South Davis Transit Study Alternatives Analysis Draft Report

Transcription

1

2 South Davis Transit Study UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Prepared for: Prepared by: N. 00 W. Salt Lake City, UT 80 (80) In conjunction with: Fehr & Peers and H.W. Lochner April 008

3 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Acronyms and Abbreviations AA AGT BRT CBD CEI CPIC CRT D&RG DAQ DEIS DMU DOT FTA HOV HUB LOS LPA LRP LRT LRV NEPA PRT SAFETEA LU SDTNA SEIS TAZ TOD TSM TSP UDOT UTA V/C VHD WFRC Alternatives Analysis Automated Guideway Transit Bus Rapid Transit Central Business District Cost Effectiveness Index Community Planning Information Committee Commuter Rail Transit Denver & Rio Grande Department of Air Quality Draft Environmental Impact Statement Diesel Multiple Unit Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration High Occupancy Vehicle Salt Lake Intermodal Hub Light Rail Extension Project Level of Service Locally Preferred Alternative Long Range Transit Plan Light Rail Transit Light Rail Vehicle National Environmental Policy Act Personal Rapid Transit Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users South Davis Transit Needs Analysis Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement Transportation Analysis Zone Transit Oriented Development Transportation Systems Management Transit Signal Priority Utah Department of Transportation Utah Transit Authority VolumetoCapacity [Ratio] Vehicle Hours of Delay Wasatch Front Regional Council Acronyms and Abbreviation

4 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... Introduction... Public Involvement... Study Methodology... Purpose and Need... Alternatives Analysis... Adoption and Next Steps...6 Chapter. Project Background...7 Introduction...7 Corridor Description...7 Study Methodology...8 Previous Studies...8 FTA Requirements...0 Chapter. Public Involvement... Introduction... Chapter. Purpose and Need... Introduction... Trends... Development of Goals and Objectives...9 Purpose and Need Statement...0 Chapter. Alternatives Development... Universe of Alternatives... Long List of Alternatives...0 Chapter. Detailed Alternatives Analysis...6 Short List of Alternatives...6 Chapter 6. Locally Preferred Alternative...8 General Description...8 Funding Options...9 Adoption/Next Steps/Other Issues...9 Appendices: Appendix A Public Involvement Materials Appendix B Baseline Alternative Memorandum Appendix C Short List of Alternatives Comprehensive Analysis Appendix D Capital Cost Estimates Using Standard FTA Categories for the Short List of Alternatives Table of Contents i

5 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 List of Figures Page No. Figure. Study Area... Figure. Long List of Alternatives... 7 Figure. Short List of Alternatives... Figure. Locally Preferred Alternative... Figure. Population Trends 00 to Figure 6. Employment Trends 00 to Figure 7. Activity Centers...9 Figure 8. Travel Demand between South Davis and Salt Lake City... Figure 9. Planned Transportation Improvements... Figure 0. Existing Bus Service... Figure. Corridor Congestion Areas...8 Figure. Evaluation of Alternatives... Figure. Long List of Alternatives... Figure. Short List of Alternatives...67 Figure. Shared and Exclusive Segments for Low Cost Alternatives...68 Figure 6. Baseline Alternative...69 Figure 7. Lane Street with Enhanced Bus...70 Figure 8. Lane Street with Enhanced Bus...7 Figure 9. Lane with Exclusive BRT Lanes...7 Figure 0. Lane with Exclusive BRT Lanes...7 Figure. Lane Street with Exclusive Rail Lanes...76 Figure. Lane Street with Exclusive Rail Lanes...76 Figure. Lane Street Shared with Streetcar...77 Figure. Locally Preferred Alternative...8 Figure. Daily Activity for Low Cost Rail Alternative...87 Figure 6. Estimated Ridership for FrontRunner North...88 Figure 7. Typical Cross Sections for the Streetcar...89 Figure 8. Typical Cross Sections for the Streetcar...90 Figure 9. Typical Cross Sections for the Streetcar...90 Table of Contents ii

6 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 List of Tables Page No. Table. Project Need... Table. Evaluation Criteria for Screening Process... Table. Physical and Operating Characteristics of the Short List of Alternatives... 9 Table. LPA Characteristics... Table. Benefits of the LPA... Table 6. Future Population... Table 7. Future Employment...7 Table 8. South Davis Trip Distribution...0 Table 9. South Davis to SLC Trip Distribution... Table 0. Average Daily Ridership on South Davis County Bus Routes...6 Table. 00 and Estimated 00 Transit Use...9 Table. South Davis to SLC Trip Distribution... Table. Level One Screening of Modal Alternatives...7 Table. Level One Screening of Alignment Alternatives...8 Table. Alignments and Modes Possible... Table 6. Projected 00 Conceptual Ridership...6 Table 7. Travel Time...7 Table 8. Conceptual Cost (In Millions, $007)...8 Table 9. Preliminary RightofWay Impacts...9 Table 0. Potential Land Use Effects...60 Table. Community Support...6 Table. Level Two Screening the Long List Alternatives...6 Table. Physical and Operating Characteristics of the Short List of Alternatives...78 Table. Higher Versus Lower Performing Alternatives...8 Table of Contents iii

