in '` I • 2012;just i6 months later,the program's I ridership success and private support • -J. :i warranted GREENbike to double in size ` _;' ; ' j I � to 20 stations and 160 bikes. - _ . ' - is' Users can purchase one of three kinds of • _� • — f' • R.• IImemberships: annual($75),7-day($15), �`O y EL or 24-hour($5).Each bike station ' 'I;k includes a map showing the available �,'' stations for bike rental/return in the - network.Mobile apps such as B-cycle • . and Spotcycle also show the bikes and • docks available at every station in real -- c 7. time. - - , •_ GREENbike is a 01 c charitable - organization and public/private partnership between Salt Lake City,The `\ Downtown Alliance,The Salt Lake ► __ Redevelopment Agency,Salt Lake k - Chamber,UTA,Visit Salt Lake, SelectHealth,and other private sponsors. . GREENbike is Salt Lake City's bike share program. Source:Flickr,rudi net Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 16-12 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 6: AMENITIES AND ACCESS Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Bicycle Accommodations on Board and at Stations Bicycles are currently allowed on UTA buses,TRAX,and FrontRunner,with - I IIIIIIIIIIII specific loading areas identified at the _ stations for cyclists.FrontRunner cars can , . & ' accommodate between 4-12 bicycles each, �. depending on the type of car;TRAX cars can r o accommodate up to 4 bicycles in each car. Ep; !:: �i� , ;X • _\ UTA is currently exploring methods of more - efficient bicycle storage on cars,including , i the installation of hooks on TRAX vehicles --+ • for hanging bikes. Bike lockers are also available for rent at TRAX and FrontRunner i stations.All UTA buses are also equipped UTA buses are equipped with bicyle racks with enough room for two bicycles. with a bicycle rack that can hold up to two Source:Nelson\Nygaard bikes.All new CNG buses will be equipped with three position bike racks. Enterprise Car Share Program Enterprise is currently the Car Share vendor in the Salt Lake City area,and their program allows people to reserve a car by the hour.Members reserve the car online or by phone,access the vehicle with a membership card,and then return it to the dedicated parking space once their trip is finished.The cost of the car is$8.00 per hour,including fuel and physical demand/liability protection included. UTA Rideshare UTA provides a free ridematching system(www.utacommuter.com)to help pair rideshare users. UTA also sponsors a vanpool program where they provide the van. TravelWise Travel Demand Management (TDM) Program UDOT's TravelWise program promotes multimodal transportation across the state by issuing travel alerts during crucial times including major traffic accidents,traffic warnings,weather related road conditions,or periods of poor air quality.People can access the alerts via website (udottraffic.utah.gov)or mobile app.Each alert is associated with a travel suggestion that relates to the TravelWise strategies.Strategies promoted through the program include alternative work schedules,active transportation,carpool/vanpool,public transit,"skip the trip,"teleworking,and trip chaining. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 16-13 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 7: INITIAL FINDINGS AND CONSIDERATIONS Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan 7 INITIAL FINDINGS AND CONSIDERATIONS This chapter summarizes the key findings that emerged from analysis of the rich body of existing transit,land use,demographic,and travel behavior data provided by Salt Lake City,UTA,and the Wasatch Front Regional Council.It summarizes the state of transit service and the myriad factors that impact the use and performance of transit in Salt Lake City today.The key findings(bolded below)will serve as a foundation for the next phase of study. REVIEW OF EXISTING PLANS AND POLICIES ■ The Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan responds to community and policy mandates to improve public transportation for the benefit of all members of the community. — The City's overall Transportation Master Plan emphasizes providing choices in travel and reducing dependence on the private automobile. — The Mayor has adopted policy statements about the importance of continued improvements and investment in public transportation. — The City Council has adopted goals that call for a public transit system that is easy to use,affordable,accessible,stable,reliable,frequent,and available for work and play activities. — Residents and other community leaders have also expressed strong support for accessible,safe,reliable,affordable public transportation. ■ Salt Lake City has set goals to increase transit use.Draft Plan Salt Lake—the city's vision plan for the next 25 years,which is currently underway—establishes goals to reduce the number of single occupancy auto trips through the following strategies: increase the mode share for public transit,bicycling,walking,and carpooling; and provide public transit within a quarter mile of all homes. • High quality public transit is critical to meeting Salt Lake City's other goals.A review of goals and themes from prior planning efforts shows that the availability of safe, high-quality,convenient transit service is a critical tool to support achievement of broader outcomes,e.g.health,economic competitiveness,and improved quality of life. • UTA and Salt Lake City goals are largely aligned.When comparing goals from prior planning efforts by both UTA and Salt Lake City,there were far more similarities than differences.One salient difference is that UTA emphasizes efficiency whereas Salt Lake City is more focused on ease of use and passenger convenience. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 17-1 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 7: INITIAL FINDINGS AND CONSIDERATIONS Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan LAND USE AND GROWTH ■ Density is concentrated in downtown and east downtown with pockets in other parts of the city.Population and employment density,measured by residents and jobs per acre,is primarily concentrated downtown and east of downtown.Dense population and job clusters are also found in inner parts of the Greater Avenues and Capitol Hill,the Fair Grounds neighborhood,and the central southeast part of the city (East Liberty Park,Liberty-Wells,and Sugar House).Western Salt Lake also has areas of high residential density(Poplar Grove,Glendale,and Rose Park). ■ The highest density areas in Salt Lake are east of the major downtown transfer points.There is a gap between downtown's primary transit transfer points (Central Station, State Street,and Main Street)and some of the densest areas of the city in eastern downtown.This poses a first/last mile connectivity barrier that is exacerbated by large blocks in downtown. ■ Salt Lake City is the region's employment hub.Every workday,the population in Salt Lake City nearly doubles with commuters from around the region.Salt Lake has three major employment centers: - Central Business District(-69,00o jobs) - University of Utah/Research Park(-17,000 jobs/u,000 jobs) - Northwest quadrant(-70,00o jobs): o Airport o International Center O 2200 West corridor ■ Salt Lake City is growing.Between 2015 and 2040,population and employment in Salt Lake City is expected to grow substantially(19%and 8%respectively).By 2040,more than 40,00o new residents and 20,000 new employees are expected in Salt Lake City. Major growth is expected in redevelopment areas,other planned growth districts,and areas that are currently experiencing development activity.These include: - Central Business District,East Downtown,and 40o South corridor - Depot District and Granary District - State Street - West Capitol Hill - North Temple - Sugar House - Redwood Road and other job growth in the northwest quadrant OVERALL TRAVEL PATTERNS ■ The vast majority of trips are non-commute trips.Approximately 4 out of 5 trips in Salt Lake City are for purposes other than traveling from home to work. ■ East downtown has the highest overall trip demand in Salt Lake City.This reflects its mixed-use character including offices,commercial buildings,and some of the city's highest density of homes. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 17-2 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 7: INITIAL FINDINGS AND CONSIDERATIONS Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan • The areas stretching from downtown to the University of Utah are the most common origins/destinations for trips in Salt Lake City.Trips between these zones(downtown,eastern downtown,and the University of Utah)are also very common. • Travel within neighborhoods represents a very common trip pattern.These are likely representative of the high portion of non-commute trips,to get to services,run errands,or meet other daily needs. TRANSIT USE • 6%of Salt Lake City residents take transit to work. For over a decade,the mode split for Salt Lake City residents'commute trips has remained relatively steady at 6% transit and 81%auto(comprised of 69%drive alone and 12%carpool). - Salt Lake City employees commute by transit at a higher rate than those who work elsewhere. - Transit mode share at University of Utah is well above the city-wide average(18.4%). - Transit mode share is well below the city-wide average in western Salt Lake City (Rose Park,Glendale,and Poplar Grove)and in Sugar House/East Bench. - Bike mode share is highest in Glendale/Poplar Grove(-7%). - Walk mode share is highest in the Downtown area(-27%). • 2%of all trips are made on transit.This indicates that a smaller share of non- commute trips are made on transit than commute trips. • The majority of transit trips in Salt Lake City are on TRAX.Of all transit boardings in Salt Lake City in 2014,55%were TRAX boardings followed by 39%bus boardings. • Transit ridership is highest in downtown and at the University of Utah.TRAX stations have particularly high numbers of boardings.Major transfer points between routes also have particularly high boardings,as do park-and-ride lots. • State Street and Main Street are high use transit locations.In downtown,there is significant transit boarding activity along State Street and Main Street,equal to or more than the activity at Salt Lake Central Station. o The most TRAX boarding activity occurs along Main Street(ioo N to 40o S). o The most bus boarding activity occurs along State Street(20o N to 40o S)and at Salt Lake Central. • The highest ridership bus routes are generally long inter-city routes, such as those that connect downtown Salt Lake City to Ogden and Murray for most of the day,and all-day local routes that serve University of Utah;they are: - Route 200—State Street North - Route 217-Redwood Road - Route 209-900 East - Route 205-50o East - Route 21—2100 South/2100 East - Route 2—200 South • Transit doesn't serve all common trips.An examination of overall travel patterns in Salt Lake City compared to travel patterns on public transit reveals that there maybe Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 17-3 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 7: INITIAL FINDINGS AND CONSIDERATIONS Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan some common trip patterns that are not well served by transit.The next phase of study will continue to explore these and other gaps in more detail. • West side demographics,land use, and densities should be supportive of transit use,but show less transit use than other areas. These neighborhoods are higher density,and have high concentrations of seniors,people with disabilities,low- income and zero-vehicle households,but show less transit activity than other areas. TRANSIT SERVICE AND CONNECTIONS • More bus service is provided than service on other modes.71%of total revenue hours of routes that served Salt Lake City in 2014 were bus revenue hours,91%of these bus hours were all-day local services or specialty shuttle services. • The structure of the transit network is different on the east and west sides of the city. In the eastern half of the city,bus lines generally follow a regular grid pattern along major corridors.In the west side of the city,bus lines follow somewhat circuitous patterns and service is more sparse. — Barriers such as north-south running highways and freight rail traffic undermine access to service on the west side. • There is more limited east-west service than north-south service.UTA has made significant north-south rail investments over the last several years that have made traveling between key north-south destinations easier on transit.East-west connections can still be challenging,though there are improvements that UTA is currently studying to improve some of these connections. • There is limited high frequency bus service,especially on weekends.Although Salt Lake City has 44 bus routes that operate within city limits,very few operate frequent service that is available every 15 minutes or less(6 routes).Service that operates every 15 minutes or less is considered the minimum service level that allows people to use transit without consulting a schedule. — Service frequency on several routes varies over the course of the day. — Among corridors that retain service on weekends,the highest-frequency service is generally every 3o minutes on Saturdays and every 6o minutes on Sundays. • There is limited evening bus service.Of the 44 transit routes that operate in Salt Lake,only about half operate outside commute periods and provide midday service. Evening bus service is limited all days of the week after 8:0o p.m.TRAX,FrontRunner, and the streetcar line run on a somewhat later schedule. • There is limited weekend bus service. Bus service on the weekend in Salt Lake City is limited.Sixteen of the 44 bus routes operate on Saturdays and nine operate on Sundays.Most bus routes operating on weekends run no more frequently than every 3o minutes on Saturdays and no more than every 6o minutes on Sundays. • Transit travel in some neighborhoods carries a higher time disadvantage compared to auto travel than others.The following neighborhoods appear to have a particularly high transit time disadvantage when compared to auto travel to downtown Salt Lake City: Sugar House,Glendale,and East Bench neighborhoods. • The Regional Transportation Plan includes several future improvements to the transit network.These improvements include: expansion of the Bus Plus Frequent Transit Network,new BRT routes,a Downtown Streetcar,and a direct TRAX connection Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 17-4 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 7: INITIAL FINDINGS AND CONSIDERATIONS Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan from the Salt Lake Intermodal Center to the University of Utah(potentially through providing direct service on existing rails and/or building an extension from Central Station eastward along 40o S) . • UTA needs additional layover space in Salt Lake City.In order to increase UTA service in Salt Lake City,especially in areas that already have significant amounts of service such as downtown and the University of Utah,UTA would need to identify additional bus layover locations. • The TRAX system has a capacity constraint at 4th South and Main Street.This limitation does not allow UTA to operate any additional trains during peak periods. • The University of Utah runs its own transit service.The University of Utah is a significant demand center for transit in Salt Lake City with more than 30,00o students and more than 17,000 faculty and staff. - The University provides an express peak period shuttle from Salt Lake Central and eight free campus shuttles for campus affiliates to use.These routes are not closely coordinated with UTA service. - The University is looking to increase transit mode share as part of their current Transportation Master Plan.' • UTA makes changes to their system three times per year.UTA is required by their collective bargaining agreement to have three"change days per year."Changes can include re-numbering of routes,re-routing of lines,and schedule adjustments.This can make historical route-by-route ridership and performance data difficult to compile and historical changes and trends more difficult to understand;it may also impact legibility of the system for riders,an issue that will be further explored as part of public outreach. • UTA has made some major structural changes in their service in the last io years that changed boarding patterns.Notable changes include construction of Salt Lake Central Intermodal Hub and a redesign of the whole system that occurred in 2006- 2oo7,and the opening of the TRAX Red and Green lines,which changed the main downtown transfer location from Gallivan to Courthouse in 2011. TRANSIT PERFORMANCE • Transit boardings in Salt Lake City increased since 2011,but at a slower rate than the system as a whole and at a slower rate than service hours.Total transit ridership on all lines that touch Salt Lake City increased by 28%between 2011 and 2014 whereas boardings in Salt Lake City on these lines increased by 13%. During this period,service hours increased by 26%. - Bus ridership(Salt Lake City routes)decreased slightly(-3%)between 2011 and 2014 despite a 14%increase in revenue hours over this time period.91%of bus ridership is on local and shuttle routes in Salt Lake City. - TRAX ridership overall increased by 3o%between 2011 and 2014 due in large part to a 5o%increase in service hours,largely on new lines;TRAX boardings in Salt Lake City increased by approximately 20%. I Note:UTA has studied a TRAX"black line"that would provide service from University directly to the airport,but is constrained by the fact that the interlocking at Courthouse Station(400 South and Main Street)is at capacity and cannot handle any more transit through movement. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 17-5 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 7: INITIAL FINDINGS AND CONSIDERATIONS Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan — FrontRunner ridership increased the most over this time period(176%overall,77% in Salt Lake City),due to addition of major new services(143%increase in service hours overall). • On average,local bus routes carry fewer passengers per revenue hour than other modes,though express buses have higher productivity.Bus average productivity is 23 riders per hour,S-Line productivity is approximately 5o riders per hour,TRAX average productivity is i6o riders per hour,and FrontRunner is approximately i3o riders per hour(rail services operate with higher-capacity vehicles). — Route 2 and 2x are the most productive local and express bus routes and carry 42 and 85 riders per revenue hour respectively. — All-day routes tend to cost less to operate per passenger trip. — Express and other routes that provide longer-distance,peak-period trips are more cost-effective on a per-passenger mile basis. TRANSIT RIDER DEMOGRAPHICS • Transit riders are younger than the population as a whole.62%of UTA riders in Salt Lake City are 34 years of age or younger and nearly one-third are 18 to 24 years old (31%).Only 14%of the Salt Lake City population as a whole is 18 to 24 years old. • Students account for 25%of the transit passengers in Salt Lake City. 25%of riders in Salt Lake City are students(this does not include ridership on the free routes operated by the University). • Most riders are lower income and many are dependent on transit. — A large portion of UTA riders in Salt Lake City are low income(61%have household income less than$50,000); UTA riders in Salt Lake are lower income than the Salt Lake City population as a whole. — Approximately half of UTA passengers in Salt Lake City are dependent on transit service to meet their daily needs: — 33%of riders are under the age of 18,most of whom can be characterized as transit dependent — A small percentage of riders(io%)are over the age of 65—an age group that is typically transit dependent — The following neighborhoods have high concentrations of transit-dependent populations: o Neighborhoods between downtown and the University o Southern portion of the Capitol Hill neighborhood o Portions of Liberty Wells o Western Salt Lake City(Rose Park,Glendale,and Poplar Grove neighborhoods) • Less than half of transit riders are employed.48%of riders in Salt Lake City are employed full time. • Most riders use transit regularly.Two-thirds of UTA riders in Salt Lake City use UTA five or more days per week and 87%use UTA at least three days per week. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 17-6 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I CHAPTER 7: INITIAL FINDINGS AND CONSIDERATIONS Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan FARE PAYMENT • The UPass is the most common method of payment for Salt Lake City transit trips.35%of riders use UPass,followed by cash,tickets and transfers(23%),FAREPAY (22%),and miscellaneous types of passes(20%). • Trips within the Fare Free Zone account for 2%of Salt Lake City transit trips. • Salt Lake has a new HIVE pass program for travel within Salt Lake.For the first HIVE pass program,the majority of HIVE purchasers lived between State Street (west)and the University of Utah(east)and North Temple(north)and 40o South (south).HIVE Pass users primarily used the bus(51%)followed by the TRAX(38%), FrontRunner(9%),and Streetcar(2%). ACCESS AND AMENITIES • Salt Lake City has a number of physical and geographic barriers that make accessing and planning transit service difficult.These include large blocks,steep hills,major interstates,the freight line,and major buildings that break up the street grid. • There are limited amenities for passengers at bus stops.83%of bus stops do not have a bench or a shelter for people to wait for the bus to arrive. • UTA offers several tools to connect passengers to services.UTA provides a series of online and electronic information resources including an online trip planner, real-time information,and a mobile app center. • There are several programs that support transit use in Salt Lake City. Supportive options include GREENbike Share,bicycle accommodations on vehicles and at stations,Enterprise Car Share,UTA Rideshare,and the Travel Wise Travel Demand Management(TDM)Program. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. 17-7 APPENDIX A: Inventory of Plans and Policies STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I APPENDIX A:PLANS&POLICIES Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan INVENTORY OF PLANS AND POLICIES Plan Owner Name of Plan Plan Purpose GoalsNision Policies/Principles Recommended Strategies Salt Lake City City Council • Ease of Use:Anyone in Salt Lake City can get from Point A to Point B using only Retreat 2013 one transfer • Affordability:Cost for service should be scaled to the length of each trip—or everyone should get a transit pass • Destinations:Everyone should be able to get to two transit routes within a quarter mile of where they live or work • Time of Day:Mass transit hours of operation should mirror the times people leave and return from work and play • Immediacy:Mass transit service should be available every 10 minutes so people can presume service • Route Reliability:Routes should remain stable so residents and developers can make transit part of their long-term housing choice Salt Lake City City Council This document provides several guiding Transportation Vision:Salt Lake City residents Transportation Values: TOD Recommendations: Philosophy philosophy statements to set a vision for should have choices in modes of transportation • We support maximizing the accessibility,affordability,and reliability of • The City should support transit-oriented development as well Statements(2012) historic preservation,housing,the economic which are safe,reliable,affordable,and transportation options into and around the City and support increasing as adequate,reliable public transportation so that residents health of the city,arts and culture, sustainable.Residents should reap the value of accommodations for non-automotive transportation options. may easily access employment,goods and services,and neighborhood quality of life,transparency, well-designed transportation systems that connect • We support educational efforts that will help residents make informed choices housing. transportation and mobility,parks and open residents to neighborhoods and the rest of the about the types of transportation they use. • The City should support housing densities,mixed-use and spaces,sustainability,and education. region.The City encourages alternatives to • We support reducing the environmental and health impacts created by vehicle mixed-income projects,parking policies,and pedestrian- motorized-vehicular transportation and making encourage oriented urban designsthat walkingand the use those options more appealing and accessible to emissions. 9 visitors and residents. • We support efforts that will reduce the need for people to drive alone in vehicles. of alternative and public transportation. • We value the social,economic and health benefits that come from active transportation options such as bicycling and walking. • Pedestrian and bicycle safety are a high priority and we believe they can be compatible with other modes of transportation. • We support establishing and maintaining safe routes to schools. • We value coordinating with transportation agencies and other municipalities to improve the movement of people throughout the city. • As the population of Salt Lake City and the region increases,land use design decisions should reflect the intention to better accommodate all modes of transportation and focus on the movement of people. Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates,Inc.I A-1 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I APPENDIX A:PLANS&POLICIES Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Plan Owner Name of Plan Plan Purpose Goals/Vision Policies/Principles Recommended Strategies Salt Lake City Downtown in With roots in Envision Utah,the plan Goal 1 Serving Downtown:Downtown • Develop comprehensive network of TRAX light rail lines to Motion(2008) promotes sustainable growth and provides a transportation will be supportive of and compatible improve general transit access and connectivity blueprint for downtown Salt Lake City.Its with Salt Lake City's vision of Downtown and • Constructing new TRAX lines along 400 South from Main vision is grounded in measurable, Downtown land uses,activities and businesses. Street to 600 West and the Intermodal Hub(at 300 South incremental steps that make all modes of Goal 2 Pedestrian Friendly:Downtown Salt Lake and 600 West)—completing an inner loop of rail circulation in movement—to,from,and within— City will be pedestrian friendly,where walking is Downtown. Downtown more integrated,efficient,and the primary mode of transportation. • Constructing new TRAX lines on 700 South from 200 West to accessible. Goal 3 Easy to Use All forms of Downtown 400 West,and then continuing north on 400 West connecting transportation will be easy to use and understand. to the existing system near Gateway—completing an outer Goal 4 Enhanced Transit Accessibility and loop that serves Downtown and the emerging southwest Mobility All transit resources available in quadrant. Downtown will be used to enhance regional • Building a bus system that encourages use in and around accessibility to Downtown and mobility within Downtown and not just for getting to and from Downtown. Downtown. • Continue State Street and 200 South as the main corridors Goal 5 Balanced Modes Salt Lake City will for bus service in Downtown. creatively address congestion and enhance • A new bus passenger center will be constructed at State mobility in ways that are compatible with the other Street and 200 South on the east side of Downtown to goals and objectives for Downtown. complement service on the west side of Downtown at the Intermodal Hub. • Increasing bus service in Downtown,which includes using Branded Bus Corridors,to help visitors circulate easily along set routes without worry of being on the wrong bus. • More attractive and comfortable bus stops Downtown, including better information about bus service. • Expanding the Free Fare Zone in Downtown.The Free Fare Zone will be extended to include the Library TRAX Station and three new stations on the west side of Downtown, including the Intermodal Hub and the hotels on 600 South. • Downtown circulator/shuttle service Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates,Inc.I A-2 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I APPENDIX A:PLANS&POLICIES Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Plan Owner Name of Plan Plan Purpose GoalsNision Policies/Principles Recommended Strategies Salt Lake City Salt Lake City The Downtown Community Plan is a 25- Vision:Downtown Salt Lake will be the premier Principles: • Encourage development of Transit Oriented Development Downtown year vision and implementation plan that center for sustainable urban living,commerce,and A transportation and mobility network that is safe,accessible,reliable,affordable, (TOD)through form-based codes and allowed increased Community Plan: directs growth and development in the cultural life in the Intermountain West. and sustainable,providing real choices and connecting people with places. density within a 10-minute walk of Trax,streetcar and high Story of Our downtown.It is a shared citywide vision Goal 1:Double transit ridership by 2020 and Air that is healthy and clean. frequency bus routes. Future(2014) drawn on already established,adopted City double it again by 2040 • Work with UTA to implement a downtown circulator that plans and policies.It creates a framework Targets: improves local transportation through the downtown. Goal 2:More evenly balanced mode share for more focused plans like the Downtown The desired trend is to see more people walking,biking,or using transit.The long • Continue reduced-cost transit pass program(Hive Pass)for Master Plan. Goal 3:Improved transit connections to major job, term trend related to housing and jobs being located close to housing is to have Salt Lake City residents neighborhood,and activity centers(i.e.airport, every downtown resident/worker within a 1/4 mile of a light rail,street car or • Work with other agencies to improve access to transit for City University of Utah,Sugar House Business District, bus route with 15 minute service or less. State Capital) residents. Goal 4:A simple public parking system that • Work with UTA to find ways to improve the efficiency of the balances the city's role as the economic center of transit system for commuters.