Northern Utah County Transit Study (NUCTS)

North&Utah&County&& Transit&Study& March&2015& ! ! ! North&Utah&County&Transit&Study& March&2015& & Prepared'for:' The&Mountainland&Association&of&Governments& and& The&Utah&Transit&Authority& & & Project'Managers:' Chad&Eccles,&Mountainland&Association&of&Governments& Jim&McNulty,&Utah&Transit&Authority& & & Technical'Advisory'Committee:' Paul&Goodrich,&Orem& Jeremy&Lapin,&Saratoga&Springs& Degen&Lewis,&Pleasant&Grove& Steve&Mumford,&Eagle&Mountain& Adam&Olsen,&American&Fork& Don&Overson,&Vineyard& Kim&Struthers,&Lehi& Hugh&Van&Wagenen,&Lindon& Ken&Anson,&Utah&Transit&Authority& & & ' Prepared'by:' InterPlan&Co.& Cambridge&Systematics& Connetics&Transportation&Group& HDR& Table&of&Contents& ! Chapter&One:&Introduction& & & & & & & ! Purpose!of!the!Study! ! ! ! ! ! ! 101! ! Process! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 102! ! Study!Area! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 103! ! Local!Government!Involvement! ! ! ! ! 104! ! Public!Involvement! ! ! ! ! ! ! 104! ! Chapter&Two:&Existing&Conditions& ! Existing!Land!Use! ! ! ! ! ! ! 201! ! Transit!Conditions! ! ! ! ! ! ! 206! ! ! Transit0supportive!Land!Uses!! ! ! ! 206! ! Existing!Transit!Service! ! ! ! ! ! 2011! ! Existing!Park!–and0Ride!Lots! ! ! ! ! ! 2016! ! UTA!On0Board!Survey!! ! ! ! ! ! 2019! ! ! Chapter&Three:&Future&Conditions& ! Future!Land!Use!Determination! ! ! ! ! 301! ! ! Land!Use!Definitions! ! ! ! ! ! 303! ! 2040!Forecast!Adjustments! ! ! ! ! ! 304! ! Chapter&Four:&Circulator& ! Prior!Studies! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 401! ! ! UTA!Five!Year!Service!Plan! ! ! ! ! 402! ! ! UTA!Shuttle!Market!Demand!Analysis! ! ! 404! ! Service!Objectives! ! ! ! ! ! ! 406! ! Service!Recommendations!and!Opportunities! ! ! 407! Estimated!Operating!Costs! ! ! ! ! ! 4013! ! Additional!Opportunities! ! ! ! ! ! 4014! ! Chapter&Five:&North/South&Light&Rail&Transit& ! Existing!LRT!Service! ! ! ! ! ! ! 501! ! Purpose!and!Need! ! ! ! ! ! ! 502! ! Alignments! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 504! ! Potential!Environmental!Issues! ! ! ! ! 506! ! Travel!Demand!Modeling! ! ! ! ! ! 509! ! Mode! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 5010! ! Station!Locations! ! ! ! ! ! ! 5010! ! Initial!Visioning! ! ! ! ! ! ! 5011! ! Criteria! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 5011! ! Initial!Station!Locations! ! ! ! ! ! 5015! ! Evaluation!Process! ! ! ! ! ! ! 5016! ! Evaluation!Results! ! ! ! ! ! ! 5017! ! Themes!of!the!Results! ! ! ! ! ! 5020! ! Preferred!Alignment! ! ! ! ! ! ! 5022! ! Selection!of!Recommended!Station!Locations! ! ! 5022! ! Moving!Forward! ! ! ! ! ! ! 5024! ! LRT!Phasing! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 5025! ! Implementation! ! ! ! ! ! ! 5027! ! Chapter&Six:&East/West&Transit& ! Background! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 601! ! Desired!Connections!! ! ! ! ! ! ! 602! ! Initial!Visioning! ! ! ! ! ! ! 602! ! Land!Use!and!Transit!Mode! ! ! ! ! ! 604! ! Evolution!of!Transit!and!Community! ! ! ! ! 608! ! Initial!Alignment!Alternatives!! ! ! ! ! 6011! ! ! Summary!of!Alternatives!Evaluated! ! ! ! 6017! ! Revised!Alignment!Alternatives! ! ! ! ! 6017! ! Recommended!Alignment!Alternative! ! ! ! 6021! ! Implementation! ! ! ! ! ! ! 6023!

Chapter&7:&Policy&Considerations& ! Market!Assessment!Methodology! ! ! ! ! 701! ! Market!Analysis!Results!and!Implications! ! ! ! 703! ! ! Exploratory!Market!Analysis! ! ! ! ! 703! ! ! ! Markets!between!Utah!and!Salt!Lake!Counties! 703! ! ! ! Market!West!of!Utah!Lake! ! ! ! 707! ! ! ! Northeastern!Market!along!I015,!Lehi!to!Provo! 707! ! ! Focused!Market!Analysis! ! ! ! ! 7012! ! Transportation!and!Land!Use!Policy!Tests! ! ! ! 7018! ! Implications!and!Potential!Next!Steps! ! ! ! 7019! ! Integrated!Planning!in!Multiple!Jurisdictional!Levels!! ! 7022! ! The!Role!of!Development!Codes!and!Zoning!! ! ! 7025! ! Chapter&8:&Recommended&Transit&&&Future&Transit&Considerations& ! Recommended!Transit!Alignments!and!Corridors! ! ! 801! ! ! North/South!Light!Rail!Transit!Recommendation! ! 801! ! ! Implementation!of!N/S!Recommendations! ! ! 802! ! ! East/West!Transit!Recommendations! ! ! 804! ! ! Implementation!of!E/W!Recommendations! ! ! 805! ! ! Combined!Recommended!Networks!! ! ! 806! ! Future!Transit!Considerations! ! ! ! ! 806! ! ! Southwest!Salt!Lake!County!Transit! ! ! ! 807! ! ! Improvements!to!FrontRunner!Infrastructure! ! 807! ! ! Central!and!Southern!Utah!County! ! ! ! 808! ! Project!Funding!Considerations! ! ! ! ! 809! ! ! FTA!New!Starts!Funding!Criteria! ! ! ! 809! ! ! FTA!Small!Starts!Funding!Criteria! ! ! ! 8010! ! ! FTA!Very!Small!Starts! ! ! ! ! ! 8011! & Appendix&A:&Adjusted&2040&Socioeconomic&Data&& & & & AO1& by&Traffic&Analysis&Zone& & Appendix&B:&Technical&Specifications&for&NUCTS&TCI&Tool& & & BO1 List&of&Figures& ! Figure!101:!Northern!Utah!County!Transit!Study,!Study!Area! ! 103! Figure!201:!2010!Population!by!TAZ! ! ! ! ! ! 202! Figure!202:!2010!Population!Density!by!TAZ! ! ! ! ! 203! Figure!203:!2010!Number!of!Jobs!by!TAZ! ! ! ! ! 204! Figure!204:!2010!Employment!Density!by!TAZ! ! ! ! 205! Figure!205:!Transit!Network!Overview! ! ! ! ! 207! Figure!206:!Major!Employment!and!Activity!Centers!! ! ! 209! Figure!207:!Observed!Urban!Patterns!! ! ! ! ! 2010! Figure!208:!Weekday!Frequency!and!Span!of!Service! ! ! 2014! Figure!209:!Generalized!Existing!UTA!Transit!Network! ! ! 2015! Figure!2010:!Park0and0Ride!Lot!Locations! ! ! ! ! 2017! Figure!2011:!Existing!Approximate!(scaled)!Average!Ridership! ! 2018! Figure!301:!Future!Land!Use,!2040! ! ! ! ! ! 302! Figure!302:!Percent!of!Build!Out!in!2040,!Population!! ! ! 305! Figure!303:!Percent!of!Build!Out!in!2040,!Households! ! ! 306! Figure!304:!Percent!of!Build!Out!in!2040,!Employment! ! ! 307! Figure!305:!Adjustments!to!2040!by!TAZ,!Households! ! ! 308! Figure!306:!Adjustments!to!2040!by!TAZ,!Population!! ! ! 309! Figure!307:!Adjustments!to!2040!by!TAZ,!Employment! ! ! 3010! Figure!308:!Total!2040!Households!by!TAZ! ! ! ! ! 3011! Figure!309:!Total!2040!Population!by!TAZ! ! ! ! ! 3012! Figure!3010:!Total!2040!Employment!by!TAZ!! ! ! ! 3013! Figure!401:!Northern!Utah!County!Additional!Expansion!Plan! ! 403! Figure!402:!American!Fork!Station!Area!Demand,!Employment!! ! 405! Figure!403:!Near0Term!Service!Recommendations! ! ! ! 4010! Figure!404:!Mid0Term!Service!Recommendations! ! ! ! 4011! Figure!405:!Long0Term!Service!Recommendations! ! ! ! 4012! Figure!501:!Potential!North/South!LRT!Alignments! ! ! ! 505! Figure!502:!Station!Location!Exercise!Results!! ! ! ! 5011! Figure!503:!American!Fork!Station! ! ! ! ! ! 5012! Figure!504:!“Ds”!Near!American!Fork!Station!! ! ! ! 5013! Figure!505:!SR092!Station! ! ! ! ! ! ! 5014! Figure!506:!Evaluated!Station!Locations! ! ! ! ! 5016! Figure!507:!Overall!Station!Location!Evaluation!Results! ! ! 5017! Figure!508:!Potential!Station!Locations!Near!Historic!Downtowns! ! 5021! Figure!509:!Recommended!Station!Locations!! ! ! ! 5024! Figure!5010:!Possible!Phasing!of!North/South!LRT! ! ! ! 5028! Figure!601:!Important!East/West!Transit!Connections!! ! ! 602! Figure!602:!Steering!Committee!Transit!Visioning!Exercise! ! ! 603! Figure!603:!East/West!Transit!Loop!Scenario!! ! ! ! 606! Figure!604:!Loop!Scenario!Densities! ! ! ! ! ! 606! Figure!605:!East/West!Transit!Spine!Scenario! ! ! ! 607! Figure!606:!Spine!Scenario!Densities! ! ! ! ! ! 608! Figure!607:!Evolution!of!a!Transit0Supportive!Cross!Section! ! ! 6010! Figure!608:!East/West!Transit,!Alternative!1! ! ! ! ! 6012! Figure!609:!East/West!Transit,!Alternative!2! ! ! ! ! 6014! Figure!6010:!East/West!Transit,!Alternative!3! ! ! ! 6015! Figure!6011:!East/West!Transit,!Alternative!4! ! ! ! 6016! Figure!6012:!East/West!Transit,!Revised!Alternative!1a! ! ! 6018! Figure!6013:!East/West!Transit,!Revised!Alternative!1b! ! ! 6019! Figure!6014:!East/West!Transit,!Revised!Alternative!2! ! ! 6020! Figure!6015:!East/West!Transit,!Revised!Alternative!3! ! ! 6021! Figure!6016:!Recommended!East/West!Transit!Alignment! ! ! 6022! Figure!701:!Exploratory!Market!Analysis!Locations! ! ! ! 705! Figure!702:!2009/2040!Travel!Volumes!between!Utah!and!SL!Counties! 706! Figure!703:!2040!Employment!Density!West!of!Utah!Lake! ! ! 708! Figure!704:!2040!Household!Density!West!of!Utah!Lake! ! ! 709! Figure!705:!Market!Analysis!Results!for!Utah!County!Spine,!2009! ! 7010! Figure!706:!Market!Analysis!Results!for!Utah!County!Spine,!2040! ! 7011! Figure!707:!Focused!Market!Analysis!of!Specific!O/D!Cluster,!2040! ! 7014! Figure!708:!TCI!Analysis!Results!for!Households!west!of!Utah!Lake! ! 7015! Figure!709:!TCI!Analysis!Results!for!Households!in!AF!and!PG! ! 7016! Figure!7010:!2040!TCI!Analysis!Results!for!Employment!and!College!! 7017! Figure!7011:!Relative!Policy!Effects!on!Transit!Competitiveness! ! 7020! Figure!801:!Recommended!North/South!Light!Rail!! !!!!!!!Transit!Alignment!and!Station!Locations!! ! ! 802! Figure!802:!Recommended!East/West!Transit!! !!!!!! !!!!!!!Corridor!and!Station!Locations! ! ! ! ! 804! Figure!803:!North/South!and!East/West!Recommendations!! ! 806! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! List&of&Tables& ! Table!201:!UTA!Bus/FrontRunner!Summary! ! ! ! ! 2011! Table!301:!Jobs!per!Acre!and!Percent!of!Land!by!Land!Use! ! ! 303! Table!302:!Density!Range!and!Sample!Structures!! ! ! ! 304! Table!401:!Five!Year!Service!Plan!Financial!Summaries! ! ! 403! Table!402:!Requests!for!shuttle!services! ! ! ! ! 406! Table!403:!Near0term!Service!Improvements!Recommendations! ! 408! Table!404:!Mid0term!Service!Improvement!Recommendations!!! ! 409! Table!405:!Long0term!Service!Improvement!Recommendations!!! ! 409! Table!406:!Estimated!Cost!Ranges! ! ! ! ! ! 4013! Table!407:!Average!Weekday!Service!Plan!Statistics! ! ! ! 4014! Table!408:!Annualized!Weekday!Service!Plan!Statistics! ! ! 4014! Table!501:!North/South!LRT!Segments!Summary! ! ! ! 508! Table!502:!Travel!Demand!Model!Results!Summary! ! ! ! 509! Table!601:!Transit!Supportive!Densities!by!Transit!Mode! ! ! 605! Table!602:!East/West!Alternatives!Evaluation! ! ! ! 6017! Table!701:!Policy!Scenarios!for!Focused!Market!Analysis! ! ! 7020! Table!801:!Overall!Benefit!of!N/S!and!E/W!Transit!! ! ! ! 806! ! (

(

CHAPTER(ONE:(INTRODUCTION(

With( rapidly( growing( population,( employment( and( traffic( congestion( in( northern( Utah( County,( the( Mountainland(Association(of(Governments((MAG)(and(the(Utah(Transit(Authority((UTA)(commenced(a( study(of(potential(transit(projects(in(northern(Utah(County.(Population(and(employment(growth(in(this( area(has(been(rapid(in(recent(years(and(this(fast2paced(growth(is(expected(to(continue(into(the(future.( As(an(example,(40(percent(of(all(new(residential(housing(starts(in(Utah(County(in(recent(years(were(in( Lehi,(Saratoga(Springs,(and(Eagle(Mountain.(The(Northern(Utah(County(Transit(Study((NUCTS)(examined( potential(for(future(transit(facilities(to(help(meet(the(future(travel(demand(expected(due(to(this(growth.(

Purpose(of(the(Study( In(preparing(to(kick(off(their(upcoming(Regional(Transportation(Plan(RTP(process,(MAG’s(goal(for(this( process(was(to(provide(technical(analysis(of(transit(capital(projects(to(potentially(be(included(in(the(plan.(( These(transit(projects(would(serve(residents(and( employment( areas( in( northern(Utah(County.(The( specific(intent(of(this(process(was(to(examine(three(different(transit(system(components(in(detail(and(to( be(able(to(identify(elements(of(these(projects(in(sufficient(detail(to(include(them(in(the(2015(RTP.(The( three(components(included:( • Circulator(service(from(the(Thanksgiving(Point(commuter(rail(station((Chapter(4)( • North/south(light(rail(service(as(an(extension(from(the(Draper(TRAX(station((Chapter(5)( • East/west( transit( service( providing( connections( from( commuter( rail( to( western( Lehi,( Saratoga(Springs,(and(Eagle(Mountain((Chapter(6)(

Chapter(1:(Introduction( ( 121( Process( MAG(and(UTA(engaged(in(a(process(that(included(a(steering(committee(made(up(of(city(technical(staff(to( provide( technical( input( and( guidance( for( the( project.( To( guide( the( overall( process( and( to( address( administrative( and( management( concerns,( a( project( management( committee( was( established.( The( Management(Committee(included(MAG(and(UTA(as(well(as(the(prime(consultant,(InterPlan.(The(intent( of(the(Management(Committee(was(to(direct(overall(effort(in(terms(of(scope,(schedule(and(budget.(((

The( consultant( team( consisted( of( InterPlan,( Cambridge( Systematics,( Connetics( Transportation( Group,( and(HDR.(Together,(the(consultant(team(along(with(MAG(and(UTA(led(this(92month(process(to(examine( each(of(the(three(study(components(in(detail(so(that(they(could(be(added(to(the(Regional(Transportation( Plan.(Local(government(involvement(was(critical(to(the(process(and(the(hope(of(study(sponsors(is(that( local(governments(adopt(the(findings(of(this(plan(into(their(own(city(transportation(and(land(use(plans( and(begin(to(identify(opportunities(where(its(concepts(and(details(can(be(implemented.((

Study(Area( The( area( encompassed( by( this( study( is( within( the( northern( portion(of(Utah(County(as(shown(in(the( image(below.(

Chapter(1:(Introduction( ( 122( (

Figure(1A1:(Northern(Utah(County(Transit(Study,(Study(Area(

(

Chapter(1:(Introduction( ( 123( Local(Government(Involvement(

In( addition( to( the( Management( Committee(discussed(above,( MAG( and( UTA( established( a( project( Steering(Committee(to(guide(the(technical(elements(and(the(overall(process(as(well(as(to(maximize(the( value(of(the(study(to(local(governments.(The(Steering(Committee(included(all(members(of(the(Project( Management(Committee(as(well(as(representatives(from:(

• UTA(Timpanogos(Service(Division( • Eagle(Mountain(City( • Saratoga(Springs(City( • Lehi(City( • American(Fork(City(( • Pleasant(Grove(City( • Lindon(City( • Vineyard(City( • Orem(City(

In( addition( to( the( Steering( Committee,( sub2committees( were( formed( to( explore( individual( project( components(in(more(detail.(The(sub2committee(meetings(focused(on:( • Circulator(analysis( • North2south(transit(analysis( • East2west(transit(analysis(

The(purpose(of(each(of(these(groups(was(to(explore(and(understand(the(technical(details(of(each(topic( at(a(local(level.(The(goal(of(these(groups(was(to(explore(concepts(in(more(detail(than(meetings(with(the( overall(group(might(allow.((

Public(Involvement(

The(focus(of(the(work(in(this(study(was(on(technical(analysis(of(transit(options(in(the(three(areas.(It’s( anticipated(that(larger(outreach(efforts(will(occur(within(the(context(of(outreach(efforts(for(the(Regional( Transportation( Plan.( While( widespread( public( outreach( was( not( a( component( of( the( study,( targeted( outreach(to(key(groups(was.(During(the(study,(efforts(were(undertaken(to(bring(various(transit(planning( concepts(to(targeted(groups(in(order(to(understand(the(level(of(support(or(opposition(to(these(concepts.(

Chapter(1:(Introduction( ( 124( The(study(team(hosted(two(transit(workshops(about(halfway(through(the(process.(The(intent(of(these( workshops( was(to(get(specific(feedback(from(those(in(the(study(area(that(have(a(specific(interest(in( future(transit(alignments(and(can(provide(precise(input(related(to(various(alignment(options(or(potential( “fatal(flaws.”(((

The(first(workshop(was(held(on(March(27,(2014(at(the(Utah(College(of(Applied(Technology(in(Lehi(and( focused(on(large(employers,(property(owners,(and(others(with(a(long2term(stake(in(the(future(of(the( area.(The(second(workshop(was(held(April(1,(2014(at(the(same(location,(but(was(more(centered(on(local( government(officials(including(planning(commission(and(city(council(members(from(each(city.((

Participants(were(updated(on(the(individual(components(of(the(study(and(were(given(an(opportunity(to( weigh( in( on( such( questions( as( preferred( station( locations( for( both( north/south( light( rail( transit( and( east/west(transit.(Additionally,(they(had(opportunity(to(comment(on(what(they(believed(would(be(the( most(important(factors(for(determining(where(transit(should(go(as(well(as(what(they(would(most(like(to( see(included(in(MAG’s(2040(RTP(as(a(result(of(this(process.(The(RTP(is(currently(being(developed(by(MAG( and(is(scheduled(for(adoption(in(May(2015.(

(

Chapter(1:(Introduction( ( 125( (

(

! CHAPTER!TWO:!EXISTING!CONDITIONS!

The(chapter(summarizes(existing(land(use(in(the(study(area(by(looking(to(the(traffic(analysis(zone((TAZ)( level( population( and( employment( estimates.( Also( included( is( a( summary( of( the(existing(public( transportation(network,(ridership(statistics,(and(rider(characteristics.(The(chapter(also(identifies(major( traffic(generators(within(the(study(area(that(might(serve(as(likely(transit(markets.((

Existing!Land!Use! In( order( to( generally( summarize( the( land( use( within( the( study( area,(TAZ(level(population(and( employment(data(provided(by(MAG(was(used.(For(the(purposes(of(this(summary,(data(for(2010(was( used.(It(should(be(noted(that(2010(socio3economic(data(represents(forecasts(from(2007(as(a(base(year,( and(errors(are(likely(due(to(both(the(forecasting(nature(as(well(as(the(effects(of(the(2008(recession.(

Figures(231(and(232(depict(population(and(population(density(as(persons(per(developed(acres(by(TAZ.( Higher(population(densities(tend(to(run(along(and(east(of(the(I315(corridor,(with(a(large(concentration(of( relatively(high(population(density(located(in(Orem.(West(of(I315(are(lower(densities(with(a(majority(of( the(undeveloped(land.(Small(pockets(of(density(can(be(seen(in(Eagle(Mountain(and(Saratoga(Springs.((

Like( population,( employment( in( the( study( area( mostly( hugs( the( I315( corridor(with(most(of(the( employment(concentrated(within(Orem.(There(is(a(large(industrial(center(in(Vineyard(as(well(as(sizeable( corporate(centers(south(of(Point(of(the(Mountain(including(Adobe,(Xactware(and(IM(Flash/Micron,(as( well(as(a(future(Mountainstar(hospital(campus.(Figures(233(and(234(show(employment(and(employment( density(by(TAZ.(

Chapter(2:(Existing(Conditions( ( 231( Figure!2A1:!2010!Population!by!TAZ!

(

Chapter(2:(Existing(Conditions( ( 232( Figure!2A2:!2010!Population!Density!by!TAZ!

Chapter(2:(Existing(Conditions( ( 233( Figure!2( A3:!2010!Number!of!Jobs!by!TAZ!

(

Chapter(2:(Existing(Conditions( ( 234( Figure!2A4:!2010!Employment!Density!by!TAZ! (

(

Chapter(2:(Existing(Conditions( ( 235( Transit!Conditions!

There( are( 15( bus( routes(that(either(fully(or(partially(operate(within(the(study(area.(Twelve(of(these( routes(are(primarily(north3south(connections(and(three(provide(east3west(connections.(The(study(area( also( contains( three(FrontRunner(stations(located(in(Lehi,(American( Fork,( and( Orem.( Details( of( each( transit(route(are(offered(later(in(this(chapter,(and(Figure(235(below(provides(a(network(overview.(((

TransitAsupportive!Land!Uses( Centers(of(major(employment(and(activity(are(important(to(consider(in(transit(analyses(since(they(have( the( greatest( potential( to( attract( trips,( including( transit( trips.( The( centers( of( major( employment( and( activity(in(the(North(Utah(County(Transit(Study((NUCTS)(area(are(located(in(the(north(portion(of(the( county( along( SR392( (Timpanogos( Highway)( and( in( the( southern( part( of( the( study( area( in( Orem( and( Provo,( primarily( along( University( Parkway.( ( Employers( at( the( north( end( of( the( study( area( are( predominantly(technology3focused(companies(such(as(Adobe,(IM(Flash,(and(Xactware.((Outdoor(retailer( Cabela’s(and(an(outlet(mall(are(also(located(in(this(area.((Most(of(the(ridership(in(this(area(would(tend(to( be(peak3oriented(with(trips(primarily(occurring(in(the(traditional(commuter(periods(of(early(morning(and( evening(periods,(although(attraction(to(retail(would(be(oriented(more(toward(an(all3day(type(of(service.(( To(the(west(is(Thanksgiving(Point(and(Thanksgiving(Park,(site(of(the(eponymous(non3profit(educational( facility,(the(Lehi(FrontRunner(commuter(rail(station,(and(a(collection(of(large(office(buildings(set(within( an(office(park(with(a(number(of(strip(retail(and(restaurant(uses.(

Located(in(the(southern(portion(of(the(study(area(are(the(major(employment(and(activity(centers(of( Canyon( Park( Technology( Center,( The( Shops( at( Riverwoods,( University( Mall,( and( the( large( university( campuses( of( Utah( Valley( University( (UVU)( in( Orem( and( Brigham( Young( University( (BYU),( located( just( outside(of(the(study(area(in(Provo.((UVU(and(BYU(both(have(enrollments(of(over(30,000(students(and( although( both( universities( have( satellite( campuses,( these( are( the( main( campuses( serving( the( largest( share(of(student(enrollment.((Ridership(occurs(throughout(the(day,(reflecting(the(variety(of(trip(types( (work,(student(and(retail)(and(robust(service(levels.(

(

Chapter(2:(Existing(Conditions( ( 236( Figure!2A5:!Transit!Network!Overview! (

(

Chapter(2:(Existing(Conditions( ( 237( (

Running(between(the(northern(and(southern(areas(of(higher(employment(and(activity(centers(is(State( Street((US389),(the(traditional(north3south(major(highway(through(Utah(County,(paralleling(Interstate( 15.((Located(along(this(corridor(are(much(of(the(rest(of(commercial,(industrial,(and(other(non3residential( uses( within( the( study( area.( ( Much( of( this( linear( corridor( is( composed( of( continuous( low3density,( automobile3driven( development( with( an( abundance( of( parking,( but( some( spots( have( higher( levels( of( concentrated(development,(especially(newer(construction.((The(downtown(cores(of(Pleasant(Grove(and( American( Fork( are( also( located( along( State( Street.( ( Bus( stops( are( frequent( and( ridership( occurs( throughout(this(spine.(((

Although( the( center( of( the( study( area( lacks( major( employment,( it( contains( numerous( schools( and( medical(facilities(as(well(as(retail(and(industry(along(State(Street.((Other(locations(that(may(benefit(from( improved( transit( access( or( service( would( be( large( schools,( particularly( high( schools,( and( medical( facilities(such(as(large(hospitals.((Although(schools(are(located(sporadically(throughout(the(study(area,( there( are( instances( of( adjacent( facilities( which( could( benefit( from( improved( stop( placement( or( stop( consolidation.((For(instance,(along(Pony(Express(Parkway(at(North(Redwood(Road,(Westlake(High,(Vista( Heights(Middle,(and(Thunder(Ridge(Elementary(schools(are(all(located(on(the(same(block.((Additionally,( there(appear(to(be(several(locations(of(schools(in(American(Fork,(Pleasant(Grove,(and(Orem.((Similarly,( there(are(several(large(medical(facilities(in(the(center(of(the(study(area(in(American(Fork(and(Pleasant( Grove,( particularly( American( Fork( Hospital,( Timpanogos( Regional( Hospital,( and( Orem( Community( Hospital.( Figure( 236! shows( schools( of( any( type( as( a( green( schoolhouse( symbol( while( hospitals( are( depicted(as(blue(“H”(squares.((Numerous(medical(facilities(are(in(the(center(and(south(areas(of(the(study( area.(

Also( observed( in( field( research( during( February( 2014( were( differing( patterns( of( urban( development( which( could( be( supportive( of( higher( transit( services( in( varying( degrees( depending( on( the( type( and( intensity(of(development,(intensity(of(employment(or(attractions,(and(ease(of(pedestrian(connections;( these(patterns(are(correlated(to(urban(form(and(land(uses(since(they(are(a(direct(result(of(development( policy.((Many(of(the(places(most(supportive(of(transit(service(are(along(State(Street(since(they(contain( the(oldest(urban(structure.((A(challenge(to(providing(transit(here(is(low3density(residential(development( which(occurs(throughout(the(study(area.(Figure(237(displays(observed(urban(patterns(within(the(study( area.(

Chapter(2:(Existing(Conditions( ( 238( Figure!2A6:!Major!Employment!and!Activity!Centers!

(

Chapter(2:(Existing(Conditions( ( 239( Figure!2A7:!Observed!Urban!Patterns!

Chapter(2:(Existing(Conditions( ( 2310( !

Existing!Transit!Service!! UTA(provides(service(throughout(the(northern(Utah(County(area(in(a(predominantly(north3south(linear( structure(with(connections(at(two(of(the(three(FrontRunner(stations.(Eleven(bus(routes(within(the(study( area(provide(service(throughout(the(week.(Table(231(provides(a(summary(of(routes(by(service(type(and( frequency(for(both(bus(and(commuter(rail(service.(

Table!2A1:!UTA!Bus/FrontRunner!Summary!

