Salt Lake City Downtown Transportation Master Plan
Download
1 / 31

August 23, 2006 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 99 Views
  • Uploaded on

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

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' August 23, 2006' - laurie


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

Salt Lake City Downtown Transportation Master PlanLight Rail & Bus; Presentation Background and Introduction

August 23, 2006


Project goals
Project Goals

Transportation Should…

  • Serve Downtown

  • Be Pedestrian Friendly

  • Be Easy to Use

  • Enhance Mobility

  • Balance Modes


Inferred goals
Inferred Goals

Transportation Should Also…

  • Serve suburban areas efficiently

  • Facilitate seamless transfers

  • Increase transit ridership

  • Support transit oriented development (TOD)

  • Support anticipated land use



Residential

Institutional

Medium Density Residential & Mixed-Use

Expanded Core

Core

HD Residential & Mixed-Use

Hotel Row

Existing Track

Expanded Core

Commercial & Mixed-Use

Anticipated Land Use (Generalized)


Existing Track

Highest Density Regional Trips

Downtown Trips

High Density

Mix of Regional

& Local Trips


Commuter

Rail

Draper to Airport

Regional Trips

2015 Light Rail Operating Plan

Hub to

U of U

Draper to Hub

Regional &

Local Trips

  • Facts:

  • Existing track is sufficient for 2015 suburban extensions.

  • Doesn’t fully support anticipated land use.

West Valley to U of U

Mid Jordan to Hub


Short Walk, Frequent Service, High Ridership

Longer Walk, Less Frequent, Lower Ridership

Regional

Trips

Levels of Service, 2015 Plan

Regional

& Local

Trips


2015 light rail system observations
2015 Light Rail System Observations

Benefit

  • Excellent connection of suburban trips to regionally significant destinations

    Challenge

  • Little or no excess track capacity for local circulation


Why identify future light rail track now
Why Identify Future Light Rail Track Now?

  • UTA may need more frequent service than planned for 2015.

  • Improve bus-rail connectivity.

  • Decision will facilitate traffic, planning, and development decisions.

  • Allow circulator concepts to advance.


Existing Track

3 North-

South Options:

700 S to 600 W,

700 S to 400 W,

200 West

3 East-West Options: 200 S, 300 S, or 400 S

Highest Density Regional Trips

Planned Light Rail extensions can make use of one yellow and one pink.

Light Rail Options Studied

Regional

& Local Trips


Scenario 1
Scenario 1

  • East-West Choice

    • 400 South

  • North-South Choice

    • 700 South to 400 West


Commuter

Rail

Draper to Airport

Excess Track Capacity

Regional

Trips

400 S. and 700 S. to 400 W. Operating Option

Hub to

U of U

Improved circulation, but lengthens some suburban trips

West Valley to U of U

Mid Jordan to Hub

Regional

& Local

Trips


A-Train:

Normal routing

Regional

Trips

400 S. and 700 S. to 400 W. Operating Option

B-Train:

Alternate routing increases track capacity, but lengthens trip

Regional

& Local

Trips

Other route choices exist, but all reduce service from suburbs


Short Walk, Frequent Service, High Ridership

Longer Walk,

Less Frequent, Lower Ridership

1.8 miles

new track

Regional

Trips

Level of Service from Suburbs, 400 S. and 700 S. t0 400 W.

Coverage is maximized, but quality of suburban trips may be reduced.

Regional

& Local

Trips


Scenario 2
Scenario 2

  • East-West Choice

    • 200 South

  • North-South Choice

    • 200 West


Commuter

Rail

Draper to Airport

Excess Track Capacity

Regional

Trips

200 S. and 200 W. Operating Option

Hub to

U of U

Regional

& Local

Trips

West Valley to U of U

Mid Jordan to Hub


Short Walk, Overlapping Access

Longer Walk, Less Frequent, Lower Ridership

1.3 miles

new track

Regional

Trips

Level of Service from Suburbs, 200 S. and 200 W.

Local

Trips

Circulator Opportunity

Excellent suburban access to regional destinations


300 south track potential
300 South Track Potential

  • Light Rail or Streetcar on 300 South

    • Excellent transit oriented development

    • Nostalgia of station near Rio Grande

    • Compatible with angled parking

    • Potential advantages over 200 South and 400 South options

  • Warrants further analysis



Uta bus service objectives
UTA Bus Service Objectives

  • Improve traveler information and amenities.

  • Facilitate on-time arrivals.

  • Create connectivity options.

  • Consolidate service on primary bus corridors connecting to a transit center.

  • Locate transit center near high concentration of regional destinations, convenient to bus and rail corridors.

  • No layovers envisioned


Transit center benefits
Transit Center Benefits

  • Good visibility, accessibility, connectivity

  • Premium amenities for patrons

    • Airport-style arrival screens

    • While you wait conveniences (coffee, paper)

    • Bike lockers, rental opportunities

    • “Plan my route” kiosks to inform passers by of alternative travel options

  • Significant increase in ridership


On street transit center concepts
On-Street Transit Center Concepts

  • Offers better pull-through efficiency than off-street sites.

  • Create a bus pocket for pull-out

  • An intersection works better than a single street segment.

    • Waiting areas on each corner to be in line with bus’s natural path.

    • No single location has an inordinate number of buses.


Off street
Off-Street

  • A single terminal space for patrons, but more difficult for buses to maneuver.

  • Requires property purchase or special arrangements with compatible uses.


Transit center location
Transit Center Location

  • Westside Intermodal Center is too far from the Core.

  • Most routes access the Core via State or 200 South.

  • Location should consider existing and new rail stations.


Transit intersection concept

Bus Stop

On-street amenities (bike lockers/rental, etc.)

“Transit Intersection” Concept

Primary area: Ground-level traveler info;

coffee; bike shop; off-street waiting

State

Secondary areas: Inside waiting, info, small retail

200 South

1-block walk to Trax

State / 200 South is an ideal intersection. Others may also work well.


Off street transit center concept

Bus Stop

On-street amenities (bike lockers/rental, etc.)

Off-Street Transit Center Concept

Same routes, adjusted to off-street site.

Ground-level traveler info;

coffee; bike shop; off-street waiting

State

200 South

1-block walk to Trax

Example off-street site: Many similar sites exist each with pros and cons


Intersection vs off street
Intersection vs. Off-Street

  • Intersection is more efficient

    • Few left turns = reduced congestion

    • Improved speed = higher ridership

    • Operating costs greatly reduced

  • Off-street offers chance to create mid-block alignment, (but at high cost)

  • Intersection is mobile

    • With little or no construction, a new site can be selected later if necessary


200 s bus rail connectivity
200 S. Bus-Rail Connectivity

Transit Center Site

Preferences with

200 South Trax


400 s bus rail connectivity
400 S. Bus-Rail Connectivity

Transit Center Site

Preferences with

400 South Trax



ad