•Improve the°last mile"transit the State supports small and large retailers,and connections to encourage ridership. supports the restaurant,cultural,and night life of • Work with UTA to ensure downtown remains the center of the city. the regional transit system. • Improve the"last mile"transit connections to encourage ridership. • Provide a direct transit connection between Central Station and the University of Utah. • Work with UTA to improve transit access between downtown and other major destinations in the City. • With development of the new airport terminals,parking,and associated facilities,work with the Airport to improve access between downtown and the airport. Salt Lake City Complete Streets ...the city supports the concept of complete streets,requiring the accommodation of Policy(2010) pedestrians and bicyclists throughout the planning process. All city owned transportation facilities in the public right of way on which bicyclists and pedestrians are permitted by law,including,but not limited to,streets,bridges, and all other connecting pathways,shall be designed,constructed,operated,and maintained so that users,including people with disabilities,can travel safely and independently. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates,Inc.I A-3 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I APPENDIX A:PLANS&POLICIES Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Plan Owner I Name of Plan Plan Purpose Goals/Vision Policies/Principles Recommended Strategies Salt Lake City West Side Master The Westside Master Plan is a visioning Vision:the Westside Will Be: Salt Lake City should encourage the Utah Transit Authority to Plan(2014) document for the Glendale and Poplar • Clearly connected to the rest of Salt Lake City improve the overall reliability and quality of bus service in the Grove neighborhoods. through a variety of reliable transportation Westside and make efforts to improve the quality and One of the most common issues brought up modes that give residents convenient options for accessibility of bus stops in the community. in community meetings was the lack of getting around As part of Salt Lake City's citywide transit master plan,the role connectivity between the Westside and the • Home to a healthy and diverse industrial of rail service—especially streetcar—in the Westside should be rest of the city.Isolation is due to historical business community that provides a growing reviewed and the city should consider how it can be used to development of the city,the railroads,and employment and economic base for Salt Lake strengthen the east west connections between the Westside the placement of 1-15 and 1-80. City and downtown. Goals: Salt Lake City should focus efforts on realizing the proposed • Strengthen the connections both within and bus rapid transit(BRT)route on Redwood Road,as identified in between the Westside and other parts of Salt the 2011-2040 Wasatch Front Regional Transportation Plan,as Lake City by improving the community's redevelopment necessitates direct and efficient travel to both gateways and corridors and strengthening the Redwood Road employment centers(from outside the transportation network for all modes of travel. community)and those downtown,at the University of Utah and at Research Park.BRT on Redwood Road within Salt Lake City should,at minimum,feature dedicated rights-of-way for buses with stations similar to those found at light rail stations. As a potential long-term project,Salt Lake City should consider the feasibility of a light rail or streetcar route on Redwood Road. Nelson 1Nygaard Consulting Associates,Inc.I A-4 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I APPENDIX A:PLANS&POLICIES Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Plan Owner Name of Plan Plan Purpose Goals/Vision Policies/Principles Recommended Strategies Salt Lake City Sugar House The Sugar House Master Plan is a visioning • An integrated program for mobility throughout • Develop the Sugar House Community to be a sustainable,attractive,harmonious Master Plan document for the Sugar House the community with a commitment toward and pedestrian oriented community. neighborhood.The Sugar House optimizing the pedestrian experience and • Provide a mix of housing types,densities,and costs to allow residents to work and neighborhood is slated to undergo alternatives to automobile travel,particularly in live in the same community.Locate higher density housing on or near public significant redevelopment. the Sugar House Business District,which is a transportation routes to afford residents the ability to reduce their reliance on the necessary element of a viable commercial automobile. center. • Direct a mixed-land use development pattern within the Sugar House Business District to include medium-and high-density housing and necessary neighborhood amenities and facilities.These developments will be compatibly arranged,taking full advantage of future transit stations,Sugar House Park,Fairmont Park,and the proximity to the retail core. • Provide for multiple modes of transportation that are safe,convenient and comfortable. • Support the use of transit for commuters and college students. • Support the construction of light rail along the Sugar House rail corridor and determine locations for future transit stations and park and ride facilities within the Sugar House Business District,near the Brickyard Plaza and on 2100 South near 2300 East. • Direct land use decisions to support a light rail station in the Business District. • Create a Citywide transit-oriented development(TOD)zoning district or overlay zone that may be applied to strategic areas and that require development,both public and private,to facilitate transit use. • Encourage UTA to acquire the Union Pacific rail line in order to preserve the options of converting the line to a"rails-with-trails"corridor for cycling,hiking, skating and a light rail line. • Prohibit development that encroaches upon or utilizes the Union Pacific railroad line right-of-way if that development compromises future use of the right-of-way for a trail or light-rail system. • Enforce against those individuals who have illegally built structures that encroach upon the railroad right-of-way. • Encourage UTA to provide more frequent and efficient bus service throughout Salt Lake City. • Improve bus stops to ensure adequate access,safety and comfort for transit riders,including more bus shelters that are fully enclosed glass structures at bus stops. • Create a mini-shuttle system between shopping areas,hotels,offices,and metro links in the Sugar House community. • Support the use of alternative fuels for mass transit systems for cleaner air such as electric,methanol,and other methods of cleaner burning engines. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates,Inc.I A-5 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I APPENDIX A:PLANS&POLICIES Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Plan Owner Name of Plan Plan Purpose Goals/Vision Policies/Principles Recommended Strategies Salt Lake City Plan Salt Lake(In Plan Salt Lake sets a citywide Vision for Sustainability:The goal of livability and making our Plan is broken into 13 guiding principles,each with a set of initiatives,#4. Initiatives: progress-August Salt Lake City for the next 25 years. city one of the greenest,most inclusive,and Transportation&Mobility:A transportation and mobility network that is safe, 1.Create a complete circulation network and ensure convenient 2014 last version) economically viable cities in the country. accessible,reliable,affordable,and sustainable,providing real choices and equitable access to a variety of transportation options by: Connectivity&Circulation:Connectivityand connecting people with places. • Having a public transit stop within 1/4 mile of all circulation are critical to responsible,sustainable • More affordable,safe,and accessible choices for all residents growth.We must ensure that our neighborhoods • More accessible and more convenient transit • Expanding pedestrian and bicycle networks and facilities and districts are well connected by both providing a • Multimodal transportation network to decrease automobile dependency in all areas of the City wide range of transportation and mobility options Embedded art and pedestrian elements into our transportation network to • Providing incentives for the use of transit and increasing the number of connections in our reinforce communityidentity,enhance qualityof life,and better utilizepublic right-Smaller blocks and a diversity of y 9 • Enhancing the regional transportation network connections are necessary to achieve this. of-ways for people,not just cars. • Creating a system of connections so that residents may easily access employment,goods and services, 2040 TARGETS: neighborhood amenities,and housing. 1.Public transit within 1/4 mile of all homes 2.Reduce automobile dependency and single occupancy vehicle trips. 2.Reduce Single Occupancy auto trips 3.Make walking and cycling viable,safe,and convenient 3.Decrease pedestrian,bike,and auto accidents transportation options in all areas of the City. 4.Prioritize maintenance of existing infrastructure(enhancing quality of life,safety,sustainability,and mobility). 5.Encourage transit-oriented development(TOD). 6.Support and enhance the Salt Lake International Airport as a regional and international amenity(including freight). 7.Collaborate with regional partners to relieve congestion and enhance rights-of-way for alternative modes of transportation. 8.Enhance rights-of-way to join,rather than segregate, adjacent neighborhoods. 9.Incorporate green infrastructure into our rights-of-way and transportation network. 10.Incorporate pedestrian oriented elements,including street trees,pedestrian scale lighting,signage,and embedded art, into our rights-of-way and transportation networks. Salt Lake City Bike/Ped Master The purpose of the bicycle and pedestrian Enhance use of the bicycle for transportation and Incorporate a multiple use trail into the planning for the future Plan(2004) master plan is to provide SCL with a strong recreation,and walking for pleasure and mobility. transit use of the UTA rail corridor to Sugar House. planning tool that will facilitate the continued Foster community respect for bicycling and Coordinate with the UTA to continue to provide bicycle storage and orderly development of bicycle and walking.Promote bicycling and walking as ways to on buses and light rail vehicles and to ensure bicycle pedestrian facilities and implementation enhance personal health and improve the accommodation on future commuter rail trains. strategies that encourage their use. community environment. Coordinate with UDOT to provide sidewalks on UDOT roads within SLC to improve pedestrian access to transit stops and other community facilities. Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates,Inc.I A-6 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I APPENDIX A:PLANS&POLICIES Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Plan Owner Name of Plan Plan Purpose Goals/Vision PolicieslPrinciples Recommended Strategies Salt Lake City Sustainable Salt Salt Lake City's sustainable transportation • Deliver transportation services that result in a "Livability"has emerged as a unifying theme for framing our priorities.We have • Increase,improve,and promote transit service to and within Lake Plan(2015) system provides safe travel options for zero carbon footprint and make the environment focused on making our city one of the greenest,most inclusive,and economically the city: residents,is affordable and efficient,limits better viable municipalities in the country. • Complete and open the Sugar House Streetcar,and waste and resource use,and supports a • Develop a sustainable,high-performance complete implementation plan for Phase 2. vibrant economy. transportation system that supports a robust • Fund or begin construction on a downtown streetcar. economy • Complete a citywide streetcar network plan. • Enhance quality of life by integrating • Finalize plans to extend TRAX along 400 South from Main transportation with the built environment Street to the Intermodal Hub. • Work with Utah Transit Authority to extend TRAX service until 1:00 a.m.,and to provide a"Next Bus"pilot program. • Work with UTA to finalize plans for a mountain transportation system. Salt Lake City Central The Central Community Master Plan • Protect and improve the quality of life for Community provides policy guidelines for Salt Lake City everyone living in the community,regardless of Master Plan commissions,boards and administrative age or ability. (2002) entities to use when directing and • Improve and support community involvement, implementing projects,programs and public public participation,and neighborhood activism policies that require review, in the Central Community. recommendations and approval.This • Provide a basis for funding specific programs master plan serves the community by that assist housing,capital improvement providing policies and principles for a programs,and public services. sustained and enhanced environment for • Provide opportunities for smarter and more living and working in the Central creative development practices to better serve Community. the community. • Prevent inappropriate growth in specific parts of the community. • Encourage specific types of growth in designated parts of the community. • Establish financial incentives to support alternative modes of mobility. • Preserve historic structures and residential neighborhoods. • Establish recommendations for better coordination and administrative review of construction projects and city applications. Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates,Inc.I A-7 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I APPENDIX A:PLANS&POLICIES Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Plan Owner Name of Plan Plan Purpose GoalsNision Policies/Principles Recommended Strategies Salt Lake City North Temple This plan provides a framework for land use Boulevard Design Book Goals: Design Principles: Recommends Transit Station Area Types that include: Boulevard Master and urban design decisions that will be • Provide policy and urban design direction and • Design for transit:Utilize transit as a catalyst.Integrate transit into the design of • Mix of land uses Plan(2010) required as North Temple changes from an guidelines. the street to improve the physical character,livability,functionality and economic • Design standards and guidelines auto oriented street to a street that • Promote high qualityand functional street vitality while providing a memorable welcoming experience for all users. accommodates all modes. 9 • Circulation and connectivity design with efficient project implementation. • Design for safety:Design safe and functional streets for all users. • Station access This plan covers 2 A miles along North • Develop a more balanced approach to street • Design for access and mobility:Multimodal streets should accommodate all Temple Boulevard from 600 West out to • Public spaces design,giving equal weight to transportation, users by prioritizing the most energy and space efficient modes. 2200 West.The plan covers five station • Parking transit,community and environmental goals. • Design for context:Streets help define the character of the City and should areas:Viaduct,800 West,Fairpark,Cornell, • Ensure that the investment in high quality street respond to the unique qualities and the environment around the street. Specific strategies include(not a comprehensive list): and a combined area for 1950 West and infrastructureyields economic benefits and • Effectivelymanage parkingaround station areas 2200 West(future station area). • Design for livability:Create vibrant,high quality public spaces that facilitate civic, 9 increases in residential and commercial property cultural,recreational and economic interactions. • Recognize streets as being important public spaces This street serves as a major thoroughfare values and retail activity. between downtown and neighborhoods and • Design for sustainability:Contribute to a healthier,greener,and more • Establish minimum residential density of 20 DU per acre businesses in the Northwest Community. • Make all expenditures on this project cost sustainable environment. • Provide a range of housing options effective. • Design for excellence:Create memorable streets designed to the highest • Rezone the station areas The addition of the Airport Light Rail Line aesthetic standardspossible,usingdurable materials. will result in North Temple Blvd.playing a • Develop design guidelines that support pedestrian-friendly new role in the community—it will be a • Design for cost effectiveness:Provide the greatest possible value to the public environment major element of the region's mass transit that meets todayi;s needs as well as the needs of the future. • Design direct pedestrian routes to station areas system connecting the entire system to the • Each Station Area has its own set of policies many of which overlap: • Identify transit-friendly land uses that are appropriate in the airport.The Light Rail line will require • Development:Use innovative zoning techniques to create high quality projects station area removal of a center turn lane and one that build on the station area's assets. vehicle lane in each direction. • Connectivity:Improve the pedestrian environment to create a safe and walkable transit-oriented neighborhood. • Mix of Uses:Intensify the mix of uses. • Placemaking:Create safe,vibrant and useful public spaces and urban infrastructure. • Destinations:Enhance the area as a regional destination and transfer location. • Mobility:Improve the pedestrian environment to create a walkable transit-oriented neighborhood. • Residential Density:Increase the residential density around the 800 West Station. Salt Lake City Mayor's Livability Second term mayor agenda and vision for The Administration will work to further develop • Expand and raise awareness of various transportation options. • Aggressively develop a neighborhood transit system with a Agenda(2012) SLC connections between the City's activity centers • Lead the region in user-friendly applications that help people move around the streetcar network as its backbone. with a safe,clean and green travel network that will city. • Evaluate the potential for an"owl"TRAX.Provide a late night help us 1)use resources and time efficiently and • Use mobility as a defining feature to compete in the 21st century economy and schedule for after last call wisely to get around town;2)connect with our environment. • Partner to develop a"Next Bus"pilot program. fellow residents through personal interactions;3) • Ensure secure and comfortable experience for all transportation system users • Advocate for a year-round Canyons Shuttle and Mountain foster stronger relationships with our local Transportation System.Through an expansion of the recently businesses,entertainment,and arts organizations; established UTA bus route to Park City that may include Mill and 4)share and enjoy our parks and natural Creek and Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons,our residents spaces. and visitors could have direct,year-round access from Salt Lake City to the Wasatch Canyons via transit. • Work with UTA to bring back the direct TRAX connection between downtown and the University of Utah. • Build a better bus stop.Develop bus stops that are safe, inviting and entertaining places to wait. Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates,Inc.I A-8 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I APPENDIX A:PLANS&POLICIES Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Plan Owner I Name of Plan Plan Purpose GoalsNision Policies/Principles Recommended Strategies Salt Lake Chamber Downtown Rising Led by the Salt Lake Chamber and the Downtown Rising is a shared vision for a great TOD Goal:Establish the benefits of TOD through land use designations,design TOD:Includes section on transit-oriented development and and Downtown (initiated in 2006) Downtown Alliance,Downtown Rising is an American City that embraces art,culture and guidelines,zoning,and public funding. designates three transit-oriented development land use Alliance evolving vision for the future of Downtown education.It envisions a community that is classifications for the neighborhood(low-,medium-,and high- SLC.The vision includes creating character welcoming,green and international. density).Specific strategies include: districts,signature projects,and shared • Support a variety of low-,medium-and high-density ideas about shaping the future of the city. residential uses around light rail stations in TOD districts, based on the Future Land Use map designations. • At light rail stations in TOD districts,establish a centralized core of land uses that support transit ridership.Anchor transit centers with land uses that act as destination points. • Encourage a variety of commercial uses that share the same clientele and patrons.For example,movie theaters provide a clientele to patronize restaurants,arcades,and retail businesses. Other Access and Mobility Strategies: • Design:With new development encourage the construction of direct pedestrian pathways and/or pedestrian zones to connect with neighboring land uses,parking lots and mass transit. UTA Five Year Service The Five-Year Service Plan(2013-2018) Basis for development of service improvement concepts: • Recommended route classifications(page 2-2) Plan(2013) synthesizes and prioritizes service • Service level improvements • Three service concepts were developed based on different improvement concepts across multiple funding levels and the following improvements: modes and business units within the UTA • Improve route headway • Increase hours of operation —Operating on fewer streets within downtown Salt Lake City system.This document shows the level of • —Creatingan interconnected network of routes with 10 resources necessary to meet unmet needs, • Add weekend service where appropriate address capacity issues,and expand the • System design improvements minute headways high-frequency service network throughout • Streamline alignments to improve directness and simplicity o Route 2 jV 22th Utah,Salt Lake,Weber,and Davis o Route 31 jV 31 00 South/2100 East • Reduce service duplication and improve route spacing o Route 33 jV 3300 South Counties. • Increase service to major activity centers o Route 35M jV 3500 South MAX Plan looks at how to improve the efficiency • Introduce new services targeting potential customers o Route 200 IV State Street North and effectiveness of UTA's service;purely ridership driven process. —Shortening or interlining several routes within the University of Utah campus to reduce running time and improve schedule reliability —Improving headways and service span for many routes —Adding Sunday service to all core arterial routes —Adding Saturday service to all arterial routes Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates,Inc.I A-9 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I APPENDIX A:PLANS&POLICIES Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Plan Owner Name of Plan Plan Purpose GoalsNision Policies/Principles Recommended Strategies UTA UTA Network The Network Study identifies the next group Customer focus • Salt Lake County State Street Bus Plus Study(2013) of capital and operating improvements that Finances/funding • 5600 West Transit Corridor—BRT from Daybreak TRAX to the Utah Transit Authority(UTA)will focus Economic development International Center via 1-80 to downtown SLC on delivering after completion of the • Bus Plus frequent transit network FrontLines 2015 program. Ridership/service • Double ridership through full funding of the • More frequent FrontRunner service and operational U improvements Unified Plan • Increase levels of service by 50% • SLC Downtown LRT Connection • Reduce average customer trip time by 25% • South Davis Transit Corridor—fixed-guideway transit from SL Intermodal Center to 400 North(BRT assumed) • Develop a fully integrated first/last mile • Active transportation improvements(bike share,bike access • Find and attract new markets for ridership on FrontRunner vehicles,and more direct access to transit) Accountability • SLC Downtown Streetcar from SL Intermodal Center to 1300 Transit oriented development East • Partner with stakeholders on station area • Sugarhouse Streetcar planning • Mountain Transportation—improved transit from SLC to • Pursue public-private partnerships recreation in Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons Sustainability • Operate a balanced fleet of alternative fuel vehicles • Support clean air initiatives including pass programs and partnerships with other state and local air quality groups Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates,Inc.I A-10 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I APPENDIX A:PLANS&POLICIES Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Plan Owner Name of Plan Plan Purpose Goals/Vision Policies/Principles Recommended Strategies UTA UTA Strategic 2020 Strategic Plan Relevant Focus Areas/Goals: Plan(2013) Finance/funding Ridership/service • Double ridership through full funding of the Unified Plan • Increase levels of service by 50 percent • Develop new fare products and equitable fare policies • Reduce the average customer trip time by 25 percent • Develop a fully integrated First/Last Mile Strategy • Find and attract new markets for ridership Accountability Transit oriented development • Partner with communities and external stakeholders on UTA station area planning processes • Pursue more public-private partnerships to leverage UTA assets in order to generate revenue that can support more transit service Economic Development • Promote economic benefits of transit to existing companies along the Wasatch Front Sustainability • Support clean air initiatives including pass programs and partnerships with other state and local Air Quality groups • Operate a balanced fleet of alternative fuel vehicles Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates,Inc.I A-11 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I APPENDIX A:PLANS&POLICIES Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Plan Owner Name of Plan Plan Purpose GoalsNision Policies/Principles Recommended Strategies UTA UTA First/Last The purpose of this First/Last Mile Recommendations provided based on established station Mile Study(in Strategies Study is to identify a short list of typologies. progress) strategies to prioritize that would be most Station typologies based on walk access,active transportation effective in increasing system ridership. mode split,non-auto access mode split,and availability of Scope of study focuses primarily on parking supply: FrontRunner and TRAX facilities however • Urban BRT and streetcar line facilities were also • Multimodal considered. The study estimated ridership increases by • Institutional station typology assuming recommended • Suburban strategies are implemented. • Suburban non-residential • Auto-dependent FMLM strategies were recommended by station typology. Urban typology strategies(for example): • Wayfinding and information • Bicycle network connections • Pedestrian network improvements • Crossing treatments • Bikesharing • Car sharing • Rail/bus stop enhancements WFRC Wasatch Choice The Wasatch Choice for 2040 is a vision for Growth principles and objectives: Relevant Objectives for the TMP for 2040 how agencies and communities will develop • Provide Public Infrastructure that is Efficient and Adequately Maintained • Develop a balanced,multi-modal transportation system. our communities and transportation system • Provide Regional Mobility through a Variety of Interconnected Transportation • Coordinate transportation with regional employment, to accommodate projected population Choices housing,educational and activity centers. growth.I the Davis,next30 years,, the Utah • Integrate Local Land-Use with Regional Transportation Systems • Encourage future commercial and residential areas within inSalt Lake,Davis,Weber,and Utah close proximity of each other to reduce travel distances. counties is projected to increase by 65 • Provide Housing for People in all Life Stages and Incomes percent,adding another 1.4 million • Ensure Public Health and Safety • Encourage a balance of jobs and housing in each part of the residents. • Enhance the Regional Economy region to reduce travel distances. Wasatch Choice 2040 is an Envision Utah • Promote Regional Collaboration • Support actions that reduce growth in per capita vehicle miles project. • Strengthen Sense of Community travel. • Coordinate regional transportation with centers of • Protect and Enhance the Environment development. • Coordinate transportation decisions with schools and educational centers. • Make land-use and transportation decisions based on comprehensive understanding of their impact on each other. Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates,Inc.I A-12 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I APPENDIX A:PLANS&POLICIES Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Plan Owner Name of Plan Plan Purpose GoalsNision Policies/Principles Recommended Strategies WFRC WFRC Regional The Regional Transportation Plan is the The 2040 Regional Transportation Plan(RTP)must conform to the Utah State Downtown SLC Major Transit Projects Transportation transportation element of Wasatch Choice Implementation Plan(SIP)for air quality.This means that the vehicle emissions • 200 South Streetcar and BRT from 600 W/200S to Plan(2011) for 2040 covering the period 2011 to 2040. resulting from the transportation projects proposed in the 2040 RTP may not exceed 200S/200E The RTP is the plan for all regionally the level or"budget"set for them in the SIP. • Downtown SLC Branded Bus significant road and highway,public transit capacity-expansion and preservation • University TRAX Line to SL Central TRAX Connection projects in the Wasatch Front.The RTP • SW Downtown SLC Streetcar(Granary Line) also incorporates other modes of • SL Downtown Transit Center(transit hub at 200 S/State transportation,including bicycle,pedestrian, Street trucking and transportation for seniors and • Interstate-80 Transit Only Freeway Ramps persons with disabilities. Envision Utah Envision Utah Beginning in 1997,Envision Utah launched Envision Utah engages people to create and a public effort to keep Utah beautiful, sustain communities that are beautiful,prosperous, prosperous,healthy,and neighborly for healthy and neighborly for current and future future generations. It's a strategy residents. developed by the people of Utah to make our lives better—that provides more choices for how we,and the next generation,would like to live. UDOT Unified The Unified Transportation Master Plan is • Preserve infrastructure Salt Lake County Transit Projects Transportation the state's long range transportation plan • Optimize Mobility • 200 South—Salt Lake Central to Downtown Salt Lake Master Plan (2011 to 2040). • Zero fatalities Streetcar and Enhanced • Strengthen the economy • SLC-Foothill Drive-Wasatch Drive Corridor—SLC to Little Cottonwood Canyon(1st of 3 phases)Enhanced Bus/BRT • State Street Bus Rapid Transit—Salt Lake Central to Draper FrontRunner(1st of 3 Phases)Enhanced Bus • Draper Line TRAX Extension(South)—10000 South TRAX Station to 12600 South TRAX Station Light Rail • WFRC Redwood Road Bus Rapid Transit—Downtown SL to Draper FrontRunner(1st of 3 Phases) CorPres/BRT/Enhanced • 5600 West Corridor—Downtown Salt Lake to Daybreak CorPres/BRT • West Bench Corridor Preservation(11400 South)CorPres Local Contribution • Sugarhouse Streetcar(1st Phase)—2100 South TRAX to Highland Drive/Sugarmont Streetcar • 3900 South/3500 South Corridor(west)—Meadowbrook TRAX Station to West Bench(2nd of 4 Phases)Bus Rapid Transit • Taylorsville Murray Central Segment—Murray Downtown to SLCC Redwood(1st of 2 Phases)Enhanced Bus • Taylorsville Murray West Valley Segment—SLCC Redwood to W.V.Intermodal(1st of 2 Phases)Enhanced Bus Nelson Nygaard Consulting Associates,Inc.I A-13 APPENDIX B Route-Level Performance Measures (2014) STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I APPENDIX B:ROUTE LEVEL PERFORMANCE MEASURES(2014) Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan APPENDIX B: ROUTE-LEVEL PERFORMANCE MEASURES (2014) Annual Annual Annual Annual weekday Weekday Weekday Weekday Weekday Service Type Description Services weekday weekday weekday incremental tin t; tin t/ tin t/ boondie / /Route p pan w y y passenger operating cost operating cost open ding cost gs, boarding§ service hours miles operating cost boarding service hour passenger mile service hour 7,-';'•A 3 6,8` 16;60.467 3' 18,357,893 .36 •.6 $0. t $23.69- 2 200 South All-Da7 503,180 11,938 804,679 $ 579,901 61.15 $48.57 $072 $42.15 3 ':3rd Avenue All-Day 146,703 6,996 389,689 $ 338,407 $2.31 $48.37 $0.87 $20.97 -6 6th Avenue All-Day 234,539 6,485 612,715 $ 331,461 $1.41 $51.11 $0.54 $36.16 9 9th Avenue All-Day 100,223 5,703 194,430 $ 302,706 $3.02 $53.08 $1.56 $17.57 11 11 th Avenue All-Da9 102,466 4,798 241,241 $ 249,822 $2.44 $52.06 $104 $21 35 17 1700 South All-Da9 95,940 5,330 188,699 $ 278,885 8291 $52.33 $1.48 $18.00 21 2100 South/2100 East _ All-Da9 519,287 17,225 1,499,094 $ 897,078 $1 73 $52.08 $0.60 _$30.15 200 State Street North All-Day 898,639 28,166 2,823,918 $ 1,399,357 $1.56 $49.68 $0.50 $31.90 205 500 East All-Da9 588,829 21,241 1,558,319 $ 1,089,005 $1.85 $51.27 $0.70 _V$2772 209 900 East All-Da9 709,114 30,091 2,642,680 5 1,582,290 $2.23 $52.58 $0.60 $23.57 213 1300 Eost/1100 East All-Da9 271,857 15,580 1,200,820 $ 825,202 $3.04 $52.97 $0.69 $1745 217 Redwood Road All-Day 812,906 33,472 2,437,646 $ 1,855,885 $228 $55.45 $076 $24.29 220 Highland Drive/1300 East All-Day 442,982 23,129 2,403,409 $ 1,280,563 $2.89 $55.37 $0.53 __$19.15 223 2300 EAST/HOLLADAY BLVD All-Day 37,154 2,920 191,703 $ 173,691 $4.67 $59.48 _ $0.91 _$1272 228 FOOTHILL BLVD/2700 EAST All-Day 210,045 14,140 _1,126,847 $ 777,200 $370 $54.97 _ $0.69 $14.86 453 TOOELE-SALT LAKE VIA AIRPORT Peak-Only 69,775 4,633 1,865,164 $ 364,905 $5.23 $78.77 _$0.20 __$15.06 454 Grantsville/Salt Lake Peok-Only 10,096 683 285,733 $ 513,260 $5.77 $85.24 $0.20 _$14.77 455 UofU/Davis County/Weber State University All-Day 395,481 24,946 4,563,861 $ 1,493,275 $3.78 $59.86 $033 $15.85 456 Ogden/Unisys/Rocky Mountain Express Peak-Only 9,918 690 285,274 $ 45,276 $4.57 $6061 $0.16 $14.37 460 Woods Cross Peok-Only 19,471 732 97,318 $ 47,469 $244 $64.84 $0.49 $26.60 461 Bountiful via State Capitol Peok-Only 22,821 1,468 151,469 $ 96,460 $4.23 $65.69 $0.64 $15.54 462 North Salt Lake Peak-Only 24,199 1,079 123,411 $ 69,180 $2.86 $64.10 $0.56 $22.42 -- 463 West Bountiful Peak-Only 13,033 727 76,079 $ 46,496 $3.57 $63.99 $0.61 $17.94 470 Ogden-Solt Lake Intercity All-Day 891,868 45,298 8,772,891 $ 2,609,512 $293 $57.61 $0.30 $19.69 471 Centerville Peak-Only 21,441 866 189,783 $ 59,565 $2.78 $68.79 $0.31 _$2476 500 State Capitol All-Day 134,731 6,367 236,776 $ 317,122 $2.35 $49.81 _ $1.34 $21.16 516 Poplar Grove/Glendale All-Day 257,680 11,298 805,1398 $ 583,623 $2.26 $51.66 _ $0.72 _.$22.81 519 Fairpark All-Da9 122,376 5,342 303,595 $ 285,796 $2.34 $53.50 $0._94 92291 520 Race Pork _ All-Day 79,821 4,761 183,159 $ 2.68,918 $3.37 $56.49 $1471 $1677 551 International Center Peok-Onl 30,694 753 104,169 $ 50,584 $1.65 $67.18 $0.49: $4076 307 Cottonwood Heights Fast&a Peak-Only 30,772 1,418 288,017 $ 87,492 $2.84 $61.69 $0.30 $2170 313 South Valley/U of U Fast Bus Peak-Only 28,076 1,774 367,433 $ 111,232 $3.96 $62.71 $0.30 $1583 320 Highland Drive Fast Bus Peak-Only 18,919 912 190,118 $ 53,715 $2.84 $58.90 _ $0.28 $2075 354 SANDY U OF U FAST BUS Peok-Only 30,921 1,602 262,794 $ 96,073 $3.11 $59,97 $0.37 $19.30 2X 200 SOUTH EXPRESS Peak-Only 36,954 434 126,948 $ 22,642 $0.61 $52.23 $0.18 $85.24 451 Tooele Express Peak-Only 92,847 2,928 2,475,051 $ 257,284 $2.77 $87.86 $0.10 $3171 472 Ogden-Salt Lake Express Peak-Only 124,811 3,213 2,572,312 1 236,503 $1.89 $73.61 $0.09 $38.85 473 SLC-Ogden Hwy Express Peak-Only 168,773 7,300 3,688,280 $ 467,587 $277 $64.05 $0.13 $23.12 902 Park Cit-SEC Connec Peak-Onl 28,634 2,220 697,500 $ 156,666 $5.47 $70.58 $0.22 $12.90 509 900 W Shuttle All-Day 192,303 8,521 1,082,810 $ 468,071 $243 $54.93 $043 $22.57 513 Industrial Business Pork Shuttle Peak-Only 30,248 1,987 215,241 $ 115,384 $3.81 $58.08 $0.54 $15.23 919 FAIRPARK(WEST HS) Peak-Only 16,674 130 50,407 $ 7,620 $046 $58.45 $0.15 $127.90 920 FAIRPARK EST HS) Peak-Only 14,975 128 43,891 $ 7,655 $0.51 $59.82 $0.17 $117.02 F522 2200 West Flex Shuttle Peok-Onl 7,770 1,130 N A $ 57,620 $742 $51.01 N A $6.88 951 Downtown SLC-Snowbird/Alto Seasonal 4,153 249 79,558 $ 16,597 $4.00 $66.55 $0.21 $16.65 952 U of U-Snowbird/Alta Seasonal 2,350 212 29,018 $ 13,477 $573 $63.66 $0.46 $11.10 954 Maverlk Center-Snowbird Alto Seasonal 369 44 1,500 $ 2,771 $7.51 $62.30 $1,85 $8.30 _... • $16694 Red -West Jordon-University Medical Center •All-Day 6,128,227 37,388, 40,734,794 $ 3,349,975 $0.55 $89.60 $0.08 $163.91 Green West Valley City to Airport All-Day 4,020,770 __28,009 14,440,606 $ 2,214,993 $0.55 $79.08 $0.15 $143.55 Blue Draper to Downtown SLC All-Day 6,043,8201 31,604- 30,569,487 $ 2,736,985 $045 $86.60 $0.09 $191.24 720 Egli .-,.e.,..-ME= ill13® 1 :21i11 $52.15 FR Ogden-SLC-Provo IMEMII 4,001,220 NM= 112,284,616®01" MMIZIMEMEMIIMall $13594 All Sonless 29,051,853 501,931 246,782,006 40,882,837 $1.41 $81.45 $0.17 $57.88 Bus Only* 8,599,946 370,553 48,421,268 $ 20,503,437 $2.38 $55.33 $042 $2321 e ExcludesSesonel Services Nelson 1Nygaard Consulting Associates,Inc.I B-1 STATE OF THE SYSTEM FACTBOOK I APPENDIX B:ROUTE LEVEL PERFORMANCE MEASURES(2014) Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan This page intentionally left blank. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates,Inc.I B-2 tom\ CC.___ • + IF- 0 J, z 1\78SSIIII,, ;111 r: • ,4 help us improve publicH transportation in SLC it , 1 ..,. 4111.44.\\ ,--0--,—._.,10. '-'2L I:1•00 iji I , .1 , illtil ,.. 11:, skr 'NOV r I t • gasi 0 Ici-,". - :ilia? '�rAl op NE Qvtak.0 P � R� AM P °‘ott Appendix B Community Outreach Public outreach is a key element in any master planning effort.The purpose of the Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan public outreach was to engage a broad and diverse section of the population in order to discuss and solicit ideas related to the development of the plan.To this effect,public outreach was conducted in all seven Council Districts of Salt Lake City and online.To ensure that a significant segment of the population had the opportunity to provide feedback,multiple opportunities for public involvement were offered,including:stakeholder interviews,mobile event outreach,public open houses,and on-line engagement. This section includes an overview and summary of key findings from the following outreach events: • Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Meet-and-Greet • Stakeholder Interview • Mobile Outreach Events • September 2015 Open House • Website Surveys • Design Your Transit System Survey KEY THEMES Much of the feedback received during all the public outreach activities for the Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan coalesced around a number of key themes.For example,many of the open- ended suggestions and comments received during the public outreach process focused on providing a complete and convenient transit system that allows for a car-free lifestyle,which was the top priority goal selected by Open House participants.In addition,many respondents expressed that public transit works relatively well for commuting to a few major employment centers,but that it is not a viable option for commuting at off-peak hours or for travel to areas outside the central business district.Other common themes included: • Provide TRAX service later in the evening(past-midnight) • Run neighborhood busses later in the evening • Improve transit stops • Develop frequent routes to areas other than downtown and the University of Utah • Develop a citywide network • Improve connections between routes and neighborhoods • Service non-sporting cultural events(plays,symphony,opera) • Service the west side and East Bench areas • Improve the maps and transit route information provided online and in print • Improve real-time information to better allow riders to know when the next bus is coming • Make prepaid fares more visible and accessible • Improve bicycle and pedestrian access to transit to increase usability of transit(bike share,bike paths,crosswalks) • Make sure that operators/transit personal are informed and courteous SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix B:Community Outreach I B-1 OVERVIEW OF OUTREACH EFFORTS AND INPUT Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Meet-and-Greet The project commenced with a"Meet-and-Greet,"held on January 27,2015 at the City Creek Harmons grocery store.This event gave the project team the opportunity to meet and have casual conversations about the intent of the Plan with members of the public early in the process.Key stakeholder groups that were invited to the Meet-and-Greet were: Salt Lake City Community Councils,Salt Lake City Council,Salt Lake City Transportation Advisory Board,Salt Lake City Planning Commission,Utah Transit Authority(UTA)Board of Trustees,Salt Lake County, Wasatch Front Regional Council,UDOT,Breathe Utah,Heal Utah,Salt Lake City School District, Envision Utah,Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce,Downtown Alliance,Crossroads Urban Center, University of Utah,Westminster College,Sugar House Chamber,and Salt Lake County Agency on Aging Adults. Stakeholder Interviews The project team met with several key stakeholder groups in the community during spring of 2015 to understand the needs of their organizations and constituencies.Interviews focused specifically on their goals for the Transit Master Plan,pros and cons of the current UTA network,level of understanding of the services provided,and any other issues such as accessibility,affordability, etc. Interviews were conducted with the following groups: • UTA—the project team was also in regular communication with UTA throughout the process • Wasatch Front Regional Council—1/27/15 • Utah Transit Riders Union—1/28/15 • University of Utah—1/28/15 and 4/7/15 • Salt Lake City Council—4/7/15 • Salt Lake City Transportation Advisory Board(TAB)—4/7/15 • Breathe Utah—4/7/15 • Salt Lake City's UTA Trustees—4/7/15 • South Salt Lake City—4/7/15 • UDOT—4/8/15 • Salt Lake City Chamber of Commerce—4/8/15 • Salt Lake City Downtown Alliance—4/8/15 • Salt Lake City Planning Commission—4/8/15 • Salt Lake County Aging and Adult Services—6/18/15 • Crossroads Urban Center—6/18/15 • Salt Lake City School District—6/19/15 In addition to the stakeholder interviews,there were a number of presentations and question and answer sessions for interested parties.Participants at these presentations included: Community Councils,the Business Advisory Board,Friends of the S Line,the Bicycle Advisory Board,the Transportation Advisory Board,FTA Region 8,and the Sugar House Chamber of Commerce. Common themes from the interviews are summarized here. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix B:Community Outreach I B-2 • Goals/Vision — Competitiveness with auto:To attract riders,public transit must be competitive with private automobile(in time and convenience). In addition to quality of transit service provided,the ease and low cost of driving impacts decision-making(cost and availability of parking,peak rush hour is only- 20 minutes) — Support current and future growth areas — Desire to be regional destination for culture/commerce — Need to meet local needs,not just commuter needs,e.g.intra-neighborhood and neighborhood to neighborhood travel • Service gaps — Better east-west service connectivity and more user-friendly west side service — Access to and between neighborhood business nodes/commercial districts — Employment centers o Better connections between service sector jobs and trunk routes o Better connections to final destination in downtown o Better service to Research park/University,which is a major employment hub • Other transit improvements stakeholders would like to see — Improved reliability/speed — Increased frequency — Improved bus stops(most stops have only a sign,no bench,no shelter) — Better,safer access to stops — Ease of use—simplicity of system and"legibility"/ease of understanding; especially utilize technology to improve access to information and system — Affordability of fares — Span of service,esp.late night service • Build transit"culture" — Individualized travel education program — Raise awareness/marketing—get opinion leaders riding transit and embracing it vocally/publically — Promote,promote,promote — Utilize pass programs and improved service to build transit culture — Overcome UTA public perception problem • Coordination between modes — Coordinate the Transit Master Plan with other transportation modal plans: Bike/Ped Master Plan,signal plan,parking plan,etc. — Integration with bike share is particularly important(esp.last mile connections) — Parking: Plentiful inexpensive parking undermines transit competitiveness — Focus on complete streets — TNCs,Car-to-go,other innovative modes SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN Appendix B: Community Outreach B-3 Mobile Outreach Events To develop a presence in the .. , • community and engage members of the public that do not traditionally zit -di'-+e' attend open houses,the team R'S $a v V _launched a mobile outreach effort mprove public SLC : — during the summer of 2015.This effort took advantage of existing y 'y city-wide and neighborhood events. .44 A number of these events included the use of a"trolley"that was modified to allow members of the public to board,interact with members of the project team,and engage in the outreach activities. HEAP Pv At all events,the project team used OAPROv ORtpS,oN presentation boards to convey key Otik05 P 1,1, �E findings about the existing transit 1 ��5P 1f4' system and its users from the State of the System Fact Book.Attendees were invited to provide feedback Mobile outreach at the Avenues Street Fair,summer 2015. Source:Fehr&Peers via comment boards and a map where they could indicate key service needs.Over 40o individual comments were collected during the Mobile Outreach events.The mapping exercise allowed event attendees the opportunity to geographically highlight routes that need improvement in one of the following areas: improved service,longer service,or new service. The team attended a total of 17 mobile outreach events,shown in the map on the following page: • Living Traditions—5/15/15 ■ Rose Park Fest—5/16/15 ■ World Refugee Fest—6/6/15 • Parley's Way Corridor Study—6/17/15 • 9th West Farmers Market—6/21/15 ■ Food Truck Thursday—6/25/15 • Partners in the Park—7/7/15 SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix B: Community Outreach I B-4 • Granary Row—7/31/15 S A ,, `+ x N • Groove in the Grove—8/4/15 �T ��E. ,-- lir GI Ty • DIY Fest—8/8/15 __ slegOv,com/transportati,,, • 9th West Farmers Market— N 8/16/15 +�� • Sugarmont Farmers Market— o0'wl i " , — 8/205 ` t I — ■ Downtown Farmers Market— - - 8/22/15 — V 10-' ■ University of Utah Plazafest— 8/26/15 • Avenues Street Fair—9/12/15 • Foothill Village Outreach 111111 — 9/17/15 H • 9th&9th Street Fair—9/19/15 IMpR" Mobile outreach at Groove in the Grove,summer 2015. Source:Fehr&Peers SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix B: Community Outreach 1 B-5 Salt Lake City— I Transit Master Plan Mobile Outreach Map TRANSIT Summer MASTER PLAN RDSF PAR K{OAUVA RrrIY F.E57a1fAL .41.Ai!'.''.T`; FTOSL'PARK May 1 S-Living Traditions May 16-Rose Park Commu pity Festival JUNEEVENT5 51 _ . . r June 6-World Refugee Pay - I-,-,1 i I I ._ 's Tune 17-Parley's Way Corridor Study fxrRP.aLltlt 1� v lu ne 21-5ath West Farmer's filarliet o olr7tsdMrr?l 1 �alliiiMii � 3u ne 22-Food Truck Monday 9 Sugarmord North Tern le - Ju no 25-Food Tn.g.li Thursday 9 Gallivan F t {I r r" r i r r �J.. A.,..... 11111110, JULY NT 40MM«tRFI PRIM MAW {1TY eer msr . w a w FsJ111k FxS# July 7-Partners In the Park �"" . July 31 -Granary Rc' L usary iatmf err uTs.N 1 400 Sooth AUGUST EVENTS r +qusk 4-Groove In the Grove Llwl>fIGT1sutOltM]r# • Augusta -Craft 1-al.Clty --•'•••-.. ' August 16-9th Wert Farmer's Market Por:twa Gaovs August 23-Sugar Nvusefarm s M/Ate III1E August 22-Opmtm+rnFarmer#Marltet �I• y ifi & � N �''o• ' August 2 H-LI of LI Plaza Fist ' ta III � 1 " A E SEF(EMBERELENlS 11� 3 ' POCIPPILLWA C11110f1 • September 12-Avenues Street Fair . -- mod- in.hi 14ORLDIIEFL' 'Jy ii J I. September 1 7-Foot hill'Village Outreach -_E���tiI . , .. '� •_, � ■ i .,'�p September 14-9t h&9th Street Fest Kral El tl • ....m _ lam 171 QS t7 open ho s sudie siousEc i rsii■arr • PAN111"s1trc4ltRla4ltstuoY • cITY CREEK HARMONS GROCERY Y I. —_ i __ ' SUGAR HOUSE ' September 23, 2015 5:00pm-7:00pm DISTRICT =F a Y•- �' q SJLLTI<JL1�E CITY COIR1POItATION r� • pq 135 East 100 South -._. ElVISION�fTUANSPORTATIC .T.; ••;-+74 , , SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 1 Appendix B:Community Outreach 1 B-6 Comment Boards At the Mobile Outreach events,participants wrote their comments on sticky notes and placed them on the comment board.These comments were then classified into one of the following typologies: Frequency,Span of Service,Connectivity,Speed and Reliability,Stop access,Stop Amenities,Fares,System Legibility,Transit Culture,Other Transit Related Comments,and Not Relevant.The following list and graph(Figure B-1)shows the portion of total comments that fell into each typology and a sample representative comment that was received at a Mobile Outreach event attributed to this typology. • Connectivity(18%) "Better East-West connections!!" • Fares(13%) "Sell Farepay cards at more places and be in every neighborhood" • Other Transit Related Comments(13%) "No tracks on 110o East.Run electric bus instead" • Frequency(12%) "More frequent and longer services.Services not only geared toward 9-5 crowd" • Span of Service(9%) "Run TRAX 1 hr.later on weekends" • Speed and Reliability(8%) "Faster/more direct service between Salt Lake and Airport" • Transit Culture(6%) "Provide drivers with adequate pay to be genial to riders" • Stop Amenities(6%) "More benches and station amenities like covered stops and garbage cans" • Stop access(5%) "I love the paved path by the Sugar House Trolley!" • System Legibility(5%) "Not being accurate on the GPS is a problem" • Not Relevant(5%) "The newer 30o South bike lanes are dangerous due to inattentive drivers attempting to enter/leave driveways" SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix B: Community Outreach I B-7 Figure B-1 Mobile Outreach Key Themes •Connectivity 5% 5% 18% ■Fares 5% ■Other 6% ■Frequency 6% 13% •Span of service •Speed and Reliability A 13% •Transit Culture •Stop amenities •Stop access Mapping Exercise At the Mobile Outreach events and September Open House,attendees were invited to identify areas on a map that they believed needed transit improvements.Options for transit service improvements included improved service,longer service,or new service.The most frequent location for improved service quality was District 1,with travel to District 4 most sought after. District 4,with travel to District 6,was the location most frequently identified in need of longer hours of service.Travel from District 1 to Districts 4 and 6 were the most frequently identified areas for new transit routes. Figure B-2 Salt Lake City Council Districts W I,en to t•1 3 t -ad& ;noo 113 LU_L'JiA^57 �(G J rs` Z_- 111hqa Go ui,s ESuu th Temple>t., District 4 • EsooS Im<islr • W ..lieil be I46nn s� v1' 4• F;d. District 2 •rolls E 1,CO S - cry 5 District 7 (,Vw°-W South a ;2tis SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix B: Community Outreach B-8 The culmination of the Salt Lake City Transit Master • • Plan's summer outreach _ efforts was an Open House held at the City Creek - - �, Harmons grocery store on September 23,2oi 1 5.The team ' , ! �;, 4,ilif presented the educational .