Frequency!(in!minutes)! Average! Route! Daily! Route!Name! NB( SB( EB( WB( NB( SB( #!! Boardings!A! WK( WK( WK( WK( Sat( Sat( Weekdays! Eagle(Mtn/(Saratoga(Spr/(Lehi( 30( 30( ( ( ( ( 110( 806( FR/UVU( 807( North(County/Lehi(FR/UVU( 30( 60( ( ( ( ( 109( 811( Utah(Valley(TRAX(Connector( 30( 30( ( ( 40( 40( 766( Provo/Orem(Frontrunner( 15( 15( ( ( 30( 30( 3,093( 830( Connector( 831( Provo(Grandview( 30( 30( ( ( 60( 60( 1,118( University(Ave(Riverwoods( 60( 60( ( ( 60( 60( 178( 834( Provo( Orem(800(North/Center(St/( ( ( 60( 60( ( ( 123( 842( Orem(FR( 850( State(Street( 30( 30( ( ( 60( 60( 1,780( 862( Orem(East/West( 30( 30( ( ( 120( 120( 742( 863( Lehi(Station/Adobe/Xactware( ( ( 30( 30( ( ( NA( F868( Lehi/American(Fork(Flex( ( ( 60( 60( ( ( 18( 750( FrontRunner(Lehi( 30( 30( ( ( 60( 60( 748( 750( FrontRunner(American(Fork( 30( 30( ( ( 60( 60( 578( 750( FrontRunner(Orem(( 30( 30( ( ( 60( 60( 1,129( Source:(Utah(Transit(Authority(

Route!806(–(Route(806(is(an(east3west(oriented(commuter(route(that(connects(the(predominantly(low3 density(residential(areas(of(Saratoga(Springs(and(Eagle(Mountain(to(the(Lehi(FrontRunner(station(and( Thanksgiving(Park.((Select(trips(also(travel(to(UVU(in(Orem.((For(each(peak(period,(weekday(only(service( includes(two(round(trips(to(and(from(Eagle(Mountain,(Saratoga(Springs(and(Lehi(Station(and(two(round( trips( from( Eagle( Mountain( to( UVU.( Eagle( Mountain( Church( park3and3ride( and( Harvest( Hills( Church( (Saratoga(Springs)(park3and3ride(are(included(as(stops(on(this(route.(

Route!807(–(Route(807(is(also(a(weekday3only(commuter3oriented(route(that(runs(an(L3shaped(pattern( along(the(top(end(of(the(study(area(on(SR392(between(Pleasant(Grove(and(the(Lehi(FrontRunner(station.((

Chapter(2:(Existing(Conditions( ( 2311( There( are( limited( service( runs( between( Pleasant( Grove( and( UVU.(Three(northbound(and(two( southbound(morning(trips(run(between(Pleasant(Grove(and(the(Lehi(station.((Southbound(trips(do(not( service(Adobe/Cabela’s/Outlet(Mall(area(or(IM(Flash.((Two(afternoon(peak(round(trips(run(between(Lehi( Station(and(UVU.(

Route!811(–(The(Utah(Valley(TRAX(Connector(Route(connects(Utah(County(with(the(701(TRAX(Blue(Line( at(Kimballs(Lane(Station.((From(the(Timpanogos(Transit(Center(near(University(Mall,(this(route(runs(west( along(University(Parkway,(serves(UVU,(takes(I315( to( American( Fork( and( uses( State( Street( to( the( Lehi( Station.((From(there(the(route(uses(I315(to(12300(S(in(Draper(to(the(Kimballs(Lane(TRAX(Station.((Service( is(provided(all(week:(30(minute(headways(during(the(week(from(about(4:30(am(to(9:00(pm,(about(40( minutes(on(Saturday(from(about(6:00(am(to(10:30(pm,(and(5(round(trips(on(Sunday(from(about(9:00(am( to(8:30(pm.(

Route!830(–(The(Provo/Orem(FrontRunner(Connector(serves(the(lower(study(area(between(the(Orem( and(Provo(FrontRunner(Stations(running(primarily(along(University(Parkway.((This(route(serves(UVU(and( BYU(and(sees(the(highest(ridership(of(any(route(in(the(study(area.((Service(is(provided(Monday(through( Saturday(approximately(every(15(minutes,(from(about(5:00(am(to(midnight(weekdays,(and(from(about( 6:30(am(to(11:00(pm(Saturdays.(

Route!831(–(The(Provo(Grandview(Route(also(provides(service(in(the(south(study(area(between(the(UVU( and(the(Provo(FrontRunner(station,(but(with(service(primarily(on(University(Parkway,(Main(Street,(and( various(Provo(Streets.((Service(is(every(30(minutes(weekdays,(and(hourly(on(Saturday,(from(about(6:00( am(to(8:00(pm(weekdays(and(from(about(8:00(am(to(7:00(pm(Saturdays.(

Route!834(–(The(University(Avenue(Riverwoods(–(Provo(Route(has(service(only(partially(within(the(study( area(along(University(Avenue(to(The(Shops(at(Riverwoods(shopping(center.((Service(is(hourly(Monday( through( Saturday,( from( about( 6:00( am( to( 6:30( pm( weekdays( and( from( about( 6:30( am( to( 6:30( pm( Saturdays.(

Route! 842( –(Route(842(provides( service( between( the( Orem( FrontRunner( station( and( The( Shops( at( Riverwoods(along(Geneva(Road,(800(North,(400(East,(Center(Street/4800(North,(and(300(West.((Service( is(hourly(weekday(only(from(about(5:30(am(to(6:30(pm.((UTA(is(working(on(possibly(expanding(service( on(this(route(to(Saturday(service(and(additional(stops(on(Center(Street(and(State(Street.)(

Chapter(2:(Existing(Conditions( ( 2312( Route!850(–(The(State(Street(route(is(the(second(highest3ridership(route(in(the(study(area.((Route(850( connects(the(Lehi(and(Provo(FrontRunner(stations(with(service(also(to(the(Timpanogos(Transit(Center,( Pleasant( Grove,( and( American( Fork.( Service( is( every( 30( minutes( from( about( 5:00( am( to( 9:00( pm( weekdays,(and(hourly(between(about(6:30(am(and(10:30(pm(Saturday.(

Route! 862( –(The(Orem(East/West(route(travels(between( the( Orem( FrontRunner( station( and( the( Timpanogos(Transit(Center(along(1200(West,(1600(North,(and(800(East,(forming(a(large(upside3down( “U”(in(Orem.((Service(is(every(30(minutes(weekdays(from(about(5:30(am(to(7:30(pm,(and(hourly(on( Saturday(from(about(8:00(am(to(about(7:00(pm.(

Route! 863( –(This(route(services(the(Lehi(Thanksgiving(Point(FrontRunner( station( and( the( outlet( mall/Cabela’s,(Adobe(and(Xactware.(It(provides(303minute(weekday(service(during(the(peak(hours/peak( directions((to(the(employers(in(the(morning,(to(the(transit(station(in(the(afternoon/evening).(!

Flex!Route!868(–(The(Lehi/American(Fork(Flex(Route(is(the(only(designated(flex(route(in(the(study(area( and(provides(service(up(to(¾(mile(on(either(side(of(a(route(centered(along(SR392,(Alpine(Highway(and( Canyon(Crest(Road(in(Alpine,(and(South(Canyon(Crest(Road/4800(West(in(Highland(and(American(Fork.(( Service(is(provided(between(the(Lehi(FrontRunner(station(and(the(American(Fork(LDS(Temple(and(serves( the(Adobe(Area(and(IM(Flash.((Service(is(weekday(only(for(five(select(trips(starting(around(9:00(am(and( ending(around(4:00(pm.(

Route!750( –(FrontRunner(provides(service(at(the(Lehi((Thanksgiving(Point),(American(Fork(and(Orem( stations(within(the(study(area.(Service(is(every(30(minutes(weekdays(from(approximately(5:00am(to( 10:30pm(and(every(60(minutes(on(Saturdays(from(approximately(8:00am(to(1:00am.((

New!Tech!Shuttles(–(As(funding(allows,(UTA(is(anticipating(the(addition(of(shuttles(from(the(Lehi(station( and(serving(major(retail(and(employment(centers(in(the(area.(These(shuttles(should(operate(on(separate( streets(within(Thanksgiving(Park((such(as(Executive(Parkway(and(Ashton(Boulevard)(in(order(to(provide( the(greatest(coverage(for(those(wishing(to(travel(between(the(station(and(office(buildings(in(the(area.(( These(shuttles(should(also(be(branded(differently((such(as(vehicle(color,(bus(wrapping,(clear(signage(or( stops)(so(that(public(awareness(of(what(these(shuttles(serve(and(how(frequently(they(run(is(clear.(

The(span(of(service(for(the(study(area(routes(is(shown(in(Figure(238(and(spans(are(colored(based(on( UTA’s(chosen(designation(of(frequency:(peak3only(commuter(routes(are(red,(hourly(service(is(indicated(

Chapter(2:(Existing(Conditions( ( 2313( by(blue,(303minute(service(is(shown(in(yellow,(frequent(153minute(service(is(green,(and(the(flex(route(is( purple.((Additionally,(the(routes(have(been(listed(from(top(to(bottom(as(routes(within(the(north(part(of( the(study(area,(crosstown(routes((811(and(850),(and(routes(in(the(south(part(of(the(study(area.(

Figure!2A8:!Weekday!Frequency!and!Span!of!Service!

(

Figure(239!shows(the(overall(service(structure(and(frequency(of(service.((Based(on(the(colors(from(the( UTA( Utah( County( System( Map( (August( 2013),( red( routes( are( peak3only,( green( routes( are( every( 15( minutes,(yellow(is(every(30(minutes,(blue(is(hourly,(and(purple(is(flex(routing.((Overall,(service(is(densest( and(most(frequent(where(there(is(more(employment,(retail,(and(population,(such(as(along(University( Parkway,(and(serves(selective(trips(timed(with(FrontRunner(service(where(population(or(employment(is( sparse,(such(as(toward(Saratoga(Springs(and(Eagle(Mountain.(

Chapter(2:(Existing(Conditions( ( 2314( Figure!2A9:!Generalized!Existing!UTA!Transit!Network!

(

Chapter(2:(Existing(Conditions( ( 2315( Existing!ParkAandARide!Lots(

UTA(has(provided(an(inventory(of(study(area(park3and3ride(lot(locations(as(of(November(2013.((Park3 and3ride( lots( are( defined( by( ownership( and( are( either( maintained( by( UTA,( the( Utah( Department( of( Transportation( (UDOT),( or( the( LDS( Church( where( sharing( agreements( allow( use( of( lots( for( weekday( commuters.((Other(lots(within(the(study(area(are(the(commuter(lots(at(the(three(FrontRunner(stations,( three( UDOT( lots( along( I315( in( Orem,( and( the( adjacent( parking( associated( with( the( UTA( Timpanogos( Transit(Center(at(University(Mall(in(Orem.(Figure(2310(shows(the(location(of(the(study(area(park3and3ride( lots.(

Existing(ridership(was(estimated(using(both(route3level(and(stop3level(data(provided(to(the(study(team( by(UTA.((Stop3level( data( was( collected( between( August( to( December(2013,(and(route3level( data( was( dated( from( July( to( December( 2013.( ( Stop3level( ridership( was( collected( sporadically( during( this( time( period(and(because(of(this,(was(considered(incomplete.(More(confidence(was(placed(in(the(route3level( ridership( totals.( ( As( such,( a( methodology( to( scale( the( stop3level( data( to( the( route3level( data( was( established(and(approved(by(UTA(for(planning(purposes.(Figure(2311(shows(the(resulting(scaled(data.((In( general,(highest(ridership(occurs(at(the(FrontRunner(stations,(University(Mall,(and(along(State(Street.(

(

Chapter(2:(Existing(Conditions( ( 2316( Figure!2A10:!ParkAandARide!Lot!Locations!

(

! !

Chapter(2:(Existing(Conditions( ( 2317( Figure!2A11:!Existing!Approximate!(scaled)!Average!Ridership!

(

Chapter(2:(Existing(Conditions( ( 2318( !

UTA!OnABoard!Study!

In(2011(the(Utah(Transit(Authority(conducted(an(on3board(survey(where(characteristics(of(riders(and( information(on(their(journey(were(gathered.(As(a(reference,(FrontRunner(began(operation(in(December( 2012.((Raw(data(from(this(survey(was(used(to(look(at(responses(for(riders(whose(trips(began(or(ended( within(the(study(area.(Additionally,(a(subset(of(these(riders(whose(trips(both(began(and(ended(in(the( study(area(was(also(looked(at.(Of(the(7,122(responses(to(the(survey,(399(were(from(riders(who(started( their( journey( within( the( study( area,( 310( had( destinations( within( the( study(area,(and(152(began(and( ended(their(journey(within(the(study(area.((

The(following(series(of(charts(depict(characteristics(of(these(riders.(Each(chart(shows(information(for(the( riders( who( began( their( journey( in( the( study( area( (origin),( ended( their( journey( in( the( study( area( (destination),(and(those(who(began(and(ended(their(journey(in(the(study(area((origin(and(destination),( along(with(a(survey3wide(comparison.((

A(majority(of(riders(are(between(the(ages(of(18(–(44,(which(is(much(younger(than(survey(wide,(where( over(30(percent(are(older(than(24.(Those(surveyed(in(the(study(area(are(typically(higher(income(when( compared(to(riders(survey(wide,(with(roughly(half(has(many(earning(less(than($15,000(annually.(Sixty( percent(of(these(riders(are(paying(with(a(student( pass( and( are( likely( Utah( Valley( University( (UVU)( students.(About(50(percent(of(the(riders(don’t(have(alternative(means(for(transportation,(a(common( characteristic(of(college(students.((

( Age!

! 65(or(older( ( 45364( ( 25344( ( 18324( (

( Under(18(

( 0%( 10%( 20%( 30%( 40%( 50%( 60%(

Whole(Survey( Origin(&(Desonaoon( Desonaoon( Origin(

Chapter(2:(Existing(Conditions( ( 2319( (

( Income! ( $75,000(or(more( ( $50,0003$74,999( (

( $35,0003$49,999(

( $25,0003$34,999( ( $15,0003$24,999( (

( Less(than($15,000(

( 0%( 5%( 10%( 15%( 20%( 25%( 30%( 35%( 40%( 45%(

( Whole(Survey( Origin(&(Desonaoon( Desonaoon( Origin( (

( How!Paid! ( 100%( 90%( ( 80%( ( 70%(

( 60%(

( 50%( 40%( ( 30%( ( 20%(

( 10%(

( 0%( Origin( Desonaoon( Origin(&(Desonaoon( Whole(Survey( ( Student(Pass( Ed/Eco/Annual(Pass( Cash( Adult(Monthly(Pass( Other( (

Chapter(2:(Existing(Conditions( ( 2320( (

( Had!an!Alternabve!Transportabon!Opbon! ( 100%(

90%(

80%(

70%(

60%(

50%(

40%(

30%(

20%(

10%(

0%( Origin( Desonaoon( Origin(&(Desonaoon( Whole(Survey(

Yes( No(

Chapter(2:(Existing(Conditions( ( 2321( ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

CHAPTER!THREE:!FUTURE!CONDITIONS!

Based(upon(an(established(future(land(use(of(the(entire(study(area,(build(out(forecasts(for(households,( population(and(employment(were(determined(using(population(and(employment(density(information( for(each(land(use.((

Future!Land!Use!Determination!

Generalized(future(land(uses(were(developed(for(the(entire(study(area.(InterPlan(staff(met(with(each(city( in(the(study(area(to(obtain(and(discuss(the(most(up2to2date(future(land(uses(for(each(city.(Using(GIS,(the( build(out(forecasts(by(land(use(were(converted(to(build(out(forecasts(by(Traffic(Analysis(Zone((TAZ),(with( each(TAZ(containing(attributes(for(a(high(and(low(range(build(out(forecast(for(households,(population( and(employment.(These(forecasts(were(then(compared(to(MAG’s(2040(TAZ(level(forecasts.(TAZs(with( 2040( forecasts( which( exceeded( the( high( range( build( out(were(considered( to( be( based(on(outdated( future(land(use(information(and(were(reduced(to(the(build(out(level.(Control(totals(were(maintained(at( the(city(level(by(redistributing(the(total(difference(reduced(within(city(to(TAZs(which(had(2040(forecasts( below(that(of(build(out.((

Land(use(categories(were(normalized(across(city(boundaries(to(produce(one(cohesive(land(use(map(for( Northern(Utah(County.((Figure(321(shows(the(resulting(future(land(use(map.((

(

Chapter(3:(Future(Conditions( ( 321( ( (

Figure!3?1:!Future!Land!Use,!2040!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Chapter(3:(Future(Conditions( ( 322( ( Land!Use!Definitions! In( order( to( use( the( future( land( use( information( to( determine( future( socioeconomic( conditions,( population( and( employment( density( ranges( were( established(for(each(land(use.((These(ranges(were( informed(by(data(provided(by(MAG(and(input(from(the(cities.(Table(321(shows(the(jobs(per(acre(and( percent(of(land(for(each(employment(type(for(each(land(use.(Table(322(shows(the(population(density( ranges(and(example(structure(type(for(the(residential(land(uses.(These(density(ranges(were(used(with( the(above(described(land(use(map(to(generate(high(and(low(build(out(forecasts(for(the(study(area.(

Table!3?1:!Jobs!per!Acre!and!Percent!of!Land!by!Land!Use( %!of! Retail! Land!Use! Total! Jobs/! Jobs/! %!of!Com! Category! Low!Density!Example! High!Density!Example! Land! Acre! Acre! Land! (((((((((((((((((((52Story(Mixed2Use( ((((((((((((((((((((((( Mixed2Use(U( 100%( 32Story(Mixed2Use(Structure( 32(( Structure( 36(( 100%( Lifestyle(Retail/(Suburban( (((((((((((((((((((Traditional(Main(Street( ((((((((((((((((((((((( Mixed2Use(R( 20%( Main(St( 23(( Retail( 34(( 20%( Lifestyle(Retail/(Suburban( (((((((((((((((((((Traditional(Main(Street( ((((((((((((((((((((((( Mixed2Use(C( 66%( Main(St( 23(( Retail( 34(( 20%( (((((((((((((((((((Lifestyle(Retail/( ((((((((((((((((((((((( Business(Park( 100%( Arterial(Commercial( 16(( Suburban(Main(St( 23(( 2%( (((((((((((((((((((Lifestyle(Retail/( ((((((((((((((((((((((( Commercial( 100%( Arterial(Commercial( 16(( Suburban(Main(St( 23(( 50%( Office/Other! %!of! ! total! Jobs/! !Jobs/! %!of!Com! LU!Category! land! Low!Density!Example! Acre!! High!Density!Example! Acre!! Land! ((((((((((((((((((( ((((((((((((((((((((((( Mixed2Use(R( 20%( Suburban(Office( 33(( Office(12Story( 48(( 80%( ((((((((((((((((((( ((((((((((((((((((((((( Mixed2Use(C( 66%( Suburban(Office( 33(( Office(12Story( 48(( 80%( ((((((((((((((((((( ((((((((((((((((((((((( Industrial( 100%( Suburban(Office( 33(( Office(12Story( 48(( 20%( Mixed( commercial/( ((((((((((((((((((( ((((((((((((((((((((((( industrial( 100%( Suburban(Office( 33(( Office(12Story( 48(( 50%( ((((((((((((((((((( ((((((((((((((((((((((( Business(Park( 100%( Suburban(Office( 33(( Office(12Story( 48(( 98%( ((((((((((((((((((( (((((((((((((((((((( Commercial( 100%( Office(12Story( 48(( Office(32Story( 123(( 50%( ((((((((((((((((((((( (((((((((((((((((((((((((( Public( 100%( Open(Space( 2(((( School( 5(( 100%( Industrial! %!of! ! total! Jobs/! !Jobs/! %!of!Com! LU!Category! land! Low!Density!Example! Acre!! High!Density!Example! Acre!! Land! (((((((((((((((((((Light(Industrial/( ((((((((((((((((((((((( Industrial( 100%( Heavy(Industrial( 18(( Warehousing( 20(( 80%( Mixed(comm/( (((((((((((((((((((Light(Industrial/( ((((((((((((((((((((((( industrial( 100%( Heavy(Industrial( 18(( Warehousing( 20(( 50%( !

Chapter(3:(Future(Conditions( ( 323( ( Table!3?2:!Density!Range!and!Sample!Structures!for!Residential!Land!Use! %!of! Low!Population!Density! Units/! High!Population! Units/! LU!Category! Land! Example! Acre! Density!Example! Acre! HH!Size! Residential(VHD( 100%( Garden(Apartments( 22( 52Story(Apartment( 46( 2.2( Residential(HD( 100%( Townhomes( 13( Garden(Apartments( 22( 2.7( Conventional(Lot(Single( Residential(MD( 100%( Family((10,000(sq(ft)( 5( Townhomes( 13( 3.2( Large(Lot(Single(Family( Conventional(Lot(Single( Residential(LD( 100%( (40,000(sq(ft)( 1( Family((10,000(sq(ft)( 5( 3.8( Large(Lot(Single(Family( Residential(VLD( 100%( Rural(Single(Family( 0.1( (40,000(sq(ft)( 1( 4.4( 52Story(Mixed2Use( Mixed2Use(U( 100%( 32Story(Mixed2Use(Structure( 32( Structure( 57( 2.5( Conventional(Lot(Single( 13( Mixed2Use(R( 80%( Family((10,000(sq(ft)( 5((4.0)( Townhomes( (10.4)( 2.5( Conventional(Lot(Single( 13( Mixed2Use(C( 34%( Family((10,000(sq(ft)( 5((1.7)( Townhomes( (4.4)( 2.5( Rural(Single(Family/Open( Agricultural( 100%( Space( 0.05( Rural(Single(Family( 0.1( 4( Rural(Single( Sensitive(Areas( 100%( (( 0( Family/Open(Space( 0.05( 4( ! !

2040!Forecast!Adjustments!

Utilizing(GIS,(the(build(out(forecasts(by(land(use(were(converted(to(build(out(forecasts(by(Traffic(Analysis( Zone( (TAZ),( with(each(TAZ(containing( attributes( for( a( high( and( low(range(build(out(forecasts(for( households,(population(and(employment.((The(build(out(information(was(then(used(to(adjust(the(MAG( 2040(socio2economic(forecasts.((Where(the(MAG(forecasts(exceeded(the(high(range(build(out(for(a(TAZ,( the( forecast( was( reduced( to( the( build( out( figure.( Control( totals( were( maintained( at( the( city( level( by( distributing(the(adjusted(difference(amongst(TAZs(with(less(than(build(out(levels.((Figures(322,(323(and(32 4(depict(the(percent(of(build(out(of(each(TAZ(for(the(MAG(2040(forecasts(compared(to(the(high(range(of( the( build( out( forecasts( generated( for( households,( population( and( employment.( In( these( figures( red,( depicts(TAZs(where(the(2040(figures(need(to(be(reduced((by(replacement(with(build(out(figures)(and(the( green( depicts( TAZs(where(the(2040(forecasts(are(less(than(build(out(and(so(are(able(to(receive(the( adjusted(difference(to(maintain(control(totals.(Figures(325,(326(and(327(show(the(amount(each(TAZ(was( adjusted(for(households,(population(and(employment.(Figures(328,(329(and(3210(show(the(totals(by(TAZ( for(households,(population(and(employment,(and(Table(323(lists(each(TAZ(and(its(adjusted(forecasts.((

(

Chapter(3:(Future(Conditions( ( 324( ( Figure!3?2:!Percent!of!Build!Out!in!2040,!Population!

(

Chapter(3:(Future(Conditions( ( 325( ( Figure!3?3:!Percent!of!Build!Out!in!2040,!Households!

(

Chapter(3:(Future(Conditions( ( 326( ( Figure!3?4:!Percent!of!Build!Out!in!2040,!Employment!

(

Chapter(3:(Future(Conditions( ( 327( ( Figure!3?5:!Adjustments!to!2040!by!TAZ,!Households!

Chapter(3:(Future(Conditions( ( 328( ( Figure!3?6:!Adjustments!to!2040!by!TAZ,!Population!

Chapter(3:(Future(Conditions( ( 329( ( Figure!3?7:!Adjustments!to!2040!by!TAZ,!Employment!

Chapter(3:(Future(Conditions( ( 3210( ( Figure!3?8:!Total!2040!Households!by!TAZ!

Chapter(3:(Future(Conditions( ( 3211( ( Figure!3?9:!Total!2040!Population!by!TAZ!

Chapter(3:(Future(Conditions( ( 3212( ( Figure!3?10:!Total!2040!Employment!by!TAZ!

Chapter(3:(Future(Conditions( ( 3213( ( (

(

( ( ( ! ! CHAPTER!FOUR:!CIRCULATOR!

This( chapter( summarizes( immediate0term( recommendations( for( a( variety( of( transit( service( improvements(within(the(NUCTS(study(area(in(order(to(better(capitalize(on(FrontRunner(expansion(into( Utah(County.(The(intent(was(to(identify(improved(transit(connections(between(the(existing(FrontRunner( commuter(rail(stations(and(surrounding(areas(of(employment(and(households.((This(chapter(provides(a( focused(selection(of(service(improvements(based(on(potential(funding(levels(and(expands(upon(a(series( of( analyses( conducted( on( the( existing( socioeconomic( conditions(of(the(study(area,( extensive( field( research( conducted( in( February( 2014,( and( service( recommendations( from( recently( completed( prior( studies(such(as(the(UTA$ Five$ Year$ Service$ Plan(completed(in(December(2013,(and(the(UTA$ Shuttle$ Market$Demand$Analysis(completed(in(October(2013.((This(chapter(also(identifies(major(employment( and(activity(areas,(describes(the(existing(structure(of(transit(service(in(the(Northern(Utah(County(area,( and(summarizes(immediate(transit(needs.(It(presents(implementable(service(goals(that(could(aid(service( in( the( study( area(and(lists(opportunities( for( meeting( those( goals.( Finally,( the( chapter(presents( recommendations(for(the(near0term,(mid0term,(and(long0term(planning(horizons.((

Prior!Studies!!

Two(prior(studies(have(direct(implications(for(the(work(and(recommendations(included(in(this(report.(( Those(studies(were(the(UTA$Five$Year$Service$Plan(completed(in(December(2013(and(the(UTA$Shuttle$ Market$ Demand$ Analysis(completed(in(October( 2013.( The( Five$ Year$ Service$ Plan(describes(service( recommendations( oriented( toward( growing( ridership( and( expanding( coverage( via( three( levels( of( increasing(service(outlay.((The(service(plan(uses(as(a(baseline($34.93(per(platform(hour((and($1.42/mile)(

Chapter(4:(Circulator( ( 401( ( projected(from(April(2013(change(day(statistics.(The(market(demand(analysis(did(not(rank(Lehi(Station(as( high(as(the(American(Fork(or(Orem(stations(in(importance.((Because(UTA(has(been(able(to(coordinate( simultaneous(train(arrivals(and(departures(at(the(Lehi(station,(it(has(since(become(a(key(location(for( facilitating(timed(transfers(with(bus(service.(((

UTA!Five!Year!Service!Plan,!December!2013! The(Five$Year$Service$Plan(was(an(internal(document(intended(to(illustrate(unmet(needs(following(rapid( expansion(of(UTA’s(bus(and(rail(network(and(provide(recommendations(for(meeting(those(needs(in(a( short(timeframe.(Recommendations(were(made(across(modes,(UTA’s(various(business(units,(and(based( on(various(levels(of(system(expansion,(described(as(“Slight(Expansion”((assumed(no(additional(resources( beyond(current(levels;(current(resources(are(reallocated(for(efficiency(gains),(“10%(Expansion”((assumed( 10%(additional(operating(hours),(and(“Additional(Expansion”((assumed(40%(additional(operating(hours),( the( last( being( the( most( aggressive( funding( plan.( Table( 401( comes( from( the( report( and( provides( a( summary(of(hours,(miles,(and(cost(increases.(Figure(401(illustrates(the(additional(expansion(plan.(

Recommendations(pertaining(only(to(Utah(County(and(specifically(addressing(this(project(include:((

• Slight(Expansion(recommended:( o Connecting(State(Street(Route(850(to(the(Draper(TRAX(Station((discontinue(Route(811( and(reallocate(resources(to(Route(850)( • 10%(Expansion(recommended((adds(upon(Slight(Expansion):( o Restructure(routes(to(focus(more(on(UVU((now(completed)( o Extend(service(span(on(Routes(831(and(842((#831(changed(as(of(8/2014)( o Improve(frequency(on(Route(842(and(862((#862(changes(as(of(8/2014)( o Add(Saturday(service(on(Route(842( o New(crosstown(Route(852(between(Orem(Station(and(Canyon(Park(Technology(Center( • Additional(Expansion(recommended((adds(upon(10%(Expansion):( o Upgrade(Route(830(to(BRT(service( o Extended(service(span(on(Routes(834(and(Flex(868( o Improved(frequency(on(Routes(830,(850,(834,(806,(853,(and(Flex(868( o Add(Sunday(service(on(1(route( o Add(Express(trips(on(Routes(806(and(853( o Create(new(route(to(serve(north(Utah(County((New(Flex(863,(now(completed)( o Add(300minute(midday(service(on(FrontRunner(between(9(am(and(3(pm(on(weekdays(

Chapter(4:(Circulator( ( 402( ( o Improve(FrontRunner(Saturday(frequency(to(hourly( Table!4G1:!Five!Year!Service!Plan!Financial!Summaries!

( *$Cost$estimates$are$based$on$average$of$September$2013$rates$provided$by$UTA$Financial$Planning$&$Analysis$ ($34.93$per$platform$hour$+$$1.42$per$mile)$and$do$not$account$for$additional$vehicle$requirements( !

Figure!4G1:!Northern!Utah!County!Additional!Expansion!Plan!

Source:$UTA$Five$Year$Service$Plan,$December$2013!

Chapter(4:(Circulator( ( 403( ( UTA!Shuttle!Market!Demand!Analysis,!October!2013!

By( the( time( the( Shuttle$ Market$ Demand$ Analysis( (MDA)( report( was( made,( FrontRunner( was( seeing( 13,000(daily(trips.(Between(September(and(December(2013,(data(furnished(by(UTA(showed(that(number( at( around( 14,500,( with( possible( undercounting.( Historic( trends( indicate( ridership( on( FrontRunner( is( growing.((Although(the(Five$Year$Service$Plan(indicated(that(long0distance(routes(such(as(811(were(losing( ridership(over(time(possibly(due(to(the(opening(of(FrontRunner(South(and(recommended(streamlining( and(combining(of(routes(to(support(FrontRunner(and(TRAX,(the(MDA(report(also(had(the(overarching( goal( of( making( connections( to( FrontRunner( easier( and( recommended( providing( “last0mile”( shuttle( service(within(a(20mile(distance(of(FrontRunner(stations.(((A(two0mile(radius(appeared(to(be(the(farthest( distance(a(shuttle(could(operate(within(in(order(to(cycle(within(about(30(minutes.)(Other(findings(from( the(MDA(report(included:(

• 806(was(observed(to(be(a(productive(route(in(terms(of(boardings/revenue(hour((b/rh),(seeing( 22.50(b/rh((October( 2013)( compared( to( the( shuttle( average( of( 23.6( b/rh( indicating( strong( ridership(in(a(short(amount(of(time;(data(for(Route(853(place(it(at(23.79(b/rh((October(2013)(and(( 16.56(b/rh(for(January(through(July(2014.( • Ridership(from(the(study(area(appears(to(be(more(oriented(toward(the(larger(central(business( district(of(Salt(Lake(City(and(other(destinations(since(more(boardings(than(alightings(occur(at(the( study( area( stations( of( Lehi,( American( Fork,( and( Orem.( However,(the(split(is(roughly(40/60( percent(indicating(a(market(for(providing(local(shuttles(would(be(useful(both(for(study( area( ridership(headed(toward(stations(as(well(as(arriving(at(stations(and(destined(to(locations(within( the(study(area.( • Methodology( was( not( detailed( but( park0and0ride( lot( utilization( was( observed( to( be( low( and( hovered( around( 40( percent(for(study(area(station(lots.( However,( field( observation( from( February( 2014( suggested( higher( lot( utilization( rates((above(75(percent),( perhaps( indicating( recent(growth(in(drive0access(trips(to(FrontRunner(stations.( • There(are(a(variety(of(UTA(and(non0UTA(shuttle(providers(in(the(study(area(but(providers(are(not( coordinated(with(each(other(and(public(information(is(scarce.( • Based(on(travel(survey(data,(using(shuttles(may(not(attract(new(riders(to(FrontRunner(but(would( help(existing(riders.(

Chapter(4:(Circulator( ( 404( ( • Shuttle( requests( (shown( in( Table( 402)( appear( to( have( been( met( and( UTA( is( currently( in( the( process( of( planning( for( a( shuttle( service( to( address( businesses( along( SR092((Timpanogos( Highway).(See(Chapter(3,(Existing(Conditions.( • The(Lehi(station(was(not(identified(for(further(study(as(it(did(not(have(more(than(2000(daily(one0 way(trips(which(was(the(threshold(for(more(detailed(analysis.( • Shuttle(service(around(American(Fork(is(unlikely(to(be(successful(at(this(point(due(to(current( land(uses,(poor(access(and(lack(of(major(employment.(However,(this(will(change(with(potential( increased(development.(Figure(402(below(shows(the(20mile(area(surrounding(the(American(Fork(

station.(( Shuttle Market Demand Analysis | DRAFT REPORT Utah Transit Authority Figure!4G2:!American!Fork!Station!Area!Demand,!Employment( Figure 35 American Fork Station Area Demand – Total Employment ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (

Source:$UTA$Shuttle$Market$Demand$Analysis,$October$2013$$ ( • Big( box( style( retail( dominates( major( employment( around( Orem( Central( Station.(UVU(and( its( huge( educational( draw( is( addressed(in(final(recommendations(to(restructure(and(increase( service(to(serve(UVU.(

Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | 2-22

Chapter(4:(Circulator( ( 405( ( !

Table!4G2:!Requests!for!Shuttle!Services!

(

Source:$UTA$Shuttle$Market$Demand$Analysis,$October$2013$

! Service!Objectives!!

