1 / 31

August 23, 2006

Salt Lake City Downtown Transportation Master Plan Light Rail & Bus; Presentation Background and Introduction. August 23, 2006. Project Goals. Transportation Should…. Serve Downtown Be Pedestrian Friendly Be Easy to Use Enhance Mobility Balance Modes. Inferred Goals.

laurie
Download Presentation

August 23, 2006

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

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

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

  4. Study Area

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

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

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

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

  9. 2015 Light Rail System Observations Benefit • Excellent connection of suburban trips to regionally significant destinations Challenge • Little or no excess track capacity for local circulation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  19. 300 South Track Potential • Light Rail or Streetcar on 300 South • Excellent transit oriented development • Nostalgia of station near Rio Grande • Compatible with angled parking • Potential advantages over 200 South and 400 South options • Warrants further analysis

  20. Downtown Bus Options

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  31. The End

More Related