�. .. :i +_ ;,i i boards from the mobile ' } outreach effort as well as boards that showed key gaps where land use density or I I s. i demographics indicate a 11) propensity to ride transit,but Iiiiii i_ . where there is little transit use. The Open House also had an opportunity for participants to Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Open House provide input on three Source.Fehr&Peers "conversation boards."One allowed them to prioritize goals for the Transit Master Plan,one asked for input on service design principles,and one invited conversation on maps&information, fares,and access&station improvements. Key participations statistics were: • Open house attendees—60 • Board exercise participants—40 • Comments—64 Goals Board At the Open House participants were invited to identify which of the Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan goals most resonated with their vision for an ideal transit network.Over 5o%of respondents identified"Provide a complete and convenient transit system that supports a car-free lifestyle"as their top goal(Figure B-3). SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix B: Community Outreach I B-9 Figure B-3 Goals 4% •Provide complete,convenient 9% system; support car-free lifestyle •Improve air quality 11% Increase the number of people riding transit 52% •Create economically vibrant, livable places •Provide access to opportunity for 13% vulnerable populations Provide safe,comfortable transit access&waiting experience Service Design Principle Board At the Open House,participants were invited to identify which of the Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan's service design principles was the most important to the success of the project. Almost 5o%of respondents identified"Connected: provide simple citywide connections on a high-frequency network"as the most important service design principle(Figure B-4). Figure B-4 Service Design Principles 5% 5% 8% ■Connected •Convenient 47% Permanent •Legible •Easy to Use Demand Driven 27% SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix B:Community Outreach I B-10 Website Surveys The project team also developed a project website: SLCRides.org.This website ensured that Salt Lake City residents who were unable to attend one of the in-person public outreach events could learn about the Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan.SLCRides.org included detailed information about the project,outreach events planned and completed,project reports and documentation, and any survey tools open to the public. The project team created a short online survey during the summer(open July 3o to October 1, 2015)through Open City Hall that was linked from the project website.UTA also developed a survey that was open to the public during summer 2015(closed October 1,2015)that was accessible from the UTA website. Key participation statistics were: • Open City Hall—535 responses • Open UTA—461 total respondents with 74 respondents of these residing in Salt Lake City • Direct Comments on SLCRides—In addition to the available online surveys,7 participants wrote direct emails through the SLCRides website Open City Hall Survey The Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan website(SLCRides.org)allowed residents to take an Open City Hall survey.This survey asked respondents to identify their top choices regarding key outcomes from the Plan,desired improvements,and"big ideas"they have related to transit. Each of the questions and breakdown of responses are shown in the following graphics.The most salient findings are: • Air quality(49%)and transit system convenience and reliability(41%)are the most important outcomes(Figure B-5)of the plan for the large majority of respondents(9o% combined) • Pedestrian and bicycle access to stops(28%)was the highest ranking improvement (Figure B-6) • A citywide network is the most important big idea(Figure B-7)for a majority of respondents(51%) SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix B:Community Outreach I B-11 Figure B-5 Outcomes 4% 3% 2 0 1% •Air Quality •Convenience and Reliability 49% Better Design •Equitable Access 41% ■Land Use Improved Economy Figure B-6 Improvements 3%—\ 2% •Pedestrian and bicycle access to stops 8°' •More neighborhood service 28% 11% Frequent transit service •Shorter travel time •Later weekday service 12% More weekend service 19% Better maps and information 17% Stop amenities SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix B:Community Outreach I B-12 Figure B-7 Big Ideas 4% 7% Citywide network Affordable transit pass .1% Zero emission vehicles Streetcars 28% Bike share integration Open UTA Survey UTA's survey asked responders to identify their top choices regarding service improvements,bus improvements,light rail(TRAX)improvements,and FrontRunner improvements.The following graphs represent responses from Salt Lake City residents.The most salient findings are: • Bus is the most important mode for improvement(45%),followed by TRAX and Streetcar (35%)—(Figure B-8) • Improving service span is the most important bus improvement(50%),followed by service later at night(31%) —(Figure B-9) • Late night service is the most important TRAX improvement(47%),followed by direct service between the Airport to the University(19%)—(Figure B-io) • Sunday service is the overwhelming top priority for FrontRunner enhancement(59%)— (Figure B-11) SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix B:Community Outreach I B-13 Figure B-8 Service Improvements 3% 1% 0% •Bus service 16% •TRAX&streetcar service 45% FrontRunner service •Active transportation •Rail station and bus stop 35% improvements Vanpool,carpool and other Rideshare services Figure B-9 Bus Improvements 1% •Bus service running more often •Bus service running later at night 50% Bus service to more places •More weekend bus service Bus service running earlier in the morning SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix B:Community Outreach I B-14 Figure B-10 Light Rail(TRAX)Improvements 8% •Additional late night service until after midnight 11% •Provide direct TRAX service between airport and U of U 47% 15% Additional streetcar lines •15-minute Saturday service 19% Additional Sunday service earlier and later in the day Figure B-11 FrontRunner Improvements 3% 4% •Sunday FrontRunner service 12% •Reduced travel time Increased frequency during middle of weekdays 22% 59% •More frequent Saturday service Improved wi-fi SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix B:Community Outreach I B-15 Design Your Transit System Survey The Design Your Own Transit System survey tool was launched by the Salt Lake City in February 2016.The survey tool was comprised of three tasks: • Task 1 allowed users to create their own transit system by allocating hypothetical money to different system needs.Spending was calculated based on how much area the participants system covers(system coverage),how often service runs(service frequency),and the days of the week it operates. If participants ran over budget,they were forced to go back and revise their selections. • Task 2 allowed participants to determine their long term investment strategy by selecting the mode or modes they wanted to build. • Task 3 allowed participants to select additional improvements to accompany the transit service they created. • After completion of the Design Your Own Transit System tool,participants were asked to take a short demographic survey(1,269 of 1,412 participants completed the demographic survey). Summary of Key Findings Survey Participants • 1,412 people participated in the Design Your Transit System survey tool,of which 65%live in Salt Lake City. • The survey reached a wide audience.Seniors(over 65),low income populations(less than $35,00o per year),and residents of western Salt Lake City were somewhat under-represented as compared to their share of the general population. Transit Use • 4o%of respondents ride transit multiple times per week and 6o%ride at least once a month. • The top reason cited for riding transit was environmental reasons(25%of respondents). • The top reasons for not riding transit more often were related to convenience,with more than 5o%of respondents indicating transit takes too long or doesn't go where they need it to go. Service Coverage • The highest priority destinations to serve were Utah's top job centers(52%)and mixed use and major growth areas(49%).These two destinations were priorities for all groups regardless of frequency of transit use,age,or income. • Service to LIMITED neighborhoods was a particular priority for adults 65 or older(2nd most common response)and low income respondents(3rd most common response). Service Periods • Respondents most desired new service in the evening(7o%),followed by Saturday service (58%)and finally Sunday service(39%).The order of new service priorities were identical, regardless of frequency of transit use,age,or income. Capital Improvements • The top investment priority was to increase investments in a rail based system(46%).This was the top priority regardless of frequency of use,age,or income. • Adults over 45-64,65 and older,and low income respondents were somewhat more likely than other groups to indicate a preference for a bus based system or incremental improvements to the current system. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix B:Community Outreach I B-16 Other Improvements(to support coverage,service period,and capital investment selections) ■ Increased investment in access to transit on foot or by bike was the most preferred improvement overall(43%)and for all groups except those age 65 or older. ■ Respondents age 65 and older indicated a preference for investments in benches,shelters, and amenities at transit stops. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix B:Community Outreach I B-17 Survey Participants Participants Location The Design Your Own Transit System tool reached 1,412 participants,with 1,269 completing the subsequent demographic survey,which were mapped in Figure B-12. • More than 65%of survey participants lived within Salt Lake City(Figure B-13). For responses within Salt Lake City,Figure B-14 illustrates responses by City Council boundaries. • More than 3o%of respondents live in District 4 and 22%live in District 5. • District 6 and western Salt Lake City had limited respondents. Figure B-12 Location of Participants Brigham City . .,.„o.. ............. Hear Hiver Perry CD 39 I b Migratory Bird Refuge Bear .,r 79I a Orlaen t MIL;OD rA C•sfield • • lArton ® Henef fe Number of Antelope • Echhoo Respondents Island l' �elyille •• 40 f taunl • 80 • �- • ,20 4•"•as �ii t ity KP- • Oakley • f 60 0vau�r eside Pa Cit CD � y 6m Kamas Grantsville ,a f e,) J*art Alta ® Li -ndy • A, Twin Peaks Tooele 9. • ® •il. Heber City Daniel Timber Lakes • I 92 Flat To ` • a Mt Timpanogos Rush Valley Mountain 15 ✓�1 Teria Cedar Fort • CI PO • Orefii Fairfield - • •Prow rGo gle ,a Map data a 2916 Gocgle SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix B:Community Outreach I B-18 Figure B-13 Salt Lake City Residency Are you a resident of SLC? (N=1,239) Yes- 111111110 64.6% No- 111111 35.4% 0% 20' 40% 60% Proportion of Respondents Figure B-14 City Council District Responses by Council District (N=717) Council District 7- MIMI I Council District 6- 0.6% II Council District 5- IIMM 22.2% Council District 4- 33.1 Council District 3- 16.9% Council District 2- 001 Council District 1 - NW' 0% l0°c 20Sc 30% Proportion of Respondents SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix B:Community Outreach I B-19 Age and Gender The age of respondents was categorized to highlight groups including college students(18-24), adults(25-44),older adults(45 to 64),and seniors(65 or older).The majority of participants were between 25-64 years old as shown in Figure B-15.Respondents older than 65 were somewhat under represented,as this group makes up 10%of the city population.l. Figure B-15 Age What is your age? (N=1,239) 65 or older- 113 45 to 64- 22.4% 25 to 44- CIE 18 to24- 13% 0% 20% 40% 60% Proportion of Respondents Survey participants were more likely to be male,at 56%of respondents(Figure B-16). Figure B-16 Gender What is your gender? (N=1,239) Mole- 56.3% Female- 1M 40.8% Prefer not to disclose- II I Other(please specify)- 0.5%0 I 0% 20% 40% Proportion of Respondents 1 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates,Table S0101 SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix B:Community Outreach I B-20 Income and Vehicle Access Approximately 18%of respondents either did not have a car available or only had one available sometimes(Figure B-17). Figure B-17 Car Availability Do you typically have a car available for your use? (N=1,239) Yes- 82.2°0 Sometimes- 9% No- it, 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Proportion of Respondents Survey participants tended to have higher incomes,with nearly half(45%)earning more than $75,000 per year(Figure B-18). Low income populations were underrepresented in this survey,as 22%of participants earn less than$35,000 per year,while 40%of the population of Salt Lake City earns below that threshold.2 Figure B-18 Income What is your households total annual income?(N=1,239) High income- 45.1% Middle income- EEO Low income- ling 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Proportion of Respondents Low income:Less than$35,000,Middle income:$35,001 -$75,000,High income:greater than$75,001 2 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates,Table:DP03 SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix B:Community Outreach I B-21 Existing Transit Use Nearly 9o%of survey participants have used some form of public transit in Salt Lake City(Figure B-19).Approximately 4o%ride public transit multiple times per week.Over a quarter ride less than once a month,while 10%do not ride transit. Figure B-19 Frequency of Transit Use How often do you currently use transit? (N=1,262) 5 or more days a week- MI 22.1% 2-4 days a week- 18.9% Once a week- 7.1% 1-3 times a month- 1153 Less than once a month- Mira- 26.5% • I never ride transit- -10.5% U 0% 1 00: 20% Proportion of Respondents Reasons for Using Transit Respondents cited both"choice"and"transit dependent"factors in their decision to use transit (Figure B-2o).The largest share of respondents indicated that environmental reasons and convenience as very or somewhat important to their decision to use transit.A substantial share of riders also cited reducing stress and cost savings as important factors. Figure B-20 Reason for Transit Use What is the main reason you use transit? (N=1,258) Environmental reasons- IIMIIIIli Convenience- 11.111 17.9% Reduce stress on my commute- 12.9% Cost/save money- Il 1i1 I do not use transit- 11-3% Other(please specify)- Il 10.4% I do not have access to a_ car/I can't drive 0% 5% 10% 15°'c 20% 25% Proportion of Respondents SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix B:Community Outreach I B-22 What Are the Main Reasons You Don't Use Transit More Often? Survey respondents were asked to identify reasons why they do not use transit more often. Participants identified convenience as a key barrier to transit use in Salt Lake City(Figure B-21). • The top three responses,each chosen by approximately half of respondents,indicated transit is not a convenient option because it takes too long,doesn't go where they need to go,or doesn't run at the right time.Respondents identified other convenience-related factors,including finding driving and parking more efficient and needing a car for work or errands. • Notably,fewer than 20%of respondents indicated they would not ride even if it were convenient,indicating that most would be receptive to using transit if it were more convenient. Fewer than io%of respondents don't feel safe riding the bus and approximately 8%are unclear about how to use the system. Trends for respondents living in and outside of Salk Lake City were similar(Figure B-22),though Salt Lake residents were more likely to not use transit because they walk and bike most places. Nearly 17%of participants identified"other"reasons for not using transit more often,including transit concerns of efficiency,cost,and limited service(Figure B-23). Figure B-21 Reason for Not Using Transit More Often-All Respondents What is the reason you don't use transit? (N=1,255) Takes too long- EEO Can't get where I need to go- IMIII 527% Doesn't run at the right times- 11=. 43.5% Need car for work or errands - Il CM Driving and parking is more 13121 II-and efficient Other- MICE121 I bike or walk most places- 12.2% Hard to understand how to get_ 8% where I need to go Makes me feel uncomfortable or_ 71% unsafe 0% 20'c 40% Proportion of Respondents SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix B:Community Outreach I B-23 Figure B-22 Reason for Not Using Transit More Often-SLC Residents Only What is the reason you don't use transit? (N=784) Takes too long- Can't get where I need to go- MIIIIIM 52.8% Doesn't run at the right times- EIMMIIIMEMEIN Need car for work or errands- EIM 20.8% Driving and parking is more_ p7% economical and efficient Other- 16.5% I bike or walk most places- MIMI 16.2% Hard to understand how to get_ t where I need to go Makes me feel uncomfortable or_ unsafe 0"/0 40% Proportion of Respondents Figure B-23 "Other" Reasons for Not Using Transit More Often Other reasons for not using transit (N=208) Other- 25% Not efficient- 24.5% Costs too much- Limited service options- 10.6% Limited evening service rAMI - Limited weekend serviceIM Do not feel safe- an Unreliable U Do not understand the system- 0.5% ■ 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Proportion of Respondents SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix B:Community Outreach I B-24 Service Coverage Respondents were given the opportunity to designate specific service areas in which their transit system could operate. Reponses were further analyzed to identify any trends for particular demographic groups: • Overall—The highest share of respondents indicated that Utah's top job centers and mixed use and major growth areas were priority destinations(Figure B-24).Service to industrial areas in western Salt Lake City was the least selected coverage improvement. Responses from residents of Salt Lake City mirrored the overall trends(Figure B-25). • Frequency of Use-Participants were grouped based on how frequently they use transit;the top choice for all groups was to serve Utah's top job centers followed by mixed use and major growth areas(Figure B-26). • Age—Utah's top job centers was the top response for all age groups,except the 18-24 age group for which showed a slight preference for service to mixed use and major growth areas.For older adults,service to LIMITED3 neighborhoods was the second most common response(Figure B-27). • Income-All income groups selected service to Utah's top job centers as the most preferred destination.High income participants were more likely to select service to mixed use and major growth areas or the airport,while preferred destinations for low income participants were spread across multiple responses.(Figure B-28). Figure B-24 Desired Service Coverage(Select all that apply,within your budget)—All Respondents Where do you want service to operate? (N=1,264) Utah's top job centers- IllWr Mixed use and major growth_ 49.2°'0 areas Salt Lake City Airport- LIMITED neighborhoods that analysis shows are more likely to use- 33.8% transit ALL neighborhoods(includes all of the neighborhoods in- 297% previous option) Industrial areas in western- Salt Lake City =MC CIM 0% 10% 20°, 304, 40% 50% Proportion of Respondents 3 Neighborhoods that are more likely to use transit such as higher concentrations of car free or low-income households, youth,seniors,or people with disabilities SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix B:Community Outreach I B-25 Figure B-25 Desired Service Coverage(Select all that apply,within your budget)-SLC Residents Only Desired Service Coverage for SLC Residents (N=787) Mixed use and major growth areas- 51.1% Utah's top lob centers- 48.4% LIMITED neighborhoods that analysis- shows are more likely to use transit IMEZI Location Il ■Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Airport- Erma ALL neighborhoods(includes all of the- neighborhoods in previous option) l 021 Industrial areas in western Salt Lake_ 19.9% City 0% 10°c 20°s 30% 40% 50% Proportion of Respondents per location Figure B-26 Desired Service Coverage by Frequency of Transit Use Frequency of Transit Use vs.Desired Service Coverage(N=1,257) Utah's top job centers- Mixed use and major growth areas- Salt Lake City Airport- Transit Use ■Rarely `Occassionary LIMITED neighborhoods that analysis_ 1.Frequently shows are more likely to use transit ALL neighborhoods(includes oll of the_ -M neighborhoods in previous option) Industrial areas in western Salt Lake_ Cry 0°0 10°h 20°a 30°, 40°: 50°5 Proportion of Respondents per frequency Rarely:Less than once a month,Occassionally: 1-3 times a month-Once a week,Frequently:A few times a week or more SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix B:Community Outreach I B-26 Figure B-27 Desired Service Coverage by Age Age Group vs.Desired Service Coverage(N=1,236) Utah's top job centers- Mixed use and major growth areas- Salt Lake City Airport- Age 18 to 24 25 to 44 LIMITED neighborhoods that analysis_ 45 to 64 shows are more likely to use transit 65 or older ALL neighborhoods(includes all of the_ neighborhoods in previous option) Industrial areas in western Salt Lake_ City 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Proportion of Respondents per age group Figure B-28 Desired Service Coverage by Income Household Income vs. Desired Service Coverage (N=1,236) Utah's top job centers- Mixed use and major growth areas- Solt Lake City Airport- Income Low income ■Middle income LIMITED neighborhoods that analysis_ ■High income shows are more likely to use transit ALL neighborhoods(includes all of the_ neighborhoods in previous option) Industrial areas in western Salt Lake_ City 0% 109: 20°c 30°c 40°h 50°-'c Proportion of Respondents per income group Low income: Less than $35,000,Middle income: $35,001 - $75,000,High income:greater than $75,001 SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix B:Community Outreach I B-27 Figure B-29 Desired Service Coverage by City Council District Council District vs.Desired Service Coverage (N=714) Mixed use and major growth areas- Utah's top lob centers- Council District ▪Council District 1 LIMITED neighborhoods that analysis_ shows are more likely to use transit Council District 2 ■Council District 3 ■Council District 4 Salt Lake City Airport- ■Council District 5 ■Council District 6 ■Council District 7 ALL neighborhoods(includes all of the_ neighborhoods in previous option) Industrial areas in western Salt Lake_ City 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Proportion of Respondents per location SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix B:Community Outreach I B-28 Service Periods Respondents were asked to designate additional service periods within which their transit system would operate. • Overall-The highest share of respondents indicated a preference for evening service and Saturday service(Figure B-3o).Sunday service was the least selected period for service improvement.Responses for Salt Lake City residents only mirrored this trend (Figure B-31). • Frequency of Use-All groups cited increased evening service as their top service period investment priority,followed by Saturday,and then Sunday service(Figure B-32). • Age-All groups cited increased evening service as their top service period investment priority,followed by Saturday,and then Sunday service(Figure B-33). • Income-All groups cited increased evening service as their top service period investment priority,followed by Saturday,and then Sunday service(Figure B-34). Figure B-30 Desired Service Periods(Select all that apply,within your budget)-All Respondents What other times do you want service? (N=1,264) Evening service- 70.3% Saturday service- 53.4% Sunday service- 39.2% ill 0% 20% 40'u 60% Proportion of Respondents SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix B:Community Outreach I B-29 Figure B-31 Desired Service Periods(Select all that apply,within your budget)-SLC Residents Only Desired Service Period for SLC Residents(N=727) Evening serviceillinlim III Location Saturday service- 63.4% I ■Salt Lake City 111.1111 .111 Sunday service- 44.4% 20% 40% 60% 80% Proportion of Respondents per location Figure B-32 Desired Service Periods by Transit Use Frequency of Transit Use vs. Desired Service Period (N=1,146) Evening service- Transit Use Rarely Saturday service- .Occasionally ■Frequently Sunday service- 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Proportion of Respondents per frequency Rarely: Less than once a month,Occassionally: 1-3 times a month-Once a week,Frequently:A few times a week or more SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix B:Community Outreach I B-30 Figure B-33 Desired Service Periods by Age Age Group vs.Desired Service Period(N=1,128) Evening service- Age 18 to 24 Saturday service- 25 to 44 45 to 64 65 or older Sunday service- 0°t 20': 40': 60% 80% Proportion of Respondents per age group Figure B-34 Desired Service Periods by Income Household Income vs.Desired Service Period (N=1,128) E eni ;,r.i_..- Income Low income ■ Saturday service- Middle income ■High income Sunday service- 0% 20°c 40% 60°-c 80°s Proportion of Respondents per income group Low income: Less than$35,000,Middle income:$35,001 - $75,000,High income:greater than S75,001 SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix B:Community Outreach I B-31 Figure B-35 Desired service Periods by City Council District Council Distrid vs. Desired Service Period (N=657) Evening service- Council District 1111 ■Council District 1 IIICouncil District 2▪Council District 3 Saturday service- ■Council District 4 ■Council District 5 ■Council District 6 I II District 7 Sunday service- 0% 204 c 40,', 60% 60% Proportion of Respondents per location SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix B:Community Outreach I B-32 Capital Improvements Respondents were given the opportunity to designate specific capital improvements in which their transit system could invest. • Overall-The highest share of respondents(46%)indicated a preference for a rail based system(Figure B-36).Responses from Salt Lake City residents were similar to those of the entire survey sample(Figure B-37),though Salt Lake City residents were somewhat more likely to want to increase investment in a bus only system. • Frequency of Use-All frequency of use groups were most likely to choose to increase investment in a rail based system,followed by a bus AND rail based system(Figure B-38). • Age—All age groups selected increased investment in a rail based system as the preferred capital investment.The second most common response varied by age,with 18- 24 and 25-44 year olds choosing bus and rail improvements,older adults(45-64) selecting incremental improvements to the current system,and seniors(65 or older) selecting increased investments in a bus based system(Figure B-39). • Income-High income participants indicated a preference for investing in a rail based system(their two top responses included rail investment).Investments in a rail based system was also the top response for low income participants,but many also prioritize investments bus and rail,bus,and improvements to the current system(Figure B-4o). Figure B-36 Desired Capital Improvements(Select all that apply,within your budget)—All Respondents What are the top capital investments? (N=1 ,264) Increase investments in rail_ based system 46'2°6 Increase investments in a bus_ 22-3% AND rail based system Increase investments in a bus_ based system 14.6% Incremental improvements to- 14% current system Decrease investment in the_ 1 8% transit system 0% 10 t 20,t 30°V 40% Proportion of Respondents SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix B:Community Outreach I B-33 Figure B-37 Desired Capital Improvements(Select all that apply,within your budget)-SLC Residents Only Desired Capital Improvements for SLC Residents(N=784) Increase investments in rail based_ 47.3% system Increase investments in a bus AND rail_ 20 8% based system Increase investments in a bus based Location system ® ■Salt Lake City Incremental improvements to current_ system Decrease investment in the transit_ system , 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Proportion of Respondents per location Figure B-38 Desired Capital Improvements by Transit Use Frequency of Transit Use vs. Desired Capital Investment (N=1,252) Increase investments in rail based_ i system Increase investments in a bus AND rail_ based system Transit Use Increase investments in a bus based_ Rarely system Mk �Occassionally Frequently Incremental inprovesnents to Current system Decrease investment in the transit_ system 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Proportion of Respondents per frequency Rarely:Less than once a month,Occassionally: 1-3 times a month-Once a week,Frequently:A few times a week or more SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix B:Community Outreach I B-34 Figure B-39 Desired Capital Improvements by Age Age Group vs. Desired Capital Improvements(N=1,232) Increase investments in rail based MI= M1 system Increase investments in a bus AND rail_ based system Age 18 to 24 Increase investments in a bus based 25 to 44 system 45 to 64 65 or older Incremental improvements to current_ system Decrease investment in the transit_ system 0% 1 304-t 40% Proportion of Respondents per age group Figure B-40 Desired capital Improvements by Income Household Income vs. Desired Capital Investment(N=1,232) Increase investments in rail based_ system Increase investments in a bus AND rail_ based system Income Increase investments in a bus based Low income system ■Middle income ■High income Incremental improvements to current_ system Decrease investment in the transit_ system 0% 10% 