Originally(the(intent(of(this(task(was(to(define(circulator(routes(to(provide(premium(service(to(major( transit(markets(in(the(short0term.((Given(UTA’s(recent(definition(of(new(tech(shuttle(routes(linking(large( employers(along(SR092(to(the(Lehi(Station(to(be(implemented(later(this(year,(this(task(was(re0oriented(to( develop(additional(options(for(improving(transit(circulation(in(the(study(area.((Objectives(identified(for( this(effort(are(intended(to(evolve(service(toward(an(expanded(TRAX(network(and(expanded(east0west( high(capacity(transit(in(the(study(area.(

The(following(three(service(objectives(are(proposed:(

1. Improve!FrontRunner!station!access!

Currently,(bus(connections(in(the(study(area(are(focused(on(the(Lehi(and(Orem(Stations.((The( American( Fork( Station( does( not( offer( any( bus( connections( due( to( the( limited( access( only( available( on( the( south( side( of( the( station.( ( Future( access( from(Pioneer(Crossing(may(provide( more(visible(opportunities(to(serve(the(station.((The(future(Vineyard(Station(provides(additional( opportunities(for(bus(connections.(

2. Improve!existing!service!to!underserved!areas!

The(11(major(routes(serving(the(north(Utah(County(study(area(are(only(covering(a(fraction(of( residential( areas( but( seem( to( adequately( cover(major(employment(and(activity(centers.(( However,(low0frequency(service(may(only(be(carrying(a(small(segment(of(the(population,(such( as(transit0dependent(riders(or(students.((Further,(low(frequencies(may(be(preventing(some(from( utilizing( transit(due(to(adequate(service(being(unavailable.(Frequencies,(where(able( and( applicable,( should( be( boosted( in( order( to( target( the( most( number( of( riders.( ( The( Five$ Year$

Chapter(4:(Circulator( ( 406( ( Service$ Plan(appeared(to(address(some(of(these(issues.((Existing( transit( infrastructure( that(is( performing(well(for(UTA,(such(as(in(the(south(study(area,(should(be(bolstered(or(improved(with( more(frequent(service(or(expanded(coverage.((The(Provo0Orem(Bus(Rapid(Transit(Project(seeks( to(address(this(high0ridership(area(but(will(be(dependent(on(funding.(

3. Add!service!to!unserved!highGpriority!areas!

Several(places(in(the(study(area(will(soon(have(higher(densities,(more(employment,(and(more( residents.((“The(Grove”(area(in(Pleasant(Grove((bounded(by(North(County(Boulevard/700(North( and(State(Street)(currently(has(medium(to(high0density(residential(development(and(has(more( residential(complexes(currently(under(construction.((Further,(the(mix(of(commercial/retail(and( residential(uses(makes(this(area(a(good(target(for(increased(transit(service.((The(top(end(of(SR092( has( residential( neighborhoods( under( construction( behind( large( employers( and( infill( neighborhood( development( south( of( SR092( will( add( many( more( residents( to( this( part( of( the( study(area.((The(area(between(downtown(Lehi(and(eastern(Eagle(Mountain(is(mostly(low(density( sprawling( residential( neighborhoods,( but( intense( commercial( development( at( major( intersections,( open( land( and( farmland( susceptible( to(development,(and(constrained(corridors( will(make(this(area(an(important(one(in(the(next(several(years.((New(routes(should(be(expanded( into(areas(that(are(currently(not(being(served(in(order(to(connect(major(destination(points(to( and(from(residential(markets.(((

Service!Recommendations!and!Opportunities! The( following( sections( describe( several( service( improvements( UTA( can( implement( in( order( to( fulfill( some( of( the( previously( outlined(service(goals(related(to(improving(access(to( and( ridership( on( FrontRunner(as(well(as(improving(local(access(across(the(study(area.((The(following(recommendations( represent( services( that( can( be( readily( implemented( in( order( to( expand( service( and( improve( existing( services.((

1. NearGTerm:!!10!percent!increase!in!hours! • As(SR092(shuttles(are(initiated(in(August(2014,(eliminate(Route(853((853(has(since(been( replaced(by(863)( • Restructure(Eagle(Mountain/Saratoga(Springs(Route(806((completed(in(December(2013)( • Add(Orem(circulator((timed(with(opening(of(FrontRunner(Vineyard(Station)( (

Chapter(4:(Circulator( ( 407( ( Under(the(Near0Term(plan,(the(Timpanogos(Highway(shuttles(from(Lehi(Station(to(Adobe(and( Xactware(and(Lehi(Station(to(IM(Flash((final(routing(is(to(be(determined(but(has(been(estimated)( will( have( been( implemented.( This( allows( for( the( removal( of( 853( since( it( duplicates( what( the( shuttles( will( more( efficiently( perform.(Eagle(Mountain(and(Saratoga(Springs(Route( 806( is( realigned(to(provide(service(closer(to(more(residential(areas(in(west(Lehi(as(well(as(provide( service(to(a(park0and0ride(lot(at(2300(West(and(Pioneer(Crossing.((However,(some(trips(to(the( Harvest(Hills(neighborhood(park0and0ride(are(preserved(as(well(as(access(to(major(commercial( and(retail(at(Crossroads(Boulevard(and(Redwood(Road.(This(phase(also(allows(for(the(addition(of( a(new(circulator(in(Orem(that(will(provide(service(between(a(future(Vineyard(Station(and(Orem.(( Service(is(initially(estimated(at(15(minutes(during(the(peak,(30(minutes(off0peak,(and(hourly(at( night.( If( the( station( has( not( yet( been( constructed,( the( shuttle( can( still( serve( the( future( development( slated( for( the( Vineyard( Station( area( or( be( rerouted( to( Orem( Station( and( still( provide(increased(frequent(service(along(Center,(800(and(1200(Streets(and(increase(access(to( The(Shops(at(Riverwoods(shopping(center.( Table!4G3:!NearGterm!Service!Improvement!Recommendations!

( 2. MidGTerm:!!26!percent!increase!in!hours! • Add(American(Fork(to(Redwood(Road((shopping(center)(shuttle( • Restructure( Route( 807( into( Lehi( Station0Pleasant( Grove( local( service( and( restructure( Flex(868(to(extend(to(North(Canyon(Road( • Add(300minute(midday(service(to(SR092(Shuttles( • Increase(trips/frequency(of(806( The( Mid0Term( plan( adds( a( new( route( to( provide( service( along( Pioneer( Crossing( from( the( American( Fork( station( to( concentrated( commercial( and( retail( development( at( Crossroads( Boulevard(and(Redwood(Highway.((Service(is(initially(estimated(at(30(minutes(all(day(and(hourly( at(night.((This(phase(also(restructured(both(807(and(Flex(Route(868(so(that(service(is(provided( along( North( Canyon( Road( by( Route( 807( and( Flex( Route( 868( continues( south( to( provide( a(

Chapter(4:(Circulator( ( 408( ( connection(at(State(Street.((As(population(and(employment(in(the(area(grows,(routes(such(as( 806( should( have( extra( trips( added( to( keep( up( with( demand.((Midday(service(of(300minute( frequency(on(the(Timpanogos(Highway(shuttles(has(also(been(added.( Table!4G4:!MidGterm!Service!Improvement!Recommendations!

( 3.! LongGTerm:!!69!percent!increase!in!hours! • Add(Alpine(Highway/Highland(route( • Add(American(Fork(shuttle((if(American(Fork(station(improvements(materialize)( • State(Street(routes(every(15(minutes( • Route(806(and(807(every(30(minutes(

The(Long0Term(plan(is(robust(and(adds(a(new(route(along(Alpine(Highway(between(American( Fork(and(the(town(center(of(Highland(at(Timpanogos(Highway.((Service(has(long(been(lacking( along(this(corridor(and(this(route(allows(for(connections(to(Timpanogos(Highway(routes(as(well( as(routes(at(State(Street.((Service(is(estimated(at(30(minutes(all(day(and(60(minutes(at(night.((If( station( improvements( at( American( Fork( have( materialized,( such( as( north( side(passageways( underneath(the(trackway((similar(to(Lehi(Station)(and(kiss0and0ride(access,(a(new(American(Fork( Shuttle(can(utilize(Pioneer(Crossing(to(provide(service(between(the(station(and(around(American( Fork,(otherwise(the(shuttle(will(utilize(7700(North.((Service(on(both(routes(is(estimated(at(30( minutes( all( day(and(hourly(at(night.((By(this(phase,(it(is(assumed(frequencies(have(been( increased(on(Route(850(to(15(minutes(all(day(and(both(806(and(807(to(30(minutes(daily.(

Table!4G5:!LongGterm!Service!Improvement!Recommendations!

(

Figures(403(through(405(illustrate(the(plan(concepts(by(term(and(are(additive.(((

Chapter(4:(Circulator( ( 409( ( Figure!4G3:!NearGTerm!Service!Recommendations!

(

Chapter(4:(Circulator( ( 4010( ( Figure!4G4:!MidGTerm!Service!Recommendations!

( (

Chapter(4:(Circulator( ( 4011( ( !

Figure!4G5:!LongGTerm!Service!Recommendations!

Chapter(4:(Circulator( ( 4012( ( !

Estimated!Operating!Costs!

Annual( revenue( hours( and( revenue( miles( were( determined( using( published( schedules( and( maps( and( costs( are( provided( as( a( range.( Annualizing( revenue( service( utilized( an( incremental( cost( of( $36( per( revenue(hour(and($1.42(fuel(cost(per(revenue(mile,(both(of(which(were(provided(by(UTA(in(February( 2014.((Combining(these(costs(yielded(an(estimated(factor(of($58.03(cost(per(revenue(hour(and(was(used( to(estimate(the(low(end(of(the(cost(range.((The(National(Transit(Database(provides(costs(per(revenue( hour(and(for(UTA(in(2012(was($128.23.((Inflated(to(2014((3.2(percent)(increases(it(to($132.33.((This(is(a( fully( allocated( cost( and( includes( all( costs( related( to( providing( transit( at( a( system( level( and( as( such( represents( the( high( end( of( the( cost( range.( Service( days( were( assumed( to( be( 252( weekdays,( 52( Saturdays,(and(58(Sundays(and(holidays((excluding(the(three(holidays(when(UTA(does(not(operate).((All( costs(are(provided(in(current(year(dollars(for(the(sake(of(comparison.(

Cost(estimates(for(all(recommendations(amount(to(additional(annual(operating(costs(of(between($3.78( million( and( $8.63( million.( ( In( order( to( implement( all( recommendations,( UTA( could( phase( these( recommendations(in(over(a(period(of(time(as(funding(becomes(available,(such(as(what(was(described(in( the( previous( section.( Table( 406( below( summarizes( estimated( approximate( cost( ranges( for( existing( service(and(the(three(future(scenarios.(Table(407(summarizes(statistics(across(the(existing,(near0term,( mid0term,(and(long0term(service(plans.((Changes(in(statistics(between(existing(and(the(future(plans(are( also(summarized.(Table(408(annualizes(the(average(daily(weekday(statistics.(

It(should(be(noted(that(for(this(exercise,(operating(cost(estimates(do(not(include(increases(in(weekend( service.((Any(capital(costs(related(to(additional(vehicles(and(facilities(are(also(not(included.(

(

Table!4G6:!Estimated!Cost!Ranges!

(

Chapter(4:(Circulator( ( 4013( ( !

Table!4G7:!Average!Weekday!Service!Plan!Statistics!

(

Table!4G8:!Annualized!Weekday!Service!Plan!Statistics!

(

Additional!Opportunities!

Beyond(the(service(recommendations(outlined(above,(the(following(provides(other(opportunities(that( serve(to(enhance(the(operation(of(the(transit(system(as(a(whole.(

“Last! mile”! multimodal!connectivity.! ! ( For( patrons( to( use( a( high0capacity( transit( service,( users( need( convenient(and(safe(ways(to(complete(the(final(leg(of(their(trip.((Riders(forego(their(cars(at(home(when( taking(a(train(or(bus(toward(their(destination,(but(they(may(not(be(able(to(access(their(final(destination( if(pedestrian(or(bicycle(pathways(are(not(apparent(or(bus(connections(are(inconvenient.((The(perception( of( an( inability( to( arrive( safely,( easily,( or( at( all( can( be( an( important( deciding( factor.( ( In( addition( to( providing(shuttle(service,(the(following(activities(should(be(pursued:(

Chapter(4:(Circulator( ( 4014( ( • Ensure(a(friendly(pedestrian(environment(by(designing(adequate(sidewalks(and(lighting,(as(well( as(safe(street(crossings.(For(example,(at(Thanksgiving(Point,(the(dominant(roadway(environment( inhibits(pedestrian(access(to(major(buildings(along(Executive(Parkway(and(Ashton(Boulevard.( • UTA(can(continue(working(with(local(bicycle(organizations(to(determine(important(bicycle(trails( and(whether(current(bicycle(infrastructure(such(as(racks,(lighting,(and(signage(is(adequate(and( helps( to( increase( bicycle( usage( at( UTA( facilities.( ( Bicycling( as( a( viable( transportation( mode( should(not(be(underestimated(since(its(use(is(growing(nationwide(in(many(demographics.( • Improve( park0and0ride( lot( and( service( information.! ! Currently,( very( little( signage( and( information—or(wayfinding—$directs(people(to(knowing(where(park0and0rides(are(available(to( them.( ( Information( for( these( lots( is( also( missing( from( UTA’s( website( and( online( presence.(( Although(there(may(be(an(anecdotal(system(in(place,(and(nearby(residents(or(employees(may( know( about( adjacent( lots,( improved( visibility( will( translate( into( a( wider( knowledge( of( lot( locations( and( a( more( informed( traveling( public.( ( Improving( lot( signage( and( providing( basic( information( like( number( of( spaces,( hours( of( operation( or( availability,( and( connecting(routes( would(go(a(long(way(toward(informing(riders(of(how(and(where(UTA(can(take(them.((Because( many(of(UTA’s(park0and0ride(lots(are(located(on(LDS(Church(property,(providing(lot(and(service( signage(may(be(quite(challenging.((Discussions(with(lot(owners(will(be(required(so(that(UTA(can( continue(being(a(good(partner(and(both(parties(can(come(to(an(agreement(on(how(to(improve( service(for(the(traveling(public.((Further,(a(low0cost(complementary(improvement(would(be(to( provide(route(schedule(placards(at(all(stops,(but(at(the(most(productive(stops(at(a(minimum.! • Finally,( better( marketing( of( UTA’s( current( suite( of( many( third0party( apps( and( trip( planning( options(can(also(provide(modest(gains(to(ridership(and(improved(customer(satisfaction.((!

Chapter(4:(Circulator( ( 4015( ( !

CHAPTER!FIVE:!NORTH/SOUTH!LIGHT!RAIL!TRANSIT!

As(part(of(the(North(Utah(County(Transit(Study((NUCTS),(the(extension(of(the(north/south(TRAX(line( from(its(current(terminus(at(the(Draper(Town(Center(station(south(to(Orem(was(studied.(The(Draper( Transit( Corridor( Project( Environmental( Impact( Statement( (EIS)( (July( 2010)(evaluated(a(proposed( extension(of(the(existing(fixed8guideway(transit(service(through(the(cities(of(Sandy(and(Draper(in(the( southernmost(part(of(Salt(Lake(County.(The(UTA(Network(Study((March(2013),(conducted(in(an(effort(to( identify( the( next( group( of( capital( and( operating( improvments( that( UTA( will( focus( on,( analyzed( the( viability(of(a(Draper(to(Orem(LRT(extension.(The(NUCTS(process(further(investigated(the(potential(of(the( LRT(extension(identified(in(the(Network(Study.((

Existing!LRT!Service! The(Draper(Transit(Corridor(Project(EIS(cleared(a(3.88mile(light(rail(extension(operating(from(the(10000( South((Sandy(Civic(Center)(Station(to(Draper(Town(Center(near(12400(South((Pioneer(Road)(in(Draper( with( three( new( stations.( In( addition,( the( EIS( analyzed( the( extension( of( the( Preferred( Alternative( to( 14600(South(for(a(total(distance(of(8.2(miles.(The(8.2(mile(project(met(the(project’s(purpose(and(need,( but( the( capital( cost( of( the( extension( to( 14600( South( exceeded( the( funding( resources( of( the( UTA( Frontlines(2015(Program.(The(extension(from(10000(South(to(12400(South(opened(in(August(2013.(The( extension(to(14600(South(is(anticipated(when(funding(allows.((

(

Chapter(5:(North/South(Light(Rail(Transit( ( 581( Purpose!and!Need! The(proposed(extension(of(TRAX(to(Orem(represents(a(major(step(to(promote(regional(and(local(rapid( transit(improvements(in(North(Utah(County.(Since(the(2010(Record(of(Decision(on(the(original(extension( into(Draper,(new(transportation(infrastructure,(such(as(FrontRunner(South(and(I815( CORE( expansion,( have(added(capacity(that(has(helped(the(current(problem(of(increasing(vehicle(congestion.(There(is(still(a( bottleneck( on( I815( between( 12300( South( and( SR892(in(Lehi,( but( construction( on( that( segment( is( scheduled( to( begin( in( late(2014(to( early( 2015( so( it’s( reasonable( to( assume( that( I815( between( 12300( South(in(Salt(Lake(County(and(SR892(in(Utah(County(will(be(completely(widened(before(an(EIS(for(the( extension(of(light(rail(into(Utah(County(is(completed.((

Both( I815( CORE( and( FrontRunner( have( improved( travel( times( to( a( level( of( reliability( and( improved( operational( efficiency.( With( the( completion( of( I815( CORE,(there(is(no(longer(limited(highway(system( capacity((with(the(exception(of(the(segment(noted(above(that(will(presumably(be(completed(in(the(next( few(years)(and(the(implementation(of(commuter(rail(has(increased(travel(choices.(However,(population( and( employment( forecasts( from( MAG( indicate( that( by( 2040,( I815( could( once( again( suffer( increased( congestion( and( decreased( mobility( and( therefore,( a( significant( need( for( additional( transit( options( between(Salt(Lake(County(and(Utah(County(would(be(warranted.(While(northern(Utah(County(is(still( lacking(accessibility(to(the(TRAX(rail(network(largely(because(no(TRAX(line(has(been(built(in(Utah(County,( FrontRunner(does(make(it(possible(for(northern(Utah(County(residents(to(connect(to(a(variety(of(TRAX( lines(in(order(to(reach(their(final(destination.(However,(it’s(important(to(note(that(a(commuter(rail/TRAX( transfer( may( not( be( convenient( or( efficient( for( riders( and( the( addition( of( TRAX( into( northern( Utah( County(would(add(the(convenience(and(travel(time(savings(of(a(one(seat(ride(to(many(customers,(which( could(make(transit(a(more(attractive(alternative(compared(to(the(car(of(multi8trip(transit(ride(currently( offered.((

Considering(the(above(discussion(and(considering(northern(Utah(County(today(as(well(as(in(the(future,( the( purpose( of( the( Draper( to( Orem( Transit( project( is( to( improve( public( transit( service( and( provide( greater( multi8modal( transportation( options( in( northern(Utah(County,(specifically(from( the( Salt( Lake( County/Utah(County(line(south(to(Orem.(The(project(is(specifically(intended(to:(( ! Strengthen( the( North/South( connections( to( UTA’s( transit( network( outside( of( FrontRunner,( thus(improving(regional,(neighborhood(and(job(connectivity.( ! Provide( simple,( localized,( high8frequency( transit( service( in( an( effort( to( improve( transit( capacity(along(the(corridor(thereby(reducing(VMT(and(helping(to(improve(regional(air(quality(

Chapter(5:(North/South(Light(Rail(Transit( ( 582( ! Maximize(transit(access(to(a(high(employment(and(multi8college(campus(corridor( ! Support(population(and(employment(growth,(and(revitalization( ! Create(a(more(walkable(connection(to(quality(transit(services( ! Support(the(counties(and(various(cities’(land(use(and(economic(development(goals(( ! Serve(transit8dependent(riders( ! Promote(and(attract(new(businesses(to(northern(Utah(County’s(“Silicon(Slopes”(–(the(cluster( of(information(technology(and(software(development(firms(–(as(well(as(life(sciences(and(other( multinational(companies(considering(calling(northern(Utah(County(home.(

The(need(for(the(project(is(based(on(the(following(considerations:( ! Strong(existing(bus(and(commuter(rail(ridership(and(large(potential(light8rail(ridership(due(to( major(activity(and(job(centers(along(the(corridor( ! Increased(transportation(demands( ! A( heavily( transit8dependent( population( along( the( corridor,( including( a( growing( senior( population,(and(strong(college8age(population(with(abundant(student(housing(centers( ! Limited( connectivity( creates( barriers( to( transit( access( 8( Frontrunner( is( isolated( from( many( population(centers(and(isn’t(easily(accessible(from(major(business(centers(or(residential(areas( ! Air( quality( issues( due( to( the( region’s( nonattainment( status( (nonattainment( for( PM10( and( PM2.5)( ! Focus(of(local(policy(on(transit(improvements(rather(than(roadway(improvements(as(part(of(a( more(balanced(and(sustainable(approach(to(future(growth( ! Recent(and(planned(improvements(and(expansion(of(services(at(the(Provo(Airport,(as(well(as( related( commercial( and( industrial( development( in( the( vicinity( of( the( airport( and( redevelopment(opportunities(

The( above( Purpose( and( Need( elements( were( streamlined( into( six( major( criteria( that( will( be( used( to( narrow(down(the(number(of(alternatives(put(forward(for(in8depth(technical(analysis:(( 1. Consistency(with(regional(and(local(plans( 2. Level(of(access(provided(to(jobs,(college(campuses(and(residents( 3. Ability(to(provide(desired(transit(capacity(and(reduce(VMT( 4. Compatibility(with(existing(transportation(modes(and(infrastructure( 5. Potential(ROW(impacts( 6. Community(and(Stakeholder(Sentiment((

Chapter(5:(North/South(Light(Rail(Transit( ( 583( Alignments! Looking(to(the(above(described(six(criteria,(possible(alignments(of(a(north(to(south(LRT(system(in(the( study(area(was(explored(with(the(steering(committee.(Ultimately,(the(study(area(was(broken(up(into( sections( north( to( south,( each( containing( potential( alignments.( Figure( 581(below(shows(the(selected( alignments(for(each(segment.((

Chapter(5:(North/South(Light(Rail(Transit( ( 584( Figure!5F1:!Potential!North/South!LRT!Alignments!

(

Chapter(5:(North/South(Light(Rail(Transit( ( 585( Given( these( options,(a(north8south( oriented( LRT( transit( system( in( northern( Utah( County( could( potentially( take( many( differing( paths( from( the( northern( county(border(south(to(Orem.( Of( the( many( potential( alignment( combinations,( the( project( team( selected( three( likely( candidates(to(be(explored( further(and(analyzed(in(more(detail,(primarily(with(the(regional(travel(demand(model.( • Alignment!ABC1a!(Existing!Rail)(follows(the(existing(rail(alignment(through(the(study(area.(This( option( comes( with( the( benefit( of( maximizing( UTA8owned( right8of8way( (ROW)(and(minimizing( potential(environmental(impacts.(The(possible(downside(with(this(option(is(lower(development( densities( and( the( I815( barrier( separating( it( from( origins( and( destinations( in( Orem.(Orem(is( currently( developing( a( plan( to( identify( transit( opportunities( including( modes( and( transit8 supportive( land( uses( on( State( Street.( The( results( of( this( process( may( influence( Orem’s( implementation(of(recommendations(identified(in(the(North(Utah(County(Transit(process.(( • Alignment!ABC2b!(800!West/Orem!Blvd)(finds(its(way(to(University( Parkway( mainly( via( 800( West(and(Orem(Boulevard.(This(alignment(benefits(from(the(higher(densities(found(east(of(I815( while(avoiding(potentially(larger(environmental(impacts(along(the(State(Street(corridor.(( • Alignment!ABD3c!(State!Street)(follows(State(Street(through(Lindon(and(Orem.(This(alignment( serves(higher(densities(to(the(east(in(Orem,(but(comes(with(higher(environmental(impacts(along( with( slower( operating( speeds.( Again,( Orem’s( current( State( Street( study( is( looking( in( greater( detail(at(transit(opportunities(on(the(State(Street(corridor.(

Potential!Environmental!Issues! After(the(range(of(alternatives(were(measured(against(the(initial(six(major(criteria(described(above,(the( remaining( corridors(were(then(assessed( using( a( variety( of(environmental(criteria(intended(to(measure( impacts( to( the( human/built( and( natural( environments.( It’s( important( to( note( that( detailed( environmental(analysis( for( selected( corridors( will(be(provided(in( later(environmental(studies( required( as(part(of(the( transit( planning(and(implementation(process,(and(to(meet(FTA(funding(requirements(if( federal(funding(is(to(be(pursued.(Further,(screening(criteria(in(addition(to(environmental(and(community( issues( –(such(as(conceptual(design,(in8depth( ridership( forecasts,( and( capital( and( operating( and( maintenance(costs(–(will(also(be(used(for(further(screening.((

Because(the(proposed(extension(is(largely(on(an(existing(rail(corridor,(significant(environmental(impacts( aren’t(expected;(however,(it’s(reasonable(to(assume(that(some(resources(will(require(extensive(study( and( mitigation( for(impacts.! In( portions(of(the(extension(that(are(not(on(the(existing(rail(corridor,( compatibility(with(existing(transportation(modes(and(infrastructure!may(present(a(challenge.(Extensive(

Chapter(5:(North/South(Light(Rail(Transit( ( 586( coordination( with( roadway( managers( (various( cities( or( UDOT)( will( be( necessary( and( congestion( and( circulation(will(need(to(be(studied.(If(the(transit(line(were(to(go(down(State(Street(in(Orem,(taking(away( travel( lanes( or( turn( lanes( or( restricting( turns( into( businesses( and( neighborhoods( could( create( large( impacts.(Further,(any(alternatives(other(than(the(UTA8owned(right8of8way(could(require(additional(right8 of8way(takes(and(property(impacts.(Noise(and(vibration(typically(is(one(of(the(largest(issues(on(a(transit( project( and( the( close( proximity( of( some( neighborhoods( to( the( rail( line( will( require( extensive( noise( studies.( Vibration( could( be( an( issue( if( facilities( such( as( Adobe( require( mitigation( of( vibration( and( electromagnetic(interference.((

Additional( issues( that( would( likely( be( encountered( during( an( environmental( study( include( Historic( Properties/Cultural( Resources/Section( 106:( Several( historic8period(sites(are(present(around(the(SR892( corridor,( including(the(Provo(Reservoir( Canal/Murdock( Ditch(and(the(Union(Pacific/Utah(Southern( Railroad(site(itself.(Undocumented(historic(sites(may(also(be(present(within(the(project(corridor.(There(is( moderate8to8low( potential( for( previously( undocumented( prehistoric( period( cultural( resources( to( be( encountered.( ( In( addition,(there(could(be(historic(buildings( near( the( rail( corridor(or(on(any(street( corridor(in(any(given(location.(Section( 4(f)/6(f)( could(be(an(issue(if(parks(such(as(Flight(Park( State( Recreation(Area(in(Lehi(are(affected(or(if(historic(properties(are(affected.(Geology(and(soils(could(be(an( issue( around( Point( of( the( Mountain( due( to( the( historical( and( on8going( quarry( operations.(Hazardous( waste(and(materials(could(also(be(an(issue(at(Point(of(the(Mountain,(near(the(relocated(UPRR(tracks(in( Vineyard,(along(the(UTA8owned(right8of8way(as(a(whole,(and(at(any(other(location(close(to(the(right8of8 way(that(may(still(have(or(at(one(time(had(rail,(industrial(or(commercial(uses.(!Grade(crossings(along(the( corridor(and(crossing(I815(at(as(many(as(three(locations(will(be(an(issue.(Socioeconomic(impacts(to(close8 by(neighborhoods,(newer(residential(developments(and(positive(and(negative(effects(to(businesses(will( need( to( be( studied.( This( is( not( a( comprehensive( list,( only( an( idea( of( the( resources( most( likely( to( be( affected.!(

Understanding(that(further(in8depth(environmental(analyses(will(be(required(in(the(future,(the(following( table(provides(a(high(level(summary(of(the(possible(advantages(and(impacts(of(each(segment(found(in( the(alignments(studied.(In(general,(segments(which(occur(on(the(existing(rail(line(west(of(I815(benefit( from(fewer(impacts(than(those(to(the(east,(but(suffer(from(serving(lower(densities.(Eastern(segments( serve( higher( densities,( but( due( to( their( proximity( to( residences( and( business,( have( greater( environmental(impacts.(

(

Chapter(5:(North/South(Light(Rail(Transit( ( 587( Table!5F1:!North/South!LRT!Segments!Summary!

Segment! Description! Possible!Advantages! Potential!Impacts! Existing(rail( • Connects(to(Draper(TRAX(and(SL( • Noise(and(Vibration( line(north(of( maintenance(facilities( • Geology(and(Soils( SR892( • ROW(owned(by(UTA(on(existing(rail( • Hazardous(Waste(and(Materials( A( line( • Historical(Properties(and(Cultural( • Serves(Adobe( Resources((Canal,(RR)( • Serves(Prison(Redevelopment( • Environmental(Clearance(in(Salt(Lake( Existing(rail( • ROW(owned(by(UTA(on(existing(rail( • Traffic(impacts(at(crossings( B( line(north(of( line( • Noise(and(Vibration( Geneva(Road( Existing(rail( • ROW(owned(by(UTA(on(existing(rail( • Traffic(impacts(at(crossings( C( line(north(of( line(to(Center(Street((Lindon)( • Noise(and(Vibration( 2000(N.( • Existing(rail(line( State(Street( • Serves(higher(densities(to(the(east( • Traffic(impacts( north(of(2000( • Business(impacts( D( N.( • Noise(and(Vibration( • Historic(Properties( Relocated(rail( • Consistent(with(Vineyard(plans(for(re8 • Hazardous(Waste(and(Materials( 1( line(through( development( • Subject(to(new(development( Vineyard( • Relocated(rail(line(pending(approval((?)( • Allows(transfer(to(FrontRunner( 800(West( • Serves(higher(densities(to(the(east(( • Noise(and(Vibration(through( north(of(400( residential(area( 2( North( • Traffic(impacts( • Historic(Properties( State(Street( • Serves(highest(existing(densities(in( • Traffic(impacts(on(state(road( north(of(400( corridor( • Business(impacts( 3( North( • Noise(and(Vibration( • Historic(Properties( • Access(to(Stations( Existing(rail( • Existing(rail(line( • Traffic(impacts(at(crossings( line( • Allows(transfer(to(FrontRunner(and(P8 • Noise(and(Vibration( a( O(BRT( • Serves(UVU(Campus( • Facilitates(connection(to(Provo(Airport( Orem( • Serves(highest(densities(in(Orem( • Historic(Properties( Boulevard( • Traffic(impacts( b( • Noise(and(Vibration(through( residential(area( State(Street( • Serves(highest(densities(in(Orem( • Traffic(impacts(on(state(highway( • Business(impacts( c( • Noise(and(Vibration( • Historic(Properties( • Access(to(Stations( !

Chapter(5:(North/South(Light(Rail(Transit( ( 588( Travel!Demand!Modeling! Using( the( MAG( regional( travel( demand( model,( a(model(run(was(completed(for(each(of(the(three( alignments(described(above.(It(should(be(noted(that(these(three(alignments(were(not(the(only(viable( alignments( and( that( nearly( any( combination( of( the( segments( provided( a( potential( opportunity.( However,(for(the(sake(of(efficient(analysis,(these(three(alignments(were(modeled(to(better(understand( how(they(generally(functioned(in(the(overall(transportation(network.(Table(582(summarizes(key(model( assumptions( and( results( for( each( of( the( model( runs.( Both( daily( boardings( and( overall( system( rider( increases(are(shown(in(the(table(to(account(for(existing(transit(ridership(that(moves(from(an(existing( mode(to(this(new(LRT(line.((

Table!5F2:!Travel!Demand!Model!Results!Summary!