7 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction Building on earlier technical work and strong community interest, the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) in October 006 initiated a study to identify transit improvements in South Davis County. The purpose of the South Davis Transit Study Alternatives Analysis (AA) was to determine transit needs between now and the year 00 and to identify and evaluate alternatives for improving transportation mobility for residents and people working in the corridor between downtown Salt Lake City and the City of Farmington. For purposes of the study, the study area, as shown in Figure, extended from 00 South in downtown Salt Lake City northward to the I/Highway 89/Legacy Parkway interchange in Farmington, and between the Wasatch Front Mountains on the east to the Legacy Parkway and I alignments on the west. This area includes the downtown area of Salt Lake City, and the cities of North Salt Lake, Woods Cross, Bountiful, West Bountiful, Centerville, and Farmington. This document summarizes the methodology, analysis and results of the South Davis Transit Study AA and concludes with a recommendation of a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) which will subsequently be evaluated as part of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Both an AA and DEIS are required by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for the transportation improvement project to be eligible for federal funding under FTA s New Starts program. Public Involvement Public involvement was critical in developing the transit alternatives for the South Davis Transit Study AA. Recognizing the challenges in achieving consensus on the selection of a LPA serving seven municipalities, an extensive twopart grassroots Public Involvement Plan was developed and implemented for the AA. The public involvement process effort included: Focused collaboration with key stakeholders including city staff, citizens, and elected officials. Broadreaching community involvement activities, including a public open house, school outreach, a series of newsletters, and distribution of online information and comment forms. As a result of this public involvement process, the study team was successful in developing a project Purpose and Need statement, identifying a set of South Davis Transit Study alternatives, obtaining public and agency comment on the feasibility of the alternatives, and selecting an LPA. Executive Summary

8 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Figure. Study Area Executive Summary

9 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Study Methodology This study investigated a range of transit alternatives consisting of several modes and alignments, based on their ability to meet the longterm transit needs for South Davis County. Major milestones in the study included establishing the project s Purpose and Need, evaluating the alternatives in progressively finer detail, and ultimately identifying an LPA. The criteria used for the evaluation of alternatives were developed to address both quantitative criteria (such as ridership and cost) and qualitative criteria (such as community support and land use effects) measures. The study concludes by recommending an LPA. The figure at the right highlights the process followed for preparation of the study. Purpose and Need Demographic and Travel Trends The development of a Purpose and Need statement for the project was based on an analysis of existing and future conditions within the study area, including projected population and employment growth and increased travel demand. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT (ONGOING) Identify Existing and Future Conditions Develop Goals and Objectives Develop Purpose and Need Establish Evaluation Criteria ALTERNATIVES SCREENING Transit Modes & Route Alignments Three Levels of Alternatives Screening Locally Preferred Alternative The Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC), for example, estimates that population and employment will grow substantially in the study area between now and 00. Population is expected to increase to over 0,000, an increase of nearly %. The greatest population changes are expected to occur in North Salt Lake (8%) and Salt Lake City (67%). At the same time, employment in the study area is to also increase by approximately 00,000 jobs, including over 00,000 jobs located in downtown Salt Lake City. Growth in population and employment is reflected in the projected increase in demand for travel in the study area, particularly between South Davis County and Salt Lake City. Salt Lake City is expected to remain a significant regional employment center for South Davis residents. Travel demand will increase between all of the communities in South Davis and the Salt Lake City Central Business District (CBD), with demand the greatest between Bountiful and the CBD. Travel to/from Bountiful, Woods Cross, and North Salt Lake will continue to be the most significant contribution to overall travel demand in the South Davis corridor. In some locations, the existing and planned infrastructure improvements will not be sufficient to accommodate regional travel demand and is most evident in Salt Lake City, North Salt Lake, and Woods Cross. Executive Summary

10 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Purpose The purpose of a major transportation investment in South Davis County is to increase mobility within the area, as well as to connect to existing and future transportation services serving the rest of the region. The transportation investment should serve the demand for north/south travel, while also improving east/west connectivity. In addition, a proposed transportation project should result in an overall reduction of auto trips by providing alternative transportation choices, especially during weekday commute periods. Expansion of transportation mode choice will also create an opportunity for the integration of transit supportive land use plans that will result in increased transit use and demand. Need As shown in Table, a major transportation investment in the corridor is needed for several reasons, including the need to respond to increased travel demand, the desire to reduce automobile congestion at key intersections within the corridor, the improvement of land use and transportation integration, and the acknowledgement of public support for enhanced transit services. Table. Project Need Increase Travel Demand Congestion at Key Intersections Need for Integration of Land Use and Transportation Investments Public Support for Transit By 00, total daily trips will increase by almost 00%. The highest demand for travel will be between Salt Lake City and North Salt Lake, Woods Cross and Bountiful For efficient travel to occur between the cities in South Davis County as well as between South Davis County and Salt Lake City, congestion must be reduced through North Salt Lake. As development and redevelopment occurs in the study area, coordination of land use plans and transportation improvements must consider the need to reduce overall auto trips to improve mobility. The public has expressed a need for better integration of the current transportation system, increased transit service, an improvement to the east/west access to north/south mobility, and increase in transportation choices, efficiency, and attractiveness and improved bicycle routes, sidewalks, and bus shelters. Alternatives Analysis The development of alternatives consisted of a threestep screening and evaluation process. This included: Level One Screening, which reduced a Universe of Alternatives down to a Long List of project alternatives (including a NoBuild Alternative); Level Two Screening, which reduced the Long List down to a Short List of five study alternatives (i.e., Enhance Bus/Baseline, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), Low Cost BRT, Rail, and Low Cost Rail); and Level Three Screening, which included a detailed evaluation of alternatives that ultimately resulted in the selection of an LPA. Executive Summary

