DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Assessment Environmental Assessment Ogden/Weber State University Transit Project Ogden, Weber County, Utah December 2018 This page is intentionally left blank. Environmental Assessment Ogden/Weber State University Transit Project Ogden/Weber State University Transit Project Environmental Assessment Prepared by: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration and Utah Transit Authority December 2018 This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, 41 United States Code (USC) §4332(2); the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality, 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1500–1508; the Federal Transit Laws, 49 USC §53; Environmental Impact and Related Procedures—Federal Highway Administration/Federal Transit Administration, 23 CFR 771 and 23 CFR 774; the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 16 USC §470(f); Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended, 49 USC §303; Section 6(f)(3) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, 16 USC §4601-U; the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 USC §7401–7671; the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 USC §1531; the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, 42 USC §4601; Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, 33 USC §1342; Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations; Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands; Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management; and all relevant laws and procedures of the State of Utah. Proposed Action The proposed action, the Ogden/Weber State University Transit Project, is intended to improve the existing Route 603 bus route by implementing bus rapid transit (BRT). Route 603, a 6.5-mile route, is one of the Utah Transit Authority’s (UTA’s) most frequently used routes in its Weber County service area, with an average 1,610 weekday boardings in 2017. Route 603 runs from the heart of Ogden’s downtown area to the city’s east bench, providing a connection from FrontRunner commuter rail and the Ogden Intermodal Transit Center to Weber State University and McKay-Dee Hospital. Implementing BRT would enhance the transit facilities and amenities that connect employment and educational hubs, residential areas, shopping areas, civic resources, historic districts, cultural landmarks, and entertainment venues in central Ogden. The proposed action would further improve mobility and accessibility for the people who live, work, and visit the project study area. This EA was prepared to address the impacts of constructing and operating a BRT system that would be about 5.3 miles long (10.6 miles round trip), with a western terminus at the Ogden Intermodal Transit Center. From there, the BRT route would head east in mixed-flow traffic on 23rd Street to Washington Boulevard, south on Washington Boulevard to 25th Street, east on 25th Street to Harrison Boulevard, and south on Harrison Boulevard. At about 31st Street and Harrison Boulevard, the BRT route would transition to center-running, bus-only lanes. It would continue on a dedicated busway through the Weber State University campus and then travel west to McKay-Dee Hospital, where it would again travel in mixed-flow traffic. The BRT route would loop back on the same route. December 2018 | i Environmental Assessment Ogden/Weber State University Transit Project The proposed action would improve linkages to the regional transit network and would connect with UTA’s FrontRunner commuter-rail line. The proposed action would improve connectivity through the Weber State University campus. The enhanced transit amenities and improved trip reliability would further promote transit use and active transportation in the project study area while reducing the need to travel by automobile and contributing to decreased greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed action is specifically intended to: • Increase mobility, connectivity, and travel choices between downtown Ogden and the Weber State University/McKay-Dee Hospital area • Promote economic and community development and create jobs in Ogden • Support local and regional land use initiatives • Increase ridership, attract more local riders, and provide improved access to the overall transit system by introducing premium transit service with enhanced amenities in the project study area The proposed action includes the following 16 brand-identified stations, though not all 16 would be constructed for opening day: Ogden Intermodal Transit Center, 23rd Street and Lincoln Avenue, 23rd Street and Kiesel Avenue, 25th Street and Washington Boulevard, 25th Street and Jefferson Avenue, 25th Street and Monroe Street, 25th Street and Jackson Avenue, 25th Street and Harrison Boulevard, Harrison Boulevard and 28th Street, Harrison Boulevard and 30th Street, Harrison Boulevard and 32nd Street, Harrison Boulevard and 36th Street, the Browning Center on the Weber State University campus, student housing near Village Drive on the Weber State University campus, the Dee Events Center, and McKay-Dee Hospital. December 2018 | ii 11/30/18 Environmental Assessment Ogden/Weber State University Transit Project Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... ix 1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 What is the purpose of this document? .................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Who are the lead agency and project sponsors? ....................................................................................... 1 1.3 Can the public comment on this Environmental Assessment? ................................................................. 