20% 30% 400: Proportion of Respondents per income group Low income:Less than $35,000,Middle income:$35,001 - $75,000,High income:greater than $75,001 SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix B:Community Outreach I B-35 Figure B-41 Desired capital Improvements by City Council District Council District vs. Desired Capital Improvement(N=712) Increase investments in rail based_ system Increase investments in a bus AND rail_ based system Council District ■Council District 1 ■Council District 2 Increase investments in a bus based Council District 3 system ■Council District 4 ■Council District 5 ■Council District 6 Incremental improvements to current_ ■Council District 7 system Decrease investment in the transit_ system 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Proportion of Respondents per location SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix B:Community Outreach I B-36 Other Improvements Respondents were asked to select other improvements that would support their coverage,service period,and capital investment selections. • Overall-The highest share of respondents(43%)indicated improved access by foot and bike as their preferred improvement(Figure B-42). Real time arrival information and transit stop amenities were each selected by over a quarter of respondents.Salt Lake City residents exhibited similar preferences as the overall survey sample(Figure B-43). • Frequency of Use-All frequencies of transit use groups selected access to transit on foot and by bike as the most important other improvement.While occasional and rare transit riders selected real time arrival information as the second most preferred improvement,frequent users indicated a preference for transit stop amenities(Figure B-44). • Age-Improved access to transit on foot and by bike was the most preferred option by all age groups with the exception of those age 65 and older,who were most likely to prefer benches,shelters,and amenities at transit stops(Figure B-45). • Income-All income groups cited improved access to transit on foot and by bike as the most preferred other improvement.Real time arrival information was the second most preferred improvement for both low and high income respondents,while the second most common response for middle income respondents was transit stop amenities(Figure B-46). Figure B-42 Other Desired Improvements(Select all that apply,within your budget)-All Respondents What other improvements do you want to see? (N=1,264) Improved access to transit on_ MO foot and by bike Real time arrival information- Ill 27% Benches,shelters,and_ amenities at transit stops 26.3% 0°* l OD 2 20°0 30°5 40°5 Proportion of Respondents SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix B:Community Outreach I B-37 Figure B-43 Other Desired Improvements(Select all that apply,within your budget)-SLC Residents Only Desired Other Improvements for SLC Residents(N=759) Improved access to transit on foot and_ 48% by bike V Benches,shelters,and amenities at Location 27.7% transit stops ■Salt Lake City Real time arrival information- PI 24.5% 0°-c 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Proportion of Respondents per location Figure B-44 Other Desired Improvements by Transit Use Frequency of Transit Use vs. Other Improvements (N=1,209) Improved access to transit on foot and_ by bike Transit Use Rarely Real time arrival information- .Occassionally in Frequently MillBenches,shelters,and amenities at transit stops 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Proportion of Respondents per frequency Rarely:Less than once a month,Occassionally: 1-3 times a month-Once a week,Frequently:A few times a week or more SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix B:Community Outreach I B-38 Figure B-45 Other Desired Improvements by Age Age Group vs. Other Improvements (N=1,190) Improved access to transit on foot and_ by bike 41111 Age 18 to 24 Real time arrival information- ■25 to 44 ■45 to 64 ■65 or older Benches,shelters,and amenities at_ transit stops 10% 20% 30% 40% Proportion of Respondents per age group Figure B-46 Other Desired Improvements by Income Household Income vs. Other Improvements (N=1,190) Improved access to transit on foot and_ by bike Income Low income Real time arrival information- Middle income ■High income Benches,shelters,and amenities at_ transit stops 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Proportion of Respondents per income group Low income:Less than$35,000,Middle income:$35,001 -$75,000,High income:greater than$75,001 SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix B:Community Outreach I B-39 Figure B-47 Other Desired Improvements by City Council District Council District vs. Desired Other Improvements(N=687) Improved access to transit on foot and_ by bike Council District Council District 1 Council District 2 Benches,shelters,and amenities at_ Council District 3 transit stops Council District 4 Council District 5 ■Council District 6 Mr ■Council District 7 Real time arrival information- 0% 10c'c 2042 304c 4CPs Proportion of Respondents per location SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix B:Community Outreach I B-40 t_ z v• ;L / ,. , >111 D 4 F s - J -�� � = Q � cn Q U • _ • � X .- : I - 1 ^� I 4 Appendix C Gaps Analysis While portions of Salt Lake City are well served by transit,some portions of the city experience a mismatch in the existing transit supply and current demand,resulting in a"gap."To determine where gaps exist,an analysis was conducted to identify underserved corridors or markets,areas with too much service,and areas ineffectively served by transit. Key transit service opportunities identified in this analysis include: • Increased frequency and span of service to • Improved stability of service support a"transit lifestyle" • Higher quality bus stops with more • Increased midday and evening service to frame amenities Salt Lake City as a regional destination • Better and safer access to stops • Better connections between neighborhood nodes • More affordable service • Improved reliability and speed to be more • Better maps and information competitive with automobiles State of the System Report The State of the System provided an analysis on the existing transit, land use, demographic, and travel behavior data provided by Salt Lake City, UTA, and the Wasatch Front Regional Council. It summarized the state of transit service and the myriad factors that impact the use and performance of transit in Salt Lake City today. Some of the key findings included: • Land Use and Growth: Salt Lake City is the region's employment hub and is continuing to grow. • Travel Patterns: The majority of trips are non-commute trips. • Transit Use: Currently, 6% of Salt Lake City residents take transit to work. Transit use is lower 1 for non-commute trips. • Transit Service and Connections: More bus service is provided than service on any other modes, but evening and weekend transit service is limited. Capacity constraints and limited ~ layover space are limiting to transit service. • Transit Performance: Transit boardings in Salt Lake City increased since 2011, but at a slower rate than the system as a whole and at a slower rate than service hours. • Access and Amenities: Large block size and other barriers makes first/last mile access to km transit difficult. Eighty-three percent of bus stops do not have a bench or a shelter for people to wait for the bus to arrive. CURRENT TRANSIT DEMAND Population & Employment Density Figure C-i shows the average weekday boardings overlaid on the population and employment density for Salt Lake City.The highest number of boardings are concentrated around areas with high population and employment density,particularly in downtown and the University of Utah. On the contrary,some dense areas do not have high transit boardings,such as the Sugar House Business District.Park-and-ride stations south of downtown—Ballpark Station,Central Pointe Station,and Millcreek Station,also have a high number of boardings. Taking a closer look at the boardings in the dense area of downtown,Figure C-2 shows that transit boardings are concentrated on the western side of downtown. Central Station,State Street, and Main Street are some of the primary transit transfer points in downtown. Low transit boardings east of these transfer points indicates a first/last mile connectivity barrier to eastern downtown. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix C: Gaps Analysis 1 C-1 Figure C-1 Population/Employment Density and Weekday Transit Boardings: Salt Lake City —Salt Lake City i North Population/Employment Density and Transit Boardings ----- --1 i Total number of residents TRANSIT � a, Salt Lake and jobs,per acre Weekday Average 0 by TAZ(215) Daily Boarding Hospital Dec zoln '''i ----- - - , -- : Middle Sol/ MASTER High Schch000l l 0-10 2300 10 500 1.000 C] College • i 2100 21-30 11-20 (Proportionally Sized) PLAN Shopping Center ,' • Other i 1100 _ 31-40 O Park(UTA Ride ____ ___ City Limits o - 41-470 O park&Ride o (Other) ' o DUPONT AVE ` D 2 _ ne/O,,„9 Miles O Data Sources.Wasatch Front Regional Council.Utah Salt Lake city Automated Geographic Reference Center. ® Utah Transit Authority.Salt Lake City International Airport o qr 000 �, e a 164 700 ,. o 13TH AVE HAROLD GATTY DR k,\---=--.. 600 o State Capitol /rr• 500 dke Utah State .0 5009 LaShriners Hospital forChildren AMELIA EARNART DR,� ( �_ Fair Grounds m 9 IN l 3 0 Salt Regional • •o r�' 1�. - o lSt m a Medical s WtEr " • " r A3tNter STEM Oc ilk UniverstyMCand V i A \\, :ub0 11 y O _ __� � t •500 SaltLitkeCentrtrl.- jam •-f �. LI ' -'-. - .- R.esearchPark41, I 700 A _ 65 a JR 1HDE AVE0 b000. R , ® • ills ... ) a • _ eat Trolley . l 700 + T. 900 ® •` s°• • n �,n Square ► Medical Center i. 172 • Ill'.:. ,iai q, . >" 900_ SUNNYSIDE AVE i 1000 a s DIRECTORS ROW o E o W _., I, m g A3 e' V•• , . o 0 0 0 2, o i CALIFORNIA AVE �� CALIFORNIA AVE _ • 0 1300 M ©BallparkSCation �. o a 1300 _ - 1300 I. q pµic •• _ 1525 m o I500 CALIfOANIAAVE e - .:.air o ®Foothill Village it 1100 1700 a. s i a � 67300 0 0 0 1820 " d ,a a=ioG �� noe 4.- _`wry � • ;.- AWestminsterCollege • g s� SOUTH FRONTAGE RO - __ o - ------ --- _,_,_ �._._._._._ alPi STation� 1201�-�:--•---' �t ._ Centr 1100.- 2I00 2100 2400 " 4P7 West Valley City e •Le saga se ' • - `- ,J o o BuslnessDistrict �! a. e a JARKWAY BLVD -{o ta4 - 2700 ,-Z 2100 i� I l l • a '3 ', o �.; y9 z• South ! .°O I_,:_ b I _ 'O 341Q !- '!c_3 G ...;100.,. ••T ® Salt Lake (1-41U1kreek . j �L.�a�` Pioneer Valley Hospital Decker take lotion r�<< Biiik ardPlnzn Station t t. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix C:Gaps Analysis I C-2 Figure C-2 Population/Employment Density and Weekday Transit Boardings: Downtown -Salt Lake City '61HAVL Population/Employment Density and Transit Boardings !, �� �' Total number of residents and jobs,per acre Weekday Average yy Hospital ���� •- by TAZ(2015) Daily Boarding T Dec 2014 We II Iffir MP R Hgh Middle School/ 0-10 High School !MI I�il�Zan ITTHAVE °0 10 500 1,000 g College 11-20 (Proportonaay Sized) !' , l� �� • 6p on 4ITH�Ve ® Shopping Center i)(� r:� • , ®10TH AVE 21-30 Zero Boarding • Other • 500 9TH AVE _ 31-40 ® Park&Ride City Limits i 93EMI 8TH AVE - 41 470 O Park&Ride y o ITN AVE (Other) 0 7 A6TN AVE O Data Sources CP Wasatch Regional ni e utMainles. 300 MEW )0 op 5TH AVE a Automated Geograph Reference Cr.Utah Transit Auttwrty Salt Lake City • 858 4TH AVE • o ^ y�O ® North Temple 3R0 AVE 3RD VE o_ tree, o 50I BndgeiGuadalupe IempleSquareStaoietion 0 2NDAI(E % 0 0 ® 1ND�YE eo �io So •• • eo �� 852 1. _ Uo 0� University MC and Primary (STAVE o e ChildrenssHHospital ShoppmyCen Arena Station Gateway 1137 • W O o •• . d ce.a•' `oo IIIII *tee',d23 ® 3,057 • ®City Creek Center • Planetarium.:,r S tt 6xe 4,881 •• i ,kal Center 4 Old Greek s oave v inter Ct Center o ® ; • —I • Rl • Town Stntian 1,398 g zoo588 ) Salt Lake , , �:r ©o Central Ga Ivan Plaza St ions? o - r Departure V 1,974 300 . 2,308 589 P all La 8- so — UniversuyofUtah Central N' ...-— ' i 3,681 o UNIVFRSIiY BLVD3 CatsthouslSD#btt 4 afA)n = � 400 A [entrdkatwn ®11UI �' ,"1{ / 96 UnhersityBus, 500 • Y . > 500 z ■. Trolley Square • Stadium Station I ME El , 1 T. E1 _ ° ludgeMenlerid` I111 + IIIII zIII _ CatholttHighSr 3 Salt LakeCit F + VA Me ical(enter e 700 mi o 0 0 800, East High&hoof Cj 1111 O, rc 1111 900 SUNNYSIDE AVE 00 o. fn iy o a - c. MI(HIGAN AVE ® CC HERBERi AVE o o YALE AVE S ° HARVARD AVE �' o YALE AVE o 025 05 - o ._ o h Miles Ballpark Station PRIN(ETON AVE ' Data Sources UTA,Utah AGRC,ESRI 3 968 SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix C: Gaps Analysis I C-3 Transit Propensity The Transit Propensity Index(TPI)helps to determine the likelihood of transit use within a given geography.Some populations have a higher propensity to ride transit.This TPI is based on the combined densities of four populations:low-income households,zero vehicle households,seniors (ages 65+),and person with disabilities. As illustrated in Figure C-4 and Figure C-5,some neighborhoods show high propensity for transit but lower transit boardings.This includes the area between the Central Business District and the University of Utah,the southern portion of the Capitol Hill neighborhood,portions of Liberty Wells,and neighborhoods west of I-15(Rose Park,Glendale,and Poplar Grove neighborhoods). These high density areas have high concentrations of low-income,zero-vehicle households, seniors,and persons with disabilities but show less transit activity than other areas. Transit Mode Share Transit mode share—the percentage of trips made on transit—varies by district in Salt Lake City (Figure C-3).For the city overall,approximately 6%of Salt Lake City residents travel to work via transit.l According to the 2012 Utah Household Travel Survey,the University of Utah and the Airport Districts had the most transit use.Areas in the southern portion of the city(Sugar House/East Bench and Glendale/Poplar Grove)had the lowest transit mode share.When traveling to downtown Salt Lake City,these neighborhoods have a particularly high transit time disadvantage compared to auto travel. Figure C-3 Transit Mode Share by District District Percent of total trips made on transit University of Utah 18.4% Airport district 13.2% Areas surrounding University of Utah 7.4% Downtown 6.4% Capitol Hill/Avenues 3.3% Sugar House/East Bench 1.6% Glendale/Poplar Grove 0.7% Source:2012 Utah Household Travel Survey Salt Lake City State of the System Factbook.June 2015.Retrieved from http://slcrides.org/wp- content/uploa ds/2O15/O6/S LC-TM P-Factbook.pdf SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix C: Gaps Analysis I C-4 Figure C-4 Transit Propensity Index and Weekday Transit Boardings: Salt Lake City —Salt Lake City ;forth Transit Propensity Index and Transit Boardings TRANSIT o Salt Lake Transit Propensity Index' Wely Bo ding I. Wee day Average ver T Hospital (by Census Block Group) D.2ot4 Highest Middle School/ i High School M AST E R i i 2300 10 500 1.000 A College � 2100 (Proportionally Sized) __ ._ PLAN t • Shopping Center Zero Boarding • Other Lowest © Park&Ride ! ! 1 II This index is based on combined O (UTA) _ City Limits Park&Ride ! densities of: (Other) d -Low-income households 0 i;____: 2 �"iill AVE ef�pr -Zero vehicle households O I 12Miles -Seniors(aged 65+) N Data Sources Wasatch Front Regional Council Utah Salt Lake City! lj ■•fig . ® -Disabled population AutoTa;�rtlothortphicReferen Lake ely,enter. International Air ort — .3E' '_ i1/4 � �� �184' !. 00 'r 1�1�1!�!�_I 7, o , 131H AVE HAROLD CATTY DR r— ' 1 ; Ilflii��■' �' r -. ! AI I, J 1= 5°° Utah St A■ State i . ■■ •• u, iiry,QVF ; AMELIAEARHARTDR �! ' A F 1 Fair Gro III t■••• SaltLak�ShrinersHospitalforChildren i r ,� II—, s �� r ss.•ttaa:�o ■ Reglond '} ! R. - �,,,7 ',� (Il - all , - A: ��*•e��lr ■ii ■■■■■ Medteal g !� ✓ice• •3R AYE_■u ■ t.•• i "►'�lll �■......n■■ ■ • Universityy MC an =00 -`" N TEMPLE' ' City'1XINE ilil i i +Primary Children Hospital s• ..� �f Gateway Shopping Ce�r • 13 , »--____ _, , -- alt Palace r University i . 'i �' Convention f11E11li of Utah t 500 -� i00 , 'r� ■ V�11I Research Pane TOO cs 8lP m'. - 600 MEI_�'wn111 + .r •• i �� g i Trol .4 ,Z,er 700 i VA t ® ■■■��=il�i,p� imm_ 594�� Medical Center 900 0 ...., uuL 172' 1000 eo •■■ .. , l - - ,.�� ,_r`� 900� - SONNYSIDE AYE i DIRECTORS ROW ' 4>t1' .� -_y__ -0 `' _ �� a i 4, CALIFORNIA AVE (15}i r^ CALIFORNIA AVE o<*\� �� 1300 O � ,"-p- j , — 1300 1300 1525 e W I500 _� �� ®'� I . /.t ;Iin , �1- �i j8j. o ®Foothill Village it 'ICI E. o= �730 d$„1►0sr o r•ti I 'i .. t 111O!•r. li' i 1p-.. e;,:. . 1700 of ; 1820 0 • o.I .71 �`�` ` o cti $$$ a mo .mr, VO stmir ®�aCollege ci 'GoatP N SOUTH FRONTAGERD "' f t. C =--i- ---- -'- OJ}--h_�.�- 's-•--�T-l~_ "'- ., a .,•.Ifflik -'!, ..bz,0 i�� +.xHa• alab ,g100 r. 2100 1v' I _. .... C -r't'20 � - o o e C' 11 j _ A-0i,, West Valley City, 2400 o �' saga r *Q` ° ` • Olt es5 1111 ' r I ' a PARKWAYBIUD .. - fi -?e"I"'"E7700 i _._._._ 4 10 South - a It.� . o 3l0D.I. •a Salt Lake .�-'-' t a a:- C Pioneer Valley Hospital- o ®� ,y r, BnckyardPlaza a + .6.t. AA '' \, •.,. trg•e WO ••,(. .c am., • .. 4 (Gib •.i•. • a...., a"s, i•., SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix C:Gaps Analysis I C-5 Figure C-5 Transit Propensity Index and Weekday Transit Boardings: Downtown -Salt Lake City I67HAV Transit Propensity Index and Transit Boardings T�1 /& ik1 �gm I•�R Transit Propensity Index' Weekday Average n��l�`s r I' (by Census Block Group) Daily Boarding - + Hospital Highest Dec2014 r Hi h S School/ F�I� ; � III V High School !7-■ 12TH 10 500 1,000 College (Proportionally sized) IS 1 /\ ra� �ITHAV o ® Shopping Center r— W f� 'ice 'II ■■ Zero Boarding NI� f� 500° , ■■ Lowest Park&Ride • Other SIThis index is based on combined (UTA) City Limits ySrnteCapitol ♦ •�■■AVE densities of: Park&Ride r LDSHos Hospital ■AVEO (Other) �' y.. • P -Low-income households 0 1 2 P AVE -Zero vehicle households t 300 300 p Miles llikel. ��■ O Mf -Seniors(aged 65+) Data Sources:Wasatch From In I Council,Utah STN Disabled population UtahAutomatedns Geographicalt Lake CiCen[er, ' Utah Transit Authority,Salt Lake City 858 , 4Tamis °aH,p00J��® North �� c) F--Nlr i Bridge/Guadalupelem eS uare5tat _ 3R 1 00`'� r"1�,�q , _ 1 lb-- - l -1--�- III ° 852 1,501 ■■■■■■■■ ■■ s o ° UnnrehildrensHodptal PI, i N Childrens+spiral Gateway 2,137 �� _ Shopping Center Arena Station ■ ■ ■ ■ ••• `co 2b B 3,057 • B City Cree-kCenter Salt Lake Q. �o Old Greek Planetarium Salt Palate 4,881 - 9 __ o _— 1 A. Regional Medical Center O q Station Convention Center City Center —� 0 4' 0 4sq Town Station 1,398 Station 8 I 1 '`' . 200 '-� 588 832 _ O Salt Lake °(JO p0 '_ 200'� �.--1 -- - --i -� � • Departure , 1,974 300 o m Central �GallivanPlazaStmion.� a 589 1,308 N . _o �11 University of Utah © '" a braryStation l Ir l j 111111111111 East 3,681 UNIVERSITY BLVD , -_, 0 14-26), ° ! 1504 ° O`orniuii - 962 Centrals Courthouse Station UniversityBusinessBU Central Station 500 141 _\ 9 6,579 (9 Trolley Square iLi ' iumStatbn 600 �� ® ° 3mil SaltLakeCdy _ % T00 VA Medical Center %al 111.11M N III a o n aD� �O :�\ 543East High School 0o 900SouthStation IIHII . j SUNNYSIDE AVE o ��....��W1.1� c C° c olk , 001� o° .,° 900 000° o 900 z - __l ® s o = v $ 8 e $MI(HIGAN AVE f F HERBFRT AVE . 00 YALE AVE o ° ARD AVE o ¢ o YALE AVE 0 0.25 0.5 NO o if Miles Ballpark5tation 10 ° ' PRIN(ETONAYE ° Data Sources:UTA.Utah AGRC,ESRI 968 - ° o 0 0 0 0 SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix C:Gaps Analysis 1 C-6 EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE Hours & Frequency Frequent service is very limited outside of standard commute times,such as midday,evenings, and weekends.Service with a frequency every 15 minutes or less is considered the minimum that allows people to use transit without consulting a schedule.Of Salt Lake City's 44 bus routes,only six ("I would love to be able to take the routes operate service that is available every 15 minutes bus to and from work, however I or less. start at 4 AM and there are no Service frequency on several routes varies over the services available at that time." course of the day. - "Design Your Own Transit System"Survey Respondent ■ Weekday Service Frequency and Span (Figure C-8):Only about half of the 44 bus routes operate outside commute periods and provide midday service during the week. ■ Weekend Service Frequency and Span(Figure C-9):Only i6 of the 44 bus routes operate on Saturdays and nine operate on Sundays.Among corridors that retain service on weekends,the highest-frequency service is generally every 3o minutes on Saturdays and every 6o minutes on Sundays. Service gaps that do not meet the FTN Minimum Service Level Definition(Figure C-7)are circled in black in Figure C-8 and Figure C-9.Evening bus service is limited all days of the week after 8:oo p.m.TRAX,FrontRunner,and the S-Line streetcar line run on a somewhat later schedule. Limited service hours and low service frequency presents challenges for visitors,service sector workers,and those who want to live a"transit lifestyle." "If there were more frequent buses and more frequency getting me Transit service frequency for Weekday AM Peak, across town, I would use transit Weekday Midday,Saturday,and Sunday is also more." illustrated in Figure C-io through Figure C-13. Service - "Design Your Own Transit coverage decreases over different time periods and System"Survey Respondent there is distinctly less service in west than east Salt Lake City. Figure C-6 FTN Minimum Service Level Definition Day of the Week Frequency Span 30 minutes 5am-6am Monday-Saturday 15 minutes 6 am-7pm 30 minutes 7pm-11 pm Sunday 30 minutes 7am-7pm SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix C: Gaps Analysis I C-7 Figure C-7 Service Frequency and Span—Weekday 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Q Q csisi 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 tl. h •o ^ COo. •o - o .� N N er h .o ^ ao a •� •� •� •� ROUTE DESCRIPTION EARLY AM AM PEAK MIDDAY PM PEAK EVENING/NIGHT 701 TRAX Blue Line 703 TRAX Red Line --704 TRAX Green Line 720 S-Line 750 FrontRunner 2 200 South 2X 200 South Express 3 3rd Avenue 6 6th Avenue 9 900 South 11 llth Avenue 17 1700 South 21 2100 South/2100 East �� I 200 State Street North 205 500 East 209 900 East 213 1300 East/l l00 East 217 Redwood Road 220 Highland Drive/1300 East 223 2300 East/Holladay Blvd _ 228 Foothill Blvd/2700 East 307 Cottonwood Heights Fast Bus 313 South Valley/U of U Fast Bus �= = 320 Highland Drive Fast Bus 354 Sandy/U of U Fast Bus 451 Tooele Express 453 Tooele-Salt Lake Via Airport 454 Grantsville/Salt Lake 455 U of U/Davis County/Wsu 456 Ogden/Unisys/Rocky Mtn.Express 460 Woods Cross 461 Bountiful Via State Capitol 462 North Salt Lake 463 West Bountiful 470 Ogden-Salt Lake Intercity 471 Centerville 472 Ogden-Salt Lake Express 473 SLC-Ogden Hwy 89 Express 500 State Capitol 509 900 W Shuttle 513 Industrial Business Park Shuttle 516 Poplar Grove/Glendale 519 Fairpark 520 Rose Park 551 International(enter 902 Park City-SLC Connect 919 Fairpark(West HS) 920 Rose Park(West HS) F522 2200 West Flex Shuttle Frequency of service: 15 min 16-30 min 31-60 min No Service SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix C: Gaps Analysis I C-8 Figure C-8 Service Frequency and Span—Weekend iirQ Q 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Q ` o. o • • N M er h .o t cb a o ROUTE DESCRIPTION SATURDAY 701 TRAX Blue Line 703 TRAX Red line 704 TRAX Green Line 720 S-Line 750 Frontrunner 2 200 South 3 3rd Avenue 6 6th Avenue 21 2100 South/2100 East 200 State Street North 205 500 East 409 900 East 213 1300 East/1100 East 417 Redwood Road 220 Highland Drive/1300 East 470 Ogden-Salt Lake Intercity 509 900 W Shuttle 516 Poplar Grove/Glendale 519 Fairpark 902 Park City-SL(Connect M— —M SUNDAY 701 TRAX Blue Line 703 TRAX Red line 704 TRAX Green Line 702 S-Line 750 Frontrunner 21 2100 South/2100 East M I I I 200 State Street North 205 500 East Y09 900 East 217 Redwood Road 420 Highland Drive/1300 East 470 Ogden-Salt Lake Intercity 519 Fairpark = I I I 902 Park City-SLC Connect M Frequency of service: 15 min 16-30 min 31-60 min No Service SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix C: Gaps Analysis I C-9 Figure C-9 Transit Service Frequency-Weekday AM Peak Figure C-10 Transit Service Frequency-Weekday Midday 5arviee Frequency(AM Peak Noon) --Salt Lake City Servic F W Y(Midday) ..,, .,....._ ` Norm Salt Lake TRANSIT 'y w .__. TRANSIT I,-MASTER -U° MASTER �. _. ; (PIASTER +r». PLAN ntrm— t-„........, �,L L_, V or. r L.. AN o,aa^. j,, Y , ...__..,... a.......... ,.,„„,,.,a, a `tee ...,.... ..� ,. • t O I �- < = ! _ dies �_ • _ i a �_4,�� ��. jr . re West vatiey city South w<at vau y my Seutlf fr._.,' - .. salt Lake "_...._.. ...._I.. L' ..e+.0 ® ., r , ,n n..,.,..n„ Salt Lake ^L Figure C-11 Transit Service Frequency-Weekday Saturday Figure C-12 Transit Service Frequency-Weekday Sunday Salt Lake City Service- Frequency(5[ tl y) Salt Lake Clty / Service- Frequency(Sunday) TRANSIT North Salt Lake TRANSIT North Salt Lake MASTER m e + MASTER ) f +„ P L Pi o m u.. P L s PI ores,°- i�,.m .,-. e (1 _.. :,.mn.,. a gin........ k„ °n _gi v k aa.<PIaPn,,, _ „, p ,... a w „...,.a.� .��..�. 3 r• r„mr. I -..-"-- .'—..'..:” ,... . '.,n- ..Oe'',1-' ' '.'..;“7'111 ,,..,......,. i,) ". ,„„„. » ,. 1 tK m , i a u ° - - i # i z t _ ivn. t „u.„n, „m.r !Po ..n a y, nn m ,.„ „ -,a - — ," == L' a _L s'NO, Note:Refer to the State of the � m s „ a a 3es = _ —`._.� �` _'" — � , I System Factbook for full size West valley Cfry South - '°� west Yalley�r� South h.. _ .-^o�-' maps(Figures 4-7 to 4-11). Salt Lake L I. ..! „ ® Salt Lake L SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix C: Gaps Analysis 1 C-10 Transit Travel Time vs. Drive Time Figure C-6 below illustrates a theoretical comparison / of travel times by car and transit between several Salt "I used transit regularly for daily Lake City neighborhoods and downtown and between commute for about 6 months key regional destinations and downtown.This while I was without a vehicle. It comparison serves not as a specific illustration of more than doubled my commute travel time,but rather to highlight the neighborhoods time, and I was constantly worrying about missing the "last where transit carries a particularly high time bus". The (bus) system worked; it disadvantage compared to auto travel: was just slow." • Sugar House neighborhood - "Design Your Own Transit ■ Glendale neighborhood System"Survey ■ East Bench neighborhood Figure C-13 Drive Time vs.Transit Time How many times Origin Destination Drive Time Transit Time slower is transit Sugar House neighborhood Downtown SLC 0:11 0:26 2.4 University of Utah Downtown SLC 0:12 0:18 1.5 Rose Park neighborhood Downtown SLC 0:08 0:13 1.6 Poplar Grove neighborhood Downtown SLC 0:08 0:14 1.8 Glendale neighborhood Downtown SLC 0:11 0:23 2.1 Greater Avenues neighborhood Downtown SLC 0:11 0:18 1.6 East Bench neighborhood Downtown SLC 0:16 0:36 2.3 Note:The times were calculated using the trip planning tool on Google Maps.Drive times were taken at 5 p.m.Transit times were calculated by selecting 5 p.m.as the beginning travel time for weekday trips.For the purposes of this analysis,Salt Palace Convention Center was selected as the default"downtown SLC destination."Walk times are not included for drive time or transit time. ADDITIONAL NEEDS Bus Stop Amenities "I really think that every bus There are limited amenities for passengers at bus stops. station should have a shelter so Eighty-three percent(83%)of bus stops do not have a that during bad weather people bench or a shelter for people to wait for the bus to can have a safe place to wait for the bus." arrive.Figure C-14 illustrates which bus stops have a shelter and a bench,a shelter only,a bench only,a sign "Design Your Own Transit only,and no amenities.Improving bus stops with well- System"Survey Respondent marked signage and amenities could make waiting for the bus safer and more comfortable for the user. Service Stability UTA has the option of making changes to their system three times per year,which creates uncertainty about system stability and undermines the City's ability to organize growth around SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix C: Gaps Analysis C-11 transit.Changes can include re-numbering of routes,re-routing of lines,and schedule adjustments.This can make historical route-by-route ridership and performance data difficult to compile and historical changes and trends more difficult to understand;it may also impact legibility of the system for riders,an issue that will be further explored as part of public outreach. UTA has made some major structural changes in their service in the last 10 years that changed boarding patterns.Notable changes include construction of Salt Lake Central Intermodal Hub and a redesign of the whole system that occurred in 2o06-20077,and the opening of the TRAX Red and Green lines,which changed the main downtown transfer location from Gallivan to Courthouse in 2011. Opportunities may exist to build more stable,long-term ridership and encourage transit-oriented development through limiting service changes Affordability The cost of transit can be particularly burdensome on large families,youth,and transit dependent populations—low-income,older adults,persons with disabilities,and zero car households. Affordability is particularly relevant for the west side population of Salt Lake City,of which 5o% are youth.Solutions to the affordability issue might include a low-income transit pass,a family transit pass,or discounts for major trip patterns,e.g.University-Downtown. Access Access to transit can be challenging in Salt Lake City due to the wide streets and large blocks.Solutions for this "I rode the bus consistently for issue might include mid-block connections as about six months but quit after the development occurs and enhanced pedestrian closest stop to my house moved environments.Other travel modes available in Salt Lake from one block away to six.Arrival City—GREENbike Share,UTA Rideshare,demand- times were so inconsistent, it was responsive rideshare,and Transportation Network frustrating. I would rather see Companies(e.g.Uber and Lyft)—can also feed into the fewer routes with ACCURATE and transit system to provide a multimodal connection. RELIABLE stop times. I could plan accordingly then." - "Design Your Own Transit System"Survey Respondent SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 1 Appendix C: Gaps Analysis 1 C-12 Figure C-14 Bus Stop Amenities - Salt Lake City North Salt Lake Bus Stop Amenities IT�� F Bus Stop Amenities UTA Transit Service 0 FrontRunner • 5heter and Bench m AST ) 2300 O Shelter only -0• Streetcar n , IS 2100 c -0• TRAX „ re Bench only • _ Bus Routes r- ri. r •., • Sign only I700 •1--• • No amenities • r © Park&Ride '1'1 _ f lUPDNI AYE " * Transit Center Salt lake City ♦ 2 InlernalionalAirporl e►w 3; ... 