UTA!Daily! Utah!County! System! Segments! Description! Key!Model!Assumptions! Daily! Ridership! Boardings! over!no! build! • LRT(Extends(from(Draper(on(existing(rail( corridor(( LRT(on(existing( • Decreased(North8South(bus(and(express(bus( ABC1a( 18,466( 16,925( rail( service( • Enhanced(bus(service(circulation(from(LRT( stations( • LRT(Extends(from(Draper(on(existing(rail( corridor(to(800(West/(Orem(Blvd(via(2000( LRT(on(800( North(and(400(North(( ABC2b( West/Orem( • Decreased(North8South(bus(and(express(bus( 15,036( 14,481( Boulevard( service( • Enhanced(bus(service(circulation(from(LRT(and( BRT(stations( • LRT(Extends(from(Draper(on(existing(rail( corridor(diverging(onto(State(Street(at(Approx.( 200(South((Pleasant(Grove)( LRT(on(State( ABD3c( • Decreased(North8South(bus(and(express(bus( 14,090( 13,674( Street( service( • Enhanced(bus(service(circulation(from(LRT( stations( !

Alignment( ABC1a( produced( the( best( results(in(terms(of(overall(ridership.( Although( this( alignment( traverses(lower(densities(to(the(west(of(I815,(it(maintains(a(rail(only(corridor(allowing(much(higher(free8 flow(speeds(than(on(the(other(alignments,(likely(explaining(the(higher(ridership.((

Chapter(5:(North/South(Light(Rail(Transit( ( 589( Mode! Analysis(of(the(north8south(transit(corridor(has(generally(assumed(light(rail(transit.(In(addition(to(the( general(attractiveness(of(rail(transit,(there(are(two(main(reasons(for(this.(One,(the(north8south(transit( corridor( will( be( an( extension( of( the( existing( LRT( system( in( Salt( Lake( County( which( currently( ends( in( Draper.(Second,(there(is(an(existing(rail(corridor(which(extends(from(the(last(LRT(station(in(Draper(and( continues(south(through(the(study(area,(which(is(already(partially(owned(by(UTA.((

Although(a(LRT(system(makes(sense(and(is(preferred,(as(described(above,(a(LRT(to(BRT(alternative(was( explored.(Alignments(ABC2b(and(ABD3c(deviate(from(the(existing(rail(corridor(approximately(midway( through(the(study(area(at(the(end(of(segment(B.(Bringing(LRT(off(the(existing(rail(corridor(would(bring( additional( costs,( and( increase( environmental( impacts.( BRT( from( this( point( southward( would( mitigate( these(effects(and(could(be(easily(tied(into(the(Provo8Orem(BRT(system(which(will(exist(in(the(future.(A( LRT(to(BRT(scenario(was(modeled(on(the(ABD3c(alignment(to(determine(potential(effects(on(ridership.( Although( this( solution( brings( some( benefits,( the( addition( of( a( transfer( point( midway( through( the( corridor(brings(a(heavy(cost(to(ridership,(with(a(total(system(ridership(over(no8build(of(9,484.((

Station!Locations! As( part( of( the( North/South( rail( alignment( portion( of( the( study,( the( team( explored( potential( station( locations( along( the( alignment( alternatives.( Understanding( future( light( rail( station( locations( can( help( regional( agencies( and( local( governments( effectively( plan( for( transit;( much( of( what( a( transit( system( needs(to(thrive(–(a(density(of(land(uses(that(generate(trips,(a(walkable(environment,(an(accessible(multi8 modal(network,(and(access(that(facilitates(trip(density(–(occurs(in(the(area(around(the(stations.(

In(developing(a(set(of(recommended(stop(locations,(the(team:( ! Conducted(initial(visioning(among(project(stakeholders( ! Developed(criteria(for(selecting(and(evaluating(potential(light(rail(stop(locations( ! Selected(an(initial(set(of(locations(to(evaluate( ! Evaluated(the(locations(based(on(the(criteria(developed( ! Refined(the(set(of(potential(locations(for(the(selected(alignment(alternative.(

Because(this(study(is(at(a(planning(level,(“locations”(were(defined(as(an(area(within(one(or(two(blocks(of( the(spot(identified.(

(

Chapter(5:(North/South(Light(Rail(Transit( ( 5810( Initial!Visioning! As( part( of( the( workshops( held( in( March( and( April( 2014,( local( government( representatives( and( employers,( property( owners,( and( other( stakeholders( offered( input(on(potential(light(rail(station( locations(on(the(alignment(alternatives.(Participants(placed(dots(on(places(they(thought(would(be(good( station(locations.(These(maps(produced(a(wide(variety(of(ideas,(including(SR(92(in(Lehi((63(dots);(The( Meadows( shopping( center( in( American( Fork( (39( dots);( and( Pleasant( Grove(Boulevard((46(dots).(This( input( provided( a( good( starting( point( for( the( team( in( determining( a( set( of( recommended( station( locations.(

Figure!5F2:!Station!Location!Exercise!Results!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Criteria!! The(next(step(in(developing(a(set(of(recommended(station(locations(was(establishing(criteria(to(use(to( select(locations(to(evaluate(and(against(which(to(evaluate(them.(

! !

Chapter(5:(North/South(Light(Rail(Transit( ( 5811( Land!Use!and!Urban!Design!Criteria:!! A( station( should( be( placed( in( an( area( whose( community( characteristics( support( transit( –(with(trip( generators(either(as(origins(or(destinations,(intensity(of(uses,(and(a(diversity(of(uses,(as(well(as(urban( design(that(supports(people(and(walking.(It’s(also(beneficial(if(rail(transit(station(locations(feel(like(the( heart(of(a(a(neighborhood,(town,(or(other(community.(Land(use(criteria(should(take(into(account(both( existing(and(planned(land(use,(although(federal(funding(requirements(have(begun(to(emphasize(existing( land(use(over(land(uses(predicted(to(occur(in(the(future.!

As(an(example,(downtown(American(Fork,(mentioned(by(workshop(participants(as(what(is(likely(a(good( station(location,(has(transit8supportive(land(use(characteristics.(The(map(below(shows(the(mix(of(land( uses,( relative( density,( and( pedestrian8supportive( street8fronting( buildings( within( a( half8mile( walking( distance((yellow(diamond)(of(the(station((yellow(dot).(((((

Figure!5F3:!American!Fork!Station!

(

Another(way(good(transit(station(areas(are(evaluated(is(through(the(“D’s”(–(a(series(of(characteristics( that(all(begin(with(the(letter(“D.”(Among(these(are(density((intensity(of(land(uses),(diversity((a(mix(of( land(uses),(destinations((large(trip(generators(such(as(employment(centers(or(special(events(venues),(

Chapter(5:(North/South(Light(Rail(Transit( ( 5812( and(design((a(public(realm(that(supports(people(and(walking).(Downtown(American(Fork,(with(its(mix(of( residential,( employment,( retail( uses,( intensity( of( jobs,( destination( parks,( and( its( historic( pre8auto( walking(environment,(possesses(a(relatively(high(degree(of(these(D’s.(

Figure!5F4:!“Ds”!Near!American!Fork!Station!

( Density Diversity

! ! ! ! ! Design Destinations ! ! ! ! ! ! Access!criteria! Equally(important(–(and(perhaps(more(important(in(the(absence(of(supportive(land(use(conditions(as(is( the( case( along( much( of( the( potential( light( rail( alignments( –(is(access(to(a(station(location(for(all( transportation(modes.(Can(people(comfortably,(conveniently,(and(safely(walk(or(bike(to(a(station?(Do( other(transit(routes(intersect(with(it?(Do(regional(roads(lead(to(it(with(opportunities(for(parking?((

(The(SR(92(station,(for(example,(also(mentioned(by(workshop(participants(as(what(is(likely(a(good(station( location,( does( not( have( the( “D”8oriented( supportive( land( use( patterns( typically( associated( with( successful(transit(stations.(However,(it(does(has(very(good(access(for(all(modes(–(the(location(is(easy(to( access(from(a(car((including(having(potential(locations(for(park(and(rides),(a(central(transit(node(for(UTA( routes( including( a( FrontRunner( station,( and( at( the( crossing( of( two( multi8use( paths( that( offer( good( bicycle( and( pedestrian( access( from( surrounding( neighborhoods( and( employment( centers.( The( map( below(at(the(right(presents(an(environment(that(is(starkly(different(from(the(American(Fork(example,(yet( is(still(successful(due(to(the(easy(access,(transit(connections,(and(the(multi8use(paths(such(as(the(one( shown(in(the(photo(below(at(the(left.(

(

Chapter(5:(North/South(Light(Rail(Transit( ( 5813( Figure!5F5:!SRF92!Station!

(

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Other!site!criteria!! In(addition(to(these(land(use(and(access(considerations,(selection(of(transit(station(locations(should(also( take(into(account(any(site(constraints(that(may(challenge(building(transit(platforms(and(other(station( amenities.(Such(constraints(could(include(steep(slopes,(wetlands(or(other(natural(areas(or(habitat,(areas( needing(environmental(cleanup,(or(situations(where(a(station(would(likely(demand(extra(right8of8way( and(surounding(land(could(prove(to(be(prohibitively(expensive.(At(this(high8level(analysis(in(which(the( size(of(the(location(being(considered(contains(up(to(several(blocks,(and(in(which(not(enough(study(has( been(done(to(pinpoint(site(issues,(site(constraints(don’t(often(come(into(play.(However,(the(team(did( include(a(rough(estimate(of(contraints(in(the(criteria.(

Spacing! Finally,(station(locations(should(regard(their(spacing(between(them.(Generally,(the(spacing(of(stations( depends( on( the( type( of( service.( For( local8serving( streetcars,( stations( are( typically( spaced( very( close( together,(within(.5(or(.25(mile,(whereas(regional(commuter(rail(like(FrontRunner(have(station(gaps(of( several(miles.(A(light(rail(service(as(is(being(considered(in(this(study(lies(somewhere(in(between(–(the( majority(of(the(TRAX(stations(in(Salt(Lake(County(maintain(one8mile(spacing,(with(.5(mile(or(less(spacing( in(the(core(urban(area(of(Salt(Lake(City.(One(mile(was(an(assumed(optimal(spacing,(with(the(potential(for( closer(spacing(in(some(core(urban(areas(such(as(the(southern(part(of(Orem(along(State(Street.((

Because(spacing(is(not(a(product(of(an(individual(location(but(of(the(locations(relative(to(one(another,( spacing(was(not(included(in(the(evaluation(of(individual(locations(but(was(considered(in(the(overall(set( of(initial(locations(and(recommended(locations.(

Chapter(5:(North/South(Light(Rail(Transit( ( 5814( Consequently,(the(following(criteria(to(select(and(evaluate(station(locations(were(used:( ! Public(input( ! Existing(land(use( ! Planned(land(use( ! Pedestrian(access( ! Bicycle(access( ! Transit(connections( ! Vehicle(access( ! Site(constraints(

Initial!Station!Locations! With(these(criteria(in(mind,(several(resources(including(the(workshop(“dot”(maps;(web(tools(such(as( Google(Earth,(Google(Streetview;(planning(documents(such(as(General(Plans(and(UTA’s(service(plan(and( network(study;(and(field(work(to(select(a(large(set(of(potential(station(locations(on(all(of(the(considered( alignments.(Any(potential(location(that(might(satisfy(the(criteria(were(considered.((

The( team( emerged( with( 46( potential( station( locations.( In( some( parts( of( the( study( area,( such( as( Alignment(B(in(much(of(the(stretch(of(existing(rail(right8of8way(from(Lehi(to(Pleasant(Grove,(these(initial( selections(matched(the(likely(optimal(spacing(of(1(mile.(In(other(locations,(such(as(in(downtown(Lehi,( Pleasant(Grove,(and(along(State(Street(in(Orem,(the(locations(bunched(together(so(that(decisions(would( have(to(be(made(to(create(optimal(spacing.((

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Chapter(5:(North/South(Light(Rail(Transit( ( 5815( Figure!5F6:!Evaluated!Station!Locations! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Evaluation!Process( The(46(station(locations(were(evaluated(based(on(the(criteria(established.(Each(of(the(eight(criteria(was( worth(a(total(of(5(points,(making(a(total(possible(score(of(40.(To(evaluate(the(stations(and(determine(the( scores,(the(team(used(the(same(methods(as(it(used(to(select(the(initial(set(of(stations(–(workshop(maps,( web(mapping,(policy(documents,(and(visits(to(each(of(the(station(locations.(

Chapter(5:(North/South(Light(Rail(Transit( ( 5816( Evaluation!Results! Evaluation(scores(of(the(station(location(are(shown(in(Figure(587.(

Figure!5F7:!Overall!Station!Location!Evaluation!Results! (

((

(

( ( ( ( ( (

Chapter(5:(North/South(Light(Rail(Transit( ( 5817( ( The(highest(ranking(station(locations(included(the(following.(The(bullets(explain(the(attributes(that(led( to(the(high(scores.( S.R.!92:!35! ! Popular(with(stakeholders! ! Very(good(transit(connections! ! Good(bicycle(access(–(on(multi8use(paths! ! Some(large(generators(such(as(Adobe!

Downtown!American!Fork:!32! ! Popular(with(stakeholders( ! Community(center(–(historic(downtown( ! Existing(land(use(and(urban(design( ! Supportive(planned(land(use( ! Excellent(pedestrian(access( ! Good(bicycle(access(

Pleasant!Grove!Boulevard:!31! ! Popular(with(stakeholders( ! Community(center(–(shopping(center(and(near(historic(downtown( ! Existing(land(use(and(urban(design( ! Planned(land(use(and(redevelopment(possibilities( ! Good(vehicle(access( ! Good(bike(access(

University!Pkwy:!28/29!! ! Excellent(transit(connections( ! Excellent(bike(access( ! Supportive(existing(land(uses(–(mall(and(associated(retail(

The!Meadows:!28! ! Popular(with(stakeholders( ! Supportive(land(uses(–(Meadows(shopping(center( ! Excellent(transit(connections(

Chapter(5:(North/South(Light(Rail(Transit( ( 5818( 500/700!E:!27! ! Good(all8around(attributes! ! Good(bicycle(access! ! Good(vehicle(access!

4650!W.!American!Fork:!27! ! Good(all8around(attributes( ! Good(vehicle(access( ! Proximity(to(hospital(

100!East!Lehi:!27! ! Community(center(–(easy(access(to(historic(downtown( ! Excellent(pedestrian(access(via(connected(street(network( ! Good(bicycle(access(via(nearby(rail(trail(and(connected(street(network(

Main!and!State!Pleasant!Grove:!27! ! Community(center(–(easy(access(to(historic(downtown( ! Good(pedestrian(access( ! Supportive(existing(and(planned(land(use(

400!North!Lindon:!26! ! Community(center(–(near(Lindon(City(park(and(civic(center( ! Good(bike(access( ! Supportive(planned(land(use(–(General(Plan(designation(as(transit(node(

Orem!Civic!Center:!26! ! Community(center(–(Orem(City(and(park( ! Supportive(existing(land(use( ! Good(general(access(

2100!North!Lehi:!26! ! Popular(with(stakeholders( ! Good(general(access(

Chapter(5:(North/South(Light(Rail(Transit( ( 5819( Vineyard!FrontRunner:!25! ! Supportive(land(use(planning( ! Future(bike(and(pedestrian(access(

Scera!Park!Orem:!25! ! Community(center(–(park(and(arts(center( ! Supportive(existing(land(use( ! Good(general(access(

200!S.!Pleasant!Grove:!25! ! Community(center(–(easy(access(to(historic(downtown( ! Supportive(planned(land(use( ! Good(pedestrian(access( ! Good(bicycle(access(

700!S.!and!State!Pleasant!Grove:!25! ! Good(planned(land(use! ! Good(general(access!

Themes!of!the!Results! Several(themes(were(evident(as(a(result(of(the(station(location(analysis.( Opportunities!to!build!off!historic!downtowns! Many( of( the( highest8scoring( station( locations( lie( within( or( adjacent( to( the( historic( downtowns( of( northern(Utah(County(cities,(particularly(in(Lehi,(American(Fork,(and(Pleasant(Grove.(These(downtowns( present( the( most( walkable( environments( in( the( area.( In( most( cases,( these( station( locations( are(not( directly(within(but(beside(the(historic(downtown,(creating(the(opportunity(both(for(large(sites(for(new( transit8oriented(development(that(extends(the(walkable(scales(and(designs(and(mixed(use(nature(of(the( historic(downtowns(as(well(as(easy(access(to(the(downtowns,(which(can(help(them(revitalize.(Station( locations(in(Lehi(and(Pleasant(Grove(are(adjacent(to(those(cities’(historic(downtowns(and(thus(provide( exciting(transit8oriented(development(possibilities.(

(

Chapter(5:(North/South(Light(Rail(Transit( ( 5820( (

Figure!5F8:!Potential!Station!Locations!Near!Historic!Downtowns!

(

! ! ! ! State!Street!alignment!stations!score!better! In( general,( the( station( locations( along( the( State( Street( alignment( scored( higher( than( those( along( the( existing( rail( corridor.( While( neither( alignment( was( outstanding( in( its( potential( station( locations,( the( State(Street(locations(generally(provided(more(even(land(use(and(transportation(conditions.(State(Street( is( located( along( the( spine( of( the( existing( county( population( and( is( relatively( easy( to( access( for( the( region,(even(if(the(immediate(urban(design,(pedestrian,(and(bike(conditons(are(problematic(for(transit( access.( The( even( low8to8medium( land( use( density( along( the( State( Street( corridor( is( not( oriented( or( concentrated(in(the(best(ways(for(transit(but(would(likely(produce(transit(customers.(Meanwhile,(while( the( existing( rail( corridor( locations( showed( some( promise( in( the( developable( land,( especially( where( policy( was( in( place( to( create( transit( supportive( communities( such( as( in( Vineyard,( generally( neither( conditions(on(the(ground(nor(existing(policy(supported(transit(stations.(

Chapter(5:(North/South(Light(Rail(Transit( ( 5821( Areas!without!aspects!of!supportive!land!use!or!plans!to!change!land!use!scored!the!lowest! In(order(to(score(high,(a(location(generally(had(to(have(either(positive(aspects(of(exisiting(land(use(or( urban(design(or(plans(to(change.(A(key(outcome(of(this(study(is(further(consideration(of(future(densities( by(each(local(government(in(order(to(better(support(transit(investment.(((

Preferred!Alignment! The(above(information(was(carefully(considered(by(the(steering(committee(to(determine(a(preferred( alignment.(At(the(Steering(Committee(meeting(on(August(7,(2014,(the(committee(selected(the(existing( rail( alignment( (C1a)( as( the( preferred( future( north8south( light( rail( corridor( through( northern( Utah( County.( Ultimately( ABC1a((See(Figure(581)(was(chosen(due(to(a(combination( of( advantageous( characteristics.(Above(all(else,(the(use(of(the(existing(rail(line(brought(this(choice(above(the(others.(The( use(of(the(existing(rail(line(offers(several(advantages:( • Relatively(low8cost(( • Low(environmental(impacts( • Off8street(facility(allows(for(higher(train(speeds(and(a(more(effective(system( • Existing(and(established(ROW(may(help(to(mitigate(controversy(and(ease(implementation(

In(addition(to(the(benefits(associated(with(the(existing(rail,(this(alignment(offers(a(terminus(at(the(Orem( Intermodal( Center( with( connections( to( Frontrunner( and( the( Provo8Orem( BRT.( It( also(runs(through( Vineyard(which(offers(future(land(use(plans(favorable(to(transit.((

Potential(downsides(to(this(alignment(are(mainly(to(do(with(existing(land(use,(which(are(generally(not( supportive( to( transit.( This( makes( the( success( of( the( alignment( contingent( upon( future( plans( for( development.(Orem(City(is(currently(undergoing(a(study(of(their(State(Street(corridor(and(how(transit( infrastructure(will(relate(to(land(use(and(potential(redevelopment.(Connections(between(the(NUCTS(and( the(results(of(the(Orem(study(will(be(an(important(next(step(for(Orem,(MAG,(and(UTA.(((

Selection!of!Recommended!Station!Locations! For(much(of(the(corridor,(the(initially(selected(stations(conform(to(the(desired(spacing(of(about(1(mile.( However,( some( places( existed( where( it( was( necessary(to(select(among(several(station(locations( “bunched”( together.( In( addition,( members( of( the( Steering(Committee(suggested(additional(station( locations.( The( following( are( the( refinements( made( to( the( initial( station( location( list( for( the( recommended(alignment.(

Chapter(5:(North/South(Light(Rail(Transit( ( 5822( Downtown!Lehi! Where( the( rail( alignment( runs( by( Lehi’s( historic( core,( three( potential(locations(were( assessed( –(300( West/500(West;(100(East;(and(500(East.(The(highest(scoring(station(location(among(these(was(100(East,( at( 27,( largely( due( to( its( proximity( and( connection( to( Lehi’s( Main( Street( and( its( resulting( pedestrian( conditions.( 500( West/300( West(had(the( second( highest( score( of( 22.( The( 500( East( location(proved( problematic(due(to(a(difficult(crossing(of(State(Street(and(the(likely(difficulty(of(connecting(the(bridge( over( State( Street( to( a( station.( Consequently,( a( 500( West( location( and( a( 100( East(location( are( recommended(in(this(area.(

Pleasant!Grove! The(section(of(the(rail(alignment(through(Pleasant(Grove(presents(several(potential(locations,(too(close( together(to(recommend(all(of(them.(Among(these,(Pleasant(Grove(Boulevard(scored(the(highest((31)( due( to( its( location( near( the( historic( downtown,( the( Macey’s8anchored( shopping( center,( and( its( redevelopment( possibilities.( The( 4650( West(location((on(the(American(Fork(border)(is(near(a(major( hospital(and(provides(transit(connections(and(easy(vehicle(access((27).(The(200(South(location((25)(is( also(close(to(old(downtown(Pleasant(Grove.(The(choice(in(this(area(south(of(where(the(rail(alignment( breaks(off(State(Street(is(more(difficult.(The(700(South(Pleasant(Grove(location((23)(scored(higher(than( the(700(North(Lindon(location((20)(but(would(be(too(close(to(the(200(South(Pleasant(Grove(location,(and( a(desire(to(distribute(the(station(locations(more(evenly(among(the(cities(would(put(some(priority(on( placing( a( station( here( in( Lindon.( Consequently,( the(team(recommends(that( the( 700( North(Lindon( location(be(included(even(with(the(lower(score.((

Geneva!Road!Corridor,!Lindon! The(evaluated(station(locations(in(this(stretch(of(the(rail(corridor(were(not(numerous,(but(one(station( location((240(South)(scored(so(poorly(that(it(was(eliminated(from(the(recommended(set(of(locations.((

Point!of!the!Mountain,!Lehi! The(city(of(Lehi(requested(that(a(recommended(station(location(be(added(in(the(Point(of(the(Mountain( area,( which( had( designated( the( area( as( a( future( TOD.( The( station( would( be( located(in(the(Frontage( Road/Digital(Drive/Flight(Park(Rd./Traverse(Mountain(Blvd.(area.(((

These(recommended(station(locations(are(shown(on(Figure(589(below.(

Chapter(5:(North/South(Light(Rail(Transit( ( 5823( Figure!5F9:!Recommended!Station!Locations!!

Moving!Forward! This(set(of(recommended(light(rail(station(locations(and(their(evaluations(can(be(used(for(several(aspects( of(future(light(rail(and(community(planning.(They(include:(

Prioritization!of!stations! The( scores( of( stations( can( be( used( to( prioritize( stations( if( stations( will(be( phased( along( the( line;( the( highest( scoring( stations( –(and(those(scoring(higher(for(existing(attributes(–(suggest(where(the(first( stations(could(be(constructed.(

Chapter(5:(North/South(Light(Rail(Transit( ( 5824( Future!land!use!and!transportation!network!planning!

Cities( and( regional( agencies( can( use( these( station( location( scores( to( address( the( weaknesses( of( locations.(While(some(weaknesses(are(difficult(or(impossible(to(fix,(others(can(be(addressed(by(land(use( or( zoning( revisions( or( transportation( network( planning( such( as( the( addition( of( better( walking( environments(or(bike(facilities.(

Stations!on!city!borders! It(is(important(to(note(that(several(of(the(recommended(station(locations(lie(on(or(near(incorporated( city(borders.(Examples(of(these(include(4650(West((American(Fork/Pleasant(Grove),(700(North((Pleasant( Grove/Lindon),(and(The(Meadows((Lehi/American(Fork).(This(means(that(an(important(component(of( making( a( successful( rail( line( along( this( alignment( would( be( cities( collaborating( in( land( use( and( transportation(planning(and(implementation(across(these(boundaries.(

LRT!Phasing! Taking( a( phased( approach( can( be( beneficial( for( a( project( of( this( size,( breaking( it( into( smaller( more( manageable(pieces(and(distributing(the(costs(across(time.( Determination( of( phasing( of( the( preferred( alignment( is( a( difficult( undertaking( as( it( currently( contains( no( directly( adjacent( transit( supportive( markets( and( the( progression( of( development( over( time( is( unknown.( That( being( said,(three(potential( approaches(to(project(phasing(are(described(here.(

North!to!South! A(north(to(south(progression( makes( logical( sense,( as( it( would( begin( at( the( current( TRAX( terminus( in( Draper(and(extend(south(to(the(Orem(Intermodal(Center.(This(phasing(approach(benefits(from(being( connected( to( the( Salt(Lake(County(TRAX(system(and(its( supportive( facilities.( However,( the( Transit( Competitiveness(Index((TCI)(work((see(Chapter(7)(indicates(connections(to(UVU(and(BYU((via(BRT)(are( key(to(a(successful(transit(line.(A(north(to(south(phasing(would(fail(to(connect(to(these(key(destinations( until(the(last(phase.((

South!to!North! The(findings(from(the(TCI(analysis(suggests(a(south(to(north(phasing(would(be(preferable,(as(the(most( competitive(transit(markets(are(UVU(and(BYU(to(the(south(of(the(study(area.(However,(when(modeled,( an(isolated(Utah(County(Transit(line(gets(very(poor(ridership,(with(13,331(less(new(riders(versus(than(

Chapter(5:(North/South(Light(Rail(Transit( ( 5825( with(the(connection(to(the(Salt(Lake(County(transit(system,(suggesting(that(this(is(not(a(viable(approach.( In(addition,(an(isolated(system(requires(its(own(support(facilities(making(it(more(costly.(

Full!Extension,!Phased!Stations! This(approach(includes(a(full(extension(of(the(line(from(Draper(to(the(Orem(Intermodal(Center.(A(first( phase(would(only(contain(minimal(station(locations(at(key(destinations,(with(ultimate(station(build8out( in8filled( in( phases.( This( phasing( approach( solves( the( stated( issues( with( both( the( north8to8south( and( south8to8north(phasing(approaches,(connecting(to(the(existing(TRAX(system(in(Salt(Lake(County(and(to( UVU(and(BYU((via(BRT(connection).(The(main(issue(with(this(approach(is(that,(in(early(phases,(it(would( bring(no(benefit(over(the(existing(FrontRunner(system.(

Given(the(provided(alternatives(and(the(benefits(and(problems(associated(with(each,(a(north(to(south( progression(makes(the(most(logical(sense(if!phasing!is!required.(Critical(to(successful(phasing(is(termini( at(successful(station(locations,(and(thoughtful(progression(southwards(to(the(ultimate(terminus(at(the( Intermodal(Center.((

A(two8phased(approach(would(allow(the(alignment(to(be(split(into(two(smaller(and(more(competitive( projects.( UTA( ownership( extends( south(from(Draper(to(central(Lindon( which(allows(for(easier( implementation( and( lower( costs.(Due(to(this,(the(first(phase(can(afford( to( cover( a( larger( geographic( extent,(falling(completely(within(UTA(ownership.((

To(determine(an(appropriate(terminus(for(the(first(phase(the(following(criteria(were(considered:( ! Location(near(end(of(UTA(ownership( ! High(park(and(ride(capacity( ! High(scoring(station(location( ! High(boardings(

Given(the(above(stated(criteria,(Pleasant(Grove(Boulevard(quickly(rose(to(the(top(as(an(ideal(terminus( for(the(first(phase(as(shown(in(Figure(5810.(The(three(stations(which(fall(at(the(end(of(UTA’s(ownership( of( the( existing( rail( corridor( are( Pleasant( Grove( Boulevard,( 200( South(Pleasant(Grove,(and(700(North( Lindon.(Of(these,(only(Pleasant(Grove(Boulevard(and(700(North(Lindon(have(good(potential(for(park(and( ride( facilities.( In( the( station( location( analysis,(Pleasant(Grove(Boulevard( scored( 3rd(highest(with(31( points,( much( higher( than( the( 25( and( 23( points( of( 200( South( Pleasant( Grove( and( 700( North( Lindon(

Chapter(5:(North/South(Light(Rail(Transit( ( 5826( respectively.(Pleasant(Grove(Boulevard(scores(highly(because(it(is(popular(with(stakeholders,(has(good( existing(and(planned(land(use,(and(good(vehicular(and(bicycle(assess.((

Modeling( also( supports( Pleasant( Grove( Boulevard,( with( this( station( seeing( 777( daily( boardings,( compared(to(the(591(and(500(daily(boardings(of(the(other(two(stations.(The(figure(below(shows(the( recommended(phasing(of(light(rail(in(the(study(area.(

Implementation! The(project(team(envisions(the(following(steps(to(implement(the(recommendations(of(this(study(for(an( North8South(transit(corridor(in(northern(Utah(County:( ( ! City!adoption:(The(cities(of(Lehi,(American(Fork,(Pleasant(Grove,(Lindon,(Vineyard(and(Orem( adopt(a(recommended(alignment,(taking(into(account(the(recommendations(of(this(study(along( with(information(resulting(from(additional(study(of(a(possible(Orem(State(Street(alignment.( ! RightFofFway!preservation:(UTA(works(with(cities(to(preserve(adequate(right8of8way(for(future( transit(service(along(the(recommended(alignment,(including(station(facilities(at(identified( locations.( ! Phasing!(if!required):(As(discussed(above,(extension(of(LRT(from(Draper(could(occur(in(two( phases:(initial(phasing(bringing(LRT(from(Draper(down(to(Pleasant(Grove(Boulevard,(followed(by( completion(to(southern(Orem.((

As(previously(mentioned,(Orem(is(in(the(midst(of(a(planning(process(to(identify(and(plan(for(transit(and( transit8supportive(land(uses(in(the(State(Street(corridor.(Depending(on(the(outcome(of(this(process(and( Orem(City’s( desire( to( connect( core( areas( of( the( city,( the( city’s( transit( priorities( may( differ(than(the( recommendation(offered(here.(

A(discussion(of(other(municipal(and(regional(efforts(to(build(transit8supportive(land(uses(is(included(in( Chapter(7.((

Chapter(5:(North/South(Light(Rail(Transit( ( 5827( !

Figure!5F10:!Possible!Phasing!of!North/South!LRT!(if!phasing!is!required)!

(

Chapter(5:(North/South(Light(Rail(Transit( ( 5828( !