11 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 As shown in Table, at each level of screening, progressively more detailed evaluation criteria were applied to narrow the number of alternatives. Table. Evaluation Criteria for Screening Process Fits Context of Study Area Criteria Level Level Level Proven Technology has been implemented extensively in other areas. Financially Practicable does not far exceed highest level of transit investment made on Wasatch Front. Cursory Field Review Ridership totally daily passengers on the proposed improvement, and total new passengers to the overall system. (concept) (refined) Travel Time Conceptual Cost capital and operating costs. Environmental Impacts preliminary review of possible impacts. RightofWay Impacts total ROW necessary for implementation, above what exists currently. Preliminary Effect on Traffic changes at key intersections. (concept) (concept (refined) (refined) Land Use Effects ability to promote positive land use effects. Community Support meets the desires of the public. Level One Screening: Universe to Long List The Universe of Alternatives consisted of mixing and matching a number of modes and alignments to produce a large, initial set of alternatives. Twelve initial modes and approximately 8 alignments per city were evaluated and led to the identification of eleven study alternatives. With the application of screening criteria, the evaluation resulted in a combination of modes and alignments to produce a Long List of Alternatives, as shown in Figure. Five transit modes were advanced for further evaluation, including: Enhanced Bus Enhancement measures include signal priority, more frequent service, queuejumper lanes, and passenger amenities such as information systems and infrastructure improvements at stops. Enhanced bus operates in a shared rightofway, which means it shares lanes with auto traffic. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) With BRT, there is the possibility for exclusive bus lanes, signal prioritization, wayside fare collection, easier boarding, and enhanced passenger information technology. BRT can operate in either a shared rightofway, or an exclusive rightofway, with emphasis on the latter. Executive Summary

12 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Streetcar Streetcars run on steel rails and are powered by electricity from an overhead wire. Streetcars can operate in either a shared rightofway or an exclusive rightofway. Light Rail Transit (LRT) LRT is a mediumcapacity, higher speed service applicable in both urban and suburban settings. Like Streetcars, LRT operates on steel rails and is powered by electricity from an overhead wire. LRT can operate in either a shared rightofway or an exclusive rightofway, with emphasis on the latter. Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) DMUs are selfpropelled passenger rail cars that operate on railroad rightsofway. DMUs generally operate on a shared track with another, heavier, rail system. The vehicle requires no overhead power. Executive Summary 6

13 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Figure. Long List of Alternatives Executive Summary 7

14 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Level Two Screening: Long List to Short List The Level Two Screening narrowed the alternatives to five alternatives. The Level Two screening process culminated in the following five alternatives, each of them on the Main Street Alignment as shown in Figure : Enhanced Bus (Baseline Alternative), shared with traffic for the full length of the corridor. BRT operating primarily in exclusive lanes in the center of the street. Branches would serve neighborhoods to offer a one seat ride into the Salt Lake City CBD. Low Cost BRT, similar to the alternative described above but operating in a mix of exclusive and shared alignment segments. Light Rail operating primarily in exclusive lanes from downtown Salt Lake City to Parrish Lane. An enhanced bus service would operate between Parrish Lane and Farmington. Rail continuing to Farmington was eliminated in this round of study because it did not rank as high as an abbreviated rail alignment. Low Cost Rail, which could be either LRT or Streetcar, and would operate in a mix of exclusive and shared segments to Parrish Lane. While the DMU alternative had previously performed well in terms of cost and rightofway impacts, additional analysis indicated that the alternative failed to attract new riders to the overall system and would produce poor route ridership by 00. As a result, this technology mode was dropped from further consideration. Table shows a comparison of each of the Short List Alternatives with respect to physical and operating characteristics. Included for comparison is the NoBuild Alternative, which simulates conditions in 00 if none of the build alternatives are constructed. The No Build includes only those transit improvements that are already under construction or committed to in the WFRC Long Range Plan. The Baseline Alternative (Enhanced Bus) is similar to the Route 70 bus segment between Salt Lake City and Farmington. However, it was modeled with more attractive service such as fewer and more distinct stations to improve travel time and encourage new riders. The build alternatives vary in terms of the amount of shared versus exclusive rightofway they require, but are approximately the same length and assume the same number of stations. The rail alternatives require passengers to transfer at Parrish Lane to a limited stop bus service to continue on to Farmington. The BRT and Low Cost BRT Alternatives are supplemented by three branch lines that offer direct service to downtown Salt Lake City during peak hours. Branded buses would utilize exclusive instreet transit lanes on the trunk line and branch off into four different neighborhoods in shared traffic lanes similar to a local bus service (see Figure ). Executive Summary 8

15 Alternatives Analysis Final Report UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Table. Physical and Operating Characteristics of the Short List of Alternatives NoBuild Enhanced Bus/Baseline BRT Low Cost BRT Rail (LRT) Low Cost Rail (Streetcar or Light Rail Vehicle) Daily Ridership (boardings) Travel Time SLC to Parrish Lane (minutes) Travel Time SLC to Farmington (minutes) Service Frequency (peak/offpeak, minutes) UTA s Route 70: 6,600 Route: 9,00 Route:,00 New:,00 Route:,600 New:,00 Route:,00 New:,000 Route:,700 New:, (transfer to Enhanced Bus in Centerville) 0 (transfer to Enhanced Bus in Centerville 0/0 0/ 0/ 0/ 0/ 0/ Estimated Capital Cost N/A $70 mil $800 mil $000 mil $60700 mil $080 mil Estimated Annual O&M Costs (in millions/007 dollars) N/A $. trunk line $9. study area $7. trunk line $. study area $7.7 trunk line $.7 study area $.6 trunk line $8.6 study area $.8 trunk line $8.8 study area RightofWay (approximate acres needed) Environmental N/A.7 N/A Low Environmental Impacts 0.7 to Parrish.6 to Parrish.7 to Parrish.7 to Parrish. Parrish to Farmington. Parrish to Farmington. Parrish to Farmington. Parrish to Farmington + Air quality* + Air quality* + Air quality* + Air quality* Cultural or historic resources** Cultural or historic resources** Cultural or historic resources** Cultural or historic resources** Land Use Benefits N/A LOW MEDIUM MEDIUM HIGH HIGH Executive Summary 9