0 . 700� I •7l4 HAlOLD GAITY DI i 0 • i 600 S • 13TH AVE • I •• 5N • State .,`N 7r�y41r • A LIA RHARI DR r oe o • Ur' L�_• Solt Pafar `''_` 10' ''0 I+SMAiers Hmpmidir(Aiken 6'4" • T." •• •N E PIE Sf' • `(rnrw e9 Comm Pre H"i •_• ® • 1' /'^•"•1 `T (, 'e,. +UnnrrvtyMlark FcilPa E Gufe a • ••q_S - iTj �? , PrimaryCH;krcm Hospraf sPsponyc`eq E7.0 ti i , �•I!W + •.I <_ • I WE-• •500 •• • •• �O � • `OPark100 • AlAHOE AVE 0�9 Washington a rro0ry F. +, VAINE 900 0 • • i 4 ! *did _/ • • •SUNNYSIDE AVE DIRECTORS ROH c 1 a I • 0 • CALIFORNIA AVE n CALIFORNIA AYE`® • •- _•r 13001V O $ j N 1300 1300 1525 1500 CALIFORNIA AVE 0 el ommon% • jet) hr J WaAn, Smit” „, ")�Y. a s FanrMUltil Me • 2 • N • 1730 _ _ _1700 1700 • • 0 • •1870 _" .-t---'4K�-ti• • i e 6 • Atormnuer; • ® • ; ;Tt) I (Awe I : F, SOUTH FRONTAGE RD • 8• • • 11QQ_ 1100 )20)) • is Ai.. ••u71'D • •-•• •t (20tio e • • • .° ,0.,'.'Varna H per! 2400 0 • Wd • W 8 8 i _............j7I_T, re -.., PARKWAY RAM 1700 •11y West Valley City a South f " 3010 J100 — O Salt Lake • lincood Oafs Sources: Decker Lake Phm 0 1 2 UTA,E1Ieh AGRG,ESRI 1� o ��- • \r"J�" 0• Wes T e _ Source:State of the System Factbook.Figure 6-3 SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix C: Gaps Analysis I C-13 61 Information \ rill4e,° Downtown rm 463 Salt Lake 600 Nenk 955 Map UTA provides a series of online and electronic 5,9 <o 520 North Temple Ration 42, 0 �5pp information resources including an online trip 920 ogarmen 422 440 �;42 11151 470 6 planner,real-time information,and a mobile 421 OWED 461 _ 453 LED 420 app center to connect passengers to services. 8 Mi 455 506 218 053 054 519 - Y": 6„ - , _454 50o '' r ? CIDIM 920 461, a Opportunities to improve the understanding of /�® 5611 Lake CasS, SMian• e• ' L x __ the system include: MID ED EEO EEO ® ° '°° B „°0 26, ,,,. ��� :C m5 no • Awareness and education of the ,1 = g, 2005w F o I 2 2}o ro services offered (e.g. fare free zone, �y m faSnVi6 320 200 Sant guaranteed ride home, next bus info ®LIU •, 456 available via text message); ` 500� y 4V EEO 460421 \\` 454 CID Ma46,CID4j0 453 962 • Ease of use through simplified and 90,9.46 Ern ' 455:om. legible information; and 4t""4«� • Improved access through technology. This map titled"Routes Leaving Downtown"is available on the UTA website but it's difficult to comprehend what Facilities the different colors and lines mean for each route. Source:UTA To provide additional service in the future,UTA will need new facilities to accommodate expansion.Additional bus layover space would be useful near areas of high transit use,such the University of Utah and downtown Salt Lake City.4th S/Main Street also has an issue with capacity as no additional trains are able to move through the intersection. KEY FINDINGS • Higher density areas tend to have higher use of transit,however some high density areas in Salt Lake do not show high transit boardings,such as eastern downtown,portions of Liberty Wells,Sugar House,and neighborhoods west of I-15 • Some areas with high propensity to use transit have low transit boardings and low transit mode share,therefore not as well-served by existing transit system. • Service enhancements including increased frequency and span of service could support a transit lifestyle and help transit be more competitive with driving alone. • To improve and enhance the transit user experience,future transit investments should consider affordability, access, and information. • Additional transit facilities will be needed to accommodate future growth and system expansion. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN Appendix C: Gaps Analysis C-14 1 UT/'""---T---"mm (i) Map LakeaIt J Pt I1r UTAH STATE BUILDING SALT LAKE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT �� 1 ®sF �yi;IB� r {� 7..... ° °o�=a `© N IhJII,111W��t , --�L 1K: ll N . Lsai a C ,DD6N o Q NTERNATIGNALE _ <p m e I ��II 9 E s EREHOSPITAL °....., ITy°r°T ANT .� ° ��r 0 3imfltin. � I I 4 ` , y ♦""..r. n° �NORTH TEMPLE .._„---- .. ©" rrrr �C'2:771�4. I1 Qy A r. g 4a i V»1 n� —'f 1f4]OfIDaf , I 1� 01� R. �� _ �laaaaaaG T L BD CAMPUSOR � , i.Ni.(,,, GUARDSMANW U Salt Lake County and South Davis County Corvco r�� N� ie f y s i-eflo,..�meBPDD,`'�P ilk 17A' TRANSIT SYSTEM MAP _ „ O 7 'w Effective May 1,1979 IND,ArvA m ( O A HoscvA :O L cE E GLENDAL I WE y.. f m.riI I /NN91 J See enlargement on reverse side for I - � L/ 9 ( - }' A 900576Lv,OE r Downtown Salt Lake City&Avenues Area 9m � O ` ,ems e!���` _1 Ery R. University of Utah L,Fogry A _` a' South Davis County AVEE�g©m U �® • V.. 8 sT.Mpgys WAYLLI p3 J i _ r� m� »ws� ^I I- I .. i I_ Ore O $ ,i6Ds� o;c • �09 r ^, i c ®L l�j�0 OLi.... ss• 1 iawiw O p• sTRATFosDA 01�", '' ©e`BLva t tq m O'er s kJ�ep +.j s.� � /'� +Mona)4 7 m e q "� V :CDs ' I `�M 6os. —�9 © r I emsLou se Ave ` o LITANwpv 7 L �' 31005. Wall . fallfr {{r., ALIE1 J♦ ' f�'Y, rir III Q 1( i , x� gs 8 , 10.1: ��,066 if la 0` �1 -gym <0@ O� �L' � � �w.nv L ���� �� �tOR � _ tLIN A6DW � .rl�:� 1Vs.,,s . . m �t'iG9 ��� T� ©'� ©_>. `e �©q"-sr vovE 3 +m r y�hrcV ij1 ��Z ®�` fit.�&'k �°'ij� pV ICI!l� �tl�HA011aaa',�sl I v �DA ..' l G S r • MNW,Nk(E BY, T = Murray �1�. HIGHLAND IL '^ \ci'" f X J fl MOO qs • u ss. 1� �+P 3 .noon r 11 N _ nor, Asro LN. sz,s./� - �' w�0 �a::\\"vvE? se,aosC 21 n y 8 74 C NAB 0 4. `.1. 000s 1.Q FASHION PLACEMALL a a w I otovo.e •`" I z 3 ( _>'" - ,,.�Ln--,ram a pAs l�!p W _d $ g 'i'` �6600 S I A O 62pp S. 4`' O f, AA . s CENTER ST. CENTER Sr 7:,,5. - 1�'/F / ;� »fi d..rw:I.. O FT UNION BLVD. "' (/,i'l, J i 4^ —o o� r ]000 B. L.V'i,�n�;�,yl �m d ald P o.>N wpsprcH ;: ,� n6 �Illi �OpD f-` w I(!L`w0a-0o: M 1 FERN DR . )j,,,-ie ilt.ti 8 ���\�.„. / 'N4vYa# za - Appendix D Transit Corridor Evaluation The Transit Master Plan included an extensive technical evaluation that informed draft transit service and capital recommendations.These recommendations evolved into the service and capital elements of the plan(Chapters 2 and 3).The recommendations were the outcome of a technical evaluation process that started with an existing conditions analysis(see Appendix A), was complemented by a multi-faceted public outreach process during the spring,summer,and fall of 2015(see Appendix B),and a gaps analysis based on both the existing conditions analysis and public outreach findings(see Appendix C). The service element of the Transit Master Plan includes a vision for an expanded high- frequency transit network for Salt Lake City,a core component of the plan.The long-term frequent transit network(FTN)is a 20-year vision for where frequent service should be provided in Salt Lake City.Defining an FTN allows Salt Lake City to work closely with Utah Transit Authority(UTA)to set priorities for service provision now and in the future.The service element contains three principal components: • FTN Map—The expanded vision for where frequent service should be provided throughout the city • FTN Service Level Definition—The definition of the standardized service level that will be provided on all FTN routes,e.g.,frequency,span,and days of service • Service Design Principles—Principles that are used to design the network of corridors recommended for capital investment and service investment A network map including an initial phasing recommendation for FTN implementation is provided here. During the next stage of analysis,the phased FTN vision will be finalized based on the online"Design Your Own Transit System"survey and input from key stakeholders. The capital element provides direction for where capital investment in the transit system will provide the greatest community benefits.The corridor evaluation was used,in conjunction with existing plans,to identify corridors for infrastructure improvements.The subsequent,final stage of the evaluation process will be a modal analysis that will define which improvements are appropriate in each of these recommended corridors,e.g.investments to improve transit performance,modal upgrades to Bus Plus,Bus Rapid Transit,or rail. The Transit Master Plan also includes a set of recommendations for programs,policies, and other supportive investments. This appendix describes analysis that informed Transit Master Plan recommendations. It includes initial draft versions of service and capital recommendation maps. These maps were refined through input from Transit Master Plan advisory committees; final maps are provided in Chapters 2 and 3 of the Transit Master Plan. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix D: Transit Corridor Evaluation 1 D-1 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND GOALS The Transit Master Plan responds to community and policy mandates to improve public transportation for the benefit of all members of the community in Salt Lake City.The Plan will help Salt Lake City and UTA set priorities for the next 20 years,guide decisions about the timing and location of capital investments,and increase the use of transit citywide. Salt Lake City is leading the Plan,focused on identifying transit needs,desires and investments citywide.However,the Plan builds on other local and regional planning efforts and is being developed in close coordination with UTA,City departments,and regional agencies.The Plan has been developed with an inclusive public process to ensure community needs and desires are captured.The goals and objectives of the Plan are shown in Figure D-1. Figure D-1 Transit Master Plan Goals and Objectives1 Goals Objectives Reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled. 1 Improve air quality. Improve competitiveness of transit with auto travel. Increase transit ridership. 2 Increase the number of people Make transit useful for more types of trips. riding transit. Improve the competitiveness of transit with auto travel. Provide reliable,efficient,frequent transit service. Provide service on a citywide network that serves a broad range of important community destinations. 3 Provide a complete transit system Maintain stable service on the core transit network. that supports a transit lifestyle. Provide service on the core transit network during the evening and on weekends to support all types of trips, including work and non-work trips. Provide information and maps that make the transit system easy to understand. Provide a safe and comfortable Improve bicycle and pedestrian access to transit. 4 transit access and waiting Improve the transit waiting experience and universal accessibility of stops experience. and stations. Design a transit network that supports access to jobs,education,daily needs, 5 Provide access to opportunity for and services for transit-dependent populations. vulnerable populations. Provide affordable transit options,particularly for low-income households. Align transit investments with transit-supportive land use policies and Create economically vibrant, development. 6 livable places that support use of Catalyze economic development and jobs in Salt Lake City by providing transit. effective transit service that employers, businesses,and the development community can depend upon. For more information on Goals and Objectives,please see the memo entitled Final Goals&Evaluation Framework for Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan,September 28,2015. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix D: Transit Corridor Evaluation D-2 METHODOLOGY The screening and evaluation process assessed a range of existing transit and potential transit corridors to determine where current and future demographics,land use patterns,and population and employment concentrations are most likely to support high-quality transit service,and support the broader community goals established for the Plan(see Figure D-1).As fully described in the Goals&Evaluation Framework memo,the investments that were evaluated were drawn from stakeholder and public outreach,input from Salt Lake City and UTA,and technical analysis completed for the State of the System Fact Book and the gaps analysis(Appendices A and C).2 The evaluation process was iterative,gradually narrowing from a broad list of potential corridors to identify a final set of recommended corridors.Figure D-2 illustrates the evaluation process and Figure D-3 illustrates the phase I and phase II evaluation criteria. The first phase was a fine-grained analysis of primarily land use and demographic data at the corridor segment level.This eliminated from consideration those corridors that are least likely to deliver significant return on transit investments within the plan time frame and helped the team assemble a set of corridors for the second phase of analysis. During phase II,the team analyzed 15 corridors against a broader range of evaluation criteria. At this stage,there were several factors held constant,including the operating plan,mode,and capital cost per mile(assumptions for the operating plan were taken from the FTN service level definition). In addition,two potential new transit hubs were included based on discussions with UTA and Salt Lake City staff during the September site visit,one in East Downtown near boo E and 2ooS and the second at the University. Several of the corridors that were evaluated terminate at one of these new hubs. This yielded the draft FTN and capital investment corridor recommendations,presented in Figure D-5 and Figure D-6 below,respectively.A range of mode options are identified for capital investment corridors. The attachments to this memo show full results from the phase I(Appendix A)and phase II (Appendix B)corridor evaluation. 2 See http://slcrides.org/documents/for documents developed previously for this Plan. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN 1 Appendix D: Transit Corridor Evaluation 1 D-3 Figure D-2 Evaluation Process I: Land Use II: Corridor Ill: Corridor Evaluation Evaluation Refinement Transit Master Plan • Evaluate full • Evaluate • Further arterial fifteen analysis of • Long-range vision network at corridors to top four to • Short-range investments fine-grained identify draft six corridors • Investment priorities level FTN and • Land use coordination corridors for • Supporting policies capital investment SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix D: Transit Corridor Evaluation 1 D-4 Figure D-3 Evaluation Criteria Relationship to Transit Master Plan Goals Q N O U L °; g . Evaluation Criteria a0 — E O c „ .� �; E .� -0 (Segment screening criteria shaded) p O O O (6 = E Q E . Q QQ O CO O CDC O 00 I- U CO Phase I& ■■ Existing ridership* Transit Propensity Index(TPI) Land use density current(population and employment) Land use density future(population and employment) Lack of access to a vehicle I • Anchor/generator strength and accessibility Potential for travel time savings and/or improved reliability Ridership potential(current and future year) • Redevelopment Potential • Cost effectiveness *The analysis accounts for the fact that corridors without any nearby transit service would be disadvantaged. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN i Appendix D: Transit Corridor Evaluation i D-5 SERVICE ELEMENT Overview of a Frequent Transit Network What is a Frequent Transit Network? A frequent transit network(FTN)is a set of designated transit corridors that offers frequent, reliable service connecting major destinations and neighborhood centers throughout the day including evening hours,every day including weekends.A frequent transit network can be comprised of both bus and rail technologies. Regardless of mode,the network should be developed to provide a consistently high standard of capacity,reliability,frequency,and customer service amenities.The FTN should be clearly communicated so that it is easily understood and marketed to riders to ensure ease of use(Chapter 5 provides further recommendations related to branding the FTN). To create a complete transit system,other local transit routes and alternative service models provide feeder service to FTN corridors(see Chapter 2).In addition,the value of a FTN can only be fully realized by fostering supportive land use development and high-quality pedestrian and bicycle access to stops/stations.Therefore,a truly effective FTN must be developed as a partnership between a city,its multiple departments,and a transit agency. Once a desired FTN is defined,a City and its transit partner can work together to obtain funding and make the improvements necessary to achieve the level of service that is envisioned. Key Performance Characteristics of a Frequent Transit Network To meet City goals to increase transit mode share and truly support residents'ability to live a car- free lifestyle,a frequent transit network should ideally have the following characteristics: • Fast and Reliable: Operate transit on arterial streets/transit priority streets where it will be most rapid and reliable; make improvements that reduce transit travel time and make it more competitive with automobile travel. • Frequent: Connect major destinations and neighborhood centers with 15 minute or better,all day service.Service that operates every 15 minutes or less is considered the minimum service level that allows people to use transit without consulting a schedule. • All Day: 15 minute or better service frequency between at least 6 a.m. —7 p.m.on weekdays and Saturdays,with 3o-minute service in the evening and on Sundays. • Every Day: 7 day per week service that maintains a basic level of frequent service on weekends. What investments are typically made on a Frequent Transit Network? Once the network is defined,coordinated transit service,transit capital,access,and land use investments should be made on these corridors. Investments include: • Intersection and Signal Management:It is critical how signals and rights-of-way are managed in FTN corridors. Since these corridors carry the highest volume of transit riders and have the greatest potential to capture more non-auto users,signal management at intersections should favor transit vehicles;on-street parking uses should be sacrificed in the interest of moving full,high-capacity buses through congested commercial districts; and integrated solutions should be sought to allow transit and bicycles to safely coexist. • Stops/Stations:The quality of stop and station amenities on FTN corridors is critical. Stops/stations also represent an opportunity to brand the FTN network differently so that SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN Appendix D: Transit Corridor Evaluation D-6 it is clear to riders where high frequency service operates(see Chapter 6 for more information). • Multimodal Investment: Coordinated multimodal investments along the FTN allow easy,safe access to frequent service(see Chapter 4 for further discussion). • Land Use:Zoning and other land use policies must support high frequency service along the FTN(see Chapter 6 for further discussion). Service Design Principles for Salt Lake City In conjunction with the corridor evaluation process,these principles were used to design the network of corridors recommended for service investment and capital investment.These principles respond to the goals of the Plan,the gaps analysis,and input from stakeholders and the public. • Convenient: Provide frequent,reliable daytime and evening transit service • Connected: Provide simple,citywide connections on a high-frequency network • Legible: Brand the core frequent transit network differently and design for ease of understanding • Easy to Use: Make the transit network easy to access and comfortable • Demand Driven: Invest in transit where overall travel market demand is high • Permanent: Provide stable service that riders and investors can rely on now and in the future These service design principles inform the service and capital recommendations,as well as the recommendations for programs,policies,and other supportive investments which are presented in a separate memo. Frequent Transit Network in Salt Lake City A High-Frequency Grid System for Salt Lake City UTA altered its route structure to a largely hub-and-spoke system several years ago with the construction of the Intermodal Hub,which is located in an area west of downtown that does not have considerable current activity or density. Currently,many of UTA's routes terminate at the Hub to take advantage of the centralized layover space that is available there.The gaps analysis and public outreach has revealed that this creates challenges for people who need to travel to other destinations throughout the city,necessitating multiple transfers and/or indirect trips. Further,in some cases,route productivity is undermined as routes must go to the Hub despite a lack of demand. Salt Lake City's strong linear street grid is well-suited for a grid-based system if new layover locations can be identified.This change could allow for more frequency on heavily used routes and/or offering better service in currently under-served areas where there is demand. The corridor evaluation process was designed to support Salt Lake City's evolution towards a more grid-based system.The phase II analysis used continuous and direct citywide corridors and explored two new locations for transit hubs—one in East Downtown near 700 E and 200 S and one at the University of Utah(indicated on the maps in this memo).Creating more layover space for UTA buses is a major factor in whether changes can be made to the transit system,including implementation of the envisioned FTN network. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN Appendix D: Transit Corridor Evaluation D-7 _• -* I ._ x -• Le t Radial Grid Hybrid (Hub and Spoke) Illustration of basic concepts in transit network design. Source:NelsonWygaard Frequent Transit Network Service Level Definition High frequency is critical to the functioning of a grid-based transit system as riders depend more on transfers. Based on the general principles described above,the level of service shown in Figure D-4 is recommended for the FTN.All designated FTN routes should operate according to these parameters,which were designed not only to be frequent,but also to operate relatively consistently all day,every day.The service design is simple and easy to understand so that riders can use an FTN route without referencing a schedule. In conjunction with clear branding,this provides a level of certainty and reliability on which riders can depend. Figure D-4 FTN Service Level Definition Day of the Week Frequency Span 30 minutes 5 am-6 am Monday-Saturday 15 minutes 6 am—7 pm 30 minutes 7 pm-11 pm Sunday 30 minutes 7 am-7 pm SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix D:Transit Corridor Evaluation D-8 Frequent Transit Network Recommendation Figure D-5 illustrates the draft recommendation for a grid-based FTN for Salt Lake City.The FTN is a long-range vision that is intended to be phased in over time.There are two basic FTN phases: 1. Tier 1 Existing: Corridors that are already served by frequent service.* Future: Corridors that have conditions now or in the near-term that merit FTN status.These were the top performing corridors in both phases of analysis. 2. Tier 2 Future: Corridors that are projected to have conditions that merit FTN status in the future.These are corridors that performed well in one of the phases of evaluation or are high priorities from a community outreach standpoint. *Note: those corridors designated as"Existing"do not meet the FTN service level definition shown in Figure D-4,with the exception of State Street(Route 200).For the most part,they provide frequent service(at least every 15 minutes)during weekdays during the day(peak periods and midday).As of completion August 2015,3 there were no routes that operate at 15 minute frequency every day of the week, there was one route(too-State Street)that operated at this frequency 6 days per week,and only the TRAX network operated at this frequency during weekday evenings. With implementation of Tier 1,service on these corridors should be upgraded to meet the FTN definition. Relationship to UTA Service Categories Based on outreach findings,the current UTA frequent transit network branding is not readily visible to the average rider.UTA's current service types are not defined primarily based on frequency,but on a combination of service qualities including purpose,stop spacing,and frequency,e.g.,types include local,shuttle,flex,commuter,express,and fast bus.UTA is rolling out Bus Rapid Transit lines and a Bus Plus network that will be branded high-frequency services with improved reliability and higher level of stops/stations.These recommendations should be coordinated with UTA's roll out of more branded service categories based on service level and reliability,e.g.,local/neighborhood access/feeder routes,high frequency trunk lines(straight lines city wide). (See Programs and Supportive Investments memo for further discussion.) Route Stability One adopted,it is critical that the FTN become a stable,relatively unchanging part of the transit system so that riders can rely on it much as they do the TRAX system. 