CHAPTER!SIX:!EAST/WEST!TRANSIT!

Background! Communities(to(the(north(and(west(of(Utah(Lake(have(seen(high(population(and(employment(growth( over(the(past(decade(and(expect(the(growth(to(continue.(Because(of(this(growth,(pressure(on(the(area’s( transportation(system(is(increasing,(especially(on(those(routes(that(connect(it(to(the(rest(of(the(region.(

Meanwhile,(new(and(planned(transit(infrastructure(is(strengthening(alternative(transportation(options( in( other( areas( of(Utah(County.(UTA( has( constructed( FrontRunner( from( Salt( Lake( City(to(Provo,(with( stations(in(American(Fork(and(in(the(Thanksgiving(Point(area(of(Lehi.(UTA(is(designing(a(BRT(line(in(Orem( and(Provo.(UTA(and(MAG(are(considering(extending(light(rail(south(into(Utah(County.(In(order(to(offer( more( transportation( options,( improve( air( quality,( and( shape( sustainable( patterns( of( growth,( there( is( increasing(impetus(to(bring(the(growing(communities(north(and(west(of(the(lake(more(fully(into(this( transit(network.(

The(2006(MAG(Lake(Mountain(Transportation(Study’s(2030(Transit(Vision(identfied(connections(from( Lehi(to(Saratoga(Springs(and(Eagle(Mountain(for(“Priority(corridor(preservation(for(urban(and(regional( bus( rapid( transit( and( long-term( rail( projects.”( MAG’s( 2040( RTP( proposes( two( projects( that( would( accomplish(this(goal(–(a(Phase(2(BRT(project(from(American(Fork(to(Eagle(Mountain(and(a(Vision(phase( commuter(rail(project(from(American(Fork(to(Santaquin(via(the(west(side(of(Utah(Lake.((

Chapter(6:(East-West(Transit( ( 6-1( ( The(goal(of(this(portion(of(the(Northern(Utah(County(Transit(Study(is(to(build(on(these(plans(to(identify( one(or(more(“east-west”(corridors(to(preserve(for(future(high-capacity(transit(between(the(Utah(Valley( north-south(spine(and(these(lake/mountain(communities.(

Desired!Connections! Taking(into(account(planning(and(building(to(date(and(future(projections(for(growth(and(infrastructure,( the(most(critical(connections(for(an(east-west(alignment(include(points(along(the(I-15/State(Street(spine,( through(the(two(FrontRunner(stations(in(the(area(of(both(Saratoga(Springs(and(Eagle(Mountain.(

Figure!6A1:!Important!East/West!Transit!Connections!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Initial!Visioning! Working( with( the( cities( to( create( a( vision( for( east/west( transit( was( an( important( part( of( the( overall( process.(The(connections(envisioned(by(plans(and(stakeholders(could(occur(in(a(number(of(ways.(As(part( of(a(February(Steering(Committee(meeting(exercise(that(brainstormed(potential(northern(Utah(County( transit( connections,( committee( members( sketched( potential( east-west( routes.( Those( are( shown( in( Figure(6-2(below.(

(

Chapter(6:(East-West(Transit( ( 6-2( ( Figure!6A2:!Steering!Committee!Transit!Visioning!Exercise!!

( ( (( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (

Chapter(6:(East-West(Transit( ( 6-3( ( This(exercise(produced(a(wide(variety(of(ideas(regarding(potential(transit(routes.(These(included(several( existing(roadway(corridors(such(as:( • Pioneer(Crossing((S.R.(145)( • Cedar(Fort((S.R.(73)( • Pony(Express(Parkway( • 1900(South( • Redwood(Road((S.R.(68)( • 2100(North((S.R.(85)( • Eagle(Mountain(Boulevard( • Airport(Road(

They(also(included(a(few(potential(new(rights-of-way:( • Extension(of(2100(South(to(SR-73((connects(to(the(Mountain(View(Corridor(behind(the(Harvest( Hills(subdivision(in(Saratoga(Springs)( • Extension(of(1900(South(to(Redwood(Road/align(with(Pony(Express(Parkway(and(to(American( Fork(FrontRunner(Station( • More(direct(connection(between(2100(South(to(Lehi(FrontRunner(station(

From(analysis(of(this(information,(two(key(issues(emerged:(( • Whether(to(pursue(a(“loop”(route(through(Eagle(Mountain,(such(as(via(SR-73,(Eagle(Mountain( Boulevard,(and(Pony(Express(Parkway(–(or,(whether(it(is(better(to(focus(the(transit(line(on(one( corridor(to(create(a(“spine”(route.( • Whether( it( was( more( important( to( connect( Eagle( Mountain( and( Saratoga( Springs( with( the( American(Fork(FrontRunner(Station(or(with(the(Lehi(FrontRunner(Station(–(or(both(equally.!

Land!Use!and!Transit!Mode! Before(developing(alternatives,(the(team(considered(land(uses(along(potential(transit(corridors(in(and( around(Saratoga(Springs,(Eagle(Mountain,( Lehi(and(American(Fork.(Land(use(is(a(crucial(factor(in(the( success( of( any( transit( line( or(system.(The(nature( of( land( use( in( a( specific( area(produces(the( characteristics( that( create(markets(for(transit(and(utimately(make( for(successful( transit( service.( The( primary(characteristics(that(influence(transit(are(the(type(of(use(–(whether(residential,(employment,(or( another(type(of(land(use(–(and(the(intensity(of(activity(ocurring(at(that(use.((

Chapter(6:(East-West(Transit( ( 6-4( ( Both(factors(–(and(especially(the(intensity(of(activity(–(influence(what(transit(modes(can(be(supported(in( a(given(corridor.(The(table(below(shows(how(different(densities(of(housing(and(of(employment(support( different(modes(of(transit,(ranging(from(a(frequent(bus(on(the(low(end(to(a(light(rail(on(the(high(end.(

Table!6A1:!Transit!Supportive!Densities!by!Transit!Mode!! Transit(Supportive(Densities( Transit(Mode( Residential( Employment( Light(Rail( 30(units/acre( 50(units/acre( Streetcar( 20(units/acre( 25units/acre( Commuter(Rail( 20(units/acre( 25(units/acre( Bus(Rapid(Transit( 10(units/acre( 20(units/acre( Frequent(Bus( 5(units/acre( 15(units/acre( Source:(UTA(Network(Study,(2013( ( This(issue(is(relevant(to(a(potential(east-west(corridor(in(northern(Utah(County(because,(while(there(is( desire(for(a(light(rail(line,(it(was(unclear(at(the(onset(of(this(study(whether(such(an(investment(would(be( supported(by(transit(ridership.(It’s(possible(that(a(bus(rapid(transit(service(would(be(more(appropriate( for(the(densities(projected(for(the(likely(corridors.(The(study(team(believed(land(use(would(affect(the( likely(success(of(a(“loop”(route(versus(a(“spine”(route,(and(a(corridor(to(the(Lehi(FrontRunner(Station( versus(to(the(American(Fork(FrontRunner(Station.(To(answer(this(question,(the(project(team(examined( the(jobs(and(housing(numbers(projected(for(2040(by(MAG((see(detailed(zone(data(in(Chapter(3:(Future( Conditions).((

The( team(developed(a(series(of(best-case( transit-supportive( growth( scenarios(for(which(it(made(the( following(assumptions:( • One-third( of(the(projected(2040(population(would(be(concentrated(in( centers( created( from( taking(the(area(within(one(half-mile(radius(around(likely(transit(stations;( • The( combined( residential( and( employment( density( within( the( half-mile( center( is( the( determining(factor(of(whether(a(station(“supports”(a(certain(mode;(and((( • The(threshold(for(supporting(a(certain(mode(is(determined(by(densities(in(the(table(above((these( densities(are(consistent(with(UTA’s(Network(Study(done(in(2013).(((

The( first( was( the( “loop”(scenario.(By(creating( more( links( in( the( routes,( it(is( more(likely(that(centers( around(stations(on(the(route(would(be(more(numerous;(with(transit(service(more(spread(out,(it(is(more( difficult(to(concentrate(growth(in(fewer(places.(Figure(6-3(is(a(likely(“loop”(alignment(scenario(with(links( and(centers.(

Chapter(6:(East-West(Transit( ( 6-5( ( Figure!6A3:!East/West!Transit!Loop!Scenario!

( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( The( densities( of( each( center,( (Figure( 6-4,( below)( showed( that( a( loop-type( scenario( created( so( many( centers(that(density(remains(low(in(each(and(could(likely(only(support(frequent(bus.(

Figure!6A4:!Loop!Scenario!Densities!

( ( ( ( ( ( ( (

(

Chapter(6:(East-West(Transit( ( 6-6( ( The( second( scenario( was( the( “spine”( scenario.( Fewer( links( in( the( routes( lead( to( fewer( stations( and( centers.(With(transit(service(more(concentrated,(it’s(easier(to(focus(growth(in(fewer(places.(Figure(6-5( below(is(a(likely(“spine”(alignment(scenario(with(links(and(centers:(

Figure!6A5:!East/West!Transit!Spine!Scenario!

(

( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( (

The(densities(of(each(center((below),(provide(enough(density(to(support(a(spine-type(BRT(in(centers(1( and(2,(while(densities(in(centers(3(and(4(remain(low(and(could(likely(only(support(frequent(bus.(

Chapter(6:(East-West(Transit( ( 6-7( ( !

Figure!6A6:!Spine!Scenario!Densities!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (

Examination(of(these(land(use(and(alignment(scenarios(indicated(that(a(“spine”(type(route(is(preferable( to(a(“loop”(route(because(it’s(more(likely(to(support(high-capacity(transit.(These(scenarios(also(suggest( that(bus(rapid(transit(may(be(the(best(transit(mode(for(the(east-west(transit(connection.(

Evolution!of!Transit!and!Community! Another(issue(explored(during(analysis(of(east/west(transit(was(the(concept(of(a(transit(corridor(in(which( both(the(transit(service(and(the(surrounding(community(evolves(over(time.(The(communities(north(and( west(of(Utah(Lake(are(changing(rapidly(and(one(of(the(goals(of(this(portion(of(the(northern(Utah(County( Transit(Study(is(to(designate(a(corridor(that(will(be(flexible(enough(to(accommodate(variations(in(future( conditions.((

While( these( communities( may( not( currently( be( dense( or( transit-oriented( enough( to( support( a( fixed- guideway(service,(for(example,(their(station(areas(can(be(configured(to(be(attractive(to(park-and-ride( customers(who(travel(from(farther(away.(This(begins(to(create(a(pattern(of(transit(use(at(this(location,( and(the(station(area(can(begin(to(change(to(include(more(transit-oriented(development.(As(more(people( live(and(work(in(the(station(area,(these(residents(and(employees(may(be(able(to(support(the(service.(

Chapter(6:(East-West(Transit( ( 6-8( ( At(the(same(time,(the(transit(service(itself(can(evolve(–(from(a(frequent(bus(to(a(“bus(plus”(to(a(full(bus( rapid( transit( –(and(perhaps(to(light(rail.(A(given(street(can(evolve(to(accommodate(these(different( modes;(the(following(cross(sections(illustrate(how(Pioneer(Crossing,(which(runs(between(American(Fork( and(Saratoga(Springs,(could(relatively(easily(accommodate(different(types(of(bus(rapid(transit(and(even( light(rail((see(Figure(6-7).( ( It(is(important(for(the(east-west(transit(connection(to(consider(both(the(future(flexibility(of(an(alignment( and( to( select( the( right( locations( for( stations( whose( surrounding( communities( can( evolve( to( become( more(transit-oriented.(

Chapter(6:(East-West(Transit( ( 6-9( ( Figure!6A7:!Evolution!of!a!TransitASupportive!Cross!Section!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Chapter(6:(East-West(Transit( ( 6-10( ( Initial!Alignment!Alternatives! After(exploring(the(potential(relationship(between(transit(and(land(use(in(the(communities(north(and( west(of(Utah(Lake,(four(initial(potential(alignments(were(developed(for(the(consideration(of(the(East- West(subcommittee.(All(the(alternatives(incorporated(the(points(of(agreement(made(in(the(process:( • Concentration(of(service(into(a(“spine”(type(of(alignment(rather(than(a(“loop”;( • Likely(a(BRT(service;( • Alignments(along(corridors(that(can(evolve(in(terms(of(mode,(along(with(the(community;( • Concentration(of(service(into(stations(surrounded(by(community(centers(that(can(evolve(along( with(the(mode(of(transit;(and( • A( “primary”( corridor( serving( one( FrontRunner( station( and( a( “secondary”( corridor( serving( the( other(FrontRunner(station.(The(primary(corrdior(would(likely(be(a(bus(rapid(transit(service(from( FrontRunner(to(the(eastern(end(of(Eagle(Mountain;(the(secondary(corridor(and(the(rest(of(the( primary(corridor(would(likely(be(frequent(bus.((

The(alternatives(primarily(differed(in(terms(of:( • whether(the(primary(corridor(ran(to(and(from(the(American(Fork(FrontRunner(station(or(to(and( from(the(Lehi(FrontRunner(Station;( • the(combination(of(routes(they(took(between(the(FrontRunner(stations(and(Saratoga(Springs( and( Eagle( Mountain,( primarily( Pioneer( Crossing,( 1900( North,( S.R.( 73,( and( Pony( Express( Parkway;(and( • The(centers(that(the(alignments(connected.(

The(alternatives(were(evaluated(using(a(set(of(criteria(developed(from(the(study(goals,(knowledge(of( northern( Utah( County,( and( knowledge( about( the( general( success( of( transit( systems.( The( evaluation( criteria(were:( • Directness(of(route/likely(travel(time( • Available(right-of-way(to(preserve( ( • Potential(for(short-term(service( ( • Ability(for(long-term(supportive(land(use( ( • Ability(for(good(pedestrian(and(bike(access/urban(design( ( • End(goal(constructability( • Regional(connections( ( • Funding(attractiveness( (

Chapter(6:(East-West(Transit( ( 6-11( ( ( The(project(team(illustrated(the(alternatives(to(show:( • The(primary(corridor((dark(blue)(and(the(secondary(corridor((light(blue)( • Major(Community(Centers((large(dashed(circles)(and(Minor(Community(Centers((small(dashed( circles)! • 2040(BRT(service(and(2040(bus(service!

It( should( be( noted( that( both( connections( to( FrontRunner( are( shown( as( they( would( occur( using( the( rights-of-way(available(today.(However,(future(connections(to(these(stations(could(make(use(of(newer,( more(direct(routes.(

Alternative!1(designates(as(the(primary(corridor(a(route(that(strings(together(Pioneer(Crossing((including( its(extension(west(of(Redwood(Road(to(SR-73),(SR-73;(The(Ranches(Parkway;(and(Pony(Express(Parkway.( Under( this( alternative,( the( secondary( corridor(runs(between(Lehi(FrontRunner(and(the(Major( Community(Center(in(Saratoga(Springs.(Alternative(1(is(shown(in(Figure(6-8(below.((

Figure!6A8:!East/West!Transit,!Alternative!1! ( ( (

(

Chapter(6:(East-West(Transit( ( 6-12( ( This(alternative(was(largely(generated(by(the(desire(of(city(representatives(to(place(the(station(areas(in( planned( community( or( employment( centers.( The( alternative’s( two( major( community( centers( lie( at( a( planned(Saratoga(Springs(community(center(and(at(a(planned(Eagle(Mountain(employment(center.(The( alignment( uses( the( relatively( direct( Pioneer( Crossing( and( SR-73( to( connect( these( two( centers( to( the( American(Fork(FrontRunner(station.(

Advantages(of(Alternative(1(include:( • Ability!for!longAterm!supportive!land!use:!The(two(major(centers(are(located(in(areas(identified( by(the(cities(as(future(community(centers.( • Available!rightAofAway!to!preserve:! The(majority(of(the(alignment( runs( through( undeveloped( land(available(for(preservation.( • Ability!for!good!pedestrian!and!bike!access!and!urban!design:(Even(though(the(transit(routes( would(run(largely(on(state-controlled(highways,(in(the(places(where(walkability(most(matters(–( around(the(stations(–(city(planning(policy(indicates(that(good(walking(environments(and(urban( design(is(possible.((

Disadvantages(of(Alternative(1((include:( • Generally( this( alternative( has( no( fatal( flaws( but( because( the( primary( corridor(runs(to(the( American(Fork(FrontRunner,(its(potential(for(short-term(transit(service(is(somewhat(weak.(

Alternative!2(is(similar(to(Alternative(1(except(that(it(designates(as(the(primary(corridor(the(route(to(the( Lehi( FrontRunner(station,( with( the( route( to( American( Fork( FrontRunner(station(as(the(secondary( corridor.(This(alternative(places(the(station(areas(in(the(same(planned(community/employment(centers( as(Alternative(1,(except(it(adds(an(additional(major(community(center(at(Redwood(Road(and(2100(Nouth( in(Lehi,(where(local(land(use(planning(indicates(future(commercial,(high(density(residential,(and(mixed( use(growth.(

(

Chapter(6:(East-West(Transit( ( 6-13( ( Figure!6A9:!East/West!Transit,!Alternative!2! (

(

( Advantages(of(Alternative(2(include:( • Available!rightAofAway!to!preserve:(2100(North(especially(offers(a(wide(right-of-way.( • Potential!for!shortAterm!service:(Currently,(the(Lehi(FrontRunner(station(offers(several(regional( connection(advantages(over(American(Fork.(

Disadvantages(of(Alternative(2((include:( • Ability! for! good! pedestrian! and! bike! access! and! urban! design:( The( freeway( configuration( of( 2100(North(is(challenging(for(walking(and(bicycling.(( • Regional! connections:( Long-term,( American( Fork( will( likely( be( the( better( FrontRunner( connection.(

Alternative!3( designates( as( the( primary( corridor( a( route( that( connects( to(the(American(Fork( FrontRunner(station(but(runs(further(south(than(Alternative(1.(It(strings(together(1900(South(and(Pony(

Chapter(6:(East-West(Transit( ( 6-14( ( Express.(Under(this(alternative,(the(secondary(corridor(runs(between(Lehi(FrontRunner(and(the(Major( Community(Center(in(Saratoga(Springs.(

This( alternative( placed( the( Major( Community( Centers( within( areas( with( generally( lower( land( use( planning(priority(than(in(the(other(two(alternatives.(

Figure!6A10:!East/West!Transit,!Alternative!3! (

(

( ( ( ( Advantages(of(Alternative(3(include:( • Directness! of! route/likely! travel! time:( The( combination( of( 1900( South( and( Pony( Express( Parkway( created( the( most( direct( connection( from( Eagle( Mountain( to( FrontRunner( of( all( alternatives.( • Ability!for!good!pedestrian!and!bike!access!and!urban!design:(The(lack(of(state(control(on(the( routes(could(allow(for(better(pedestrian(and(bicycle(conditions.(

Disadvantages(of(Alternative(3((include:(

Chapter(6:(East-West(Transit( ( 6-15( ( • Potential! for! shortAterm! service:( While( 1900( South( could( be( a( strong( long-term( transit( connection(with(some(additional(connections(and(more(development(of(land(uses(around(the( alignment,( putting( transit( service( on( 1900( South( now( would( have( the( disadvantages( of( indirectness,(multiple(turns(and(little(density.(( • Ability!for!longAterm!supportive!land!use:(Neither(the(two(Major(Community(Centers(nor(the( corridor( created( by( the( route( ( are( located( in( places( prioritized( for( growth( by( the( local( governments.( • Neighborhood!impacts(in(Eagle(Mountain.(

Alternative!4(is(a(combination(of(Alternatives(1(and(3.(It(designates(as(the(primary(corridor(a(route(that( connects(to(the(American(Fork(FrontRunner(station(via(Pioneer(Crossing(and(Pony(Express.(Under(this( alternative,(the(secondary(corridor(runs(between(Lehi(FrontRunner(and(the(Major(Community(Center(in( Saratoga(Springs.((

Figure!6A11:!East/West!Transit,!Alternative!4! ( ! (

(

( (

(

Chapter(6:(East-West(Transit( ( 6-16( ( This(alternative(has(no(clear(advantages(or(disadvantages(–(as(a(mix(of(two(other(alternatives(it(scored( toward(the(middle(on(nearly(every(criterion(in(relation(to(the(other(alternatives.(

Summary!of!Alternatives!Evaluation! The( table( below( summarizes( the( four( alternatives( initially( discussed( with( regard( to( east/west( transit( based(on(the(evaluation(criteria(previously(described.((

Table!6A2:!East/West!Alternatives!Evaluation!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Revised!Alignment!Alternatives!

The(East-West(subcommittee(discussed(the(four(initial(alternatives(and(gave(the(project(team(direction( to(revise(the(alternatives.(Some(alternatives(were(discarded(while(new(alternatives(were(created.(Those( revised(alternatives(that(were(further(considered(were(two(variations(of(Alternative(1(and(Alternative(4.(

Revised! Alternative!1a(is(the(old(Alternative(1,(the( mix( of( Pioneer( Crossing,( SR-73,( The( Ranches( Parkway,(and(Pony(Express(Parkway.(

Chapter(6:(East-West(Transit( ( 6-17( ( !

Figure!6A12:!East/West!Transit,!Revised!Alternative!1a! (

Chapter(6:(East-West(Transit( ( 6-18( ( !

Revised!Alignment!1b(is(a(mix(of(Alternatives(1(and(3(so(that(1900(South(leads(to(Redwood(Road,(the( Pioneer(Crossing(extension,(SR-73,(Ranches,(and(Pony(Express(Parkway.(

Figure!6A13:!East/West!Transit,!Revised!Alternative!1b(

(

Chapter(6:(East-West(Transit( ( 6-19( ( Revised!Alternative!2!is(Alternative(4,(a(route(that(connects(to(the(American(Fork(FrontRunner(station( via(Pioneer(Crossing(and(Pony(Express.(

Figure!6A14:!East/West!Transit,!Revised!Alternative!2! (

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Chapter(6:(East-West(Transit( ( 6-20( ( Revised!Alternative!3(is(a(variation(of(Alternative(1a,(with(a(route(that(avoids(The(Ranches(Parkway.(

Figure!6A15:!East/West!Transit,!Revised!Alternative!3! ( ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Recommended!Alignment!Alternative!

MAG(and(UTA(staff(met(with(the(city(councils(of(Eagle(Mountain,(Saratoga(Springs,(and(Lehi(to(discuss( their( opinions( on( the( refined( alternatives.( Specifically,( the( team( sought( the( cities’( preferences(for( alternatives(within(their(city(limits.((

Based(on(the(technical(analysis(described(here(and(city(and(other(stakeholder(input,(Alternative(1b(is( recommended.( The( alignment’s( primary( corridor(begins(on(the(east(end(at(the( American( Fork( FrontRunner(station,( runs( along( 1900( South( to( Redwood( Road,( then( north( to(the(Pioneer( Crossing( extension(to(SR-73,(through(the(Ranches(Parkway,(and(Pony(Express(Parkway(to(the(terminus(in(Eagle( Mountain’s(city(center.(The(recommended(alignment(also(includes(a(secondary(corridor(from(the(future( Saratoga(Springs(city(center(north(on(Redwood(Road(to(2100(North,(then(east(to(the(Lehi(FrontRunner( station.((

Chapter(6:(East-West(Transit( ( 6-21( ( The(recommended(alignment(includes(major(stations/community(centers(in:(( ! Saratoga(Springs(near(the(intersection(of(Redwood(Road(and(Pioneer(Crossing(extension;(and( ! Eagle(Mountain(at(the(intersection(of(SR(73(and(The(Ranches(Parkway.((

It(includes(minor(stations/community(centers(in:( ! Lehi(at(the(intersection(of(Redwood(Road(and(2100(N;(( ! Saratoga(Springs(at(the(intersection(of(Redwood(Road(and(1900(S.;(( ! Eagle(Mountain(at(the(intersection(of(The(Ranches(Parkway(and(Pony(Express(Parkway;(( ! Eagle(Mountain(in(the(future(employment(center(along(Pony(Express(Parkway;(and(( ! The(Eagle(Mountain(city(center(at(the(end(of(the(corridor.(

It(allows(for(what(is(initially(bus(rapid(transit(service(along(the(primary(corridor(from(the(city(center(in( Eagle(Mountain,(to(SR-73(and(The(Ranches,(to(the(American(Fork(FrontRunner(station,(with(bus(service( on(the(remainder(of(the(primary(corridor(and(on(the(secondary(corridor.(

Figure!6A16:!Recommended!East/West!Transit!Alignment! ( ( ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Chapter(6:(East-West(Transit( ( 6-22( ( Implementation!

The( following( steps( are( proposed( to( implement( the( recommendations( of( this( study( for( an( east-west( transit(corridor(in(northern(Utah(County:( • City!adoption:(The(cities(of(Saratoga(Springs,(Lehi,(and(American(Fork(adopt(the(recommended( alignment( and( associated( centers( into( city( policy( documents.( Eagle( Mountain( included( a( “conceptual”( transit( alignment( that( reflects( the( results( of( this( study( in( their( December( 2014( Master(Transportation(Plan.( • RightAofAway!preservation:(MAG(and(UTA(will(work(with(cities(to(preserve(adequate(right-of- way(for(future(transit(service(along(the(recommended(alignment,(including(station(facilities(at( identified(centers.( • Service!phasing:(Service(and(mode(is(phased(as(is(appropriate(for(the(transit(market(along(the( corridor.(The(following(are(ways(that(UTA(could(phase(the(transit(service(along(this(corridor:( o Mode:(The(service(phasing(could(begin(with(an(express(bus(running(regularly(along(the( corridor(transitioning(to(a(service(incorporating(elements(of(bus(rapid(transit(along(the( core( piece( of( the( primary( alignment( (see( description( of( recommended( alignment)( as( demand(justifies(it.( o Length:( The( initial( corridor( could( be( a( shorter( version( of( the( entire( alignment( to( concentrate(transit(agency(resources(where(demand(is(heaviest.(For(example,(the(initial( service(could(run(from(the(planned(Eagle(Mountain(center(at(SR-73(and(The(Ranches(to( American(Fork(or(Lehi(FrontRunner,(and(could(involve(a(park-and-ride(component(at(the( Eagle(Mountain(center(to(serve(those(coming(from(further(out.(( o Headways:(The(initial(service(could(operate(on(longer(headways,(which(could(become( shorter(as(demand(for(the(service(increases.( o Stations/stops:(In(an(effort(to(conserve(resources(and(provide(a(travel(time(competitve( with(the(private(automobile,(the(initial(service(could(serve(only(a(few(stops,(such(as(the( major( community( centers( identified( in( the( alignment.( As( the( community( and( transit( demand( (especially( for( trips( within( or( between( the( communities( the( service( serves)( grow,(more(stations(could(be(added.(((( o Termini:( because( of( the( superior( transit( connections( and( the( concentration( of( employment(around(the(Lehi(FrontRunner(station,(the(initial(service(could(run(between( Eagle( Mountain( and( Saratoga( Springs,( then( turn( along( the( secondary( corridor( toward( Lehi( Front( Runner(instead(of(1900(South(and(the(American(Fork(FrontRunner.(As(the(

Chapter(6:(East-West(Transit( ( 6-23( ( American(Fork(station(is(double-tracked(and(1900(South(becomes(a(more(viable(option( for(rapid(transit,(the(service(could(switch(to(the(primary(corridor.( • TransitAoriented!community!evolution:(Just(as(the(transit(service(will(likely(be(phased,(so(will(be( the( community( growth( along( the( recommended( alignment.(This(community(growth(can(be( shaped( to( become( supportive( of( high-capacity( rapid( transit.( For( example,( a( station( that( will( initially(be(focused(on(park-and-ride(passengers(and(peak(hour(commuting(can(evolve(to(include( a(segment(of(riders(living(and/or(working(around(a(station(and(walking(to(that(station,(perhaps( taking( off-peak( trips( such( as( shopping( or( special( events.( The( major( and( minor( community( centers,(based(off(the(plans(of(the(cities(along(the(alignment,(provide(a(beginning(framework(for( transit-supportive(community(growth(and(evolution.(Ideally,(the(transit(and(the(communities(it( serves(will(grow(and(evolve(together.( !