16 Alternatives Analysis Final Report UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Table. Physical and Operating Characteristics of the Short List of Alternatives NoBuild Enhanced Bus/Baseline BRT Low Cost BRT Rail (LRT) Low Cost Rail (Streetcar or Light Rail Vehicle) Traffic Community Support (results from meetings described above) 00 projections remain constant 00 projections remain constant LOS E to F at 600 South/NSL LOS C to D at Main and Parrish LOS E to F at 600 South/NSL LOS E to F at 600 South/NSL LOS C to D at Main and Parrish LOS E to F at 600 South/NSL N/A MEDIUM LOWMEDIUM LOWMEDIUM HIGH HIGH Executive Summary 0

17 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 All the build alternatives would operate at minute service offpeak, but peak service would vary. Initially, a 0minute frequency was assumed, but this was then adjusted by balancing the projected ridership with the capacity of the vehicles to be utilized. As a result, the BRT and Low Cost BRT Alternatives must offer more frequent service (at somewhat higher operating cost) in order to handle expected ridership loads. The Rail (LRT) and the Low Cost Rail (Streetcar or Light Rail Vehicle) Alternatives, in contrast, would have increased train lengths and could adhere to the 0minute frequency originally assumed for all of the alternatives. Ridership estimates, as derived from demand modeling of the alternatives range from 9,00 riders per day for the Enhanced Bus to,00 for the Rail (LRT) Alternative. The number of new daily riders attracted to each alternative relative to the Baseline (Enhanced Bus) Alternative ranges from,00 for the BRT Alternative to,000 for the Rail (LRT) Alternative. Estimated ridership for the NoBuild Alternative is based upon UTA s current Route 70 ridership in the study area. Table also shows the expected impact of all the alternatives on UTA s transit system as a whole. For modeling purposes, the system outside of South Davis County was kept constant, so any changes systemwide could be attributed to the transit changes in South Davis. This accounts for new passengers who transfer to and from other UTA s transit system lines. As a result, the number of annual transit vehicle miles and the number of transit vehicles needed to increase under all of the alternatives, when compared to the No Build. And the additional buses and bus miles are higher under those alternatives with bus trunk lines (Enhanced Bus, BRT, and Low Cost BRT), while the additional rail vehicles and rail service miles are higher for the Rail and Low Cost Rail Alternatives. Annual operating costs of the alternatives range from a low of $.6 million for the Rail (LRT) Alternative to $7.7 million for the LowCost BRT for the trunk line portions of the alternative. For the study area as a whole (including the trunk line and the background local bus network), annual operating costs range from $8.6 million for the Rail Alternatives to $.7 for the alternative with Low Cost BRT. Capital costs vary from a low range of $ million to $70 million for Enhanced Bus to a high of $60 million to $700 million for Rail (LRT). Executive Summary

18 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Figure. Short List of Alternatives Executive Summary

19 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Level Three Screening: Selection of the LPA The Level Three Screening involved a more detailed analysis of the five Short List Alternatives that resulted in the selection of an LPA. The low cost rail alternative ranked highest in the evaluation, and was selected as the LPA. The LPA is depicted in Figure. Table and Table show the characteristics and benefits of the LPA. This outcome reflects significant technical analysis, as well as stakeholder and community input. The LPA is assumed to operate on both exclusive and shared (mixedflow) sections and consists of the following: A highfrequency rail trunk line with limitedstop service that would serve as a regional transit backbone. A Farmington enhanced bus service extension that would provide a connection between rail s north terminus and Farmington. A local background bus network that would consist of several routes providing intraregional mobility and transit access to the rail trunk line. Executive Summary

20 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Table. LPA Characteristics Length and Travel Time: Rail to Parrish Lane ~. miles minutes at an average speed of mph Farmington extension ~ 6 miles 6 minutes at an average speed of mph Ridership:,700 daily transit riders including the Farmington extension Stations: Rail: 9 new and existing, Farmington extension new, (6 total) Frequency: Peak: 0 minutes, Offpeak: minutes Park and Rides: Salt Lake, Bountiful (), Centerville, Farmington Rail Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub (00 South/600 West in Salt Lake Termini: City)* and Main Street/Parrish Lane Farmington extension Rail Terminus and Farmington Commuter Rail Station Capital Cost: $0 to $80 million (007 dollars) Annual Operating Cost: $.6 to $.0 million (007 dollars) Annual Rail Service Miles: 9,0,00 systemwide transit miles, 89,880 LPA project Rail Vehicles: 9 systemwide, LPA project *The LPA termini for rail will be addressed fully in the DEIS Table. Benefits of the LPA Current Auto Travel Existing Route 70 (006) Locally Preferred Alternative (00) Ridership N/A Total Route:,80 To Farmington:,700 Travel Time (Farmington Station to SLC Intermodal) +/ 0 min. with no traffic to min. depending on time of day SLC to Farmington min. to Parrish Lane 0 min. SLC to Farmington (transfer to Bus in Centerville) Mobility Efficiency subject to traffic, which can be significant at peak Some areas are congested, and are predicted to remain congested Travel time remains constant, despite worsening traffic in some areas Reliability Land Use Reliability subject to traffic conditions No added development incentive Reliability subject to traffic conditions More than min late, % to 0% of the time No added development incentive Increased reliability with fixed stations and routes, avoids congestion Development more likely Executive Summary