2 1.4 What happens after the comment period? ................................................................................................ 3 1.5 What is the history of the project? ........................................................................................................... 3 1.6 What is the planning context of the project? ............................................................................................ 7 1.7 What are the project study area and proposed transit corridor? ............................................................... 8 1.8 What transit service currently exists in the project study area? ............................................................. 11 2.0 What are the purpose of and need for the project? ............................................................................................ 18 2.1 What is the purpose of the project? ........................................................................................................ 18 2.2 Why is the project needed? .................................................................................................................... 19 3.0 What are the project alternatives? ..................................................................................................................... 22 3.1 What is the No-Action Alternative? ....................................................................................................... 23 3.2 What is the Action Alternative, and what are its physical and operating characteristics? ..................... 23 3.2.1 Vehicle Requirements .............................................................................................................. 26 3.2.2 Maintenance Facility ............................................................................................................... 26 3.2.3 Roadway Improvements on 25th Street and 23rd Street .......................................................... 27 3.2.4 Bus-Only Lanes ....................................................................................................................... 29 3.2.5 Alignment through the Weber State University Campus ......................................................... 30 3.2.6 Stations .................................................................................................................................... 35 3.2.7 Transit Signal Priority ............................................................................................................. 41 3.2.8 Hours of Operation and Headways .......................................................................................... 43 4.0 What would be the environmental effects of the Action Alternative? .............................................................. 44 4.1 How would the Action Alternative affect land use and economic development? .................................. 53 4.2 How would the Action Alternative affect the social environment? ....................................................... 55 4.2.1 How would the Action Alternative affect neighborhoods and communities? ......................... 55 4.2.2 How would the Action Alternative affect minority and low-income populations? ................. 56 4.2.3 How would the Action Alternative affect safety and security? ............................................... 57 4.2.4 How would the Action Alternative affect bicyclist and pedestrian safety? ............................. 58 4.2.5 How would the Action Alternative affect community facilities or recreation resources? ...............................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • California Zephyr
    ® JANUARY 13, 2014 CALIFORNIA ZEPHYR Effective ® CHICAGO – and – SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA Enjoy the journey. 1-800-USA-RAIL Call CHICAGO - BURLINGTON - OMAHA DENVER - GLENWOOD SPRINGS SALT LAKE CITY - RENO - SACRAMENTO SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA and intermediate stations AMTRAK.COM Visit NRPC Form P5–175M–1/13/14 Stock #02-3628 Schedules subject to change without notice. Amtrak is a registered service mark of the National Railroad Passenger Corp. National Railroad Passenger Corporation Washington Union Station, 60 Massachusetts Ave. N.E., Washington, DC 20002. CALIFORNIA ZEPHYR 5 Train Number 6 CALIFORNIA ZEPHYR ROUTE MAP and SYMBOLS Daily Normal Days of Operation Daily R s r R s r ark, CO er, UT On Board Service z, CA , UT ton, IL ramento, CA , NV o rege, NEcoln, NE y l y l Emeryville,Martine CA Sac Colfax, CAReno Elko, NVProv Green RivGlenwoodFraser-Winter Springs,Fort CO Morgan, P Hold COLin Creston, Ottumwa,IA Burlington, IA Prince IA Chicago, IL O Read Down Mile Symbol Read Up , UT C r, CO eola, IA Davis, CAeville, CA Helper, UT Granby, Denve Osc easant, IA l2 00P 0DpChicago, IL–Union Station (CT) ∑w- Ar l2 50P Richmond, CA Ros Truckee, CA McCook,Hastings, NE NEOmaha, NE Galesburg,Naperville, IL IL Winnemucca,Salt Lake NV City Grand Junction, CO Mount Pl R2 34P 28 Naperville, IL (METRA/BN Line) ∑v- D1 43P 3 44P 104 Princeton, IL > D12 23P 4 38P 162 Galesburg, IL -S. Seminary St. &¶ ∑w- D11 31A 5 25P 205 Burlington, IA >v 10 36A ∑v 5 59P 233 Mount Pleasant, IA 9 54A CHICAGO 6 53P 279 Ottumwa, IA ∑v 9 09A EMEEMERYVILLERYVVIL 8 09P 359 Osceola, IA (Des Moines) >v- 7 40A 8 41P 392 Creston, IA >v 7 04A l10 55P 500 Ar Omaha, NE ∑v Dp l5 14A l11 05P Dp Ar l4 59A l12 08A 555 Ar Lincoln, NE ∑v Dp l3 26A l12 14A Dpp Ar l3 20A California Zephyr® l1 47A 652 Hastings, NE (Grand Island) ∑v l1 42A Other Amtrak Train Routes 2 34A 706 Holdrege, NE >v 12 54A 3 43A 783 McCook, NE (CT) >v 11 49P A Time Symbol for A.M.