3 See http://www.rideuta.com/uploads/Aug2015BusFrequency_Large.ipg SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix D: Transit Corridor Evaluation I D-9 Figure D-5 Draft Frequent Transit Network Vision Recommendation —Salt Lake City /y� ,' North Frequent Transit Network A- -I� /J l 1�� U Salt Lake Tier 1 Existing• Anchors and Destinations sr _ I Tier 1 Future 0 Hospital I� ,MOM — -_ 1 1 Tier 2 Future M C r 0 ® College/University �� , �, 110D i I / 'Frequent service runs UTA Transit Service 0 Shopping Center �' every 15 minutes or more — Bus Route f— A Entertainment often all-day.Corridors with FrontRunner/ ® "existing"frequent service �' Streetcar/TRAX ffri Civic Building 1700 would need upgrades to meet the 15-minute O Transit Center 0 Library/Research Facility standard on weekends. proposed DUPONT AVE PO4` ® Transit Center 0 Religious Center Salt lake City +� O (UTA&Ride Stadium ) -University of Utah International Airport o "' p Park&Ride e (Other) • At-Grade Rail Crossing • a M tea • FGreight paCrod 13THAVE Freight Rail Crossing HAROLD GATTY OR • Redwood Road ` ...1 1/4h i bus routes would SDO State t AWL!,EMAIL 01 ' a connect to TRAX I P STAR DR Utah State ,kpy + + Shriners Hospital for Children stations ,; I �ConIe m al L ® �`y.Cmt, 3RD AVE P �� ' MC and N TEMPLE •STST Batewa • • \■■■■■■■• - •!O Primaryry(h dre a Hospital Shoppai4Center •:- •.. t T=7 tt)♦9 • .nn------1 II�O ,k�tmtml O 400ii. •I . U\ 500 _14 6e ARAPAHOE AVE "r- 600 69 City LO ry 0 rrogry ��- arch Park ® I ,yaam 700 A ,,,,----.2____, J��• ACenterl (,4 Alternative service • a110 9 Center models to be o e j rAlternative considered west of P _ e o service models Redwood Road a o 1?0a Ito be considered} EAIIFOR A AYEIt I�Qp Ballpark SAW Station j Camge munaj 19 A(alle 1730 a POO CA00 • ITN P $ 1810 0, ® ti 1 o S WestminsterColkge SOUTH FRONTAGE RD / N ;:o� I v I (Ot Sta'i sIDD 3100 G 1100 • • • • House °4p e • O siness Oistixt �FiJ l --- �4i 0 1_____________,....5— i i."2, so • West Valley City ;, SouthI Salt Lake 3DID ® Q T 901 2 Miles Decker gL '— Data Sources:UTA.Utah AGRC,ESRI o mke5mtion �� / 1 r Ter Note:The Final FTN Vision maps are provided in Chapter 2. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix D: Transit Corridor Evaluation I D-10 Local Service Network The FTN is designed to serve long,direct citywide corridors. For a complete and easy-to-use transit system,it is critical that the transit system also includes complementary local routes that provide feeder service to the FTN and neighborhood circulation.Coverage rather than speed is the goal for the local network.Stop spacing as close as 60o feet can be acceptable in some cases. As with the FTN,transit access improvements are critical to maximizing usefulness of the local services and providing equitable access to transit service for all populations. The local network that feeds the FTN is not a key focus of this plan,since the City's limited transit resources will be focused on the development of the FTN. However,the City should support UTA actions to: • Maintain a basic or"lifeline"level local service to within 1/2 mile of most residents.This level of service is defined by a minimum of 6o minute frequencies for 12 hours per day.If a route cannot support this level of service,then provision of alternative service models should be considered(see below). • As the FTN is implemented,the local route network should be adjusted to ensure it complements and supports new frequent services. Community Shuttles Public outreach findings indicated a desire for services that provide better neighborhood connectivity.Community shuttles,sometimes described as neighborhood circulators,are a model that is used in some cities to serve short trips within communities,feed major transit routes(rail, BRT,or other frequent transit network service),shopping,employment,and other activities. Community shuttles often use smaller capacity vehicles,such as 20 to 25 passenger mini-buses,to provide local transit service in lower density residential neighborhoods or areas of challenging topography that are more difficult to serve with conventional fixed-route transit service.The cost- effectiveness of this model may be maximized through a special contracted rate for community shuttle operators. (See Chapter 2 for examples and further discussion). Alternative Service Models Several neighborhoods in Salt Lake City have transit needs,but lack sufficient density or demand to justify providing FTN or even local service,as defined above.These neighborhoods are candidates for alternative service models which can provide critical first mile/last mile connections in low-demand areas,such as demand-responsive public transportation services, private and institutionally-operated shuttles targeted at specific populations,and on-demand shared ride services(see Chapter 2 for examples and further discussion). SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix D: Transit Corridor Evaluation I D-11 CAPITAL INVESTMENTS Overview of Capital Investment The Plan includes recommendations for where capital investment in the transit system will provide the greatest community benefits.Capital improvements can include investments in right- of-way management and intersections to benefit transit performance,as well as modal upgrades to Enhanced Bus,Bus Rapid Transit,and/or rail.At this stage,the corridors recommended for infrastructure improvements are highlighted.Capital corridors were analyzed to identify potential modes that are appropriate in each of these recommended corridors. Capital Investment Initial Recommendations The top performing corridors in the phase II evaluation are recommended for capital improvements(see Figure D-6).A first step in developing capital improvements on these corridors would be to conduct more detailed corridors studies to refine the mode,specific alignment,and design. East-West Corridors: Analysis of capital improvements is recommended along three east-west corridors that serve the University of Utah,spaced about one quarter-to one half-mile apart: • #1: 200 S(Salt Lake Central-University of Utah) • #2: North and South Temple(North Temple station-University of Utah) • #3: 400 S(Redwood Road-University of Utah) In addition,the following corridor is recommended for inclusion,as this corridor has been studied by UTA as an upgrade to the TRAX system to enable a direct connection between the Airport and the University of Utah: • #6:North Temple/400 S(Airport—University of Utah) North-South Corridors Analysis of capital improvements is recommended along four north-south corridors: • State Street is the highest performing north-south corridor in the evaluation: — #8:State Street(SLC Southern border-State Capitol) • Analysis of improvements is recommended along two high-performing corridors that could potentially serve a recommended new transit center located along 200 S between 50o E and 90o E and/or provide north-south connections into the Avenues neighborhood and to LDS Hospital. Significant changes would likely not be proposed to the right-of-way in the Avenues,so capital improvements to these corridors are not indicated north of South Temple Street. — #9 a/b:50o E(SLC southern border-200 S or S.Temple) — #11 a/b/c: 90o E(SLC southern border-200 S or S.Temple) • Although the Redwood Road corridor does not score as highly on density metrics as other corridors,it is an important continuous transit corridor for connectivity on the west side of the city and thus is recommended for further capital investment analysis: — 14 a/b: Redwood Road(SLC southern border-1700 N) SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix D: Transit Corridor Evaluation I D-12 Figure D-6 Draft Capital Corridors Recommendation bait Lake Lay Corridors for Capital Investment T!, A� !MS i•7s UTA Transit ServiceAnalysis finLA ' Rec md Corridors � FrontRunner/ Recommended Corridors _IF Streetcar/TRAX for Capital Analysis En AL `. I , m_ 10 Transit Center if TRAX Upgrades 1 l �1 - Downtown Streetcar LPA (i Proposed !' ' �' �� Transit Center Anchors and Destinations 0 Hospital ® 600N \� ® College/University state 8TH AVE Salt lake City I M Capitol ShrnesHospoolfoChilden Q Shopping Center InternationalAir Airport r/LA UrahSrme Sa-Palace ffi 0 6TH AVE O UniuerstyMCand ® Entertainment P �iYii'' Fair Grounds Co ventron - .- Prima rildrensHospital N TEMPLE Si® enter Hospital Civic Building • g •, Temple — Salt lake Regianal + 0 Library/Research Facility • • Gateway�� 2,': _ • 6. Shopping Center $ r s _ Religious Center \;. pP 9 O O. \O -�_ - - --'�? 9 : ii O I �� � -U UniversityStadium - of Utah400S © University of Utah 3 • • • • I • �Q 0 - ©` I 0 14b I Washington Trolley INDIANA AVE L_ Square Square VA • 4b 9005 Medical Center 3 4a 900 S o c 3 0 0 3 P r ^ o e O Research Park ttg a CALIFORNIA AVE • ~ 1300 S 0 O 1300 S n 0 Q 0 11a 0 othill VillageKorman- Smith's ® Ballpark 11 b ) n 0 1 c 11005 CommunitySalt-Lake 0 esrminsterCollege College o s 2100S • �1 ,o / mouse o sO,dgor House ll 0 Bu tress Oatrid 1r J - Wnhnntt 0 `V West ValleyCity South �! tY o Salt Lake II v ( Br kyard Plato � 0 I 0 o i ies Data Sources:UTA,Utah AGRC,ESRI Note:The final Capital Investment Corridors map is provided in Chapter 3. SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix D: Transit Corridor Evaluation I D-13 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Phase I Evaluation Results Attachment B: Phase II Evaluation Results SALT LAKE CITY TRANSIT MASTER PLAN I Appendix D: Transit Corridor Evaluation 1 D-14 � � r fir. �- ry}C r .f• `C , r:. ti � •oAr ; z : Y ' �+'• . /!`{ ~ � ✓}� r. }! •,r rr. f; !,. 4.i -J ~:t Sr p,,,]ey` f �3 - .Y • r ,r _ � - As la I 4, �iliksr , -..:.,..-7..,..f • ••• 1;'. i.r--::4 , 14h;1440;iii, . . k ..oick„ 4. '..roft !,"''.' 4 v., •4 ' • t 'v r. ' .+ Er ! f A k is ` • a - • '.• i Salt Lake Cit „ r �`` ''�` i � ', iK - '' Y �! . .' 1:'� ; �,r ; . may... 4, itIL II M ta NON IF '' !In I err f p . �~_ r `. LA hip II Attachment A - Phase I Evaluation Results,cpaita 12.,ii . E 4,-r ;, -Tir ._ __ ... / f. 10101111H. -1; 1 11111.11 1 - ..........••• . . - ®`'� ./ fie ld - . ) • _ t 4 ' P r NELSON September2015 NYGAARD Attachment A - PHASE I EVALUATION For Phase I of the evaluation,the corridors did not represent a network of transit routes,but a series of arterial roadway segments.Segments were created using logical breakpoints(e.g.,key intersections)to provide more granular representation of current and/or potential transit-carrying arterials. The following pages show the corridor segment map for Salt Lake City that was used for the first phase of the evaluation and maps of the results. —Salt Lake City— i L-----7 Analysis Segments 1 1 IP"INIR IAv I' p r-•-•-• ( ) Analysis Segments J , ,} UTA Transit Service + Hospital ��IM�I , I� _ 2300 FrontRunner/ r Middle School/High School Streetcar/TRAX ♦ n1 /\ a ■ '._._._._. 2100 O 4 College r � ■ \ \ t� ■ ^ P Park(UTA)Ride Park Shopping Center 1700 O (Other&)Ride • Other A System data current as of March 2015 - University of Utah P T AVE `/orly` _._._.i City Limits 9p Salt Lake City — International Airport o g 1000 P — o —kh 100 13TH AVE HAROLD GATTY DR • I I o 500 7'\ 50 N '1THAOE P tah State o State Ca itol 4�Shriners Hospital for Children • • G 30� �AMELIA R RT DR os 1 m 4TH AVE P r • ` • • e NTE T , ,-.•.,, r University MC and 1� 4INIX ST ,edical Center +PrimaryChildrens Hos i r. appin�Center • •1 ; • P •Salt Palace- P )- • Convention 11 University Salt La Central Center • hilin of Utah • II 0 II 400 mn ■ A 00 r• • • • ,,• • arch Park 1� 700 jAPAHOE AVE ' I gg = z /l m ■ Troll; r 700 K Squs• VA 900 Medical Center i 0 1000 DIRECTORS ROW o _ _IN A I UN SIDE AVE = Q _ _CALIFORNIA AVE ® "' CALIFOR VE ® I I O - - " o =in 1300 1525 e - 1500 CALIFORNIA AVE Br Ir ark S anon 420 = anthill Village r. 1730 a 1100 1700 y y 1r/ n y 1700 r/ "s = 1820 /h �l A A , A A )" so a ® estminster(liege r %' 4./ SOUTH FRONTAGE RD Po Central P inte -ion 100 II 2100 /1 0 o r • •_• 1 2 1 '64;P ,._.__ 2400 0 • W Sug, o1.,e y sly9 .j _ ^ Busin. I ict A ] a I i PARKWAY D W �: '.� 77nn 100 • West Valley City o Sout i 3100 - ._. . p3010_._ Salt Lake lick and'la. Data urces: Pioneer Valley Hospital Decker Lake'ation 1 ;y • 1 2 + l o ' 94MillcreekStation _ y Miles UTA, tah AGRC,ESRI �� ti! ( —Salt Lake City— Average Daily Weekday Boarding (2014) p.is l■MI T ri II Rail and Bus Boardings UTA Transit Service + Hospital f i ~rZI'iper corridor mile p cc,,, —0— FrontRunner/ : Middle School/High School � _._._ 250 or Less Streetcar/TRAX ��IASI , I� -_ 2300 251-500 � Park&Ride College 1� I& a • I._._._._.; 2100 Park&Ride ® Shopping Center „ re 501-1,000 O (Other) -- �� 1,001-1,500 • Other System data current 1700 1,501— or more as of March 2D15 - University of Utah 1/8 mile Walk Sheds i._._.i City Limits ��To 0 Corridor ID 1s DUPONT AVE y` 90 Salt Lake City WO International Airport ® o loon 700 1 _ 13TH AVE HAROLD GATTY DR • 0 600 a 0 "' City Creek Center 11THAVE Salt Palace �tat�19THAVE ShrinersHospitalforChildren AMELIA EARHART DR 0 Utah State © Convention + o a _ Fair Grounds N TEMPLE ST• 2 • I N 3RD AVE 3RD AVE 0 P • • • • • © Salt LaKeKegh'al University MC and 28 • — STEMPLE •AimlCe +Primar Children Hos i V Ga•..fy , 0 26 • Y P 16 dioppin Center �'. 5 100 p 100 5 6 15 28 O -zsl• zoo s 200 University •r9 9a 500 9b 9 400 9 9a 400 • • 400 • • • • 28 Research Park • 700 0 0 fi0 o 20 "' Tr0 g olley 700 + ��VA o 900 INDIANA AVE 1e Square m Medico/Center i 17 1000 900 �' Q 900 900 �' SUNNYSIDEAVE 75 a oDIRECTORSROW ® 3 a o a e e e 0 19 CALIFORNIA AVE m CALIFORNIA AVE CALIFORNIA AND 1300 0 _ _ a:11300 1300 11 11b 1525 1500 N rI O ry Foothill Village 1730 1700 1700 1700 1700 _ _ 1820 - n N— ——�!!1 0 1700 Q m 16 0 ® ® G7S1� 0 0 estminsterCollege Foo SOUTH FRONTAGE RO -._._._. 01 ._._._._. ._._._._._._._._._._._-�-._____._._._._.___ 2100 .-_-PI 2100 _ ___ 210_0 26 0 i _-- —_._._. _._. 13 ii i i 15 (�Q �_ • • • •• Q 0 N �91f`f ,._._._.i 2400 0 4 Saga Ho e oaf 3 .1 o Rusme Di rict I EtP PARKWAY BLVD /� a 0 2700 2700 i �,` Ni i West Valley City Sout - 3010 I ' 3100 _ P Salt L ke •j is-- a._._._._.: z n O I 1 O 2 Data Sources: Pioneer Valley Hospital o Miles (p� 3300 -l ' UTA,Utah AGRC,ESRI + r 3300 '1' `Srlckyard'laza 3300 —Salt Lake City— -"- - Transit Propensity Index T m o Average Score UTA Transit Service + Hospital �"�l II ram I' 111 �i FrontRunner/ Middle School/High School e I� C ; _._._ . 8 or Less Streetcar/TRAX i_._._� ��I��� , I_ __ 2300 -8.1-11.0 ® Park&Ride College ' (UTA) Shopping Center is I I, a • ;._._._._. 2100 / li 11.1-14.0 Park&Ride ei r `. " r■ O (Other) 14.1-17.0 • Other System data current 1700 i -17.1 or more as of March 2015 - University of Utah 1/4 mile v._._.I City Limits 4, Walking Sheds SaltLake CityInternationalAirport o V E (VPONTAVE 000 700 0 13TH AVE HAROLD GATTY DR r---1-1 o 1 ID j 500 N /ik, F Shriners Hospital for Children AMELIAE RHARTDR Utah State State Capitol• ;; Fair Grounds ^ - o • N TEMPLE ST \.... .. • •� • • • City Creek Center • Lake Regional University MC and Ga•,,,y :• • • +PrimaryChildrensHospi Shoppin i Center •Salt Palace KV • t °no University "SaltLake CentralO Rill of Utah • .. . Sao 500 Q Q 400 • • • • arch Park 700 / CD ,',HOE AVE 600 I 69 ol° + • Troh j 700 I VA ` sga� 900 I �a Medical Center �� '-- 1000 o Q 900 SUNNYSIDE AVE ' DIRECTORS ROW o o _ 1 •._. CALIFORNIA AVE ® "' °' CALIFORNII AVE VPa 1300 O •, o 0 0 1 1300 300 1525 Q 1500 CALIFOR IA AVE 181 0 ElFoothill Village 1730 — 1700 1700 II 1700 Lock 0 0 0 N 1820 4, ' _ ® a Westminster College o `7 SOUTH FRONTAGERD f Central nte Station Y100 2100 0 N 2100 ---- c o 0 2400 o 0 Sugar House i sly9 o ► •i Business District --, .5,_ _ _/ �` PARKWAY VD 1 " ? 2100 Q I _I West Valley City Sout J P Salt L ke ._. p3ol0_. I_+I Decker Lake Station I �kckyaT °Z° O 1 2 Data Sources: PioneerValleyHospital n MillcreekStation ® Miles UTA,Utah AGRC,ESRI Y —Salt Lake City— -- - I_ Population Density (2015) A I■ I■�� T�" ��� I' o Residents UTA Transit Service + Hospital fi r _ per corridor mile �i FrontRunner/ Middle School/High School I� . , 1,000 or Less Streetcar/TRAX m Its , IF -_ 2300 1,001-2,000 ® Park&Ride College IS 1 I, a • .____I 2100 / ® Shopping Center „ �� Park&Ride 2,001-4,000 O (Other) �� 4,001 •-6,000 • Other System data current 1700 , -6,001 or more as of March 2015 - University of Utah i P 1/4 mile L._._.I City Limits 4 Walking Sheds DUPONT AVE rqq` - , J Salt Lake City International Airport o V 0 1000 HAROLD GATTY DR r „0 700 o 13TH AVE 500 500 N I`, AWLIAE RHARTDR �Shriners Hospital for Children O Utah State 1.:. ,tate Capitol• + 300 Fair Grounds 0 N TEMPLE ST • •^ • • • @� . Lake Regional UniversityMCand \`"" "'' ' • +PrimaryChildrensHospi Go•,,,y ,�• • _ Pi Shoppin!Center�SaltPalace 30 Salt Lake Central • Convention • University <=- - 400 Q Center •] II ill II II iir of Utah • I z -- Soo ii • • • Research Park 1 700 F/ • gg ARAPAHOE AVE 600 I _ 1 7rol r 700 + t� 1000 0 900 • Squ 900 MedicaalCenter f�_ ' DIRECTORS ROW o 0 o SUNNYSIDE AVE c o o a M o c _ o o _ CALIFORNIA AVE ® "' CALIFORNII AVE ® 1300 4 BallparkStat N o o 300 1300 1525 Q 1500 CALIFORNIA AVE _ D Foothill Village 89 1730 a 1700 1700 0 P 1100o9 0 0 0 1820 4, _ ® I estminsterCollege 0 0 o SOUTH FRONTAGE RD f cn P c 01 — - 1 tral Pointe' ion 2100 0 P — N r — 0 �'� • • • • i - N A4q s..._% 2400 o O Su o • lFftsty 1 0 BusnessDistrict 4` ---, _/ PARKWAY DLVDL. 2700 2700 Q • .I z 0 West Valley City o Sout i 3100 P Salt Lake „._._._._p_.3011_. w' I Decker Lake Station : i ¢kickyafrPlaza O 1 1 ' 2 Data Sources: Pioneer ValleyHospital o ©MillcreekStation 1 Si` Miles UTA,Utah AGRC,ESRI r . i I I —Salt Lake City— - I_ Population Density (2040) Al■ I T�" ���I■�I'M o Residents per corridor mile UTA Transit Service + Hospital II r _ � FrontRunner/ : Middle School/High School I� -._ . __, 1,000 or Less Streetcar/TRAX ��I��• , I11 -lip _ 2300 1,001-2,000 ® Park&Ride College is I I, � • ; 1 2100 / Park&r Ride ® Shopping Center „ �� 2,001-4,000 O (Other) me — 4,001-6,000 • Other System data current I 1700 , -6,001 or more as of March 2015 - University of Utah 1/4 mile v._._ City Limits F Walking Sheds DUPONT AVE r�q` J Salt Lake City International Airport o V g moo siED HAROLD GATTY DR �Q 700 „ 13TH AVE N ,yTy 500 500 Ak/. AMELIAE RHART DR _ Shriners Hospital for Children 0 o Utah State tale Capitol• + 300 FairGraund• _ • m N TEMPLE ST • • • • i , Lake Regional . University MCand NM \""' • +Primary ChildrensHospi appin'Center •Salt Palace kV Salt Convention MI University `-- - SaltLa entral �•, . ■ in of Utah • j 400 O lir Research Park WO , �• • • • • • . _._._._._._._. 700 / 0ARAPAHOEAVE + ill 7rol j 700 VA 900 •' Squ 900 Medical Center f�_ i li 1000 - SUNNYSIDE AVE i DIRECTORS ROW o 0 0 j o a M _ i CALIFORNIA AVE ® "' CALIFORNII AVE ® 1300 ,ppark5tat u 0 0 1300 1300 '. 1525 Q 1500 CALIFORNIA AVE OD o ®Foothill Village i W 89 1730 a 1700 1700 0 * 1700 �0 , 1820 4 i ` ® j estminster College o �� SOUTH FRONTAGE RD tral nte' ion „ O N 2100 f.-----ram O� ���•—•� 1 2400 o 0 Su �o , r glF`F� 0 0 o Bush- District 4` --- c o o ---- PARKWAY BLVD 2700 • 2700 .I z o 0 West Valley City o Sout 1 3100 P Salt Lake „._._._._p_.3o,0_.; 0 .,. i j i ¢ki�kyafdPlaza o 1 Decker Lake Station ,.-Data Sources: PioneerV+yHospital r o (pl MillcreekStation1 ` M\-)2 UTA,Utah AGRC,ESRI i ti/ I i I I —Salt Lake City— -"- - I_ Employment Density (2015) Ai. leIWO T�" ��� II o f_._._- Jobs UTA Transit Service + Hospital II IN r Z_ per corridor mile �i FrontRunner/ : Middle School/High School Less than 2,000 Streetcar/TRAX ��AK Air ,I� I� 2300 (I" 2,001-4,000 a Park&Ride i College !' I _._._._ Park /\ a ■ ; 2100 / � 4,001-6,000 Park&Ride ® Shopping Center r `. " �� O (Other) • Other 6,001 8,000 System data current 1700 / —8,001 or more as of March 2015 - University of Utah 1/4 mile I._._.I City Limits p� Walking Sheds DUPONT AVE (4/, - q� Salt Lake City International Airport o g ion o _ sirD - " HAROLD CATTY DR l r 600 13TH AVE _ � 700 ' n X A IN I 500 „ 7jrHAi'F i. AMELIA RHARTDR Shriners Hospital for Children P o tah State State Cap • !! s '^ 4 • N TEMP d l • •— • • I • 3RDAVE Sc�tLakeKegiona University MC and r I.Creek Center TEMP ST Medical Center +Primar ChildrensHos i Ga•,.y ;• • _ Y P �� __ Shoppin!Center iBaitPalace Salt Lake Central • Convention 200 University - - O Center `•, . ii o of Utah i 401 WI / I' •r • 400� t Research Park 700 0ARAPAHOE AVE 600 ® o + Trolley a j 700 3VA Square I t7 900 • l 900edical Center 1000 DIRECTORS ROW o SUNNYSIDE AVE ! oc c W ,._.i ee ® M M CALIFORNIA AVE ® a 1300 M — co a e e e 1300 ! CALIFORNIA AVE Q Ballpark 1300 a ',. 1525 Q 1500 CALIFORNIA AVE o Foothill Village i W 89 1730 \ d 1700 1700 1 10 _ 1700 P,g 0 0 1820 0 ® g Westminster College o yli _ 71 SOUTH FRONTAGE RD o I tral te' ion ■ a r 01 .-- _._._._.------ P.__._._._._._.__._._. 2100 • 2100 2100 GAIII L • • •• 0 0 ® r Pqq`� 2400 0 0 Sugar House A 0 .i o o Business District ---, PARKWAY E LVD 0 `I a 2700 c 2700 y 3100 m 0 West Valley City o South ..-. A P 0 Salt Lake Decker Lake Station : Bkicky'afaPlaza 0 1 2 Data s ources: Pioneer Valley Hospital El 9 MillcreekStation Miles UTA,Utah AGRC,ESRI r ti/ �v� • i1 I —Salt Lake City— -- - I_ Employment Density (2040) A ■ I■�' T�`���� I' o__._._._._._._._._.r Jobs UTA Transit Service + Hospital II I r _ per corridor mile �i FrontRunner/ : Middle School/High School I� _._._ . Less than 2,000 Streetcar/TRAX lin/MAMI , I,,IF _ i 2300 2,001 4,000 Park&Ride College •� _._._._. (UTA) /\ ■ 1 2100 / am 4,001-6,000 Park&Ride ® Shopping Center r_ `. " re 41 O (Other) • Other 6,001 8,000 System data current 1700 —8,001 or more as of March 2015 - University of Utah 1/4 mile 1._._.J City Limits p� Walking Sheds DUPONT AVE rj(2'p` Salt Lake City ImIllma International Airport o g ion P o _ HAROLD GATTY DR b 700 r � 600 "' N 13TH AVE op AMELIA�RHART DR ShrinersHospitalforChildren P o tah State State Cap • I I s ^ 4 • : N TEMP d l • •= • • I 3RDAVE Sc�tLakeKegronm University MC and r �9CreekCenter TEMP ST Medical Center +Primar ChildrensHos i • tryt Ga•,.y ;• • _ Y P __ Shoppin r Center i Salt Palace IV Salt Lake Central • Convention 200 University O Center `•, . ii o of Utah i 40r S90 / ' r • 400� t Research Park 700 0 ARAPAHOE AVE 600 ® e + ,._._._._._._. ._._ Trolley a j 700 VA e Square 2 3 ��_ 1000 900 • l 900edical Center DIRECTORS ROW o SUNNYSIDE AVE j o c ® s a M a og. o_ e e_ e e e i CALIFORNIA AVE 15 M ^' CALIFORNIA AVE 1300 1300 Q Ballpark Station 1300 a .J 1525 1500 CALIFORNIA AVE o Foothill Village 0 1730 \ d 1700 1700 r( 1 r 0 __ 1700 P poi e e e 1820 # o g e II • , ® I 71 Westminster liege o � ;, SOUTH FRONTAGE RD r , r r•' 'on 2100 O N 91 _ .- _ 2100 2100 1 i 2400 0 ® r ,p/Fy --, Sugar House s,f o BusmessDistrict �� ---, o o i i PARKWAY BLVD 2700 c 2700 i O West Valley City o South r 3100 ,t_._._._._A_.3.010_,_ --1 w P Salt Lake 1� Decker Lake Station ,�kicky'afaPlam 0 1 2 Data Sources: Pioneer Valley Hospital o I Q MillcreekStation Miles UTA,Utah AGRC,ESRI r �, ,• —Salt Lake City— ..-- I_ Zero Vehicle Households A l■ l■NMI T�" I�� II o Households UTA Transit Service + Hospital fi r _ per corridor mile �i FrontRunner/ : Middle School/High School A& e I� C , 100 or less Streetcar/TRAX ��I��� I I� _ 2300 0 101-200 ® Park&Ride i College IS 1 1, a • ;____I 2100 (UTA) ei Shopping Center • 201-400 Park&Ride r_ `. " re O (Other) lil • Other 400-600 System data current 1700 —601 or more as of March 2015 - University of Utah 1/4 mile 1._._. City Limits p� Walking Sheds DUPONT AVE rjqp` J _ Salt Lake City International Airport o g _ 1000 o HAROLD GATTY DR r—fb 700 600 P "' 13TH AVE>>! 500 500 9q` AWLIAE RHARTDR Shriners Hospital for Children P Utah State State Capitol• _ + 300 irGrounds r o • i N TEMPLE ST m �� • •^ • • • take Regional University MC and City Creek Center �' +Primar ChildrensHos i Shappin r Center •Salt Palace IV Salt Lakt Central • onion ! University "� - 400 Center • a of Utah I I ^ l l -- cn0 J I •500 • • • • • arch Park 700 / gg ARAPIHOE AVE 600 ® o Trolley o j 700 o Square I VA n 900 • 900 Medical Center �� 1000 DIRECTORS ROW o _ SUNNYSIDE AVE j .-.i o -2a M o CALIFORNIA AVE tom CALIFORNII AVE ® 1300 0 ,pparkStati a e e 1300 a 1300 1525 Q 1500 CALIFORNIA AVE o Foothill Village i W 89 1730 a 1700 1700 1 0 1700 P.09 ' 1820 _- ti i o ® I Westminster(allege o l� ;, 71 SOUTH FRONTAGE RD O r - of ---.-- .---.---.-- -_ a Central Pointe ion 2100 2100 2100 01 2400 70oo O 0 00 :1 _ r4. Fs______,..j\L , oo .� BuSsume HDreict 4i- --- PARKWAY E LVD I i 2700 2700 ' ! 9 West Valley City o Sout i ( Li i a O 3100 i , ._._._A_.3010_. O Sa It Lake I kick araPlaza Data Sources: Pioneer V+yHospital z Decker LakeS'ation r �, y o 1 2 r g Q MillcreekStation i P.j Miles UTA,Utah AGRC,ESRI —Salt Lake City— (_ College Students Aft l■ I T�" �A I■�� I'NMI o Students UTA Transit Service + Hospital II r _ per Corridor Mile �i FrontRunner/ : Middle School/High School 250 or Less Streetcar/TRAX � n IM�� ,ISM I� -_ 2300 .251-500 ® Park&Ride College n 1 I, a • ;_-_._1 2100 •501-750 Park&Ride El Shopping Center O (Other) N me -�„ re �/ ill 751-1,000 • Other System data current 1700 —1,001 or more as of March 2015 - University of Utah i i 1/4 mile LiCity Limits p� Walking Sheds DUPONT AVE �r�q` q� , J Salt Lake City International Airport o WO g 1000 o stED HAROLD GATTY DR r-1-1 700 \ eV 600o 13TH AVE,,T H 500 ■ qdf AMELIAE RHARTDR 'itch State 1 E State Capitol• ShrinersHospitalforChildren N o o it rouids I 300 -AM LW. 11C 'VIIU i N TEMPLE ST P O^ O O • y University MC and �.. .. City Creek Center _ Primary ChildrensHos i Ga•,ry ,�• • • Y P Shoppin!Center —•Salt Palace' • Convention ii. 1niversity 4 Salt Lake CentralQ Center 0 10 N . of Utah • Soo J 500 O • • • • arch Park 700 �/ 8g ARAPAHOE AVE 600 fig + e o Trol : 700 VA L._._._._._._._._._., 900 �- 0 900 Sgu 901 edicalCenter � ! 17 1000 c �— ��SUNNYSIDE AVE DIRECTORS ROW o o _ j 0 0 ® m a _ _ o 0 0 o i CALIFORNIA AVE ® "' m CALIFORNII AVE 1300 M © allpark5tation o o o 0 0 1300 .---a 1300 , 1525 Q 1500 CALIFORNIA AVE tgt o Foothill Village m W 89 w 1730 a 1700 1700 1700 1700 Re0, , 1820 ti o o o ® estminster College g 71 SOUTH FRONTAGE RD - o O . f .- .-.- - i a C tralPointeStation 2100 2100 2100 o �_ © j4 O ¢ 0 OO o o A 9 25... 400 o 0 r iF` Sug o s 9 o ::: Dirict��` PARKWAY E LTD 0 2700 • West Valley City o Sout i a O 3100 - i_' _. . '�_.3010_._ 0 Salt Lake j „�k;�kyara la o f 1 2 Data£ources: Pioneer V+yHospital z Decker LakeSTatiou �- UTA,Utah AGRC,ESRI j I (Epl Millcree'Station '��, `-" Miles Y OUTCOMES OF PHASE 1 SCREENING i I Po' Salt Lake City— North .Existing Frequent Service* + Hospital FL is I■ *Runs every 15 minutes or more often Middle School/ IT�I 1�, ' o --- _--- t----7' Salt Lake for at least 13 hours per day on weekdays. r High School -- ``�r ! — TRAX Service -, i College ! ,.-.-.-.; O TRAX Station �n I� , O 2300 Bus&Streetcar Routes ® Shopping Center ' i /\ ■ !._._._._; 2100 I Ad O Park&Ride • Other „ ■� Pia (UTA) - University of Utah 1- fie.::: i O Park&Ride (Other) ;._._.1 City Limits i i 1700 EN High School i . . New/Extended Streetcar i College DUPONT AVE �T�y` El Shopping Center 'PG, / - • Other Salt Lake City o International Airport o l000 O - University of Utah r o 1 City Limits e P 18 • N 13TH AVE i HAROLD GATTY DR I 600 // 500 State 500 N THg7'F i AMELIA EARHART DR O STAR OR m Capitol + 300 +ShrinersHospitalforChildren it Utah State r Salt Palace m 4TH AVE ! 7 Ls: Fair Grounds• N TEMPLE Si Convention 3RD AVE P 8 8 8 U 0 . Center Salt Lake Regional University MC and sa • ,• City Creek STEMPLEST Medical Center • + N / Gateway Shopping Center . eaten 260� �0� PrimaryChildrensHospi�al • ■ 0 - ,0_0 University ; i 400 G SalthakeCentral 1! of Utah 1 500 0 m500 • • ---• Research Park ARAPAHOE AVE • r 700 • .6�0 69 Trolley r 700 Medical"0" ♦♦ ;._._._._._._._._._- m At Grade MD Center ♦ ; 900 0 Rail Crossing 17 r 1000 . . .0 SUNNYSIDE AVE DIRECTORS ROW _ o 0 0 . "' _ ..... a o o 0 0 0 o i. LI v CALIFORNIA AVE 15 CALIFORNIA AVE - 1300 © 1300 N or a ♦ 1300 `/ -• Ballpark w Foothill Village 1525 1500 S• tation &- $y N 1730 a 1700 1700 1700 1700 Kr <, 1820 O -- \At Gra Westminster o 0 t — ® Rail Crossing 71 College ♦ SOUTH FRONTAGERD ._._._._._._._._._._._._._._---- 2100 2100 C V20)0 ._ �...._.�.��\ © , . i r Highlande. aq iPo� 2400 - o p Central Pointe Su arHouse® High School BFF`F*9`♦ LE E - o Station Busini s District W e o • PARKWAY BLVD , o a ! �` 2700 , ♦ �.` South zr: l= y West Valley City = g g = A '. 3100 P a Salt Lake a g != ;.-., _g .---.-3oio.! w(----) w Millcreek s g Decker Station l Bnckyar-d 0 12 Data Sources: PioneerV+yHospital /��\ W V ' Pl6rp Miles UTA,Utah AGRC,ESRI r Lake Station IP ♦ ♦ ,' • 7 ` • r r . fir. - ,; ; `C , • ;,, ti • � IL .. - '.�+' y a- <--•'a 5`.ems •Tel `�� ~ .4ifM;."!.' ; z : ^ .• N !`{ ~/ } 1 F'y' ✓^ Tey_: .� _ jY! ,r y ,r , I. t`,1 ,,,°• ,` !,. `4.iA t-J . ~L:t .f",,p}`�` Syr },+,,, • 4 � A • t N. r. A s ,�•.1 I' .t, r' ". ' 9+• '. Er } f j .4 k is f` a( - '..' '. ' • � �,, ,`yam "✓* ,. r ''w ', e - <>s .r�i. �% �,.fir �� , i .