21 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Figure. Locally Preferred Alternative Executive Summary

22 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Adoption and Next Steps In March 008, the seven municipalities within the study area were invited by UTA to adopt a resolution expressing support for an LPA that consisted of building a rail extension to Centerville along Main Street, with enhanced bus from Parrish Lane in Centerville to Farmington Commuter Rail Station. Following adoption of the AA, the LPA is to be taken forward for further environmental analysis with preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The DEIS will build on the results of the AA and compare the environmental impacts of the LPA against a No Build and Baseline Alternative. During development of the DEIS, the LPA will be further refined and the public will continue to have an opportunity to provide input on the project. Since the federal New Starts regulations require the submission of certain projectjustification information in support of a request to initiate preliminary engineering, this information will also be developed in conjunction with the NEPA process and included in the DEIS. Executive Summary 6

23 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Chapter. Project Background Introduction The goal of the South Davis Transit Study Alternatives Analysis (AA), jointly sponsored by the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) and Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), is to identify and evaluate whether transit improvements are warranted in the transportation corridor between downtown Salt Lake City and Farmington, which includes new commuter rail service and the Legacy Parkway. Each of the municipalities in the project area has its own individual needs and desires to integrate transit investments within its local transportation and land use plans. A large portion of the travel patterns (trips) are internal to the city where they originate and many stay within South Davis County. This, combined with strong travel demand to Salt Lake City, contributes to auto congestion within the study area. Other large destinations within the region consist of downtown Salt Lake City, the University of Utah, and the Salt Lake City International Airport. Corridor Description The study area (see Figure ) extends from 00 South in downtown Salt Lake City northward to the I/Highway 89/Legacy Parkway interchange in Farmington. The eastwest boundaries extend from the Wasatch Front Mountains on the east to the Legacy Parkway and I alignments on the west. This area includes the downtown area of Salt Lake City, and the cities of North Salt Lake, Woods Cross, Bountiful, West Bountiful, Centerville, and Farmington. The narrow geographic extent of most of South Davis County, with mountains on the east and the Great Salt Lake to the west, lends itself to major northsouth transportation facilities. This is typified by the I freeway, which divides the study area and acts as a north/south transportation spine. Access to this major transportation corridor is by a limited number of interchanges, which tend to funnel east/west traffic to a select few roads in the study area. The major northsouth corridors through this study area consist of I, Highway 89, Main Street in Centerville and Farmington, and Redwood Road. Existing eastwest corridors include 600 South, Center Street, 00 South, 00 North, and Pages Lane. There are planned improvements to I, Redwood Road, and 00 South. In addition, construction is underway on two new facilities: Legacy Parkway and the FrontRunner commuter rail service to operate between Ogden and Salt Lake City. These new facilities are needed given the rapid population and employment growth that has occurred during the last two decades, resulting in increased land use development and traffic congestion. The South Davis County study area is projected to grow from approximately 7,000 in 990 to approximately 0,000 by 00. In fact, since 990, the population of Davis County has grown by %. As a result, the infrastructure of 990 is no longer able to satisfy the needs of a growing and expanding county population. Most of the study area consists of residential development, with new development planned primarily on the west side of I, within the communities of North Salt Lake, Woods Chapter : Project Background 7

24 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Cross and Farmington. North Salt Lake will also be home to the Eagle Ridge residential development, to be located on the east side of Highway 89. An amusement park (Lagoon Park) exists at the northern end of the corridor in Farmington. In the more established community of Bountiful, redevelopment is planned and now underway. Major retail centers are also located on 600 South and 00 South in Bountiful. In addition, there are many manufacturing, warehouse, and oil businesses located on the west side of I. Study Methodology This study was conducted to identify potential transit improvements that are needed in the South Davis corridor by 00. This study involved several key steps including: Ongoing public outreach (Chapter ); Understanding of future conditions and development of Purpose and Need (Chapter ); Development of evaluation criteria for a range of alternatives, based on the Purpose and Need; Consideration of a range of alternatives, narrowing to fewer alternatives through technical analysis and the application of criteria (Chapter and ); and Selection and development of a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) (Chapter 6). This study was designed to satisfy Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requirements for future federal Section 09 New Starts funding. As such, a Baseline Alternative was evaluated, which consisted of transit service and capital improvements, not considered a major capital investment, that could be completed within the agencies existing resources. Previous Studies South Davis County has been the subject of several transportation studies. The South Davis Transit Study AA builds upon three previous transportation planning efforts: the Legacy Parkway Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), the WFRC South Davis Transit Needs Analysis, and the Wasatch Front Urban Area Long Range Transportation Plan Update: Legacy Parkway SEIS Funding for conducting the South Davis Transit Study was provided for under the Legacy Settlement Agreement, signed by the State of Utah in November of 006. The funds were made available to UDOT as a result of comments made by environmental groups and city officials who felt additional transit improvements were needed in the corridor. These comments were documented in a memo titled, Technical Memorandum on Integration of Highways and Transit in the North Corridor (integration technical memo) (Fehr and Peers, 00). Specifically, the memo called for: Identifying methodology for analyzing and selecting potential transit scenarios and enhancements. Chapter : Project Background 8