(

Chapter(6:(East-West(Transit( ( 6-24( (

( ( ( ( ( ( CHAPTER(SEVEN:(POLICY(CONSIDERATIONS

This(chapter(presents(the(research,(analysis(and(findings(of(a(detailed(market(assessment(for(northern( Utah(County(high4capacity(transit(service.(This(assessment(informs(two(critical(policy(considerations(for( improved(transit(service(in(Utah(County:(((

It(is(important(to(demonstrate(how(a(project(will(attract(significant(new(ridership(generated(from(land( use(patterns(and(development(forms(that(support(mode(shifts(from(auto(to(transit.(This(assessment(of( market( conditions( is( essential( to( demonstrating( strong( ridership( potential(and(enhancing( project( competitiveness(for(federal(funding.(The(market(analysis(employed(in(this(study(evaluates(the(existing( and(future(conditions(that(determine(how(well(a(public(transit(investment(will(perform,(and(describes( the(critical(conditions(that(determine(how(well(transit(can(compete(against(auto(travel.(

Following(is(an(exploratory(and(detailed(market(analyses(that(describe(the(extent(of(project(support( provided( by( existing( transportation( and( land( use( plans( and( policies.( The( chapter( concludes( with( a( discussion(of(possible(policies(and(actions(that(can(improve(a(project’s(competitive(position(for(federal( funding.(

Market(Assessment(Methodology(( A( transit( market( assessment( provides(an(objective(understanding(of(a( study( area’s(underlying( conditions( and( ability( to( support( high4capacity( transit,(regardless(of(which( technology,( alignment,( or( station( areas( may( be( ultimately( selected( for( that( service.( A( robust(assessment(explores( what( future( planning(and(market(trends(in(the(corridor(could(be(developed(to(improve(a(project’s(competitiveness(

Chapter(7:(Policy(Considerations( 741(

given(the(new(emphasis(on(transit(supportive(land(use(in(the(FTA(New(and(Small(Starts(grant(criteria( (see(Chapter(8).(

The(following(characteristics(are(often(associated(with(a(competitive(transit(market:( • The(market(has(many(trips(beginning(or(ending(in(the(area.( • These(trips(are(concentrated(in(time(and(space.( • Potential( transit( riders( can( access( stations( and( reach( their( final( destinations( in( a( walkable( environment.(( • The(market(has(prevalent(or(pervasive(roadway(congestion.( • Automobile(parking(is(scarce,(inconvenient,(and(priced.(

These( factors( were( acknowledged( in( earlier( evaluation( processes( that( centered( on( “the( four( D’s.”(( These(evaluations(qualitatively(assessed(assumptions(about(higher(residential(and(commercial(land(use( density,(diverse(land(use(mix,(transit4friendly(design(elements,(and(accessible(destinations.(Since(then,( these(four(conditions(have(been(supplemented(by(two(additional(“D’s,(”(i.e.,(the(distance(that(defines(a( transit( station’s(pedestrian(catchment(area,(and(transportation( demand/ management( policies( (TDM)( that(increase(auto(trip(costs((e.g.,(tolls,(priced(parking).((

Robust,( quantitative( modeling( of( the( independent( and( synergetic( effects( of( the( six(D’s(eluded( transportation( planners(for(many(years.( This( shortcoming( was( overcome( in( recent( years( with( development(of(the(Transit(Competitiveness(Index((TCI)(methodology(that(quantitatively(assesses(the( five(conditions(described(above(and(the(six(D’s.(The(TCI(methodology(also(allows(deconstructing(the( market( competitiveness( to( test( how( specific( policies( or( actions( would( improve( overall(transit( competitiveness.((

The( TCI( tool( developed( for( this( project( measures( transit’s( ability( to( competitively( serve(any(travel( market(within(Utah(and(Salt(Lake(Counties.(This(customized(version(of(the(TCI(tool(evaluates(the(critical( conditions(in(both(counties,(and(can(focus(on(specific(travel(markets(within(and(near(the(I415(corridor.((

The( resulting( TCI( score( is( a( single( number( that( provides( a( quantitative( measure( of( transit( ridership( potential(within(the(analysis(area,(but(does(not(forecast(actual(ridership.(While(a(travel(demand(model( predicts( how( people( respond( to( a( specific( transit( service( in( a( specific(corridor,( the( TCI( assesses( underlying( market( conditions,(place(characteristics,(and( automobile( travel( options( to( illuminate( the( effect( of( conditions( that( transit( agencies(cannot(directly(control.( These( conditions( include(land(use(

Chapter(7:(Policy(Considerations( 742(

density,( parking( pricing,( roadway( congestion(and(similar(factors( that( have( been( shown( to( directly( influence( transit( demand.(The(technical( specifications( and( documentation( that( describe( the( TCI( algorithms,(assumptions,(and(parameters(is(provided(in(the(appendix(of(this(document.((

Market(Analysis(Results(and(Implications( The(market(analysis(began(with(an(exploratory(analysis(of(three(broad(geographic(areas(and(current( land(use(and(policy(assumptions.(This(exploratory(analysis(was(followed(with(more(focused(analysis(in( smaller( portions( of( Utah( County(that(had(encouraging(preliminary(results.( The( market( analysis( concluded( with( policy( tests( that( assessed( potential(changes(to(conditions(and(assumptions(that(are( within(the(purview(of(regional(and(local(policy(makers.(

Exploratory(Market(Analysis( In(the(initial(market(analysis,(all(of(northern(Utah(County(was(evaluated(to(understand(the(competitive( landscape(across(the(region(and(to(observe(if(competitive(markets(exist(now(or(would(emerge(under( the(land(use(and(socioeconomic(conditions(assumed(in(the(MAG(baseline(forecast((2040).(As(shown(in( Figure(741,(the(exploratory(analysis(considered(the(following(regional4scale(markets:(

• Markets( between( Utah( and( Salt( Lake( Counties(that(are(within(½(mile(of(the(existing( TRAX( system( • The(area(west(of(Utah(Lake( • A(north4south(corridor(parallel(to(I415(between(Lehi(and(Orem.(

Markets(between(Utah(and(Salt(Lake(Counties( Feasibility(of(a(potential(north4south(extension(of(the(TRAX(Blue(Line(depends(on(inter4county(transit( demand(between(Utah(and(Salt(Lake(Counties.(Most(potential(ridership(will(come(from(commuters(who( live( close( to( transit( stops( at( their( trip( origin( and( work( even( closer( to( a( station( at( the( destination.( Modeling(work(done(for(the(north/south(LRT(extension(discussed(in(Chapter(5(indicates(nearly(17,000( additional(daily(riders(over(current(ridership(levels(in(a(no4build(scenario.((

For(high4capacity(transit(to(competitively(serve(this(inter4county(market,(auto(commuters(should(face( heavy( I415( congestion( during( extended( peak( periods( and( expect( scarce,( high4priced( parking( at( their( destinations.(For(the(most(part,(these(conditions(are(currently(absent(and(are(not(projected(to(occur(in( the(foreseeable(future.(Some(longer(distance(corridor(sub4markets,(such(as(Murray(or(Downtown(Salt( Lake(City,(are(currently(served(by(the(FrontRunner(commuter(rail.((

Chapter(7:(Policy(Considerations( 743(

TCI( results( also( suggest( shortcomings( in( other( essential( conditions( needed( for( competitive( transit( service(in(this(inter4county(market.(For(example,(the(year(2009(inter4county(volumes(are(somewhat(low( –(85,000(daily(trips(from(Utah(County(residents(and(40,000(trips(from(Salt(Lake(County(residents((Figure( 742).(While(2040(trip(volumes(are(projected(to(be(nearly(double((Utah(County(residents)(or(triple((Salt( Lake( County( residents)( from( 2009( volumes,( planned( I415( capacity( expansions( will( hold( roadway( congestion(to(modest(levels.((

Further,( base4case( land( use( assumptions( and( socioeconomic( forecasts( in( both( counties( suggest( dispersed(housing,(business(parks,(and(industrial(and(warehouse(land(use.(Although(future(inter4county( volumes( will( be( greater( than( at( present,( these( trips( begin( and( end( over( a( wide( geographic( area,( contradicting(one(of(the(key(characteristics(of(a(competitive(transit(market,(i.e.,(trips(concentrated(in( time( and( space.( For( comparison,( the( Provo/BYU( and( Murray( areas( are( currently( successful( transit( markets(in(the(region.(Figure(742(illustrates(that(Provo/BYU(attracted(about(120,000(daily(trips(in(2009( while(Murray(attracted(about(150,000(daily(trips.(While(these(current(trip(volumes(are(similar(to(the( projected(2040(Utah/Salt(Lake(County(inter4county(market,(the(Provo(and(Murray(area(trips(are(drawn( to(a(much(smaller(geographic(area(than(is(possible(with(the(inter4county(market.(

Chapter(7:(Policy(Considerations( 744(

Figure(7K1:(Exploratory(Market(Analysis(Locations(

Chapter(7:(Policy(Considerations( 745(

Figure(7K2:(2009(and(2040(Forecast(Travel(Volumes(between(Utah(and(Salt(Lake(Counties(

Chapter(7:(Policy(Considerations( 746(

While(current(and(future(commercial(land(use(in(Salt(Lake(County(is(and(will(be(more(dense(than(in( Utah(County,(existing(policies(suggest(that(a(majority(of(commute(trips(will(end(at(job(centers(with(low( commercial(land(use(densities(and(plentiful,(free(parking(supply.(The(combination(of(these(conditions( does(not(generate(a(minimum(threshold(for(transit(competitiveness.((

Market(West(of(Utah(Lake( Residential(and(commercial(land(use(in(this(area(of(more(than(200(square(miles(is(forecast(to(remain( low(density(under(current(policies(and(projections((Figures(743(and(744).(These(densities(are(inadequate( to(generate(or(attract(commuters(with(sufficient(intensity(to(reach(a(threshold(for(high4capacity(transit( competitiveness.(Other(transit4supportive(conditions(such(as(pervasive(congestion,(parking(constraints,( and(short(walkable(egress(to(job(centers(are(also(lacking.(Overall,(the(area(west(of(Utah(Lake(does(not( emerge(as(a(strong(market(for(high4capacity(transit(investment(prior(to(2040.((

Northeastern(Market(along(the(IK15(Corridor(between(Lehi(and(Provo( The(third(exploratory(market(analysis(area(included(employment(and(other(activity(nodes(between(Lehi( and(Orem.(These(activity(zones(are(indicated(by(the(blue(outlines(in(Figures(745(and(746.(The(year(2009( TCI(results(in(this(figure(indicate(that(transit(competitive(origins(are(generally(within(or(adjacent(to(the( activity(clusters.(The(orange(and(red(shading(in(these(TCI(maps(shows(household/origin(locations(that( are( marginally( to( highly( transit( competitive( from( the( destination( cluster( (blue( outlines).( The( yellow( shading(shows(areas(that(are(minimally(competitive,(while(the(light(and(dark(green(shading(show(areas( that( are( uncompetitive( for( transit.( Most( notable,( these( TCI( results( further( illustrate( that( the( inter4 county(market(–(in(this(case(from(Salt(Lake(County(households(to(the(I415(“spine”(in(Utah(County(–(is( not(a(transit(competitive(market(at(this(aggregate(analysis(level.(

There( are( pockets( of( competitiveness( near( American( Fork( and( Pleasant( Grove( area( under( existing( conditions,(which(is(consistent(with(the(north/south(light(rail(transit(discussed(in(Chapter(5(and(phasing( opportunities(in(Pleasant(Grove.(However,(the(competitiveness(quickly(diminishes(as(one(moves(away( from(the(activity(zones.(When(considering(a(high4capacity(transit(service,(one(would(like(to(see(strong( competitiveness(throughout(the(corridor,(particularly(surrounding(potential(station(locations.((

The( area( surrounding( Provo( and( Orem( shows( much( stronger( transit( competitiveness( in( 2009( and( especially(2040.((

Chapter(7:(Policy(Considerations( 747(

Figure(7K3:(2040(Employment(Density(West(of(Utah(Lake(

(

Chapter(7:(Policy(Considerations( 748(

( Figure(7K4:(2040(Household(Density(West(of(Utah(Lake(

Chapter(7:(Policy(Considerations( 749(

Figure(7K5:(Market(Analysis(Results(for(Utah(County(Spine,(2009( ( ( (

Chapter(7:(Policy(Considerations( 7410(

( Figure(7K6:(Market(Analysis(Results(for(Utah(County(Spine,(2040(

Chapter(7:(Policy(Considerations( 7411(

Focused(Market(Analysis( The( exploratory( analyses( reveals( that( of( the( three( market( areas,( only( certain( portions( of( the( I415( corridor(in(Utah(County(show(competitive(potential(for(high4capacity(transit.(This(led(to(a(more(focused( analysis( of( 2040( TCI( scores( for( eleven( smaller( geographic( areas( north( and( east( of( Utah( Lake.( These( eleven(areas,(shown(in(Figure(747,(exhibit(the(highest(household(and(employment(densities(in(the(study( area,( and( tend( to( have( higher( TCI( scores( in( the( exploratory( analysis.( The( eleven( areas( include( five( clusters(of(household(trip(origins((shaded(shapes(in(Figure(747)(and(six(clusters(of(business(and(college( trip(destinations((outlined(shapes(in(Figure(747).((

The( household/origin( TCI( analysis( (i.e.,( the( selection( of( specific( residential( zones)( revealed( limited( transit(competitiveness(from(the(five(residential(clusters.(The(sample(TCI(results(in(Figures(748(and(749( indicate(that(transit(competitive(destinations(are(generally(within(or(adjacent(to(the(origin(clusters((blue( outlined(areas).(The(orange(and(red(shading(in(these(housing/origin(TCI(maps(shows(destinations(that( are(marginally(to(highly(transit(competitive(from(the(origin(cluster((blue(outlines).(The(yellow(shading( shows(areas(that(are(minimally(competitive,(while(the(light(and(dark(green(shading(show(areas(that(are( uncompetitive( for( transit.( This( finding( means( transit( would( be( competitive( only( for( trips( within( that( selected(cluster,(but(not(from(the(selected(cluster(to(destinations(in(other(parts(of(Utah(County.(This( finding(is(consistent(with(the(2040(forecast(of(the(critical(conditions(needed(to(support(a(competitive( high4capacity(transit(market.(

There(are(two(notable(exceptions(to(this(general(finding.(First,(the(American(Fork(and(Pleasant(Grove( map((Figure(749)(shows(transit(competitiveness(over(a(larger(geographic(area(southward(through(Orem.( Second,(all(of(the(household/origin(clusters(show(transit(competitiveness(to(isolated(destination(zones( in( Orem( and( Provo;( those( isolated( zones( correspond( to( Utah( Valley( University( (UVU)( and( Brigham( Young(University((BYU).((

The(UVU/BYU(influence(is(further(illustrated(in(the(sample(employment/destination(TCI(results(in(Figure( 7410;(UVU(is(included(in(the(left4hand(TCI(graphic,(while(BYU(is(included(in(the(right4hand(TCI(graphic.( The(orange(and(red(shading(in(these(employment/college/destination(TCI(maps(shows(origins(that(are( marginally(to(highly(transit(competitive(from(the(destination(cluster((blue(outlines).(The(yellow(shading( shows(areas(that(are(minimally(competitive,(while(the(light(and(dark(green(shading(show(areas(that(are( uncompetitive(for(transit.(Both(destination(clusters(exhibit(very(strong(transit(competitiveness(over(a( wide(portion(of(Utah(County;(UVU’s(transit(competiveness(extends(into(portions(of(southern(Salt(Lake(

Chapter(7:(Policy(Considerations( 7412(

County(as(well.(This(competitiveness(is(largely(explained(by(the(87,000(daily(college4related(trips(that( will(be(attracted(to(the(Orem/Provo(area.(The(destination(clusters(included(in(Figure(7410(also(have(18( of(Utah(County’s(top(20(zones(for(trip(attraction(density.( Overall,(these(results(clearly(illustrate(that( attracting( a( large( number( of( trips( to( a( small( geographic( area( can( have( a( defining( effect( on( transit( competitiveness.(

Chapter(7:(Policy(Considerations( 7413(

Figure(7K7:(Focused(Market(Analysis(of(Specific(Origin(and(Destination(Clusters(in(2040(

Chapter(7:(Policy(Considerations( 7414(

Figure(7K8:(TCI(Analysis(Results(for(Households((Origins)(West(of(Utah(Lake( ( ( (

Chapter(7:(Policy(Considerations( 7415(

( Figure(7K9:(TCI(Analysis(Results(for(Households((Origins)(in(American(Fork,(and(Pleasant(Grove( (

Chapter(7:(Policy(Considerations( 7416(

Figure(7K10:(2040(TCI(Analysis(Results(for(Employment(and(College((Destinations)((

Note://Blue/outlines/indicate/the/employment/and/business/activity/zones/included/in/this/market/analysis.//

Chapter(7:(Policy(Considerations( 7417(

TCI( results( from( the( exploratory( and( focused( market( analyses( show( somewhat( strong( transit( competitiveness( to( destinations( in( the( Orem/Provo( area,( but( limited( transit( competitiveness( to( destinations( elsewhere( in( Utah( County.( The( inter4county( market( also( has( very( limited( transit( competitiveness(in(both(travel(directions,(except(for(destinations(near(UVU.(The(Lindon(and(Pleasant( Grove(areas(offer(some(transit(competitiveness(to(Orem(and(Provo(destinations,(but(are(uncompetitive( to(and(from(other(locations.(The(American(Fork(and(Lehi(areas(present(a(difficult(environment(for(high4 capacity(transit(service(under(base(policies(and(land(use(assumptions.

Overall,( the( TCI( results( for( base( policies( and( assumptions( suggest( that( the( Orem( and( Provo( areas( present(Utah(County’s(best(opportunity(for(initiating(competitive(transit(service.(Given(this(potential( tension( between( prior( regional( transit( investments( and( market( competitiveness( created( by( current( transportation(and(land(use(policies,(the(project(team(assessed(beneficial(effects(that(might(result(from( hypothetical(policy(changes,(as(discussed(in(the(next(section.(

Transportation(and(Land(Use(Policy(Tests(

Results( from( the( exploratory( and( focused( market( analyses( reveal( a( limited( number( of( competitive( transit(markets(for(high4capacity(transit(in(northern(Utah(County.(These(findings,(however,(are(based(on( the(conditions(forecast(in(the(MAG(base(case(scenarios.(Since(these(forecasts(reflect(current(trends,( policies,(and(market(conditions,(the(consultant(team(also(used(the(TCI(tool(to(test(the(sensitivity(of( these( findings( to( alternative( policies.( These( policy( tests( illustrate( sensitivity( of( the( exploratory( and( focused(market(analyses(to(the(assumptions(embedded(in(the(MAG(scenarios.(The(additional(tests(can( also(inform(policy(makers(of(the(type(and(magnitude(of(policy(changes(needed(to(substantially(improve( transit’s(market(competitiveness(in(Northern(Utah(County.(

The( team( evaluated( 14( policy( scenarios,( described( in( Table( 741,( that( tested( changes( to( the( future( conditions(and(policies(assumptions(in(the(MAG(2040(forecast.(The(policy(tests(included(combinations( of( illustrative( changes( to( auto( and( transit( travel( times,( parking( availability( and( costs,( and( job( and( housing(development(intensity(in(the(vicinity(of(a(potential(high4capacity(transit(line.(The(notes(in(Table( 741( indicate( the( ranges( of( illustrative( policy( changes( in( each( scenario.( The( scenarios( ranged( from( narrowly4focused(travel(time(and(parking(cost(changes((tests(#1,(#2,(and(#3)(to(more(geographically( expansive(combinations(of(travel(time,(cost,(and(development(intensity((test(#14).(

Chapter(7:(Policy(Considerations( 7418(

Overall,(the( test( of( alternative( policy( scenarios( demonstrated(that(uncompetitive(markets(are(not( substantially(improved(when(one(or(more(of(the(following(situations(occur:( • Policy(changes(are(applied(to(a(single(municipality(or(other(small(geographic(area;(( • Policy(changes(impact(only(one(of(several(key(characteristics(of(a(competitive(transit(market;( or(( • The(policy(changes(do(not(represent(a(significant(departure(from(the(status(quo.(

Limited(policy(changes(lead(to(little(or(no(improvement(in(transit(competitiveness,(as(illustrated(in(the( left4hand(portion(of(Figure(7411.(Further,(when(a(cluster(of(zones(is(transit(competitive(for(internal(trips( only((i.e.,(selected(zones(in(blue(outlines(are(the(only(zones(shown(as(competitive(in(orange(and(red( shades),( then( policy( changes( to( further( improve( already4supportive( land( use( solely( within( those( selected( clusters( (e.g.,( Provo( and( Orem)( will( have( minimal( further( influence(on(overall(transit( competitiveness.(

The(results(for(the(last(two(policy(scenarios((Scenarios(13(and(14)(show(transit(competitiveness(can(be( most(influenced(by(a(combination(of(policy(changes(4(centered(on(aggressive(job(densification(4(across(a( wider( geographic( area.( As( illustrated( in( the(right4hand( portion( of( Figure( 7411,( the( tests( suggest( in( particular(that(substantial(job(densification(between(Lehi(and(American(Fork(would(provide(the(most( support( to( a( north4to4south( transit( project( implementation( approach.(Significant(commercial( development(in(Lehi(and(the(modeled(ridership(on(north/south(LRT(support(this(conclusion.(

Implications(and(Potential(Next(Steps(

The(market(analysis(and(policy(tests(illustrate(that(Northern(Utah(County’s(municipalities(and(county( government(can(enhance(the(potential(for(successfully(funding,(building,(and(operating(high4capacity( capacity(transit(service(through(two(general(categories(of(policies(and(actions:( • Transportation( investments( and( policies( that( improve( transit( speeds( relative( to( automobile( travel,(enhance(walking(and(bicycling(conditions(near(transit(stations(and(new(development,( and(make(automobile(parking(more(costly(and(less(convenient.( • Development(plans,(policies,(and(incentives(that(concentrate(a(large(portion(of(future(housing( and(job(growth(within(close(proximity(to(any(proposed(high4capacity(transit(service.((

The( policy( tests( in( the( prior( section( suggest( that( increased( development( intensity( throughout( the( corridor,( but( especially( in( the( Lehi( and( American( Fork( areas,( combined( with( improved( walking( and(

Chapter(7:(Policy(Considerations( 7419(

bicycling(conditions(and(automobile(parking(disincentives,(are(needed(to(create(a(strongly(competitive( transit( environment.( Such( actions( are( particularly( important( to( support( north4south( service( implementation( via( extension( of( the( Draper( TRAX( line((Chapter( 5).( Development( plans,( policies,( and( incentives(should(strive(to(ultimately(increase(housing(and(job(intensity(by(at(least(50(percent(above( currently(planned(levels(near(the(proposed(transit(corridor.(

Table(7K1:(ModelKtested(Policy(Scenarios(for(Focused(Market(Analysis(

Transportation(System(and(Parking(Changes( Land(Use(and(Density(Changes( Transit( Employment( Housing( Highway( Speed( Less( Parking( Density5( Density5( Policy( Congestion( ImproveK Convenient( Cost( 1 3 4 Test( Geographic(Area( Increase ( ment2( Parking ( Increase ( +(50%( +100%( +25%( +50%( #1( Between(Utah(&(Salt(Lake( !( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( Counties( #2( Utah(&(Salt(Lake(counties( ( !( ( ( ( ( ( ( #3( Orem(&(Provo( ( ( ( !( ( ( ( ( #4( Orem(&(Provo( !( !( !( !( ( ( ( ( #5( Lehi(&(American(Fork( !( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( #6( Lehi(&(American(Fork( !( !( ( !( ( ( ( ( #7( Lehi(&(American(Fork( ( ( ( ( !( ( ( ( #8( Lehi(&(American(Fork( ( ( ( ( ( !( ( ( #9( Orem(&(Provo( ( ( ( ( !( ( ( ( #10( Orem(&(Provo( ( ( ( ( ( ( !( ( #11( American(Fork(to(Lindon( ( ( ( ( ( ( !( ( #12( American(Fork(to(Lindon( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( !( #13( American(Fork(to(Lindon( !( !( ( ( ( ( ( !( #14( Lehi(to(Provo( ( !( !( !( !( ( !( ( Notes:( 1( Included(a(25(percent(auto(travel(speed(reduction(in(indicated(areas,(or(five(minute(delay(for(auto(trips( between(Utah(and(Salt(Lake(counties.( 2( Included(25(percent(travel(time(improvement(for(transit(trips(to(or(from(the(indicated(areas.( 3( Included(five(minute(additional(auto(travel(time(to(the(indicated(area(to(simulate(less(parking(availability( and(convenience.( 4( Doubled(parking(costs(in(the(indicated(areas.( 5( Increased(assumed(future(jobs(and/or(housing(density(in(the(indicated(areas(by(25(percent,(50(percent,( or(100(percent.(

Chapter(7:(Policy(Considerations( 7420(

Figure(7K11:(Relative(Policy(Effects(on(Transit(Competitiveness(

Chapter(7:(Policy(Considerations( 7421(

As(local(government(officials(are(keenly(aware,(such(relatively(dramatic(changes(in(long4standing(land( use(policies(and(plans(often(seem(unattainable(during(early(stages(of(transit(service(planning.(Northern( Utah(County(stakeholders(understand(that(the(physical(changes(brought(about(by(policy(revision(are( expected( to( evolve( over( time.( It( often( takes(many(years(for(sufficient(quantities(of(higher4density( housing(and(employment(to(materialize,(even(when(presented(with(supportive(policies(and(ordinances,( simply(due(to(market(forces.(Similarly,(pricing(of(parking(in(employment(and(shopping/entertainment( districts(might(take(quite(some(time(to(become(prevalent.(Nonetheless,(city(and(local(governments(will( keep(the(following(principles(in(mind(during(the(early(stages(of(transit(service(planning:(( • Understand(the(factors(and(characteristics(that(ultimately(create(improved(competitiveness;(( • Begin(realigning(policies(and(processes(to(favor(those(characteristics;(and(( • Commit(to(staying(the(course(and(realizing(the(benefits(over(the(longer(term.(

The(following(sections(outline(steps(that(Northern(Utah(County(jurisdictions(can(take(in(the(next(few( years(to(begin(creating(a(more(competitive(environment(for(high4capacity(transit(service.(

Integrated(Planning(in(Multiple(Jurisdictional(Levels(( Transportation(and(land(use(planning(are(conducted(at(multiple(scales(–(regional,(municipal(corridor,( neighborhood,( and( even( the( site( or( project( level.( At( large( geographic( scales,( broad( vision,( goals,( objectives,( and( policies( are( articulated,( for( both( land( use( and( transportation.( At( smaller( geographic( scales,( these( principles( are( translated( into( specifics( through( zoning,( subdivision( regulations,( street( design,(permitting,(and(capital(projects.(Planning(progresses(logically(from(broader(scales(–(where(the( community(articulates(its(vision(–(to(smaller(scales(–(where(this(vision(is(implemented.((

Integrated( transportation( and( land( use( planning( at( all( scales( can( support( traditional( bus( and( high4 capacity(transit(service.(For(bus(service,(the(primary(emphasis(may(be(on(site(design(and(accessibility(to( create(a(streetscape(that(supports(pedestrian(activity.(For(high4capacity(transit(service,(more(emphasis( may(be(placed(on(higher(development(densities(that(are(needed(to(generate(substantial(travel(volumes.( Some(communities(that(have(recently(started(high4capacity(transit(services(focused(their(early(planning( coordination(on(the(following(steps:( • Regional( Planning( and( Visioning( –(A(regional((multi4jurisdictional)( plan( that( sets( a( broad( vision(for(growth(and(development.(It(is(typically(led(by(a(regional(council(of(governments(or( metropolitan(planning(organization((MPO).(It(usually(addresses(multiple,(interrelated(issues,(

Chapter(7:(Policy(Considerations( 7422(

including( land( use,( transportation,( housing,( economic( growth,( and( the( environment.( While( the(transportation(component(may(be(formally(adopted(into(the(region’s(federally4required( long4range( transportation( plan,( the( land( use( and( other( components( are( typically( voluntary( and( must( be( implemented( by( In/the/early/1990s/the/Charlotte,*North*Carolina/ municipalities( through( their( own( region/decided/to/invest/in/rapid/transit/lines/and/to/ comprehensive(plans(and(codes.( steer/regional/development/into/corridors/served/by/ these/lines./The/South/Corridor/(Blue/Line)/Light/Rail/ (opened/in/2003)/was/the/first/line,/and/a/northeast/ • Municipal( Comprehensive( Planning( K(( extension/is/expected/to/begin/service/in/2015./ The( comprehensive( plan( is( a( long4 The/2015*Plan*and*2025*Integrated*Transit/Land* Use*Plan,/adopted/in/1997,/targets/over/half/of/all/ range( guide( to( the( physical( future/higherNdensity/housing/and/office/ development( of( a( community,( which( employment/to/“centers/and/corridors”/areas/ aligned/with/the/region’s/transit/system/plan./ translates( values( into( an( actionable( Targets/are/for/75/percent/of/employment,/70/ percent/of/multiNfamily/housing/units,/and/40/ structure( describing( how,( why,( when,( percent/of/all/new/housing/to/occur/in/these/areas./ and( where( to( build,( rebuild,( or( Charlotte’s/“Centers*and*Corridors”/development/ preserve( the( community.( The( plan( framework/(adopted/in/1994)/set/the/city’s/ overarching/policy/for/organizing/and/guiding/ covers( the( entire( city( and( all( the( growth/and/development./A/2010/update/broadens/ the/original/transportation/oriented/focus/to/include/ functions(that(make(it(work((land(use,( other/aspects/of/planning/and/development,/such/as/ transportation,( housing,( utility( public/facility/needs/and/environmental/concerns,/ and/provides/more/specific/definitions/and/guidance/ 1 systems,(natural(systems,(etc.)( ( for/Centers/and/Corridors./ The/Center*City*2010*and*2020*Plans/is/a/planning/ • Neighborhood,(Corridor,(and(Subarea( study/to/make/Charlotte/more/“viable,/memorable/ and/livable”/through/better/land/use,/growth,/city/ Planning( –(These(focused(plans( form,/open/space,/parks/and/recreation,/ address( a( specific( neighborhood,( transportation,/street/networks,/parking/and/ neighborhood/planning./The/vision/emphasizes/ transportation( corridor,( or( other( transitNsupportive/urban/form.// subarea( such( as( a( central( business( The*South*End/Uptown*Rail*Corridor*Plan,/adopted/ in/1998,*was/created/to/guide/development/along/ district( or( transit( station.( While( the( the/South/Corridor./The/plan/addresses/rail/corridor/ scale( and( level( of( detail( vary( greatly( use/and/improvements/plus/development/standards/ for/adjacent/properties./Station/area/planning/has/ between(efforts,( the( product( usually( also/been/undertaken/for/stations/on/the/northeast/ extension/of/the/Blue/Line./ sets( forth( general( principles( (such( as(

1(International(City(Management(Association,(The(Practice(of(Local(Government(Planning,(2nd(Edition,(Ch.(3.(

Chapter(7:(Policy(Considerations( 7423(

designating( areas( of( change( and( The/Denver/region/initiated/the/Metro*Vision/planning/ areas( of( stability),( identifies( process/in/1990/to/develop/a/unified/growth/concept/ transportation( and( other( capital( for/the/region./After/an/extensive/outreach/and/ consensusNbuilding/process,/Metro/Vision/2020/was/ improvements,( and( proposes( formally/adopted/in/1997./Metro/Vision/integrated/the/ Regional/Transportation/Plan,/Regional/Development/ appropriate( land( use( and( zoning( Plan,/and/Clean/Water/Plan/into/a/single/plan/for/the/ designations.(( future.// Metro/Vision/calls/for/increasing/growth/in/designated/ urban/centers,/while/preserving/open/space/and/ The( call4out( boxes( at( right( and( on( the( reducing/infrastructure/needs/by/limiting/development/ previous(page(describe(some(steps(taken(in( to/a/growth/boundary/area/of/747/square/miles./The/ latest/version/–/the/Metro/Vision/2035/Growth/and/ Charlotte,( North( Carolina( and( Denver,( Development/Plan/–/contains/an/Urban/Centers/ Colorado(to(begin(aligning(their(regionwide( Element/that/outlines/policies/and/guidelines/to/define/ Urban/Centers/throughout/the/Denver/region./Transit/ plans( well( in( advance( of( transit( service( plays/an/important/role/in/the/Metro/Vision,/with/ growth/centers/targeted/around/an/expanding/system/ initiation,( to( create( a( more( transit4 of/light/rail,/commuter/rail,/and/bus/rapid/transit.// competitive(land(use(pattern.( Blueprint*Denver/is/the/City/and/County/of/Denver’s/ transportation/and/land/use/plan/that/supports/Metro/ Vision./Blueprint/Denver/designates/“areas/of/ Specific( actions( could( be( taken( throughout( stability”,/which/preserve/existing/neighborhoods,/and/ Utah( County( to( more( consistently( link( “areas/of/change”/that/provide/opportunities/for/ higherNdensity/development/served/by/highNcapacity/ transit( and( land( use( planning.( MAG,(as(the( transportation./The/plan/also/includes/street/ function/classification/criteria/that/relate/street/design/ countywide( planning( lead( and( designated( to/the/land/use/context,/rather/than/just/their/role/in/ MPO,( could( follow( the( lead( of( some( peer( moving/traffic./ MPOs(in(the(following(areas:( The/DRCOG/Board/has/established/a/goal/of/locating/ 50/percent/of/all/new/housing/units/and/75/percent/of/ • Undertake( a( regional( visioning( all/new/jobs/in/regionally/designated/urban/centers/ between/2005/and/2035./In/support/of/this/goal,/ effort( to( engage( thousands( of( DRCOG/has/allocated/TIP/funding/to/assist/local/ Utah( County( residents( in( governments/in/developing/smaller/area/plans/for/ station/areas/and/urban/centers./ conversations( about( future( The/City/and/County/of/Denver/adopted/the/East*Colfax* growth( and( development( Plan/in/2004/as/an/amendment/to/the/2000/ Comprehensive/Plan./The/East/Colfax/Plan/identifies/ patterns,( transportation( the/potential/for/60/acres/of/transit/supportive/infill/ investments,( and( the( relationship( and/redevelopment/of/vacant/or/underutilized/parcels/ along/the/corridor,/which/could/bring/significant/new/ between(the(two;(and(to(establish( residential/and/commercial/development/and/generate/ millions/in/tax/revenue./The/plan/includes/frameworks/ a( “preferred”( vision( for( the( for/land/use,/urban/form,/transportation,/parking,/and/ region’s(development.( economic/activity;/districtNspecific/plans;/and/an/ implementation/strategy./The/City/adopted/“Main/ Street”/zoning/for/the/corridor,/which/was/updated/to/a/ formNbased/code/in/2010./