�. ,.p�',�.-,. � b�� ,ra�'• •. ) �,� ,t4,.��`� �- Salt Lake City " ,,�, i � ', fK - ;, Y -�' �� .� ''���:,� �" `'�• -�' �� = -��'�� �: .; .��. ,,r� ;�. may... �1 /X I■ I■ �� t:- ,e t •..* n r.'•i� E- , ! r 1i►`-;` . I.-4 s _ .1 • et.'.! 7 a, o ) 11 Aiiiiiiiiiiik/ -i4+ . • -1 c - -4- - , v,-....,,..- i 11 �,� —8----u e u ,. ,'�'" r `. i-I u h p li Attachment B - Phase II Evaluation Results ii- : ' •t4,1.14114.,„ q is. Aah !:a - - • • ,_ 1 { ilk ie ,______:_.----- 0 � II I 100 , .4 !Oil .. -1 ' -oilr - - ..iiida' :..-.-14 .' 1111"11,11 , - •I -'''.---'. '"V--:. r • r ..:-- .adiri :..prPe '- maiWirs., NELSON December 2015 N Y G A A R D Phase 2 Corridor Evaluation Results Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Attachment B PHASE II EVALUATION This section provides additional detail on the phase II corridor evaluation. Corridors Figure B-i identifies the corridors that were considered in the phase II evaluation,as identified through the phase I screening process.The corridors are categorized as primarily east-west and north-south and are illustrated in Figure B-2.For the purposes of this phase of evaluation,all corridors are assumed to use a bus mode,with exception of Corridor 6(the previously planned TRAX Black Line project),and operating characteristics and capital costs are also held constant. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. I B-1 Phase 2 Corridor Evaluation Results Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure B-1 Corridors for Phase II Evaluation Ph2 ID Type Corridor Name Corridor Distance Assumed Mode Anchor 1 Anchor 2 1 East-West 200 S 4.0 Bus Central Station University 2 East-West North Temple+South Temple 3.7 Bus North Temple TRAX University 3 East-West 400 S 7.2 Bus Power TRAX station University 4a East-West 900 S 7.5 Bus Redwood and Indiana University via 2100 E/Foothill 4b East-West 900 S(via 1300 S) 8.3 Bus Redwood and Indiana University southern alignment(#6) 5 East-West 2100 S-2100 E 6.8 Bus Central Pointe TRAX University 6 East-West North Temple-400 S(TRAX 10.9 TRAX Airport University Black Line) 7 East-West 1300 S 8.9 Bus Redwood and Indiana University 8 North-South State Street 3.9 Bus State Capital SLC Southern border 9a North-South 500 E(to LDS Hospital) 4.6 Bus LDS Hospital SLC Southern border 9b North-South 500 E(to New Hub) 3.9 Bus New Hub(700 E/200 S) SLC Southern border 10 North-South 1300 E 5.3 Bus University SLC Southern border 11a North-South 900 E(to LDS Hospital) 5.7 Bus LDS Hospital SLC Southern border 11 b North-South 900 E(to New Hub) 4.4 Bus New Hub(700 E/200 S) SLC Southern border 11 c North-South 900 E-1100 E(Sugarhouse- 3.7 Bus New Hub(700 E/200 S) Sugarhouse Streetcar terminus New Hub) 12 North-South Foothill Dr 4.4 Bus SLC Southern border University 13 North-South 900 W 3.1 Bus Ballpark TRAX Central Station 14a North-South Redwood Road 6.8 Bus SLC Northern border SLC Southern border 14b North-South Redwood Road (to Central 4.4 Bus Central Station SLC Southern border Station) 15 North-South 700 N/600 N 4.4 Bus Redwood and 700 N Central Station Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. I B-2 Phase 2 Corridor Evaluation Results Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure B-2 Phase II Corridors Map -Salt Lake City UTA Transit Service — �V Analysis Corridors TRANSIT 'rontRunner/ Streetcar/TRAX \\ n Transit Center E—�Analysis Corndors �i Anchors and Destinations MASTER °pOSd�1 x Transit Center 0 Hospital PLAN 0 College/University 0 Shopping Center 1 60 600N ®\ Q Entertainment .Diirir Salt Palace State BTH AVE it Civic Building .Salt lake( Conrentwn CAW • Utah State Cetn 1@ Q 6TH AVE Un'rersayI and CI Library/Research Facility international Airport Fair Goulds LDS Aimaylhld msHorpnol Hospital N 0 Religious Center N TEMPLE ST . _ Temple a O Stadium o f • kua Salt 1 Gotrxvoy /� r rj SFFMPIF MedirdCmfer •Q - University of Utah ii Shappio9Cen' 8 CoyCieeT! I \�-V-- _ ——,— —��%I ® • Lentil O L. 700 S0 University Cityri Limits cool • 400S 4005 , Q • • 0 O \` (Hy Library L V Why . VA --.. II INDIANA AVE 111 ^ 9000 � e I 900 S A. al ante I CALIFORNIA AVE 4� 13005 0 13005 17—Cli WaMrat 0 0 0 l i IV SmIMY 11b 0 a Ballpark 0 11c 11000 F I. Solrlake © WestmitnterCcNege Can 72 o•--- --------------- ---- --- e I Niece v 21000 0S . I — ----- — ' 5 'o CIo, Waimea CI — + I - �► , j ! j ! West Valley City South r �e/� . 1 �Salt Lake ® � ', - r -_ — J_ . _, 1..., _` o Q1 J 0 1 rci `tiles j; Data Sources:UTA,Utah AGRC,ESRI Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. I B-3 Phase 2 Corridor Evaluation Results Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Evaluation Measures Figure B-3 summarizes the methodology used to calculate each measure. Figure B-3 Evaluation Criteria ID Evaluation Criteri Measure Methodology Phase I and II A Existing ridership Boardings in corridor Daily weekday boardings,2014,within'/4 mile of corridor Density of older adults(65+), low-income households,and persons with disability B Transit Propensity Index Transit dependent residents within'/4 mile (excludes households without access to a (TPI) (low-income,seniors, disabled) vehicle,considered separately)within'/4 mile of corridor. Data from American Community Survey. Land use density current Current jobs and residents within'/4 mile of Density of current(2015)population and C (population and corridor(per corridor mile) employment within'/4 mile of corridor employment) Land use density future Future jobs and residents within '/4 mile of Density of future(2040)population and D (population and corridor(per corridor mile) employment within'/4 mile of corridor employment) Residents without access to a vehicle Density of households without access to a E Lack of access to a vehicle within'/4 mile of corridor(per corridor mile) vehicle within'/ mile of corridor. Data from American Community Survey. Phase II Only Presence of and accessibility to major Average Walk Score F Anchor/generator strength institutions, high visitation (https://www.walkscore.com/)at points along and accessibility cultural/recreational sites,large employers each corridor Corridor travel time sampled from Google Maps for different time periods in each direction: morning peak(8 am), midday Potential for travel time Potential for travel time improvement (noon),afternoon peak(5 pm),evening(8 G savings and/or improved based on existing travel times pm),late night(1 am).A ratio of the maximum reliability to minimum travel time was calculated, representing the additional time a traveler would need to allocate to ensure arriving at a destination at the desired time. Ridership potential based on current and Boardings from routes serving bus stops along H Ridership potential(current future land use,current ridership,travel each corridor,adjusted based on and future year) demand patterns,and type of investment population/employment growth,accessibility, and service changes. Ratio of improvements to land value. Percent I Redevelopment Potential Data source TBD based on available data of area redevelopable within''/4 mile of corridors.Average of measure within designated redevelopment areas and overall. Ratio of corridor capital cost(Bus Plus corridor J Cost effectiveness Cost per rider cost per mile, held constant for all corridors)to future ridership potential. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. I B-4 Phase 2 Corridor Evaluation Results Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Key Assumptions The following sections describe key assumptions used in the analysis. Operating Plan Figure B-4 provides a conceptual operating plan assumed for each corridor,with"frequent"service provided for a minimum of 13 hours on weekdays,12 hours on Saturdays,and 12 hours on Sundays.This conceptual operating plan aligns with the Frequent Transit Network Service Level Definition described in the memo. To allow for comparison between corridors,the operating plan was assumed to be constant for each corridor. Figure B-4 Conceptual Operating Plan(FTN Service Level Definition) #of Peak Headway #of Round Time Period Start End Hours (by period) Trips Weekday Early Morning 5:00 AM 6:00 AM 1 30 2 Weekday AM Peak 6:00 AM 9:00 AM 3 15 12 Weekday Day 9:00 AM 3:00 PM 6 15 24 Weekday PM Peak 3:00 PM 7:00 PM 4 15 16 Weekday Eve 7:00 PM 11:00 PM 4 30 8 Total Weekday 18 62 Sat AM 5:00 AM 7:00 AM 2 30 4 Sat Day 7:00 AM 7:00 PM 12 15 48 Sat Eve 7:00 PM 11:00 PM 4 30 8 Total Saturday 18 60 Sun AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 1 30 2 Sun Day 8:00 AM 7:00 PM 11 30 22 Total Sunday 12 24 Capital Costs The bullets below summarize capital cost assumption used in the phase II evaluation.To provide a comparison between corridors,base costs were assumed to be constant for each corridor,but major capital costs such as railroad crossings were added(see Figure B-5). ■ Constant capital cost of$15 million per mile based on Bus Plus assumption in UTA network study ■ TRAX line(Corridor 6): Capital cost of$5.5 million assumed based on preliminary information from UTA. — Major capital elements:At grade railroad crossing for Corridor 4A Figure B-5 Capital Cost Assumptions Corridor Additional Costs Notes 4a $25,000,000 Grade separation,high-level estimate 6 $5,500,000 Per UTA Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. B-5 Phase 2 Corridor Evaluation Results Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Evaluation Results The corridors were rated for each evaluation measure and scored from o to 3 based on natural breaks in each data element,with a score of"o"indicating the lowest performance and"3"indicating the best performance relative to the corridors evaluated. A brief description of each evaluation criterion is below.The remaining figures in this appendix illustrate results from the phase II evaluation. Criterion A: Existing Ridership • See Criterion H. Criterion B: Transit Propensity Index • Maps and explanation of the transit propensity index(TPI)are provided in the State of the System Fact Book and Appendix A.TPI was illustrated for corridor segments as part of the phase I analysis. Criterion Cl, C2, D1, and D2: Existing and Projected Population and Employment Density • Maps of existing and future population and employment density are provided in the State of the System Fact Book and Appendix A.Population and employment density was illustrated for corridor segments as part of the phase I analysis. Criterion E: Lack of Access to a Vehicle (Household Density) • A map showing the density of households without access to a vehicle is provided in the State of the System Fact Book and Appendix A. Density of households without access to a vehicle was illustrated for corridor segments as part of the phase I analysis. Criterion F: Anchor/Generator Strength and Accessibility (Walk Score) • The average Walk Score was calculated for points along each corridor(data from www.walkscore.com).Figure B-8 illustrates scores,sampled at o.io mile intervals for all of Salt Lake City. Criterion G. Travel Time Savings Potential The opportunity for improvements to improve transit speed and reliability of transit was based on a measure of travel time reliability.Existing auto travel times were sampled from Google Maps for different weekday time periods.A ratio of congested to free-flow travel times was calculated(this is sometimes referred to as a travel time planning index,representing the maximum additional time a traveler or bus rider would need to allow to ensure arriving at their destination at the desired time).The maximum travel time was used to represent congested conditions and the minimum travel time was used to represent free- flow conditions.Each corridor was given a score ranging from: • o—Low ratio:lack of congestion and relatively little need for speed and reliability improvement based on current traffic conditions,to • 3—High ratio: congestion and potential for capital improvements to improve transit travel time Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. I B-6 Phase 2 Corridor Evaluation Results Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Other factors compiled for qualitative assessment include street classification and cross section(e.g., number of lanes and lane designations)and current or funded investments in speed and reliability improvements. Figure B-9 summarizes travel time information for each corridor,general right-of-way conditions,and whether the corridor is recommended for modal analysis. Criterion H: Future Ridership Potential A sketch-level analysis of future ridership potential used the followed steps: • For corridors with existing service: — Base Ridership: Boardings from routes serving similar travel patterns to the proposed corridor were tabulated at each stop along the corridor. — Population/Employment Adjustment:population and employment growth was calculated for a quarter-mile buffer around each stop,and existing ridership was assumed to increase in proportion to projected growth. • For corridors without existing service: — Ridership was based on corridors with similar land use(e.g.,population/employment densities)and/or anchors. • Response to Proposed Service Levels — Future ridership calculation included industry-standard elasticities for rider response to changes in transit service levels(#of weekday trips)and travel times. — Ridership growth at stops with substantial projected increases in density,higher transit propensity(based on Measure B:TPI),and/or greater accessibility(based on Measure F: Walk Score)was assumed to be more responsive to service changes. Note:Analysis for this criterion differs from phase I analysis in this it is limited to existing ridership on routes that serve similar travel patterns. Criterion I. Redevelopment Potential Figure B-io illustrates redevelopment potential for parcels close to the analysis corridors and designated redevelopment areas.This measure is based on the ratio of the value of improvements,e.g.,buildings,to land value(I/L).Parcels where improvements are valued at i00%or less of the land value are considered to be underutilized.The area of such parcels within a quarter-mile of the analysis corridors was calculated in two ways: i)for the entire corridor(reflects simple I/L measure)and 2)limited to redevelopment areas (reflects I/L measure as well as city adopted policy for where redevelopment should occur).The rating was based on the average of the two calculations. Corridors 13(9ooW)and 14b(Redwood Road)had the highest share of redevelopable parcels within redevelopment areas,and Corridors 6(TRAX Black Line),12(9oow),and i4a(Redwood Road)had the highest share corridor-wide. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. I B-7 Phase 2 Corridor Evaluation Results Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure B-6 Phase II Corridor Scores m A _ .. r+ .. a •• a d 2 t6 .2 R . 2 R Q _ - O Q a C d C i, > C z. z.a+ C C R r0+ 0 N ''-- O y Q- It O N O N N N •C C .2 C T C O C £ Vl a R t d a -a a Q d s C N l6 N d m N N N •£ C +' �4 R N N Q V V V R V V C R d d L C C C _ > -a o (I)i c ti a 0 o a 8 C) E n m - E m E c.m m m - 3 Q. 2 W 3 O 2 I` .6 i to ~ d' Q O O O .2 C tl! C r+ c r c 13- c W Y t ate.+ d R i , O d d V N _s 111 m Length •`" -, R -12i -Im J -' J � � cc � C 3 � > w a2i mai15we o d 8 z ID (Miles) Category Description LU • I- E C•; 3 ai '' _,as a ~ " " 0 W d o a o > c> > o re a E m U 6 C� a 0 Ui N U H c7 0 2 a _ < . o re N o o � Q ~ 1 4.0 East-West 200 S 2 2 3 3 2 0.5rii. 0 • 1 3 2.3 27.5 1 9a 4.6 North-South 500 E(to LDS Hospital) 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 0 2 1.0 1 1 3 2.3 27.0 2 8 3.9 North-South State Street 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1.5 2 1 2 2.1 25.5 3 9b 3.9 North-South 500 E(to New Hub) 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 0 1 0.5 1 0 3 2.1 25.5 3 2 3.7 East-West North Temple+South Temple 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 1 1 0.5 0 1 2 2.0 23.5 5 11 c 3.7 North-South 900 E-1100 E(Sugarhouse-New Hub) 12 3 3 1 3 1 2 2 0 2 0.0 0 0 3 1.8 22.0 6 6 10.9 East-West North Temple-400 S(TRAX Black Line)73 0 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 1.5 0 3 iiil 1.6 19.5 7 11a 5.7 North-South 900 E(to LDS Hospital) 2 3 3 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 0.0 0 0 1.6 19.0 8 3 7.2 East-West 400 S 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 1.0 1 1 1 1.5 18.0 9 11 b 4.4 North-South 900 E(to New Hub) 1 3 3 0 3 0 2 2 2 0 0.0 0 0 1 1.4 17.0 10 15 4.4 North-South 700 N/600 N 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 0 1.5 2 1 1.2 14.5 11 13 3.1 North-South 900 W 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 2.0 3 1 0 1.0 12.0 12 7 8.9 East-West 1300 S 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1.5 2 1 1.0 11.5 13 r 10 5.3 North-South 1300 E 1 2 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0.0 0 0 1 0.9 11.0 14 12 4.4 North-South Foothill Dr 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 3 1 1.5 0 3 2 0.8 9.5 15 4a 7.5 East-West 900 S 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 2.0 2 2 0� 0.8 9.0 16 5 6.8 East-West 2100 S-2100 E 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1.0 0 2 1 0.8 9.0 16 14b 4.4 North-South Redwood Road (to Central Station) 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 2.0 3 1 2 0.8 9.0 16 4b 8.3 East-West 900 S(via 1300 S) 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1.5 2 1 0 0.7 8.5 19 14a 6.8 North-South Redwood Road 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2.5 2 3 2 0.6 7.5 20 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. I B-8 Phase 2 Corridor Evaluation Results Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure B-7 Phase 2 Corridor Analysis Data y c c £ co ca v R E > az°' 0a a C 2 r7 N - . ma) Q O , O -a; O VC CN LE 0 0 N > N O 'CT 13 a W O . o °' m m � g d O N •� •C ~ C - C r+ C - C - Y N t "s-- f8A > N E 7 s d � G > W V Length w6- J . L 3 33 _1 LE E am " 1- > u- a m •w `V o 2 2 y '2- N 3 \ O i ID (Miles) Category Description a m = 5 .3 0 <3 o . o . u; > u: y 3 c6 1 w ± a _ a Cu = (NI N Cu 1 4.0 East-West 200 S 1,500 9.5 11.0 27.0 14.6 27.5 0.96 64 1.3 1,900 16% 1% 31% $30 2 3.7 East-West North Temple+South Temple 400 9.5 11.1 26.9 14.6 27.2 0.91 63 1.5 600 19% 3% 35% $90 3 7.2 East-West 400 S 200 9.5 11.1 26.9 14.6 27.2 0.91 63 1.5 300 19% 3% 35% $190 4a 7.5 East-West 900 S 100 8.9 8.5 9.5 9.6 9.7 0.47 58 1.2 200 32% 15% 50% $280 4b 8.3 East-West 900 S(via 1300 S) 100 8.7 8.0 10.6 9.1 10.7 0.49 58 1.3 100 29% 22% 36% $380 5 6.8 East-West 2100 S-2100 E 200 8.1 8.8 11.4 9.5 11.8 0.30 54 1.5 300 22% 0% 44% $190 6 10.9 East-West North Temple-400 S(TRAX Black Line) 1,100 7.4 7.4 16.9 9.4 17.5 0.66 57 1.3 1,100 31% 2% 60% $50 7 8.9 East-West 1300 S 400 8.5 7.8 7.7 8.1 7.8 0.33 54 1.4 700 25% 15% 35% $80 8 3.9 North-South State Street 500 9.9 12.0 26.1 15.5 26.5 1.04 76 1.4 600 27% 19% 34% $90 9a 4.6 North-South 500 E(to LDS Hospital) 700 11.4 13.5 18.2 15.1 18.3 0.94 74 1.1 900 20% 6% 34% $60 9b 3.9 North-South 500E(to New Hub) 600 11.5 14.2 16.3 15.9 16.4 0.99 74 1.1 800 20% 11% 28% $70 10 5.3 North-South 1300E 300 9.4 10.0 8.8 10.4 9.0 0.36 60 1.4 300 15% 0% 29% $160 11a 5.7 North-South 900 E(to LDS Hospital) 600 9.4 10.0 8.8 10.4 9.0 0.36 60 1.4 800 15% 0% 29% $70 11b 4.4 North-South 900 E(to New Hub) 300 11.5 13.8 8.1 14.8 8.3 0.68 71 1.6 400 13% 2% 23% $130 11c 3.7 North-South 900 E-1100 E(Sugarhouse-New Hub) 800 11.3 14.5 9.1 15.7 9.3 0.73 73 1.2 900 12% 2% 21% $60 12 4.4 North-South Foothill Dr 100 6.3 5.4 9.2 5.4 9.4 0.11 47 1.9 500 27% 0% 54% $120 13 3.1 North-South 900 W 100 9.2 7.5 10.5 10.1 11.1 0.42 62 1.4 200 39% 46% 33% $340 14a 6.8 North-South Redwood Road 500 7.3 5.5 4.3 5.8 5.0 0.19 48 1.2 600 35% 14% 56% $100 14b 4.4 North-South Redwood Road(to Central Station) 500 7.4 5.6 8.5 7.6 9.6 0.24 59 1.2 700 37% 36% 38% $80 15 4.4 North-South 700 N/600 N 100 8.9 10.2 17.2 13.1 18.1 0.46 70 1.3 100 25% 17% 33% $530 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. I B-9 Phase 2 Corridor Evaluation Results Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure B-8 Measure F:Accessibility(Walk Score) r Salt Lake City Walkability 4—)Analysis Corridors T RA N S,1, \--, },co Anchors and Destinations Walkablllty' O Hospital C AP g 0 l' Middle School/High School Ian iy... II ,— Ift- UTA Transit Service ©CollegelUsnversity /\ �■ 0 �� 1 �' ■� '�' FrcnLRUnnerj 0 Shopping Center f �� ■ E ® Streetcar/TRAX j 600'I O Transit Center ®Entertainment 1 \ Mt Civic Building r, r r Proposed State ' Transit Center O Library/Research Facility o Salt Palace BTH AVEAY[ i Salt LnkeCity Cmvenran (viral thubstate Centel ItQ O 6TH AVE UnrversrtyAKand 0 Religious Center IntemationalAirport ha&mods neat 1Ds Primary Childenslbspdal terra, `a = Hospital.: 0 Stadium N TEMPLE SI 0 , 0 O O O ? L -T� ernpk Salt take Regmal "' O ®Large Park _W Sgua STEMPLE Medkagenre 111 Shopping me 0©_�(O CiryC O • ® Hiking Opportunity Tzg — --__/I'.=— --=` _ r . , O Center 0 e: 100 S osrl try y • © i. University of Utah 400S • 400S O O O I City Limits 0 0 • • 42- City Iibrnry O f1 O 0 I livINDIANA AVE Square + VA Research Pork L---—..--_—I © 900S (21 900 s IAedknrGnret ,�i{ogleZoo I IT Jordon Park(.1.114, o N Liberty `►7 o �. .f Park l o I (Al lr0Rli A AVE ,....... 1300 S 0 O 0 9b ID Foothill Villa' r. t4a?r)art Smith's lib © 7. I Ballpark © 11C 1700S I Salt take 0 WeslmimterCollege 1 ,%-- Communay Cdlege o s i 0 — — — _ — — — — — — 210pc — 5 I • , I 0 Sugar House Sugar House Walmart CI f _ `- 8asmessDistrkt - '72 West Valley City "'°""'L`"'t"o / South _ - " i o © —� © I //J Salt Lake ® •i l r'- I-' PL_J I I- -_ -'_ \!, .....--PL. O Brickyard Plaza L j s 2 Altim LI '?.teal on Walk Score'sampled at 0.1 mile intervals. Data Sources:UTA,Utah AGRC.ESRt.1^ralkscore Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. I B-10 Phase 2 Corridor Evaluation Results Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure B-9 Corridor Travel Time and Right-of-Way Travel Time(Minutes,Round Trip) Recommende Corridor ID Corridor Name Right-of-Way Notes for Capital Min Max Range Max/Min Analysi 1 200 S 1-2 GP lanes per direction,center turn Q 29 38 9 1.31 lane,parking, bike lanes N.Temple:2 GP lanes per direction, 2 North Temple+South center turn lane, parking or bike lanes. Q Temple S.Temple:2 GP lanes per direction, 24 35 11 1.46 center-turn lane or parking 3 GP lanes per direction, parking, 3 400 S 36 58 22 1.61 TRAX Q 2 GP lanes per direction,center turn 4a 900 S lane/median, bike lanes, parking or 44 54 10 1.23 parking/curb extensions 4b 900 S(via 1300 S) 48 63 15 1.31 see 4a and 7 2 GP lanes per direction,center turn 5 2100 S-2100 E lane(varies),curb extensions/parking 36 54 18 1.50 (varies) 6 North Temple-400 S Improvements; (TRAX Black Line) 63 85 22 1.35 see 2 and 3 planned by UTA 7 1300 S 2 GP lanes per direction,center turn 48 67 19 1.40 lane 8 State Street 3 GP lanes per direction,center Q 24 33 9 1.38 turn/median,parking 9a 500E(to LDS Hospital) 2 GP lanes per direction,center turn Q 32 34 2 1.06 lane(varies),street parking(varies) 9b 500E(to New Hub) 28 31 3 1.11 see 9a Q 1 or 2 GP lanes,center turn 10 1300 E lanes/median(varies),street parking 28 39 11 1.39 (varies), bike lane(varies) 11 a 900E(to LDS Hospital) 2 GP lanes per direction,center turn Q 38 42 4 1.11 lane,parking 11b 900E(to New Hub) 20 31 11 1.55 see 11a Q 11c 900 E-1100 E see 11a; 1100E:2 GP lanes, bike Q (Sugarhouse-New Hub) 24 28 4 1.17 lanes,parking 12 Foothill Dr 17 32 15 1.88 2-3 GP lanes,center turn lane,parking 13 900 W 19 27 8 1.42 2 GP lanes,center turn lane, parking 14a Redwood Road 2-3 GP lanes,center turn lane,bike Q 28 34 6 1.21 lanes(varies) 14b Redwood Road(to Central Q Station) 24 28 4 1.17 See 14a 700/600N:2 GP lanes per direction, 15 700 N/600 N center-turn lane;300W:3 GP lanes 24 32 8 1.33 per direction Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. I B-11 Phase 2 Corridor Evaluation Results Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure B-10 Measure I: Redevelopment Potential —Salt Lake City-- UTA Transit Service Redevelopment TRANSIT • (g) Transit Center Potential IF on r Pon soCde nter Undarutlllzad Parcels' MASTER Improvement to Land Value Ratio PLAN � 6%- % %-109b 11%-25% ''•— 600N A 8TH AVE26%-50% Salt Lake Cny 51%-100% International Airport : r N TEMPLE ST 717;,6TH Analysis Corridor 11 �� E - - . `_ 1 .0 2 1 T Redevelopment Area —G_ - ©, .__ ___--- 1 i_, I.- - 700 S Bniv- +l I City Limits 0 . 4005 4tJ I -4005� 3 d �,5. t 14b 3 _ ! f1i :�IIIDIdNA AVE T .q '`- •' I I `5 !�._.___-_ ► �� 1 e 1, I12 ' \ , 1 • ! �,\ O 9005 _ ` - 9005 4a.E. I • Iit. ,y • T3o0s a I 130o s ® �� r OALIFORNIA AVE 0I� �,� `O I. • 8 11a r-, ® " I - tipi r i o II 5 - • 11c 17005 Illk Le i aIL 11` 21005 I Op I IL. West Valley City South _ ! ®``�� __�_i ;�� i _- Salt Lake ® �i . 1. ll I i 1LA,_. . 0 1�a Mies. -arcels were value of improveme-ts(e.g..bur;dings)is less than or equal to value of land.A lower I/L ratio reoresents greater redevelopment ootentia. Data Sources:UTA,Utah AGRC.ESftI Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. I B-12 Phase 2 Corridor Evaluation Results Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan FREQUENT TRANSIT NETWORK ANALYSIS Population and employment density along the analysis corridors was calculated to help recommend FTN corridors.Figure B-11 provides general rules-of-thumb relating transit service frequency to the minimum intensity of land use(e.g.,household size,population,and employment)required to support that level of service. These relationships provide useful guidance,however other factors also help determine the level of service justified on a corridor,including serving major activity centers such as the University of Utah,downtown Salt Lake City,or other major anchors or activity centers at one or both ends of a line,as well as the spacing between parallel corridors and providing access to opportunity for vulnerable and transit-dependent populations. Figure B-11 Density—Frequency Relationship 7 Minimum Minimum Minimum Service level Household Population Household Employment (frequency) Density Density Size Density 60 min 3 8 2.70 4 30 min 6 16 2.70 8 15 min 10 27 2.70 13 10 min 18 49 2.70 24 <=5 min 36 97 2.70 48 Source:Adapted from TCRP Report 100:Transit Capacity and Quality of Service manual and other sources Figure B-12 evaluates potential level-of-service warranted on the analysis corridors based on population and employment density alone as well combined population and employment density. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. I B-13 Phase 2 Corridor Evaluation Results Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan Figure B-12 Corridor Analysis of Density-Service Level Thresholds 2040 2040 2040 Meets Minimum Threshold For: Corridor Population+ Based on Highest Population Employment Based on Based on Number Corridor Description Miles Employment Population+ Level Density Density DensityPopulation Employment Employment Met 1 200 S 4.0 14.6 27.5 66.2 60 min 10 min 10 min 10 min 2 North Temple+South Temple 3.7 14.6 27.2 65.5 60 min 10 min 10 min 10 min 3 400 S 7.2 12.1 19.8 49.2 60 min 15 min 10 min 10 min 4a 900 S 7.5 9.6 9.7 27.7 60 min 30 min 15 min 15 min 4b 900 S(via 1300 S) 8.3 9.1 10.7 29.2 60 min 30 min 15 min 15 min 5 2100 S-2100E 6.8 9.5 11.8 31.6 60 min 30 min 15 min 15 min 6 North Temple-400 S(TRAX Black Line) 10.9 9.4 17.5 42.2 60 min 15 min 15 min 15 min 7 1300 S 8.9 8.1 7.8 22.7 60 min 60 min 30 min 30 min 8 State Street 3.9 15.5 26.5 65.2 60 min 10 min 10 min 10 min 9a 1 500 E(to LDS Hospital) 4.6 15.1 18.3 49.5 1 60 min 15 min 10 min 10 min 9b 500 E(to New Hub) 3.9 15.9 16.4 46.7 60 min 15 min 15 min 15 min 10 1300 E 5.3 10.4 9.0 27.4 60 min 30 min 15 min 15 min 11a 900 E(to LDS Hospital) 5.7 13.3 7.4 27.2 60 min 60 min 15 min 15 min 11b 900 E(to New Hub) 4.4 14.8 8.3 30.5 60 min 30 min 15 min 15 min 11 c 900 E-1100 E(Sugarhouse-New Hub) 3.7 15.7 9.3 33.1 60 min 30 min 15 min 15 min 12 Foothill Dr 4.4 5.4 9.4 22.9 No service 30 min 30 min 30 min 13 900 W 3.1 10.1 11.1 30.9 60 min 30 min 15 min 15 min 14a Redwood Road 6.8 5.8 5.0 15.2 No service 60 min 60 min 60 min 14b Redwood Road (to Central Station) 4.4 7.6 9.6 25.6 No service 30 min 30 min 30 min 15 700 N/600 N 4.4 13.1 18.1 47.0 60 min 5 min 15 min 15 min Notes:[1]PopDens+0.75*2.5*EmpDens 2040 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. I B-14