Provo/Orem BRT Before and After Study: Initial Conditions Report Matthew M. Miller, Mercedes Beaudoin, and Reid Ewing University of Utah, Metropolitan Research Center 2 of 142 Report No. UT‐17.XX PROVO-OREM TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (TRIP) Prepared for: Utah Department of Transportation Research Division Submitted by: University of Utah, Metropolitan Research Center Authored by: Matthew M. Miller, Mercedes Beaudoin, and Reid Ewing Final Report June 2017 ______________________________________________________________________________ Provo/Orem BRT Before and After Study: Initial Conditions Report 3 of 142 DISCLAIMER The authors alone are responsible for the preparation and accuracy of the information, data, analysis, discussions, recommendations, and conclusions presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, endorsements, or policies of the Utah Department of Transportation or the U.S. Department of Transportation. The Utah Department of Transportation makes no representation or warranty of any kind, and assumes no liability therefore. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors acknowledge the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) for funding this research through the Utah Transportation Research Advisory Council (UTRAC). We also acknowledge the following individuals from UDOT for helping manage this research: Jeff Harris Eric Rasband Brent Schvanaveldt Jordan Backman Gracious thanks to our paid peer reviewers in the Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Brigham Young University: Dr. Grant G. Schultz, Ph.D., P.E., PTOE. Dr. Mitsuru Saito, Ph.D, P.E., F. ASCE, F. ITE While not authors, the efforts of the following people helped make this report possible. Data Collection Proof Reading/Edits Ethan Clark Ray Debbie Weaver Thomas Cushing Clint Simkins Jack Egan Debolina Banerjee Katherine A. Daly Katherine A. Daly ______________________________________________________________________________ Provo/Orem BRT Before and After Study: Initial Conditions Report 4 of 142 Technical Report Documentation Page (Form DOT 1700.7) 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipients Accession No. 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Effects of Bus Rapid Transit on Traffic in a Travel Corridor: Provo/Orem BRT: 2017‐06‐13 5:00:00 PM Before and After Study: Initial Conditions Report. 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Matthew M. Miller, Mercedes Beaudoin, and Reid Ewing 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. University of Utah, Metropolitan Research Center 375 S. 1530 E. Room 235 AAC Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 11. Contract (C) or Grant (G) No. 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Utah Department of Transportation, Research Division Peer Reviewed Report; Final 4501 South 2700 West, PO Box 148410 Report; 2015 Salt Lake City, UT 84114‐1265 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes This project was funded by the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), the Utah Transit Authority (UTA), Salt Lake County (SLCo), the Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC), and the Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG). 16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words) This report presents the initial conditions for the Provo‐Orem Transportation Improvement Project (TRIP). TRIP consists of a number of transportation improvements, including the construction of new Bus Rapid Transit. Traffic counts of Average Annual Daily Traffic were obtained for the project alignment and identified diversion corridors. Data on the ridership of all bus lines and rail lines within the study area was collected. To make it possible to establish trend lines for growth in traffic and in transit ridership, data from at least five years prior to BRT construction was collected for both AADT and transit ridership. To control for changes in traffic, it was necessary to control for traffic generation within the study area. County tax assessor data was used to determine initial levels of development within the study area, and these data were checked against aerial photo imagery. Each parcel in the assessor database was matched with the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual code it best resembles. Using the associated trip rate, trips generated for each parcel were estimated. The trips from all parcels in the study area were summed to estimate the total number of trips generated within the study area. For Brigham Young University and Utah Valley University, data on student enrollment and faculty and staffing levels were gathered to establish a baseline for travel demand. 17. Key Words 18.Availability Statement Metropolitan Research Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake City 84102 Bus Rapid Transit, Safety, Phone: 801.587.9483 < http://plan.cap.utah.edu/research/metropolitan‐ Environmental Quality, research‐center>. Capacity, Congestion 19. Security Class (this report) 20. SecurityClass(thispage) 22. Price 21. No. of Pages Unclassified Unclassified 142 NA ______________________________________________________________________________ Provo/Orem BRT Before and After Study: Initial Conditions Report 5 of 142 Table of Contents 2 PROVO-OREM TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (TRIP) ....................... 2 Technical Report Documentation Page .......................................................................................... 4 Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 5 Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................... 9 Acronyms & Abbreviations ........................................................................................................... 12 Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 14 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 16 1.1 Study Overview .............................................................................................................. 16 1.2 Report Objectives ........................................................................................................... 17 1.3 Previous Research .......................................................................................................... 17 1.4 Report Structure ............................................................................................................. 17 1.4.1 Report Structure Outline ............................................................................................ 18 2 Project Context ...................................................................................................................... 19 2.1 Urban Context ................................................................................................................ 19 2.2 Transportation Context .................................................................................................. 19 3 Project Description ................................................................................................................ 21 3.1 Running Ways ................................................................................................................. 21 3.2 Stations & Stops ............................................................................................................. 21 3.3 Vehicles .......................................................................................................................... 21 3.4 Fare Collection ................................................................................................................ 22 3.5 Intelligent Transportation Systems ................................................................................ 22 3.6 Service and Operations Plans ......................................................................................... 24 3.7 Roadway Improvements ................................................................................................ 24 3.8 Active Transportation Improvements ............................................................................ 25 4 System Costs .......................................................................................................................... 26 4.1 Project Costs ................................................................................................................... 26 ______________________________________________________________________________ Provo/Orem BRT Before and After Study: Initial Conditions Report 6 of 142 4.2 Project Funding .............................................................................................................. 27 5 Planning, Design & Implementation ...................................................................................... 28 5.1 Institutional Context ....................................................................................................... 28 5.2 Project Development History ......................................................................................... 28 5.3 Project Design & Implementation .................................................................................. 30 5.4 Station & Guideway Planning ......................................................................................... 31 5.4.1 Station Changes