    [Show full text]
  • 720 Light Rail Time Schedule & Line Route
    720 light rail time schedule & line map To Central Pointe View In Website Mode The 720 light rail line (To Central Pointe) has 2 routes. For regular weekdays, their operation hours are: (1) To Central Pointe: 5:27 AM - 11:42 PM (2) To Fairmont: 5:12 AM - 11:27 PM Use the Moovit App to ƒnd the closest 720 light rail station near you and ƒnd out when is the next 720 light rail arriving. Direction: To Central Pointe 720 light rail Time Schedule 7 stops To Central Pointe Route Timetable: VIEW LINE SCHEDULE Sunday 6:17 AM - 8:17 PM Monday 6:17 AM - 11:47 PM Fairmont Station 2206 S Mcclelland St, Salt Lake City Tuesday 5:27 AM - 11:42 PM Sugarmont Station Wednesday 5:27 AM - 11:42 PM 2201 S 900 E, Salt Lake City Thursday 5:27 AM - 11:42 PM 700 East Station Friday 5:27 AM - 11:42 PM 2200 S 700 E, Salt Lake City Saturday 6:17 AM - 11:47 PM 500 East Station 2229 S 440 E, Salt Lake City 300 East Station 2233 S 300 E, Salt Lake City 720 light rail Info Direction: To Central Pointe South Salt Lake City Station Stops: 7 55 E Central Point Pl, South Salt Lake Trip Duration: 9 min Line Summary: Fairmont Station, Sugarmont Central Pointe Station Station, 700 East Station, 500 East Station, 300 East 2212 S West Temple St, South Salt Lake Station, South Salt Lake City Station, Central Pointe Station Direction: To Fairmont 720 light rail Time Schedule 7 stops To Fairmont Route Timetable: VIEW LINE SCHEDULE Sunday 6:02 AM - 8:02 PM Monday 6:02 AM - 11:32 PM Central Pointe Station 2212 S West Temple St, South Salt Lake Tuesday 5:12 AM - 11:27 PM South Salt
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX a Ogden/Weber State University Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis Draft Final Report
    Alternatives Analysis Update Report Ogden/Weber State University Transit Project Study APPENDIX A Ogden/Weber State University Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis Draft Final Report Ogden-Weber State University Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis Draft Final Report Prepared by: Utah Transit Authority MAY 2011 Final Draft Report – Alternatives Analysis Ogden/Weber State University Transit Corridor TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................. ES-1 ES.1 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... ES-1 ES.2 AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC OUTREACH ........................................ ES-1 ES.3 SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................... ES-2 ES.4 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE ......................................................................... ES-3 ES.5 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... ES-4 ES.6 NEXT STEPS .......................................................................................................... ES-5 ES. 6.1 FTA Section 5309 ........................................................................................ ES-5 ES. 6.2 National Environmental Policy Act .............................................................. ES-6 1. OVERVIEW ................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 PURPOSE
    [Show full text]
  • Highlights Neighborhood Characteristics of TRAX And
    2014 | Volume 74, Number 1 Highlights Neighborhood Characteristics of TRAX • The Utah Transit Authority has invested almost $4.4 billion and FrontRunner Stations over the past 20 years in light rail and commuter rail transit along the Wasatch Front. John C. Downen, Senior Research Analyst • In 2010, almost 100,000 people, about 10 percent of Salt Lake County’s population, lived within a half-mile of an existing or future TRAX station. History of TRAX and FrontRunner • Approximately 12 percent of Salt Lake’s minority population The Utah Transit Authority began capital expenditures toward the lived within a half-mile of a light rail station in 2010. Nearly TRAX light rail system in 1994 and 1995. They were less than one-third of the population living near a station was minority $1.5 million in the first year and a little over $4.1 million in the versus 26 percent countywide. second year, but in 1996 UTA began investments in rolling stock (rail cars) and facilities (tracks, power systems, passenger stations, • Seventeen percent of Salt Lake County’s 2010 renter population lived within a half-mile of a TRAX station. These etc.) and total capital expenditures exceeded $26.5 million (all renters represented 51 percent of the population; amounts are constant 2013 dollars). The first TRAX line opened countywide, renters made up 29 percent of the population. in December 1999 and ran between downtown Salt Lake City and Sandy. A second line, between downtown Salt Lake and Rice- • While about one-third of all occupied dwelling units in Salt Eccles Stadium at the University of Utah, opened in 2001 and was Lake County in 2010 were renter occupied, 59 percent of extended to the university’s medical center by 2003.