25 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Ensuring that Transit Oriented Development (TOD) opportunities used for the sequencing and integration analyses accurately reflected local planning efforts and that the hypothetical expansion of TOD used for these analyses reflected the maximum reasonable TOD. Reviewing the proposed scenarios included in the integration analysis. South Davis Transit Needs Analysis The 0000 WFRC South Davis Transit Needs Analysis (SDTNA) for South Davis County and Salt Lake City was completed to identify the need for improved transit. The SDTNA identified potential northsouth corridors and evaluated a range of transit technologies to serve the length of the corridor from Farmington to downtown Salt Lake City. Initial transit alignments were identified as part of the SDTNA through a public process. The initial alignments sufficiently represent the range of northsouth options that could serve the entire length of the corridor. The resulting recommendation from this study includes both BRT and Streetcar, operating in combination of shared (mixed flow) and exclusive guideways. However, the SDTNA did not address all critical components required to merit funding by the FTA. In particular, the study did not include a Baseline Alternative by which to compare Build Alternatives. Long Range Transportation Plan Update Prepared in 00, the Wasatch Front Urban Area Long Range Transportation Plan Update: 0000 (LRP) represented a long term assessment of the transportation needs of the Wasatch Front Region. The LRP planning process evaluated longrange capacity needs and developed a list of recommended highway, transit, and other improvements through the year 00. The planning process considered the Wasatch Front s travel demand, examined various transportation alternatives, determined transportation improvements, and provided proper construction phasing. A variety of transit system improvements were recommended by the Transit 00 Committee to be part of the 00 LRP Update. These recommended improvements to the Wasatch Front Region s transit system can be summarized in four general areas: () the implementation of a regional commuter rail system linking Weber County and Utah County; () the expansion of the existing light rail transit system, including the construction of new light rail transit lines to regions of high ridership demand; () the utilization of bus rapid transit and enhanced bus technologies to support the existing and planned light rail transit network, and; () the addition of more highfrequency bus corridors and extended bus transit coverage. Major transit improvements recommended by the 00 LRP Update included ten extensions of UTA s current TRAX light rail system to serve the growing transportation needs of the Wasatch Front Region. New bus rapid transit lines would be implemented as well. Approximately additional miles of light rail transit and 7 miles of bus rapid transit and enhanced bus service were recommended be added to the existing system. In addition, the 00 LRP Update included a 66mile commuter rail line linking Weber, Davis, and Salt Lake Counties. Bus service is recommended to almost double over the next 7 years. This increase in transit is to translate into greater service coverage, more frequent service, and longer hours of operation. Several corridors were identified for priority or high frequency bus transit service. The 00 LRP Update also identified needed transit hubs, intermodal centers, parkand ride lots, and paratransit service improvements. Chapter : Project Background 9

26 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 FTA Requirements To become eligible for federal fixed guideway funding, the congress and FTA have established specific criteria under the Section 09 New Starts program. To qualify for funding, there are three main steps that must be met:. Conducting an alternatives analysis and preparing preliminary engineering and final design,. Satisfying specific project justification criteria, and. Documenting a local financial commitment. Alternatives Analysis and Preliminary Engineering The first step for New Starts funding is to create a plan for transit improvements. This is achieved by preparing: Alternatives Analysis Preliminary Engineering Final Design FTA approval is required to continue past the Alternatives Analysis phase to Preliminary Engineering, and again before Final Design. Project Justification New Starts funding for a project must be justified by the following criteria: Mobility Improvements Environmental Benefits Operating Efficiencies Cost Effectiveness Transit Supportive Land Use and Future Patterns Other Factors Project justification is usually started while creating and choosing the preferred alternative. This justification is to indicate the benefits that the planned improvements for the corridor will achieve. Local Financial Commitment FTA requires that New Starts funds be used for projects that will be sustainable (promote economic development and land use) from design through operation. The following measurements are used: Stability and Reliability of Capital Financing Plan Chapter : Project Background 0

27 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Stability and Reliability of Operating Financing Plan Local Share of Project Costs Financial plans must be viable and the local sponsoring agency must be able to provide a local match to qualify for federal support. The plan for the South Davis Transit AA provides a method for creating alternatives based on input from local jurisdictions, project stakeholders and the general public. Justification for the LPA and Baseline Alternative also comes from the goals and objectives provided by review from these groups. A separate financial committee has been created strictly to determine how to fund such a project. Chapter : Project Background

28 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Chapter. Public Involvement Introduction Public involvement was critical in developing the transit alternatives for the South Davis Transit Study Alternatives Analysis (AA). Recognizing the challenges in achieving consensus on the selection of a locally preferred alternative (LPA) serving seven municipalities, an extensive twopart grassroots Public Involvement Plan was developed and implemented for the AA. The Public Involvement Plan included: Focused collaboration with key stakeholders including City staff, citizens, and elected officials, and Broadreaching community involvement activities. Focused Collaboration In order to provide key stakeholders with the opportunity to be actively engaged in the project, the following working groups/committees were formed: Technical Project Team Staff members from each of the seven municipalities as well as representatives from special interest groups were invited to be part of the Technical Project Team to provide input and guidance on technical aspects of the project development. Members of this team included City Managers, Engineers and Planners and representatives from both Davis County and the Wasatch Front Regional Council. Technical Project Team meetings were held prior to each round of Subcommittee meetings to gain buyin from City staff on the material being presented to their constituents. This created a sense of ownership amongst City staff and special interest groups toward the project. A total of six Technical Project Team meetings were held throughout the project. Elected Officials Committee The Elected Officials Committee membership included Mayors from each of the seven municipalities within the study area and Davis County Commissioners. The Elected Officials Committee was formed to obtain policy guidance from key decision makers throughout the project area. This committee also assisted by fostering political support for the project. A total of four Elected Officials Committee meetings were held throughout the project. Subcommittee Working Groups Seven Subcommittee Working Groups representing the seven individual municipalities within the study area were created and included a cross section of local residents, business owners, city representatives and elected officials. In addition, an effort was made to ensure each Subcommittee created a focus group of each community. Meetings were held with staff members and officials from each city to identify individuals interested in transit, community development, business, roadways, pedestrian and bicycle trails and other interests. To ensure Subcommittees maintained a regional focus for the project, representatives from each Subcommittee also attended Regional Workshop meetings. A total of Subcommittee meetings and four Regional Workshops (see Appendix A) were held throughout the course of the project. Chapter : Public Involvement