Chapter(7:(Policy(Considerations( 7424(

• Align( regional( transportation( investments( with( this( vision,( through( the( RTP( and( TIP( processes,(by(actively(applying(RTP(goals(and(objectives(and(TIP(project(selection(criteria.( • Initiate(voluntary(programs(to(support(local(governments(in(making(land(use(and(infrastructure( changes(consistent(with(this(vision.(Other(MPOs(offer(financial(grants(or(technical(assistance(to( local( jurisdictions( for( land( use( plans( that( support( redevelopment( of( town( centers,( new( transit4 oriented(activity(centers,(or(infill(development;(they(may(also(provide(transportation(funding(for( supportive(infrastructure.(

Northern( Utah( County’s( municipalities( and( county( government( can( undertake( concurrent( efforts( in( several(areas.(For(example:( • In(Comprehensive(Plans:( − Include( specific( goals,( objectives,( and( policies( to( link( transit( with( transit4supportive( land( use.( − Designate( existing( and( future( high4capacity( transit( corridors( and( associated( areas( appropriate( for( development( or( redevelopment( adjacent( to( these( corridors,( while( also( designating(areas(of(preservation/stability(that(are(not(appropriate(for(change.( − Designate( typologies( appropriate( to( different( transit( corridor( and( station( area( environments,(and(develop(guidelines(for(appropriate(densities,(mix(of(uses,(urban(design,( and(pedestrian(environment(for(each(typology.(( − Identify(zoning(changes(needed(to(implement(the(development(principles(established(in(the( Comprehensive(Plan.( • Update( neighborhood( and( community( plans(for(areas(in(existing(or(planned(high4capacity( transit(corridors(to(reflect(principles(in(the(comprehensive(plan(and(to(establish(more(detail( for(location(and(design(of(appropriate(land(uses(near(transit.( • Develop( transit( areaKspecific( plans,(such(as(corridor(plans(for(major(bus(routes,(or(station( area(plans(for(new(BRT(or(rail(projects,(that(identify(land(use,(urban(design,(and(infrastructure( changes(to(increase(development(around(transit(and(improve(access(to(transit.(

The(Role(of(Development(Codes(and(Zoning(

Transit4supportive(land(use(can(be(identified(and(targeted(in(the(vision,(policies(and(plans(of(a(city,(but( it( is( the( municipal( code( that( more( directly( governs( what( gets( built.( It( is( important( to( consider( what(

Chapter(7:(Policy(Considerations( 7425(

regulations( are( in( place( to( ensure( that( visions,( plans( and( policies( that( promote( transit4oriented( development(can(be(implemented(through(the(municipal(code.((

Development(codes(may(include(both(zoning(and(subdivision(regulations:(

• Zoning(–(Established(by(a(municipality,(regulations(that(divide(the(city(into(zones(and(impose( different(land(use(controls(on(each(zone,(specifying(allowed(uses,(intensity(of(uses,(and(the( form( of( development.( The( code( typically( includes( a( map( defining( districts( as( well( as( text( defining(requirements(for(each(district.((

• Subdivision( Regulations( –(Municipal(regulations(that(control(how(land(can(be(divided(into( smaller( lots( for( building( and( sale.( Subdivision( regulations( have(important(implications(for( transit4supportive( land( use( through( their( effect( on( the( connectivity( of( the( street( and( pedestrian(networks.(

Development(codes(are(implemented(and(enforced(through(the(development(review(and(permitting( process.(This(is(the(formal(process,(as(established(by(a(municipality(in(its(code,(of(determining(whether( a( proposed( development( project( conforms( to( the( municipality’s( regulations( and( policy( objectives.( Development(that(conforms(with(the(zoning(code(is(typically(allowed(“by4right,”(meaning(that(it(only( needs(to(be(approved(by(city(administrative(staff(for(consistency(with(the(code.(However,(discretionary( authority( may( be( exercised( through( requests( for( variances,( special( exceptions,( and( special( permits,( which( may( be( issued( by( an( entity( (such( as( the( Planning( Commission( or( Zoning( Board( of( Adjustment/Hearing(Officer).(Projects(in(certain(districts((such(as(historic(districts)(may(also(be(required( to(undergo(design(review(for(consistency(with(written(design(guidelines.(Finally,(the(code(may(also(be( amended(at(any(time(by(the(City(Council.((

These( alternative( processes( create( the( possibility( that( development( may( be( permitted( that( is( not( consistent(with(the(original(intent(of(the(framing(policy(plan(s).(It(is(not(just(the(code,(therefore,(that( must( be( supportive( of( transit4supportive( land( use.( The( implementing( bodies( must( be( committed( to( enforcing(the(code(consistent(with(transit4supportive(land(use(principles.(Conversely,(these(alternative( processes( provide( the( opportunity( to( approve( transit4supportive( developments( when( they( are( not( consistent(with(the(plan(or(code;(however,(this(is(not(a(desirable(long4term(approach(since(it(requires( additional( effort( on( the( part( of( the( developer( and( city,( and( does( not( ensure( the( consistent( implementation(of(transit4supportive(principles.(

Chapter(7:(Policy(Considerations( 7426(

The( remainder( of( this( section( provides( general( recommendations( for( any( Utah( County( jurisdiction( hoping(to(revise(codes(and(zoning(to(be(more(transit4supportive.(

Work( through( appropriate( local( governance( processes( to(promote(transit(supportive(land(use( principles.(Successful(implementation(of(transit(supportive(land(use(principles(depends(on(appropriate( navigation(of(local(governance(processes.(Municipal(departments(are(created(through(a(jurisdiction’s( charter(and(endowed(with(whatever(powers(are(defined(in(that(charter.( In( general,( their( purpose( is( enforcement( of( ordinances( enacted( by( elected( officials(and(advisement(to(designated(discretionary( bodies((e.g.,(the(Planning(Department(advises(and(supports(the(Planning(and(Zoning(Commission).((

Align(ordinances(and(codes(with(plans.(Plans(are(important(in(that(they(provide(Council(and(other(city( officials(with(a(roadmap(to(guide(the(decision4making(process,(ensuring(fidelity(to(a(community’s(vision.( Ordinances(–(particularly(those(related(to(private(property(use(and(development(–(are(most(defensible( when(they(follow(the(policies(defined(through(such(plans.(Therefore(introduction(of(transit(supportive( land(use(practices(should(begin(with(inclusion(in(the(comprehensive(plan(and/or(small(area(plans(for(a( city.(Once(transit(supportive(land(use(practices(are(defined(through(adopted(plans,(ordinances(would(be( revised(to(reflect(the(priorities(identified(in(those(plans.(This(sequence(strengthens(the(defensibility(of( municipal(decisions(and(rulings(that(relate(to(private(property(use(and(development.(

Transition(to(a(Unified(Development(Code.(Many(communities(maintain(development(regulations(in( separate( chapters( of( the( code( of( ordinances.( Combining( these( chapters( in( the( form( of( a( unified( development(code((UDC)(helps(both(city(officials(and(property(owners(by(making(the(code(more(legible( and(easier(to(navigate.(It(also(aids(in(enforcement(by(minimizing(conflicts(and(duplications.(Typically,( UDCs( contain( separate( chapters( that( address( zoning,( subdivision( procedures( and( development( standards.(Frequently(streets(and(public(works(will(be(brought(into(the(UDC(as(well.(In(cases(of(transit( facilities,( where( infrastructure( and( transportation( are( strong( determinants( of( form,( a( UDC( helps( to( manage(the(development(process(more(effectively.(

Consider(formKbased(zoning(at(and(around(transit(station(areas.(Form(based(zoning(is(an(approach( that( is( particularly( helpful( when( integrating( the( physical( environment( is( a( local( priority.( Many( communities(find(that(such(integration(is(critical(in(areas(around(transit(facilities.(Pedestrian4oriented( development( practices,( mixed( use( development,( complete( streets( and( continuity( in( buildings( are( factors( that( are( addressed( more( easily( in( form( based( zoning( than( in( conventional( Euclidean( zoning(

Chapter(7:(Policy(Considerations( 7427(

methods.(Although(form4based(zoning(is(not(appropriate(for(every(part(of(a(city,(it(can(be(helpful(in( certain(areas,(particularly(around(transit(facilities.(

Create( a( zoning( category( for( transitKoriented( development.( As( population( continues( to( grow( in( a( transit(service(area,(transit(facilities(are(likely(to(be(located(in(a(greater(number(of(municipalities(in(the( service( area.( As( surrounding( municipalities( become( part( of( the( transit( service( system,( it( is( recommended(that(they(create(a(zoning(category(for(transit4oriented(development.(

Promote( transit( supportive( land( use( principles( through( the( platting( process.( Curb( cuts,( street( geometries,( rights( or( way( and( other( similar( components( are( defined( before( a( property( enters( the( zoning( process.( Therefore,( the( orientation( of( a( site( to( transit( or( pedestrian( use( in( many( ways( is( determined( in( the( platting( process.( The( subdivision( code( should( therefore( revisit( procedural( requirements(related(to(platting(to(ensure(that(city(staff(has(oversight(needed(to(require(properties(in( transit( corridors( and( in( areas( around( proposed( transit( facilities( to( follow( transit4supportive( and( pedestrian4oriented(development(practices.(

Create(design(guidelines(for(transit(station(areas.(Uniformity(in(the(treatment(of(station(areas(can(be( achieved( in( a( number( of( ways,( including( uniform( station4are( design( guidelines( for( municipalities( throughout(Northern(Utah(County.(The(creation(of(stand4alone(guidelines(allows(for(flexibility(of(the( tool(used(to(codify(them,(whether(that(is(creation(of(a(new(zoning(category,(an(overlay(district,(a(zoning( suffix,(or(development(standards(for(a(unified(development(code.((

(

Chapter(7:(Policy(Considerations( 7428( !

CHAPTER!EIGHT:!RECOMMENDED!TRANSIT!&!FUTURE! CONSIDERATIONS! ! Based(on(the(technical(analysis,(stakeholder(outreach(and(Steering(Committee(input(throughout(the( Northern(Utah(County(Transit(Study(process,(a(package(of(recommendations(is(offered(to(MAG,(UTA( and(local(governments(within(the(study(area.((

The( description( of( the( recommendations( offered( in( this( chapter( does( not( include( the( circulator( recommendations(provided(in(Chapter(4(as(the(nature(of(that(service(is(likely(more(immediate(and(the( UTA(Timpanogos(Service(District(as(well(as(a(Transportation(Management(Association((TMA)(in(the( Thanksgiving( Point( area( are( already( working( on( implementation.( The( recommendations( described( here(are(longer7term(and(will(be(considered(for(inclusion(in(MAG’s(upcoming(Regional(Transportation( Plan.(

Recommended!Transit!Alignments!and!Corridors!

Based(on(the(analysis(described(in(detail(in(Chapters(5((North/South(LRT)(and(6((East/West(Transit),( recommendations( for( both( north/south( light( rail( transit,( and( an( east/west( transit( corridor( were( identified(by(the(steering(committee.(!

North/South!Light!Rail!Transit!Recommendation! The(study(recommends(an(extension(of(the(Draper(TRAX(Blue(Line(to(the(Orem(Intermodal(Center( (FrontRunner( station)( via( the( partially7UTA7owned( existing( rail( line( through( Lehi,( American( Fork,(

Chapter(8:(Recommended(Transit(&(Future(Considerations( 871( Pleasant( Grove,( Lindon( and( Vineyard.( A( series( of( station( locations( along( this( alignment(are(also( recommended.(The(recommended(alignment(and(station(locations(are(shown(in(Figure(871.(

Figure!8F1:!Recommended!North/South!Light!Rail!Transit!Alignment!and!Station!Locations!

(

! Implementation!of!North/South!Recommendations! The( project( team( recommends( the( following( steps,( as( discussed( in( Chapter( 5,( to( implement( the( recommendations(of(this(study(for(a(north/south(transit(corridor(in(northern(Utah(County:( (

Chapter(8:(Recommended(Transit(&(Future(Considerations( 872( ! City!adoption:(The(cities(of(Lehi,(American(Fork,(Pleasant(Grove,(Lindon,(Vineyard(and(Orem( adopt( a( recommended( alignment,( taking( into( account( the( recommendations( of( this( study( along( with( information( resulting( from( additional( study( of( a( possible( Orem( State( Street( Alligment.( ! RightFofFway!preservation:(UTA(works(with(cities(to(preserve(adequate(right7of7way(for(future( transit( service( along( the( recommended( alignment,( including( station( facilities( at( identified( locations.( ! Phasing!(if!required):(As(recommended(above,(extension(of(LRT(from(Draper(could(occur(in( two( phases:( initial( phasing( bringing( LRT( down( to( Pleasant( Grove(Boulevard,(followed(by( completion(to(southern(Orem.((

A(discussion(of(other(municipal(and(regional(efforts(to(build(transit7supportive(land(uses(is(included(in( Chapter(7.(Some(actions(identified(that(municipalities(can(take(on(that(are(more(generally(supportive( of(transit(and(not(a(specific(alignment(include:((

• Comprehensive!Planning:( − Include(specific(goals,(objectives,(and(policies(to(link(transit(with(transit7supportive(land( use.( − Designate( existing( and( future( high7capacity( transit( corridors( and( associated( areas( appropriate( for( development( or( redevelopment( adjacent( to( these( corridors,( while( also( designating(areas(of(preservation/stability(that(are(not(appropriate(for(change.( − Designate( typologies( appropriate( to( different( transit( corridor( and( station( area( environments,(and(develop(guidelines(for(appropriate(densities,(mix(of(uses,(urban(design,( and(pedestrian(environment(for(each(typology.(( − Identify(zoning(changes(needed(to(implement(the(development(principles(established(in( the(Comprehensive(Plan.( • Updating(neighborhood!and!community!plans(for(areas(in(existing(or(planned(high7capacity( transit(corridors(to(reflect(principles(in(the(comprehensive(plan(and(to(establish(more(detail( for(location(and(design(of(appropriate(land(uses(near(transit.( • Developing(transit!areaFspecific!plans,(such(as(corridor(plans(for(major(bus(routes,(or(station( area( plans( for( new( BRT( or( rail( projects,( that( identify( land( use,( urban( design,( and( infrastructure( changes( to( increase( development( around( transit( and( improve( access( to( transit.(

Chapter(8:(Recommended(Transit(&(Future(Considerations( 873( Chapter(7(includes(a(detailed(discussion(of(broader(planning(elements(such(as(development(codes,( zoning( and( subdivision( regulations( and( how( they( can( be( used( to( support( and( establish( a( transit7 supportive((environment.((

East/West!Transit!Recommendation! This(study(analyzed(and(recommends(an(east/west(transit(corridor(that(connects(communities(north( and( west( of( Utah( Lake( to( the( Utah( County( I715/FrontRunner( “spine.”( This( corridor( includes( both( a( Primary(Corridor(between(the(Eagle(Mountain(city(center(and(American(Fork(FrontRunner(station(via( Saratoga(Springs;(and(a(Secondary(Corridor(that(branches(off(the(Primary(Corridor(in(Saratoga(Springs( and(connects(to(the(Lehi(FrontRunner(station.(The(mode(for(the(core(segment(of(this(corridor(–(from(a( future(center(in(Eagle(Mountain(at(The(Ranches(and(SR773(to(the(American(Fork(FrontRunner(station(–( is(recommended(to(be(Bus(Rapid(Transit((BRT)(while(the(other(segments(are(recommended(to(be( frequent( bus.( Similar( to( the( north7south( light( rail( line,( a( series( of( key( station( locations( are( recommended( for( this( corridor.( The( recommended( east/west( alignment( including( primary( and( secondary(corridors(along(with(community(centers/transit(stops(is(shown(in(Figure(872.((

Figure!8F2:!Recommended!East/West!Transit!Corridor!and!Station!Locations!

(

Chapter(8:(Recommended(Transit(&(Future(Considerations( 874( Implementation!of!East/West!Recommendations! As(detailed(in(Chapter(6,(these(steps(are(proposed(to(implement(the(recommendations(of(this(study( for(an(east7west(transit(corridor(in(northern(Utah(County:( • City! adoption:( The( cities( of( Saratoga( Springs,( Lehi,( and( American( Fork( adopt( the( recommended(alignment(and(associated(centers(into(city(policy(documents.(Eagle(Mountain( included( a( “conceptual”( transit( alignment( that( reflects( the( results( of( this( study( in( their( December(2014(Master(Transportation(Plan.( • RightFofFway!preservation:(MAG(and(UTA(will(work(with(cities(to(preserve(adequate(right7of7 way(for(future(transit(service(and(stations(along(the(recommended(alignment.( • Service!phasing:(Service(and(mode(is(phased(as(is(appropriate(for(the(transit(market(along(the( corridor( considering( mode,( length,( headways,( stations/stops,(and(termini((detail(on(each( phasing(element(are(provided(in(Chapter(6).(( • TransitForiented! community! evolution:( community( development( along( the( recommended( alignment(will(likely(be(phased.! ! Combined!Recommended!Networks! The(north/south(light(rail(alignment(and(station(location(recommendation(along(with(east/west(transit( service(recommendation(are(shown(together(in(Figure(873.(The(aggregate(benefit(of(these(new(transit( lines(is(shown(in(Table(871.((

Chapter(8:(Recommended(Transit(&(Future(Considerations( 875( !

Figure!8F3:!North/South!and!East/West!Transit!Recommendations!

! ! Table!8F1:!Overall!Benefit!of!North/South!and!East/West!Transit!Recommendations!

Measure! Daily!Benefit!Over!No!Build! Total(System(Riders( 22,300(riders( Reduced(Vehicle(Miles(Traveled( 333,771(miles( Reduced(Automobile(Trips( 23,377(trips( Reduced(SOV(Trips( 13,689(trips( ! ! Future!Transit!Considerations(

Implementation( of( these( transit( projects( will( need( to( consider( the( overall( transportation( network,( transit( and( otherwise,( as( it( evolves.( The( recommendations( provided( during( this( process( assume( particular( improvements( to( both( the( highway( and( transit( networks( in( coming( years,( mostly( as( represented(in(MAG’s(regional(travel(demand(model.(However,(there(are(several(other(potential(long7

Chapter(8:(Recommended(Transit(&(Future(Considerations( 876( term(transit(opportunities(that(should(not(be(overlooked(and(will(likely(begin(to(build(momentum(in( future(years.(

Generally,( these( opportunities( fall( into( three(main(categories:(transit(demand(and(service(in( southwest(Salt(Lake(County;(improvements(to(FrontRunner(service;(and(improvements(to(service(in( central(and(southern(Utah(County.((

Southwest!Salt!Lake!County!Transit( With( fast7paced( growth( and( the( increasing( popularity( of( transit,( efforts( are( currently( underway( to( identify( better( transit( connections( in( southwest( Salt( Lake( County( to( the( regional( transit( system( in( addition(to(improving(transportation(choices(and(mobility(in(the(area.(A(key(component(of(this(study( is(determining(how(best(to(extend(the(Mid7Jordan(TRAX(line(through(the(area(and(ultimately(tying(into( the(Draper(FrontRunner(station.((

A(major(variable(in(this(transit(study(as(well(as(other(transportation(planning(activities(is(the(potential( redevelopment( of( the( Utah( State( Prison( site( in( Draper.( While( the( specifics( of( this( possible( redevelopment(are(largely(unknown,(it(is(anticipated(that(it(could(be(a(high7density(commercial(high7 tech(corridor(that(would(have(great(impact(on(the(regional(transportation(network.(A(LRT(line(that( connected(existing(service((Mid7Jordan)(to(a(FrontRunner(station(through(this(area(has(potential(to( serve(a(significant(portion(of(travel(demand(to(the(area.((

These(potential(transit(improvements(are(significant(to(northern(Utah(County(because(northern(Utah( County(and(Southwest(Salt(Lake(County(are(increasingly(linked(economically(–(both(areas(are(seeing( residential(and(employment(growth,(leading(to(increasing(two7way(commuting(through(Point7of7the( Mountain.(Consequently,(the(transit(networks(for(Salt(Lake(and(Utah(Valleys(should(not(be(thought(of( as( separate( but(as(part(of(one(integrated(network.( As( both( plans( for( southwest( Salt( Lake( County( transit( and( the( prison( redevelopment( advance,( how( they( may( impact( conditions( in( northern( Utah( County(and(shape(the(overall(transit(network(will(need(to(be(considered.(

Improvements!to!FrontRunner!Infrastructure! UTA(has(identified(several(improvements(to(the(existing(FrontRunner(rail(lines(to(make(service(more( efficient(and(cost7effective.(Double7tracking(increases(flexibility(in(scheduling(and(minimizes(delayed( trains( and( missed( connections.( In( addition( it( allows( UTA( to( provide( service( with( more( frequent( headways( when( demand( calls( for( it.(Double7tracking( FrontRunner( is( especially( important( for( this(

Chapter(8:(Recommended(Transit(&(Future(Considerations( 877( project(at(the(American(Fork(FrontRunner(station.(This(will(allow(for(that(station(to(become(a(more( important(transit(hub,(improving(the(connections(for(the(primary(east7west(corridor(identified(in(this( study(to(terminate(at(the(Amercan(Fork(FrontRunner(station.(

Electrification(of(FrontRunner(vehicles(is(also(a(strategy(that(UTA(has(been(considering.(The(cost(to( provide( fuel( to( FrontRunner( is( approximately( 50( percent( of( UTA’s( fuel( budget( for( its(entire(fleet.( Electrification( of( FrontRunner( would( eventually( save( the( agency( money( that( could( be( used( for( operation(and(maintenance(costs(on(other(service.(

An( additional( FrontRunner( issue( is( the( need( for( strong( connections( between( stations( along( the( recommended(north7south(light(rail(alignment(and(nearby(FrontRunner(stations.(These(include(Lehi( and(American(Fork,(both(of(which(are(nearby(the(recommended(station(locations(but(far(enough(that( strengthened(transit(connections(between(them(should(be(considered.((((

Central!and!Southern!Utah!County! Several( transit( projects( are( planned( for( central( and( southern( Utah( County( that( impact( the( implementation(and(shaping(of(the(projects(recommended(in(this(study.(Foremost,(the(Provo7Orem( BRT(will(provide(a(rapid(transit(connection(between(the( Orem( Intermodal( Center/Utah( Valley( University(to(BYU(and(the(Provo(Intermodal(Center.(

In(addition,(two(extensions(to(the(existing(Utah(County(segment(of(FrontRunner(are(planned(–(Provo( to( Payson( as( a( Phase( 2( project( and( Payson( to( Santaquin( as( a( Phase( 3( project.( Like( the( projects( recommended( in( this( study,( these( FrontRunner( extensions( will( make( Utah( County’s( employment( centers(more(transit7accessible(for(larger(segments(of(the(county’s(population.(

Finally,( consideration( has( also( been( given( to( how( to( connect( the( rapid( transit( network( to( Provo( Airport.(

The(near(and(long7term(recommendations(provided(in(this(study(will(help(northern(Utah(County(meet( increasing( travel( demand( in( coming( decades( and( will( offer( residents( and( employees( in( the( area( multiple(options(for(increased(mobility(in(the(region.(( (

Chapter(8:(Recommended(Transit(&(Future(Considerations( 878( Project!Funding!Considerations!

A( high7capacity( transit( system( in( northern( Utah( County( will( likely( cost( well( in( excess( of( funding( capacity(from(local(sources.((Even(if(new(local(funding(sources(are(developed(or(approved,(some(level( of(state(or(federal(matching(funds(will(likely(be(needed.( ( In( fact,( the( majority( of( U.S.( high7capacity( transit( projects( receive( federal( funding.( ( FTA( provides( transit( capital( funding( through( three( competitive,(discretionary(grant(programs:(New(Starts,(Small(Starts,(and(Very(Small(Starts.((

FTA!New!Starts!Funding!Criteria! The(FTA’s(New(Starts(program(remains(a(primary(capital(funding(source(supporting(locally7planned,( implemented,(and(operated(transit(guideway(capital(projects.(Such(projects(include(heavy(rail,(light( rail(transit,( and( bus( rapid( transit(systems.((Projects( requesting( more( than( $75( million( in( federal( matching(funds(and(having(a(total(cost(in(excess(of($250(million(qualify(for(this(program.((

FTA’s(assessment(and(ranking(are(based(on(local(financial(commitment(and(funding(source(stability,( plus( six( “Project( Justification”( criteria.( These( criteria( address( project( performance( in( terms( or( ridership,( transit( supportive( land( use( (which( supports( ridership( levels),( environmental( benefits,( economic(benefits,(cost(efficiency,(and(operating(efficiency.(The(criteria(within(each(category(are(as( follows:((

• Mobility! improvements(as(measured(by(total(transit(trips,(transit(trips(by(“transit( dependent”,(and(user(benefits((which(is(related(to(transit(ridership(and(congestion(reduction)(

• Environmental!Benefits,!which(are(currently(assessed(by!EPA(Air(Quality(designation(

• Cost! effectiveness(measures(the(incremental(cost(per(hour(of(transportation(system(user( benefit(between(baseline((no(project(scenario)(and(build((project(scenario).(

• Operating!efficiencies!as(measured(by(system(operating(cost(per(passenger(mile(

• Transit!Supportive!Land!Use(assesses(if(population(and(employment(levels(and(other(station( area(trip(generators(are(sufficient(to(support(a(major(transit(investment,(and(if(station(areas( are(pedestrian7friendly(and(fully(accessible.((This(metric(considers(the(following(criteria:((

− Existing(corridor/station(area(development(and(development(character(

− Existing(corridor/station(area(parking(supply(

− Existing(station(area(pedestrian(facilities((including(access(for(those(with(disabilities)(

Chapter(8:(Recommended(Transit(&(Future(Considerations( 879( • Economic!Development!Effects!considers(the(following(qualitative(factors:((

− Growth( management.( Have( jurisdictions( throughout( the( region( and( in( the( corridor( adopted( and( enforced( growth( management( and( land( conservation( policies( regulating( densities(that(are(strongly(compatible(with(transit?(

− Transit(supportive(corridor(policies.(Have(local(jurisdictions(adopted(or(drafted(revisions( to( their( community7wide( and( station( area( requiring( development( patterns( that( are( strongly(supportive(of(the(transit(investment,(including(supportive(zoning(regulations(near( transit(stations(and(tools(to(implement(land(use(policies?(

− Policy(Performance.(Is(transit7supportive(housing(and(employment(development(occurring( in( the( corridor?( Has( transit7supportive( development( occurred( in( other,( existing( transit( corridors(and(station(areas(in(the(region?(

− Policy( Potential( Impacts.( Is( land( available( in( station( areas( for( new( development( or( redevelopment(at(transit7supportive(densities?(Do(local(plans,(policies,(and(development( programs,(as(well(as(real(estate(market(conditions,(strongly(support(such(development?(

Competition(for(New(Starts(grants(has(grown(more(competitive(since(UTA(received(federal(funding(for( the(TRAX(initial(operating(segment(in(the(1990s.((FTA(has(also(placed(increased(emphasis(on(transit( supportive( land( use,( focusing( both( on( current( corridor( conditions( and( future( regional( land( use( planning(that(may(increase(ridership(growth(potential(and(a(project’s(potential(to(generate(economic( development.(((

FTA!Small!Starts!Funding!Criteria! FTA(has(not(formally(adopted(final(Small(Starts(criteria.(Nevertheless,(current(guidelines(define(Small( Starts( projects( as( a( new( fixed( guideway(capital(project(or(corridor7based( BRT( project( which( is( requesting(less(than($75(million(in(federal(grant(funding(and(has(a(total(cost(of(less(than($250(million.(((

Small(Starts(criteria(focus(on(ridership(and(land(use,(where(good(transit7supportive(land(use(creates( potential( for( a( competitive( transit( project.( Projects( can( qualify( for( highly( simplified( financial( evaluations(if(they(meet(certain(financial(criteria(and(the(cost7effectiveness,(transit(support(land(use,( and(economic(development(“Project(Justification”(criteria(as(defined(for(New(Starts.(Accordingly,(it(is( apparent(that(FTA(considers(development(patterns(and(land(use(policies(to(be(important(factors(in( determining(is(a(high7capacity(transit(project(can(compete(with(other(modes(to(achieve(high(ridership.(

Chapter(8:(Recommended(Transit(&(Future(Considerations( 8710( FTA!Very!Small!Starts! While( the( Very( Small( Starts( program( is( more( streamlined( than( Small( Starts( or( New( Starts,( a( Utah( County( high7capacity( transit( project( would( likely( be( too( large( to( qualify( under( Very( Small( Starts( program(requirements.(( ( ( (

Chapter(8:(Recommended(Transit(&(Future(Considerations( 8711( ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Appendix!A:!! Adjusted!2040!Socioeconomic!Data!by!Traffic!Analysis!Zone!