    [Show full text]
  • Board of Trustees of the Utah Transit Authority
    Regular Meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Utah Transit Authority Wednesday, January 9, 2019, 9:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. Utah Transit Authority Headquarters, 669 West 200 South, Salt Lake City, Utah Golden Spike Conference Rooms 1. Call to Order & Opening Remarks Chair Carlton Christensen 2. Pledge of Allegiance Chair Carlton Christensen 3. Safety First Minute Dave Goeres 4. Approval of December 12, 2018 Board Meeting Minutes Chair Carlton Christensen 5. Public Comment Period Bob Biles 6. Agency Report Steve Meyer 7. November 2018 Financial Report Bob Biles 8. Annual Transit-Oriented Development Report & Real Paul Drake Estate Inventory 9. R2019-01-01 Establishing the Authority’s Organizational Chair Carlton Christensen Structure, Appointing Officers, and Setting Compensation for District Officers and Employees 10. R2019-01-02 Authorizing the Purchase of Real Property Paul Drake (Parcels 140:B) 11. Contracts, Disbursements & Change Orders a. Change Order: On-Call Maintenance Eddy Cumins b. Change Order: Records Management System Kim Ulibarri c. Contract: Security Services for Fares Collection Monica Morton 12. Pre-Procurements Steve Meyer 13. Discussion Items a. Transit-Oriented Development Process Paul Drake Website: https://www.rideuta.com/Board-of-Trustees Live Streaming: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=utaride 14. Other Business Chair Carlton Christensen a. Utah County Service Level Agreement Trustee Beth Holbrook b. Next meeting: January 16, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. Chair Carlton Christensen 15. Closed Session Chair Carlton Christensen a. Discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual 16. Adjourn Chair Carlton Christensen Public Comment: Members of the public are invited to provide comment during the public comment period.
    [Show full text]
  • California Zephyr
    CALIFORNIA ZEPHYR® Effective July 20, 2017 serving CHICAGO - BURLINGTON - OMAHA - DENVER - GLENWOOD SPRINGS - SALT LAKE CITY - RENO - SACRAMENTO - SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA and intermediate stations Amtrak.com 1-800-USA-RAIL 5 3Train Number4 6 CALIFORNIA ZEPHYR ROUTE MAP and SYMBOLS 3Normal Days of Operation4 Daily Daily O O ark, C O R s r R s r o, CA er, UT er P z, CA , UT ood Springs,-Win tC ege, NE on, IA ton, IL o, IL 3On Board Service4 ament , NV o, NV vo oln, NE ton, IA e ag y l O y l O Emeryville,Martin CA Sace r Colfax, CAReno Elk Pro Green RivGlenw Fraser Fort Morgan,Hold rC Linc Cres Ottumwa,Burling IA tPrinc Chic O O O y, UT , UT y, C , C Read Down Mile Symbol Read Up ville, CA ee, CA ca, NV tion, C er eola, IA ant, IA ville, IL