29 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Ongoing, twoway dialogue occurred with Subcommittee Working Group members, Project Team members and Elected Official Committee members throughout the study. Input was provided on all of the major tasks to assist in the identification of the LPA. BroadReaching Community Involvement Beyond the focused collaboration the Public Involvement Plan identified the following tools to give members of the wider South Davis community an opportunity to provide input and develop ownership of the project: Junior High School workshops Held on May 9 th & 0 th, 007 from 8:00 :00 p.m. Students were given a presentation about the fundamentals of developing a transit system. Students were then divided into groups of eight to 0 children. Each group worked through an exercise to identify their preferred alignment and mode for a transit solution in South Davis County. Suggested modes included shuttle, monorail, bus, BRT, LRT and Trolley. Key destinations suggested included Lagoon, Farmington Commuter Rail Station, Intermodal Hub, South Davis Recreation Center, various shopping centers and cinemas and the Bountiful Temple. Open House Meeting Held November 8, 007 from :0 8:00 p.m. at the South Davis Recreation Center. Sixtyone people attended. (Additional details and a summary of comments received is located in Appendix A). Information booths at community events Booths were set up at the WFRC 00 Regional Transportation Plan Open House on April, 007, Woods Cross Memorial Day Celebration on May, 007 and the Davis County Transportation Expo on June 7, 007. Information sheets providing an update on the project and directing public to the project website were available (see Appendix A). Project staff was also available to answer questions. Interactive project website The project website provided the general public with access to materials being presented at Subcommittee Working Group meetings and Regional Workshops. In addition, three interactive comment forms were posted on Chapter : Public Involvement

30 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 the website to gain input from the general public on major tasks being undertaken as part of the study. Contact information and a calendar of events were also available. Comment forms Three comment forms were created for the project to collect information on topics such as travel patterns, demand for expanded transit service, advantages and disadvantages of different mode types and preferred long list and short list alignments. Comment forms were available in both hard copy format (at various key locations throughout the study area) and online via the project website. Outreach materials Various outreach materials were developed to advertise the project and direct the public to locations and activities where they could find information and provide input. Outreach materials included two press releases (March and September 007), a project brochure, alerts and project information sheets. A copy of these materials is available in Appendix A. As a result of this public involvement process, the study team was successful in crafting a project purpose and need, identifying a set of study alternatives, obtaining public and agency comment on the feasibility and political acceptability of the alternatives, and selecting an LPA. Chapter : Public Involvement

31 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Chapter. Purpose and Need Introduction The process for establishing the Purpose and Need for transit service improvements in the South Davis study corridor was defined using two types of data; trends in demographics, land use and transportation, and public desire for transportation improvements. This chapter includes a discussion of: Trends and identification of transportation deficiencies, Community established goals and objectives, and Resulting Purpose and Need. Trends Demographic and Land Use Trends Study area demographics were based on the Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) demographic projections for 00, supplemented by individual meetings with representatives from each city within the study area. WFRC data also provided estimates for population, households, and employment based on growth trends and projected development patterns. Information was sorted by Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ) to help organize the regional data at a local level. Population The overall population in the study area is to grow by approximately % between 00 and 00 (see Table 6 and Figure ). The greatest population change is expected in North Salt Lake (8%) and is largely due to the Foxboro development. Salt Lake City is also planning dense housing in its Central Business District (CBD) with the Gateway and City Creek developments; by 00 the population of Salt Lake City within the study area is to increase 67%. Table 6. Future Population City 00 Population 00 Population % Change Salt Lake City 76,000 7,000 67% North Salt Lake 0,00 9,00 8% Bountiful,700,00 % Woods Cross 8,000,00 0% West Bountiful,900 6,800 9% Centerville 6,00 7,00 8% Farmington,00,00 % Unincorporated South Davis County,900,00 % Total 7,600,000 % Source: Governor s Office of Planning and Budget and WFRC, with data modifications in North Salt Lake, SLC and Bountiful based on City staff input regarding approved land use plans. Portion of Salt Lake City in the Study area Chapter : Purpose and Need

32 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Figure. Population Trends 00 to 00 Chapter : Purpose and Need 6