Appendix(A:(Adjusted(2040(Socioeconomic(Data(by(Traffic(Analysis(Zone( ( A>1( Appendix(A:(Adjusted(2040(Socioeconomic(Data(by(Traffic(Analysis(Zone( TAZID( Households( Population( Employment( (( TAZID( Households( Population( Employment( 1648( 90.57930( 275.51000( 6658.36000( (( 1797( 1329.61900( 4446.62600( 44.22800( 1649( 414.57930( 1272.51000( 0.00000( (( 1798( 1050.61900( 3859.62600( 37.22800( 1650( 1106.57930( 3735.51000( 31.00000( (( 1799( 929.61900( 2926.62600( 196.22800( 1651( 19.57930( 57.51000( 530.36000( (( 1800( 1459.61900( 4979.62600( 150.22800( 1652( 1059.57930( 3207.51000( 3274.36000( (( 1801( 436.61900( 1562.62600( 189.22800( 1653( 930.57930( 3194.51000( 1061.36000( (( 1802( 1405.61900( 4907.62600( 559.22800( 1654( 851.57930( 2915.51000( 840.36000( (( 1803( 1656.61900( 5780.62600( 546.22800( 1655( 833.57930( 2561.51000( 1055.36000( (( 1804( 511.61900( 1841.62600( 203.22800( 1656( 592.57930( 2030.51000( 220.00000( (( 1805( 692.61900( 2504.62600( 91.22800( 1657( 1585.32194( 4344.34341( 3293.36000( (( 1806( 1758.61900( 6049.62600( 159.22800( 1658( 886.57930( 3546.51000( 198.00000( (( 1807( 1664.61900( 5587.62600( 787.22800( 1659( 454.57930( 1568.51000( 541.36000( (( 1808( 176.61900( 610.62600( 499.22800( 1660( 344.57930( 1234.51000( 214.68311( (( 1809( 1272.61900( 3982.62600( 1104.22800( 1661( 467.57930( 1833.51000( 38.00000( (( 1811( 335.00000( 1031.00000( 4620.69000( 1662( 650.57930( 1857.51000( 616.36000( (( 1812( 432.00000( 2088.00000( 833.69000( 1671( 781.57930( 2712.51000( 27.00000( (( 1813( 485.00000( 1689.00000( 1094.69000( 1672( 834.57930( 2835.51000( 85.00000( (( 1814( 239.00000( 821.00000( 610.42119( 1673( 345.57930( 1027.51000( 151.00000( (( 1815( 1002.00000( 3113.00000( 1378.69000( 1674( 748.57930( 2253.51000( 580.36000( (( 1816( 1062.00000( 3592.00000( 1043.14341( 1675( 267.57930( 893.51000( 15.00000( (( 1817( 546.00000( 1803.00000( 244.69000( 1676( 254.00000( 946.00000( 32.40389( (( 1818( 883.61900( 2785.62600( 242.22800( 1677( 559.00000( 1963.00000( 187.41187( (( 1819( 1951.44514( 7450.81366( 3799.22800( 1678( 561.00000( 1643.00000( 589.85153( (( 1820( 1657.00000( 5745.00000( 163.69000( 1679( 602.00000( 1997.00000( 15.00000( (( 1821( 1762.00000( 6052.00000( 241.69000( 1680( 638.00000( 2195.00000( 15.00000( (( 1822( 437.00000( 1504.00000( 288.69000( 1681( 410.57930( 1373.51000( 789.36000( (( 1823( 585.00000( 2105.00000( 28.32624( 1682( 0.00000( 0.00000( 3086.46000( (( 1824( 2222.00000( 7621.00000( 607.69000( 1683( 585.00000( 2005.00000( 161.00000( (( 1825( 989.00000( 3043.00000( 235.08895( 1684( 0.00000( 0.00000( 1724.46000( (( 1826( 451.00000( 1387.00000( 127.69000( 1685( 428.00000( 1086.00000( 1442.46000( (( 1827( 244.00000( 882.00000( 16.61197( 1686( 519.00000( 1482.00000( 404.13433( (( 1828( 2006.00000( 6171.00000( 2826.69000( 1687( 394.00000( 1161.00000( 55.24568( (( 1829( 1189.00000( 3658.00000( 144.18869( 1688( 710.00000( 2249.00000( 75.51020( (( 1830( 2383.00000( 8628.00000( 416.69000( 1689( 527.00000( 1580.00000( 220.56588( (( 1831( 230.00000( 800.00000( 528.69000( 1690( 635.00000( 2050.00000( 282.71610( (( 1832( 343.00000( 1206.00000( 9.00000( 1691( 529.00000( 1495.00000( 1476.46000( (( 1833( 562.00000( 1949.00000( 2.00000( 1692( 695.00000( 1921.00000( 1551.46000( (( 1834( 2.00000( 7.00000( 15.00000( 1693( 475.00000( 1458.00000( 2250.46000( (( 1835( 414.00000( 1429.00000( 15.00000( 1694( 3.00000( 8.00000( 4346.46000( (( 1836( 326.00000( 1041.00000( 384.69000( 1695( 722.00000( 2068.00000( 1313.46000( (( 1837( 863.00000( 3313.00000( 370.69000( 1696( 95.00000( 259.00000( 2176.46000( (( 1838( 2.00000( 7.00000( 127.69000( 1697( 582.00000( 1664.00000( 934.46000( (( 1839( 151.00000( 465.00000( 354.69000( 1704( 424.00000( 1512.00000( 31.23080( (( 1840( 493.00000( 1517.00000( 11.00000( 1705( 410.22260( 1804.97944( 15.00000( (( 1841( 0.00000( 0.00000( 15.00000( 1706( 220.00000( 778.00000( 141.00000( (( 1842( 80.00000( 246.00000( 207.69000( 1707( 628.53060( 2080.08000( 1864.18800( (( 1843( 138.32826( 468.00000( 182.69000( 1708( 725.53060( 2533.08000( 15.00000( (( 1844( 0.00000( 0.00000( 0.00000( 1709( 674.53060( 2242.08000( 15.00000( (( 1846( 0.00000( 0.00000( 193.69000( 1710( 578.53060( 1920.08000( 154.18800( (( 1847( 0.00000( 0.00000( 0.00000( 1711( 329.53060( 1169.08000( 15.00000( (( 1852( 86.00000( 265.00000( 309.69000( 1712( 532.53060( 1564.08000( 15.00000( (( 1853( 1.00000( 2.00000( 308.69000( 1713( 414.53060( 1355.08000( 5.00000( (( 1854( 1273.67174( 4381.00000( 278.69000( 1714( 466.53060( 1530.08000( 9.00000( (( 1860( 427.00000( 1314.00000( 0.00000(

Appendix(A:(Adjusted(2040(Socioeconomic(Data(by(Traffic(Analysis(Zone( ( A>1! ! TAZID( Households( Population( Employment( (( TAZID( Households( Population( Employment( 1715( 376.53060( 1095.08000( 3.00000( (( 1861( 412.00000( 1267.00000( 15.00000( 1716( 724.53060( 2135.08000( 15.00000( (( 1862( 209.00000( 643.00000( 1285.69000( 1717( 621.53060( 1745.08000( 214.18800( (( 1866( 315.00000( 969.00000( 690.69000( 1718( 737.53060( 2074.08000( 716.18800( (( 1867( 435.19650( 1487.67000( 15.00000( 1719( 582.53060( 1889.08000( 343.18800( (( 1868( 440.19650( 1478.67000( 15.00000( 1720( 781.53060( 2455.08000( 711.18800( (( 1869( 320.19650( 1111.67000( 988.36500( 1721( 684.53060( 1368.18000( 1310.18800( (( 1870( 434.19650( 1423.67000( 79.55237( 1722( 1527.53060( 3709.08000( 894.18800( (( 1871( 344.19650( 1176.67000( 1085.36500( 1723( 595.61295( 1608.15497( 1238.18800( (( 1872( 496.19650( 1687.67000( 15.00000( 1724( 1286.03258( 3569.36127( 3164.18800( (( 1873( 120.19650( 342.67000( 4884.18384( 1725( 0.00000( 0.00000( 2185.18800( (( 1874( 313.19650( 1059.67000( 15.00000( 1726( 0.00000( 0.00000( 641.18800( (( 1875( 579.19650( 1894.67000( 820.36500( 1727( 870.53060( 2460.08000( 823.18800( (( 1876( 605.19650( 1905.67000( 1323.36500( 1728( 661.53060( 2136.08000( 15.00000( (( 1877( 600.19650( 2040.67000( 933.36500( 1729( 382.53060( 1243.08000( 13.00000( (( 1878( 27.00000( 92.00000( 4187.25000( 1730( 479.53060( 1547.08000( 8.00000( (( 1879( 295.49800( 921.67000( 818.36500( 1731( 481.00000( 1656.00000( 15.00000( (( 1880( 427.19650( 1456.67000( 15.00000( 1732( 531.00000( 1839.00000( 15.00000( (( 1881( 732.19650( 1997.67000( 1686.36500( 1733( 439.00000( 1437.00000( 15.00000( (( 1882( 442.19650( 1446.67000( 2841.36500( 1734( 376.00000( 1165.00000( 1192.25000( (( 1883( 740.19650( 2113.67000( 1314.36500( 1735( 598.00000( 1937.17300( 1267.25000( (( 1884( 732.19650( 2093.67000( 40.00000( 1736( 0.00000( 0.00000( 1398.18800( (( 1885( 441.19650( 1466.67000( 15.00000( 1737( 369.00000( 1258.00000( 2139.25000( (( 1886( 402.19650( 1358.67000( 1559.36500( 1738( 410.00000( 1407.00000( 1296.25000( (( 1887( 380.19650( 1129.67000( 1184.76832( 1739( 5.86173( 15.82667( 1902.25000( (( 1888( 407.19650( 1237.67000( 15.00000( 1740( 1282.13827( 4369.00000( 239.25000( (( 1889( 664.19650( 1949.67000( 15.00000( 1741( 0.00000( 0.00000( 1084.18800( (( 1890( 666.19650( 1792.67000( 1121.36500( 1742( 199.52001( 538.70402( 2725.18800( (( 1891( 441.19650( 1259.67000( 2336.36500( 1743( 0.00000( 0.00000( 4494.25000( (( 1892( 719.19650( 2156.67000( 203.00000( 1744( 87.00000( 314.00000( 3727.46000( (( 1893( 760.19650( 2274.67000( 923.36500( 1745( 241.00000( 853.00000( 2774.46000( (( 1894( 7.19650( 18.67000( 3536.36500( 1746( 569.00000( 1936.00000( 617.46000( (( 1895( 0.00000( 0.00000( 2365.36500( 1747( 343.00000( 1213.00000( 331.46000( (( 1896( 0.00000( 0.00000( 2665.36500( 1748( 137.00000( 421.00000( 0.00000( (( 1897( 703.19650( 2114.67000( 1028.36500( 1749( 1404.00000( 5075.00000( 1009.46000( (( 1898( 412.19650( 1178.67000( 317.45102( 1750( 736.57930( 2441.51000( 455.36000( (( 1899( 691.19650( 1766.67000( 2960.36500( 1751( 1002.61900( 3276.62600( 65.22800( (( 1900( 715.19650( 1979.67000( 2060.68363( 1752( 397.20404( 1495.51000( 161.36000( (( 1901( 574.19650( 1641.67000( 15.00000( 1753( 829.57930( 2811.51000( 369.36000( (( 1902( 487.19650( 1499.67000( 15.00000( 1754( 771.57930( 2758.51000( 344.36000( (( 1903( 397.19650( 1263.67000( 15.00000( 1755( 338.61900( 1215.62600( 563.22800( (( 1904( 460.19650( 1334.67000( 15.00000( 1756( 641.76980( 2562.98699( 378.36000( (( 1905( 455.19650( 1299.67000( 1530.36500( 1757( 1312.57930( 4218.51000( 237.36000( (( 1906( 1056.19650( 3019.67000( 2081.36500( 1758( 650.57930( 2139.51000( 173.00000( (( 1907( 261.19650( 826.67000( 357.63849( 1759( 522.57930( 1493.51000( 311.32858( (( 1908( 715.19650( 2043.67000( 740.36500( 1760( 281.57930( 902.51000( 1882.36000( (( 1909( 9.19650( 26.67000( 2510.36500( 1761( 0.00000( 0.00000( 1188.36000( (( 1910( 304.00000( 938.67000( 1769.36500( 1762( 140.57930( 413.51000( 978.36000( (( 1911( 753.19650( 2353.67000( 88.99045( 1763( 325.57930( 800.51000( 346.85574( (( 1912( 498.19650( 1553.67000( 15.00000( 1764( 204.57930( 565.51000( 470.36000( (( 1913( 511.19650( 1703.67000( 96.77804( 1765( 283.57930( 949.51000( 58.00000( (( 1914( 850.19650( 1967.67000( 1045.00000( 1766( 386.57930( 1106.51000( 33.00000( (( 1915( 916.19650( 2616.67000( 996.00000( 1767( 365.57930( 1046.51000( 471.00000( (( 1916( 285.19650( 854.67000( 15.00000( 1768( 418.57930( 1284.51000( 1.00000( (( 1917( 436.19650( 1247.67000( 1935.36500(

Appendix(A:(Adjusted(2040(Socioeconomic(Data(by(Traffic(Analysis(Zone( ( A>2! ! TAZID( Households( Population( Employment( (( TAZID( Households( Population( Employment( 1769( 461.57930( 1426.51000( 439.36000( (( 1918( 411.19650( 1262.67000( 3171.00000( 1770( 407.57930( 1253.51000( 1382.36000( (( 1919( 414.19650( 1183.67000( 1864.36500( 1771( 909.57930( 3125.51000( 507.36000( (( 1920( 1049.19650( 2995.67000( 1578.30347( 1772( 277.17501( 1157.51000( 173.36000( (( 1921( 40.50873( 129.62792( 1735.36500( 1773( 639.57930( 2234.51000( 292.36000( (( 1922( 473.19650( 1498.67000( 15.00000( 1774( 814.87851( 2408.39530( 1425.36000( (( 1923( 0.00000( 0.00000( 1189.36500( 1775( 1437.57930( 4419.51000( 5251.92447( (( 1924( 530.19650( 1563.67000( 2129.49797( 1776( 1884.57930( 6003.51000( 4848.36000( (( 1925( 906.19650( 3270.67000( 1496.36500( 1777( 1438.57930( 4298.51000( 393.36000( (( 1926( 1006.19650( 2411.67000( 567.36500( 1778( 335.57930( 1029.51000( 747.36000( (( 1927( 1176.19650( 3282.67000( 3895.36500( 1779( 226.57930( 694.51000( 159.36000( (( 1928( 989.19650( 2950.67000( 1426.36500( 1781( 411.61900( 1333.62600( 192.22800( (( 1929( 1056.19650( 2966.67000( 2393.36500( 1782( 376.61900( 1225.62600( 236.22800( (( 1930( 381.19650( 1174.67000( 15.00000( 1783( 177.57930( 543.51000( 765.36000( (( 1931( 498.19650( 1423.67000( 686.36500( 1784( 845.57930( 3043.51000( 1472.36000( (( 1932( 1082.19650( 2927.67000( 3639.36500( 1785( 910.57930( 2599.51000( 1668.36000( (( 1933( 0.00000( 0.00000( 1608.00000( 1786( 1779.61900( 5976.62600( 616.22800( (( 1934( 0.00000( 0.00000( 106.00000( 1787( 1399.61900( 4869.62600( 2468.22800( (( 1935( 461.45389( 1300.82036( 873.00000( 1788( 979.61900( 3080.62600( 1030.22800( (( 1936( 814.94860( 2587.80000( 109.00000( 1789( 986.61900( 2916.62600( 1096.22800( (( 1937( 798.94860( 2538.80000( 0.00000( 1790( 508.61900( 1631.62600( 1293.22800( (( 1938( 1076.94860( 3393.80000( 86.00000( 1791( 14.94564( 41.87210( 3240.22800( (( 1939( 1169.75340( 3725.31895( 2245.00000( 1792( 728.79339( 2767.13001( 4309.22800( (( 1940( 528.94860( 1708.80000( 0.00000( 1793( 13.28817( 34.07041( 1189.22800( (( 1941( 750.94860( 2540.80000( 113.00000( 1794( 1604.05226( 4188.45962( 403.22800( (( 1942( 785.19650( 2250.67000( 930.36500( 1795( 794.61900( 2511.62600( 21.38641( (( 1943( 487.19650( 1755.67000( 5023.36500( 1796( 551.61900( 1763.62600( 18.22800( (( (( (( (( (( !

Appendix(A:(Adjusted(2040(Socioeconomic(Data(by(Traffic(Analysis(Zone( ( A>3! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Appendix!B:!! Technical!Specifications!for!NUCTS!TCI!Tool!

Appendix(B:(Technical(Specifications(of(TCI(Tool( ( B71(

Memorandum

TO: InterPlan

FROM: Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

DATE: March 12, 2015

RE: Technical Specifications for NUCTS TCI Tool

This memorandum documents the methodology used to develop and conduct the Transit Competitiveness Index analysis for the Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG) Northern Utah County Transit Study (NUCTS).

Introduction

Transit’s ridership generation potential is closely tied to serving geographic locations and travel markets where transit service can effectively compete with personal vehicle travel. Several years ago, Cambridge Systematics developed a metric called the Transit Competitiveness Index (TCI) that assesses if a subarea, corridor, or region has high transit ridership generation potential. This TCI is a single number that indicates if high-quality transit service can compete against personal vehicles and other model travel options (e.g. walking, bicycling) in the analysis area. The TCI incorporates many of the demand-side components that contribute to successful transit service, such as:

Trip density at the household (production) end; Trip density at the destination (attraction) end; Roadway congestion; Parking availability and cost; and • Household characteristics.

The TCI also goes beyond prior efforts using place-based indices of transit potential by combining each component with weighting factors that are proportional to a component’s effect on transit’s relative attractiveness. For this project, the weighting factors are based on information extracted from the Wasatch Front Range Council (WFRC)/MAG travel demand model (model).

The local demand-side characteristics assessed in the TCI tool are not related to any specific current or proposed transit service. Instead, the TCI assumes that good-quality transit service levels are provided throughout the analysis area. This assumption allows the TCI analysis to illuminate the non-service factors that support or detract from transit’s ridership generation

555 12th Street, Suite 1600 Oakland, CA 94607 tel 510-873-8700 www.camsys.com fax 510-873-8701 potential. Such information can help identify transit supportive policy changes, and target those policies to the right locations.

NUCTS TCI Overview

The NUCTS TCI application is a limited version of the fully-functional web-based TCI tool. While the limited functionality did not constrain analysis detail or accuracy, the TCI tool is not available for subsequent independent analysis by MAG or other project stakeholders. The specifications for the NUCTS TCI application are as follows:

• Analysis Years: The TCI provides a 2010 base year and a 2040 future year based on MAG’S assumed land use policies and socioeconomic forecasts.

• Geographic Coverage and Granularity: The TCI covers the four-county (Weber, Davis, Salt Lake and Utah) urbanized area. Its granularity is defined by the number of traffic analysis zones (TAZ).

Trip Purposes: Travelers who are deciding between transit and auto may be more or less sensitive to factors such as travel time and cost depending on the purpose of their trip. For example, when traveling to work, arriving on time may be more important than cost. Alternatively, a traveler may be sensitive to reducing the cost of a journey they take several hundred times a year compared to less frequent journeys where cost could be a less important factor. In this analysis, all travel within the four-county region was divided into two groups: − Work/college trips entail commuting between home and employment or college locations. − Other trips include all trips that are not associated with the journey to work or college. This can include travel for shopping, medical appointments, visiting friends, etc.

• Vehicle Availability: The relative utility of travel by auto versus transit is influenced by whether or not an automobile is available for the trip in question. The households in this analysis are grouped into three categories: zero, one, and two-plus vehicle households.

Household Income: The relative utility of auto versus transit travel is also influenced by the traveler’s household income. Households in this analysis are grouped into two categories: − Low income earn less than $25,000 in 2002 dollars. − High income earn $25,000 or more in 2002 dollars.

Time of Day: The relative utility of travel by auto versus transit is also influenced by the time of day for the travel. The time of day grouped into two categories: − Peak includes the AM peak (6-9 AM) and the PM peak (3-6 PM). − Off-peak includes the midday (9 AM – 3 PM) and the evening/off-peak (6 PM – 6 AM).

Land Use Conditions: − Trip attraction density

- 2 - − Trip production density − Attraction parking cost − Attraction terminal time (proxy for parking availability and convenience)

Transportation Conditions: − Drive time (proxy for congestion delay) − Vehicle operating cost − Toll cost

The remaining sections detail TCI tool development, including specific file and variable usage from the model.

WFRC/MAG Travel Model Structure and Assumptions

The WFRC/MAG Travel Model, Version 7.0 is a trip-based travel model that estimates person and vehicle movement within the region during an average fall/spring weekday. The model represents travel by auto, transit, and non-motorized modes within the four-county (Weber, Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah) urbanized area.

The model includes the following trip purposes:

• Home-Based Work (HBW). Trips made between the traveler’s home and the work place, in either direction. HBW trips first appear in the model in trip generation.

• Home-Based College (HBC). Trips made between the traveler’s home and college. HBC trips first appear in the model in trip distribution.

• Home Based Other (HBO). Trips made between the traveler’s home and all other non-work, non-college locations such as shopping and recreation areas, grade-schools and high- schools, and the like. HBO trips first appear in the model in trip generation.

• Non-Based Work (NHB). Trips that begin AND end at locations other than the traveler’s home. NHB trips can be made for any reason.

A nested multinomial logit mode choice model is used to estimate the split among auto, transit, walking, and biking modes, as shown in Figure 1.

- 3 -

Figure 1. WFRC/MAG Mode Choice Model

- 4 -

The NUCTS TCI application used 2010 and 2040 analysis years. The 2040 analysis included currently adopted socioeconomic, transportation improvement, and land use and other policy assumptions as represented in the model. Further information on these assumptions can be found in a separate NUCTS memorandum entitled Northern Utah County Socioeconomic Forecast Methodology.

TCI Algorithm Background

The TCI algorithm is based on probabilistic modeling techniques that capture attributes influencing travel choices. The underlying equations yield values called “utilities” that represent the relative usefulness or value that a typical consumer places on different mode- specific travel attributes. Once the utility equations are computed and calibrated, results for each possible travel mode are combined into a single TCI score for each production, attraction, and production-attraction pair.

Each utility equation is a linear sum of variables representing key trip attributes including travel time, cost, land-use and land development attributes, and population characteristics. Most equation terms include constants or coefficients that are used to calibrate the utility formulas to local conditions. These constants and coefficients, which are described below, are sometimes different for each trip purpose and mode.

A TCI analysis focuses on the relative comparison between transit and auto by using a single representative option for all transit travel and a second representative option for all auto travel in each TAZ. Representing the range of possible transit and auto choices with a single option provides valid, yet computationally efficient assessment of transit versus auto competitiveness. The NUCTS TCI applications represents transit with “Walk to LRT” and personal vehicle travel with “Drive Alone.”

The appropriate utility equations are established through the following five steps:

1. Segment existing trip-making by trip purpose and population characteristics to accurately represent regional travel behavior; 2. Use average or median values for representative transit service in all travel markets. 3. Use demographic and land-use attributes of each TAZ and modeled trips between all TAZs to calculate utilities representing specific conditions in each production and attraction location. 4. Convert the utilities into a raw numerical Transit Competitiveness Index, referred to as the “unscaled” or “raw” TCI scores. 5. Scale the raw TCI scores values so a value of ‘100’ represents a threshold between an “uncompetitive” and “competitive” transit market.

These five steps are described in later sections of this memorandum. The algorithm discussion in these sections use the following acronyms, definitions, and subscripts:

- 5 -

Acronyms HH = Household IVTT = In-Vehicle Travel Time OVTT = Out-Vehicle Travel Time

Definitions P = Probability of using particular mode of travel U = Utility of particular mode of travel N = Number of trips A = Zonal Area1 θ = Transit nesting coefficient = Regionwide average value of variable X, weighted by number of trips (all vehicle availability categories, all trip purposes) {X} = Regionwide median value of variable X, weighted by number of trips (all vehicle availability categories, all trip purposes)

Subscripts p = Trip purpose (1 = work/college, 2 = other) n = Household vehicle availability category (0-2) c = Household income category (1 = low income, 2 = high income) d = Time of day (1 = peak, 2 = off-peak) t = Transit a = Auto i = Production TAZ j = Attraction TAZ

Two examples of this technical notation are as follows:

• Upncdtij Utility of taking transit for trip purpose p, for vehicle availability category n and household income category c, during time of day d, from production TAZ i to attraction TAZ j

• Npncdtij Number of trips for trip purpose p, for vehicle availability category n and household income category c, during time of day d, from production TAZ i to attraction TAZ j

1 Unless specifically noted otherwise, the zonal area should be the total area of the zone, not just the developed area. Using developed area in the calculation of TCI may lead to misleading TCI values.

- 6 -

Data Segmentation

The initial work to calculate the TCI involves compiling socioeconomic and demographic data and segmenting travelers into different groups that more accurately account for travel behavior decisions. The NUCTS TCI application followed the WFRC/MAG travel model segmentation.

Trip Purpose

All travel is divided into two groups for the NUCTS TCI application:

• Work/college trips entail commuting between home and employment or college locations.

• Other trips include all trips that are not associated with the journey to work or college. This can include travel for shopping, medical appointments, visiting friends, etc.

Vehicle Availability

Households are divided into three vehicle availability categories for the NUCTS TCI application:

• “Zero Vehicle HH” indicates households with no vehicle available for their travel.

• “One Vehicle HH” indicates households with one vehicle available for their travel.

• “Two Plus Vehicle HH” indicates households with two or more vehicles available for their travel.

Household Income

The relative utility of auto versus transit travel is also influenced by the traveler’s household income. Households in this analysis are grouped into two categories:

• “Low Income” indicates households earning less than $25,000 in 2002 dollars.

• “High Income” indicates households earning $25,000 or more in 2002 dollars.

Time of Day

The NUCTS TCI application groups travel into two time periods:

• “Peak” includes the morning (6:00 am to 9:00 am) and evening (3:00 pm to 6:00 pm) commute periods.

• “Off-peak” includes the midday (9:00 am to 3:00 pm) and night (6:00 pm to 6:00 am) travel periods.

- 7 -

Utility Derivation

The first step in the development of the TCI is to calculate the utilities for transit and automobile travel for all P-A pairs in the study area. The utilities are developed separately for each of the segmented trip purposes. Each utility equation is followed by a detailed table of notes on each of the equation terms.

Utilities for Trips

The following equations show how utilities for transit and auto are computed:

• Transit utility for production-attraction TAZ pair i-j = Upncdtij

= Transit Modal Constant + IVTT Coeff * Utah County Indicator + IVTT Coeff * Transit to Auto IVTT Multiplier * Drive Alone Free Flow IVTT + Initial Wait Coeff * Decent Wait Time + Walk Access Coeff * Decent Access Time * {Trip production density for all TAZs}/Trip production density at production TAZ i + Walk Egress Coeff * Decent Egress Time * {Trip production density for all TAZs}/Trip production density at production TAZ i + Cost Coeff * Typical Bus Fare per Mile * Drive Alone Distance + Zonal Urbanization Density Measure Coeff * Zonal Urbanization Density Measure

• Auto utility for production-attraction TAZ pair i-j = Upncdaij

= IVTT Coeff * Drive Alone Free Flow IVTT + Walk Access Coeff * Decent Access Time + Cost Coeff * Drive Alone Distance * Auto Operating Cost + Parking Cost Coeff * Parking Cost

Tables 1 and 2 provide each coefficient value, with values sometimes varying by trip purpose, vehicle availability category, household income, and time of day. As previously noted, the utility equations and coefficients were extracted from the mode choice module of the WFRC/MAG travel model. Several items should be noted regarding these coefficient values:

• Transit constants and coefficients are extracted from the WFRC model for the mode “Walk to LRT”.

• Auto coefficients are extracted from the WFRC/MAG model for the mode “Drive Alone”.

- 8 -

Table 1. Variable Coefficients for all Modes, Vehicle Availability Categories, and Times of Day, by Trip Purpose and Income Category

Coefficient* Trip Purpose Auto and Transit Utility Term Low Income Household High Income Household HBW IVTT -0.0221 -0.0221 Initial Wait Time -0.0442 -0.0442 Walk Access/Egress Time -0.0442 -0.0442 Cost -0.0099 -0.0023 Zonal Urbanization 0.0044 0.0044 Parking Cost -0.0120 -0.0040 HBO IVTT -0.0160 -0.0160 Initial Wait Time -0.0320 -0.0320 Walk Access/Egress Time -0.0320 -0.0320 Cost -0.0120 -0.0040 Zonal Urbanization 0.0032 0.0032 Parking Cost -0.0099 -0.0023 * Does not include nesting coefficients

Table 2. Modal Constants for Walk to LRT for all Income Categories, by Vehicle Availability and Time of Day

Trip Peak Period Off-peak Period Purpose 0 Vehicles 1 Vehicle 2+ Vehicles 0 Vehicles 1 Vehicle 2+ Vehicles HBW 0.6219 -0.1312 -1.0590 3.0983 0.3252 -1.0031 HBO -0.3708 -1.6240 -2.6729 -0.1973 -1.8043 -2.6483

• An average2 peak period bus trip is approximately 5.95 miles long and costs 59 cents in the WFRC region. Thus, a typical bus fare per mile is 10 cents for the peak.

• An average off-peak period bus trip is approximately 5.35 miles long and costs 84 cents in the WFRC region. Thus, a typical bus fare per mile is 15 cents for the peak.

2 The average trip lengths and transit fare are weighted by total trips during the peak and off-peak times per day.

- 9 -

• For purposes of estimating transit competitiveness as a service-independent metric, it is important to provide each production-attraction pair with comparable levels of transit service. Thus, we are assuming there are no transfers for any production-attraction pair (i.e., no transfer wait time and zero number of transfers).

Auto and Transit Service Assumptions

Several transit service assumptions, as shown in Table 3, were made to provide representative high-quality transit service for all TAZs. Auto travel assumptions are shown in Table 4.

Table 3. Transit Utility Term Definitions and Assumptions

Variable Description Value Derivation of Value UT County Indicator Ten minutes time penalty if the destination of the From n/a trip is in Utah County model Transit to Auto IVTT Multiplied by drive alone auto free flow travel 1.5 Assume the average speed of Multiplier time to represent transit in-vehicle travel times automobiles is 50 percent greater than the average speed of transit vehicles (e.g., 24 mph versus 16 mph). Decent Wait Time Initial wait time (minutes) 7.5 Equates to a 15-minute headway Decent Access or Egress time 10 Equates to a ¼-mile walk, Access/Egress Time assuming X mph walk speed Typical Bus Fare per Average transit fare (cents) per mile 10 Weighted average trip length Mile (Peak) and bus fare of 5.95 miles and 59 cents, respectively Typical Bus Fare per Average transit fare (cents) per mile 15 Weighted average trip length Mile (Off-peak) and bus fare of 5.35 miles and 84 cents, respectively Distance Drive-alone distance (miles) From n/a model Zonal Urbanization Density measure From n/a Density Measure model

- 10 -

Table 4. Auto Utility Term Definitions and Assumptions

Variable Description Value Derivation of Value Drive Alone IVTT Congested peak auto travel times From n/a (Peak) model Drive Alone IVTT Congested off-peak auto travel times From n/a (Off-peak) model Decent Access Time Out of vehicle time From n/a model Distance Drive-alone distance (miles) From n/a model Auto Operating Cost Auto cost (cents) per mile 13 From model Parking Cost Parking cost (cents) at the destination of the trip From n/a model

Unscaled TCI Computation

Once transit and auto utilities are developed, the probability of using transit between any production and attraction pair can be calculated using the following equation for a nested logit mode choice model3:

Ppncdtij = exp(Upncdtij/θ) / [exp Upncdtij/θ)) + exp(Upncdaij/θ)]

In this equation, θ is the motorized nesting coefficient (0.85 for all trip purposes and segmentations).

The probability value is then used to calculate the “unscaled” TCI for the production-attraction TAZ pair (the unscaled P-A TCI), which can be thought of as the potential density of transit trips between the two locations. The unscaled P-A TCI is equal to the probability of using transit multiplied by the number of trips and divided by the areas of the production and attraction zones. The equation, which is calculated separately for each segmented trip purpose, is as follows4:

TCIu= (Ppncdtij * Npncdtij) / (Ai * Aj)

The unscaled TCI values are then added across trip purposes for each P-A TAZ pair.

3 Probability of using transit for trip purpose p for vehicle availability category n for household income category c during time of day d for production-attraction pair i-j 4 Unscaled P-A TCI for trip purpose p for vehicle availability category n for household income category c during time of day d for production-attraction TAZ pair i-j.

- 11 -

Scaled TCI Computation

The above equations result in a quantitative TCI score for each production zone, attraction zone, and P-A pair in the WFRC region. To assist with interpreting these raw scores, it is useful to scale all results so that a TCI score of 100 corresponds to a threshold of being transit competitive. Thus, after the scaling step is performed, TCI values higher than 100 would represent increasing levels of transit competitiveness.

From the general literature on transit usage versus land use density, transit usage tends to exhibit noticeable increases once residential densities cross a threshold value of between 8 and 15 dwelling units per gross acre. The NUCTS TCI application uses 8 dwelling units per gross acre as the threshold value. This threshold value is converted to an equivalent “trips per gross acres” through the following steps:

• Converting gross acres – which do not include public lands such as roads, sidewalks, parks, schools, etc. – to total land acreage. This analysis uses 0.6 gross acres per acre of total land.

• Applying a factor that represents trips produced per household for the WFRC region. This analysis uses 11.2 trips per household.

These steps produced a transit competitive trip density threshold of 53.76 trips produced per acre of total land (i.e., 53.76 = 8 * 0.6 * 11.2). To compute the scaling factor, we selected the production TAZs with trip production density between 51 and 56 trips per acre (equal to 95 to 105 percent of the threshold value of 53.76 trips per acre). For these TAZs, we determined the weighted median value for unscaled production TCI, weighted by the number of trips produced. This value is defined as the threshold unscaled production TCI value. We calculated the all trips scaling factor needed to convert the threshold unscaled production TCI value to a value of 100. We then multiply all of the unscaled all trips TCIs (i.e., P-A TCI, production TCI, attraction TCI, etc.) by the all trips scaling factor to get scaled TCI values.

- 12 -