Davis, CA ruck e Cit Helper Granb Denv tings, NE Osc as 6 5 Richmond, CA Rose T McCook,Ha NEs Omaha, NE Galesburg,Nape IL r l2 00P 0 Dp Chicago, IL–Union Station (CT) ∑w- Ar l2 50P WinnemuSaltc Lak Grand Junc Mount Ple R2 34P 28 Naperville, IL (METRA/BN Line) ∑v- D1 53P 3 44P 104 Princeton, IL >v D12 33P l4 38P 162 Galesburg, IL -S. Seminary St. &¶ ∑w- lD11 41A 5 25P 205 Burlington, IA >v 10 36A l5 59P 233 Mount Pleasant, IA ∑v l9 54A CHICAGO EMERYVILLE 6 53P 279 Ottumwa, IA ∑v 9 09A 8 09P 359 Osceola, IA (Des Moines) >v- 7 40A 8 41P 392 Creston, IA >v 7 04A l10 55P 500 Ar Omaha, NE ∑v Dp l5 14A l11 05P Dp Ar l4 59A l12 08A 555 Ar Lincoln, NE ∑v Dp l3 26A l12 14A Dp Ar l3 20A California Zephyr® Other Amtrak Train Routes l1 47A 652 Hastings, NE (Grand Island) >v l1 42A 2 34A 706 Holdrege, NE >v 12 54A SYMBOLS KEY 3 43A 783 McCook, NE (CT) >v 11 49P 5 05A 960 Fort Morgan, CO (Sterling) (MT) >v 8 25P D Stops only to discharge passengers; > Unstaffed station l7 15A 1038 Ar Denver, CO–Union Station ∑w Dp l7 10P train may leave before time shown.
    [Show full text]
  • UTA Map Trax and Frontrunner
    456 460 461 471 462 Salt Lake County 463 461 462 460 472 470 System Map 473 455 456 August 2019 471 460 Legend 461 Bus 462 200 Routes run every 15 minutes 463 213 Routes run every 30 or more minutes 473 Routes that have limited stops/peak only 472 470 F556 Routes are Flex Routes Rail F522 473 FrontRunner 456 455 460 Salt Lake City TRAX red line 217 461 Redwood Rd Redwood TRAX blue line 519 462 Airport Station 470 463 North Temple Station TRAX green line Salt Lake See other side University Hospital 454 1000 N 473 3 200 209 University Medical Streetcar S-line International 471 Green line, FrontRunner for Downtown and 2 6 11 Green line 520 472 Center Station Airport 520 University Insets 9 17 21 213 472 470 LDS Hospital 11 223 313 354 1940 W Station F522 600 N 460 217 Northwest 461 200 473 Red line 217 F453 454 456 900 W 455 Union Building 551 551 454 Comm. Ctr 6 11 456 State 6 456 F522 551 State 519 470 9 17 21 213 223 217 519 473 Green line Offices 11 To Tooele I-80 454 N Temple 3 3 9 454 F453 200 N Campus Dr South Campus Station 451 454 456 551 S Temple Power Station 209 6 213 2X 9 17 213 F453 I-80 F453 217 454 551 902 451 220 2 313 21 Chipeta 455 473 Red line Green line 2 3 205 307 17 451 217 S Campus Dr 223 455 4 4 400 S 900 W 455 473 9 State 4 3 3 5600 W Bangerter Hwy Bangerter 320 Wakara 313 Salt Lake Central Station 220 4 3 451 205 307 209 213 This is the Place State Park 2 2X 6 11 205 220 Rd Redwood 9 21 3 509 200 900 S Arapeen 509 513 519 520 902 9 9 Sunnyside Ave 1300 E Hogle 300 W Blue line520, FrontRunner 9 900 E 223 513 Zoo
    [Show full text]
  • Streetcars and Economic Development: Do Streetcars Stimulate Employment Growth?
