Sugar House Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis FINAL REPORT July 2008 Sugar House Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis July, 2008 Special Acknowledgments to the Project Steering Committee Salt Lake City D.J. Baxter Janneke House Kevin Young, P.E. Russell Weeks Mack McDonald South Salt Lake City Jim Davis Larry Gardner Dennis Pay P.E. Dave Carlson Utah Department of Transportation Richard Manser, P.E. Utah Transit Authority G.J. LaBonty Sugar House Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis TABLE OF CONTENTS ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................... ES 1. PROJECT HISTORY AND BACKGROUND ...............................................................................1 1.1. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT.......................................................................................................................1 1.2. PUBLIC PROCESS...........................................................................................................................................1 2. EXISTING AND FUTURE CONDITIONS.....................................................................................5 2.1. POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT TRENDS.....................................................................................................5 2.2. LAND USE AND FUTURE PROJECTS OF SIGNIFICANCE ...................................................................................6 2.3. TRAFFIC AND CONGESTION...........................................................................................................................8 2.4. TRANSIT ROUTES AND USAGE ....................................................................................................................11 2.5. NON-MOTORIZED TRAVEL ..........................................................................................................................11 2.6. TRAVEL DEMAND .......................................................................................................................................12 3. PURPOSE AND NEED AND MARKET OBJECTIVES ................................................................15 3.1. PURPOSE AND NEED....................................................................................................................................15 3.2. MARKET OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................................................16 4. ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................18 4.1. PROCESS .....................................................................................................................................................18 4.2. FIRST LEVEL SCREENING - UNIVERSE TO LONG LIST ALTERNATIVES.........................................................18 4.3. LONG LIST OF ALTERNATIVES ....................................................................................................................20 4.4. SECOND LEVEL SCREENING - LONG LIST TO SHORT LIST OF ALTERNATIVES .............................................21 5. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS .....................................................................................................24 5.1. SHORT LIST ALTERNATIVES DETAILED DESCRIPTION ................................................................................24 5.2. THIRD LEVEL SCREENING CRITERIA ...........................................................................................................30 5.3. RESULTS OF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION OF A LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE (LPA) ..........31 6. THE LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ..............................................................................34 6.1. DETAILED DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................................34 6.2. PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ON TRAFFIC.................................................................................38 6.3. FUNDING OPTIONS ......................................................................................................................................40 6.4. ADDITIONAL STUDY NECESSARY ...............................................................................................................41 APPENDIX TOC-1 FIGURES FIGURE 1: STUDY AREA.............................................................................................................................4 FIGURE 2: FUTURE LAND USE INCLUDING FUTURE ACTIVITY CENTERS....................................................7 FIGURE 3: EXISTING AND FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS......................................................................10 FIGURE 4: EXISTING AND FUTURE TRAVEL DEMAND .............................................................................14 FIGURE 5: SHORT LIST ALTERNATIVES .....................................................................................................29 FIGURE 6: THE LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE................................................................................35 FIGURE 7: ILLUSTRATIVE CROSS SECTIONS ............................................................................................37 FIGURE 8: TERMINI OPTIONS FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION. ...............................................................43 TABLES TABLE 2.1 STUDY AREA POPULATION, HOUSEHOLDS AND EMPLOYMENT ..............................................5 TABLE 2.2 2007 P.M. PEAK HOUR LOS AND DELAY ..................................................................................9 TABLE 2.3 2030 P.M. PEAK HOUR LOS AND DELAY ..................................................................................9 TABLE 4.1 LEVEL 1 SCREENING RESULTS..................................................................................................19 TABLE 4.2 LEVEL 2 SCREENING RESULTS..................................................................................................23 TABLE 5.1 COMPARISON OF RAIL VEHICLES..........................................................................................27 TABLE 5.2 SHORT LIST ALTERNATIVES – GENERAL DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS SUMMARY ...................28 TABLE 5.3 ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR SCREENING CATEGORIES................................................................32 TABLE 5.4 AGGREGATE SCORE AND RANKING OF SHORT LIST ALTERNATIVES....................................32 TABLE 6.1 2007 CONDITIONS + STREETCAR PM PEAK HOUR LOS AND DELAY .....................................39 TABLE 6.2 2007 CONDITIONS + STREETCAR + PEDESTRIAN CROSSING P.M. PEAK HOUR LOS AND DELAY ..............................................................................................................................................39 TOC-2 Sugar House Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis Executive Summary Project Background Salt Lake City and the City of South Salt Lake, in cooperation with Utah Transit Authority (UTA), are considering extending a higher-frequency, higher-capacity transit service along an east-west corridor that extends from the Central Pointe TRAX Station at approximately 200 West and 2100 South to approximately 1100 East, and between 1700 South and 2700 South. Through a joint selection by UTA and the cities, the consultant firm of Fehr & Peers, along with LTK, was chosen to conduct the study. The study scope was broad and considered many possible modes and alignments through a comprehensive alternatives analysis process. Included among the alignments within the study area that were considered was an existing rail right- of-way. UTA currently owns this rail right-of-way at approximately 2300 South. This rail corridor is no longer actively used for freight and is considered for a potential fixed-guideway transit solution in this analysis. Purpose and Need for the Project The purpose established for this project includes: reducing automobile congestion on 2100 South, providing multi-modal travel choices, providing access to a regional fixed guideway transit network, supporting community and economic redevelopment, and the enhancement and support of community goals for growth in the area. The project will increase mobility for shorter trips as well as provide a connection to the larger regional transportation system. In addition, this project will preserve the cultural identity within the Sugar House area of Salt Lake City and South Salt Lake. The project will enhance the unique community identity with a transportation improvement that is pedestrian friendly and compatible with the traditional character of the surrounding neighborhoods. The need for this project is to increase local and regional mobility and reduce automobile congestion in the corridor through the year 2030. The project will increase multi-modal trip options and reduce automobile travel, thereby decreasing congestion and pollution. In addition to the purpose and need, the local communities jointly agreed to the following outline of specific characteristics of the selected transit technology including: • Slow speeds • Frequent stops • Accommodates an urban linear park (trail) • Safe and standardized pedestrian crossings • Broad local support • Varied funding options • Promotes transit to transit connections Public Outreach Almost one third of the effort in this study involved public outreach and education. Through a series of community groups, one on one interviews, and visits with the public at large, the communities built their own goals