    Streetcars and Economic Development: Do Streetcars Stimulate Employment Growth? Sarah Jack Hinners, Ph.D Director, Ecological Planning Center Department of City and Metropolitan Planning University of Utah Salt Lake City, Utah Arthur C. Nelson, Ph.D., FAcSS, FAICP Professor of Planning and Real Estate Development School of Landscape Architecture and Planning University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona E: [email protected] Martin Buchert, MA Senior Research Analyst Global Change and Sustainability Center University of Utah Salt Lake City, Utah Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge support for research reported in this article from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Office of Policy Development and Research with assistance from the University of Utah, the National Institute for Transportation and Communities, and the University of Arizona. We recognize especially contributions from Richard Decker, Dejan Eskic, Emily Guffin, Michael Larice, Kate Morrell, and Cassie Younger. Views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the research sponsor or the authors’ universities. December 2017 1 Streetcars and Economic Development: Do Streetcars Stimulate Employment Growth? Abstract Positive economic development in association with transit investments such as light rail, bus rapid transit and streetcars is a common assumption in urban planning. However, the published literature on this relationship, primarily looking at light rail, shows varied outcomes, and studies on other modes such as BRT are very limited. This study reports economic development outcomes—defined as change in employment—for areas within one-quarter mile of three streetcar stations in each of four cities: Portland OR “Central Loop” line; Salt Lake City UT “S” line; Seattle WA “South Lake Union” line; and New Orleans LA “Rampart-St.
    [Show full text]
  • 20 Aug Frontrunner Schedule.Cdr
    Rail System Map Daybreak Pkwy. Daybreak 5600 W. 5600 W. 1940 W. North TempleAirport South Jordan Pkwy. West Valley Central West Valley West Jordan West Valley City 4800 Old Bingham Hwy. W. Old Bingham Hwy. Decker Lake Redwood Junction Power Jordan Valley Fairpark West JordanWest City Center Sugar Factory Rd. South Jordan Jackson/Euclid Salt Lake Central North Temple Bridge River Trail River Historic GardnerHistoric Bingham Junction American Fork Woods Cross Farmington Layton Clearfield Roy Ogden Provo Central Orem Central South Jordan Arena Draper Central Pointe GreekTown Old Planetarium Midvale Lehi Courthouse 900 South Ballpark Millcreek Ogden Temple Square Temple Gallivan Plaza City Center Sandy Expo Historic Sandy Midvale Center Midvale Fort Union Sandy Civic Center Fashion PlaceFashion West North Murray Meadowbrook Murray Central Murray Provo South Salt Lake City Lake Salt South Crescent View Crescent Library 801-743-3882 (RIDE-UTA) Kimballs Lane East 300 Trolley Salt Lake City FrontRunner 750 StreetcarS-Line 720 TRAX Green 704 Line 703 TRAX Line Red TRAX 701 Line Blue Draper Town Center 500 East 500 900 East 900 rideuta.com Draper Sandy Murray South Salt Lake 700 East 700 Stadium South Campus South Sugarmont U niversity University Free Fare Zone Day Parking Multi-Day Parking Fort Douglas Fort Medical Center Medical Fairmont rideuta For Information Call (Salt Lake Co.)801-RIDE-UTA (801-743-3882) (outside Salt Lake Co.) 888-RIDE-UTA (888-743-3882) www.rideuta.com FrontRunner FRONTRUNNER TIPS BICYCLES HOW TO USE THIS SCHEDULE 750 SEE SOMETHING? Select your destination and purchase your one-way FrontRunner Bicycles can be stored in racks located Determine your timepoint based on when you want SAY SOMETHING! or round trip fare from the ticket machine prior to on the main floor of cars showing a bicycle symbol.
    [Show full text]
  • P.R.I.I.A. Section
    TABLE OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 II. INTRODUCTION 9 III. EXISTING RAILROAD OPERATIONS AND INFRASTRUCTURE 13 IV. STATIONS 23 V. SERVICE RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES 29 VI. RIDERSHIP AND OPERATING COST ANALYSIS 39 VII. CAPITAL COSTS AND IMPLEMENTATION REQUIREMENTS 47 VIII. IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE 59 IX. PUBLIC OUTREACH 61 X. PUBLIC BENEFITS 65 XI. CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS 67 XII. EXHIBITS 69 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A. Background This report examines the feasibility of reinstating Amtrak’s Pioneer route, which operated from 1977 to 1997 between Chicago, Illinois and Seattle, Washington via Denver, Colorado and Salt Lake City/Ogden, Utah. Amtrak was directed to perform this study by the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) (Public Law 110‐432), which reauthorized Amtrak and tasked Amtrak, the Federal government, states, and other rail stakeholders to improve intercity passenger rail service. Section 224 of PRIIA requires Amtrak to undertake studies of reinstating the Pioneer route, and of reinstating or expanding service, or adding stops, on several other routes. Amtrak is to submit these studies to Congress by October 16, 2009. B. Route History When the Pioneer was established in June of 1977, it operated from Salt Lake City and Ogden to Seattle. At Ogden, Amtrak’s San Francisco Zephyr provided connecting service to/from Denver and Chicago for Pioneer route passengers. In 1980‐81, new bi‐ level Superliner equipment was placed in service on the Pioneer, which allowed the train to offer convenient “through car” service to Chicago via the Zephyr and eliminated the need for passengers to physically change trains in Ogden.
    [Show full text]
  • Streetcars and Economic Development: Do Streetcars Stimulate Employment Growth?
    Streetcars and Economic Development: Do Streetcars Stimulate Employment Growth? Item Type Article Authors Hinners, Sarah Jack; Nelson, Arthur C.; Buchert, Martin Citation Hinners, S. J., Nelson, A. C., & Buchert, M. (2018). Streetcars and Economic Development: Do Streetcars Stimulate Employment Growth? Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2672(8), 339–350. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0361198118790096 DOI 10.1177/0361198118790096 Publisher SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC Journal TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD Rights Copyright © National Academy of Sciences: Transportation Research Board 2018. Download date 29/09/2021 14:33:12 Item License http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ Version Final accepted manuscript Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/636735 Streetcars and Economic Development: Do Streetcars Stimulate Employment Growth? Sarah Jack Hinners, Ph.D Director, Ecological Planning Center Department of City and Metropolitan Planning University of Utah Salt Lake City, Utah Arthur C. Nelson, Ph.D., FAcSS, FAICP Professor of Planning and Real Estate Development School of Landscape Architecture and Planning University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona E: [email protected] Martin Buchert, MA Senior Research Analyst Global Change and Sustainability Center University of Utah Salt Lake City, Utah Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge support for research reported in this article from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Office of Policy Development and Research with assistance from the University of Utah, the National Institute for Transportation and Communities, and the University of Arizona. We recognize especially contributions from Richard Decker, Dejan Eskic, Emily Guffin, Michael Larice, Kate Morrell, and Cassie Younger. Views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the research sponsor or the authors’ universities.
    [Show full text]
  • Re-Evaluation of Streetcar Station Changes
    ENVIRONMENTAL RE-EVALUATION DOCUMENTATION PROJECT TITLE Sugar House Streetcar Project Environmental Assessment Re-Evaluation for Station Changes CURRENT, APPROVED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS: Title: Finding of No Significant Impact for the Sugar House Environmental Assessment Date: February 14, 2011 Type and Date of Last Federal Action: FONSI, February 2011 Title: Sugar House Streetcar Project Environmental Assessment Date: November 2010 IS THE PROJECT CURRENTLY UNDER DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION? REASON FOR RE-EVALUATION The station platform locations are changing from the locations proposed in the Environmental Assessment (EA). The changes are shown in Attachment A, Sugar House Streetcar Project Proposed Station Plan Changes, dated 12/16/11. The reason for the platform changes is to accommodate the results of a community visioning process that included UTA, the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (SLC RDA), Salt Lake City, South Salt Lake City, the Parley’s Rails Trails and Tunnels Coalition (PRATT), community members, developers, and a consultant team (CitiVenture Associates and Ronald A. Straka). The community visioning was conducted to support future land use plans and create a mixed-use corridor that integrates transit and various modes of pedestrian circulation with urban design and redevelopment to encourage transit ridership and economic development in the Sugar House Streetcar corridor. The results of the community visioning are shown in Attachment B, Sugar House Corridor Recommendations. In total, there will be one or more changes to seven stations. The changes include moving one station to avoid the acquisition of a building; utilizing a wider area of the UTA right-of-way (ROW) at one station; incorporating side platforms at five stations, rather than center platforms; and placing platforms closer to areas of redevelopment along the ROW at two stations.
    [Show full text]