33 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Figure shows 00 population by TAZ. The areas with higher populations in 00 continue to support similar populations, although infill and redevelopment are expected to contribute to growth in Bountiful. TAZs with the highest growth rates are located primarily on the west side of I, within the communities of North Salt Lake, Woods Cross and Farmington. However, density is still greatest on the east side of South Davis County. The greatest areas of growth in the Study Area predicted for 00 include: Foxboro in North Salt Lake, Farmington Station Transit Oriented Development, Downtown Salt Lake City, specifically the City Creek Center, Gateway, and Marmalade areas, and Bountiful Main Street area. Employment The WFRC demographic data shows employment growth in every city in the study area. Table 7 shows the total predicted jobs per city for 00, which is also displayed in Figure 6 at the TAZ level. Compared with 00, unincorporated South Davis County, Woods Cross and Farmington show the greatest increase in employment. The highest number of jobs, however, will be in Salt Lake City, with an estimated total of approximately 0,000 jobs. Compared with the next highest employment center, which is Bountiful with approximately 6,000 jobs projected, it is evident that Salt Lake City will continue to be the most important job center in the study area. Figure 7 shows major activity centers throughout the study area that includes employment centers and event centers. Table 7. Future Employment City 00 Employment 00 Employment % Change Salt Lake City 7,000,000 % North Salt Lake 7,700,00 8% Bountiful,800 6,00 % Woods Cross,900 0,00 78% West Bountiful,00,00 % Centerville 6,00 8,800 8% Farmington 6,700,600 7% Unincorporated South Davis County,00,600 6% Total 8,7 99, 7% Source: Governors Office of Planning and Budget and WFRC, summarized by Fehr & Peers, January 007 Portion of Salt Lake City in the Study area Chapter : Purpose and Need 7

34 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Figure 6. Employment Trends 00 to 00 Chapter : Purpose and Need 8

35 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Figure 7. Activity Centers Chapter : Purpose and Need 9

36 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Figure 6 demonstrates the trends in employment from 00 to 00. Similar to population growth, the study area will experience significant employment growth on the west side of I in North Salt Lake, Woods Cross, West Bountiful, Centerville, and Farmington. Land Use, Development and Centers of Activity Each municipality has its own individual needs and desires to integrate transit investments within its transportation and land use plans. Existing activity centers include: Downtown Salt Lake City including the Triad Center, Gateway, the Intermodal Hub, Temple Square and the Church Office Building. Bountiful Main Street Centerville City Hall Area Farmington Town Center Existing and Future Travel Patterns Travel Demand within Davis County Table 8 shows the estimated travel demand within the cities of South Davis County for 00. Trips between Bountiful and Woods Cross remain high in 00 and represent the most trips between any two cities in South Davis County. Travel demand is predicted to also be high between North Salt Lake and Bountiful. In some instances, there is a small decrease in total trips between specific city pairs. The decrease in trips between Bountiful/North Salt Lake and Bountiful/Centerville can be attributed to changing land uses that create an improved jobshousing balance and provide more services locally. Table 8. South Davis Trip Distribution Origin/ 00 Daily Trips and Percent Change from 00 Destination Bountiful Woods Cross West Bountiful Centerville Farmington N. Salt Lake 6,600 9% 0,900 0%,00 0%,000 %,00 7% Bountiful,800 8%,00 6%,800 8%,900 % Woods Cross,00 66%,600 7%,800 7% W. Bountiful,900 % 800 8% Centerville 7,00 7% Source: WFRC Travel Demand Model, Version 6.0, summarized by Fehr & Peers, February 007 Travel demand is highest between the southernmost cities in South Davis County, including North Salt Lake, Woods Cross and Bountiful. The highest number of predicted trips is between Woods Cross and Bountiful. Although the highest amount of change occurs between Woods Cross and Farmington, the number of trips remains relatively low. Chapter : Purpose and Need 0

37 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Table 9 displays cumulative travel production/attraction, which represents all trips within the study area that begin or end in a particular city. Note that each city s cumulative trip production/attraction includes trips that are also counted in other cities. As such, Table 9 illustrates daily trip production/attraction for each city but does not accurately reflect the trip production/attraction for the study area as a whole. Table 9. South Davis to SLC Trip Distribution South Davis Daily Vehicle Trips % Change Difference North Salt Lake 8,900,00 8%,00 Bountiful,800,00 %,00 Woods Cross 7,000,00 6%,00 West Bountiful,00,600 % 00 Centerville,700,900 % 00 Farmington,00,000 67%,600 Source: WFRC Travel Demand Model, Version 6.0, summarized by Fehr & Peers, February Travel Demand between Davis County and Salt Lake City Predicted demand for travel to points outside the County is highest between Bountiful and Salt Lake City, which is consistent with 00 data. The most significant growth in travel demand associated with Salt Lake City occurs in Woods Cross and North Salt Lake. Figure 8 shows travel demand between cities in South Davis and the portion of the study area within Salt Lake City. The desire lines shown in Figure 8 indicate the relative travel demand by the thickness of the links between cities (thick desire lines signify high travel demand). The desire lines illustrate the following patterns: Travel demand will increase between all of the communities in South Davis and the CBD of Salt Lake City. Travel demand is predicted to be highest between Bountiful and the CBD of Salt Lake City, as was the case in 00. Bountiful, North Salt Lake, and Woods Cross will continue to be the most significant contributors to overall travel demand between South Davis cities and the Salt Lake City CBD. Chapter : Purpose and Need

38 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Figure 8. City Travel Demand between South Davis and Salt Lake Chapter : Purpose and Need

39 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Transportation System and Planned Improvements Roadway System Natural features bound the study area, with the Wasatch Mountains on the east and the Great Salt Lake on the west. As a result of these constraints, the transportation infrastructure within the study area emphasizes north/south mobility. The roadway network in the study area is comprised of a hierarchy of streets with various functions. The roadway network is shown in Figure 9. Significant roadway improvements in the South Davis study area are listed below and are shown in Figure 9. I 600 North to I upgrading and widening the northsouth interstate freeway in the study area to include HOV lanes. This project is in Phase of the LRP (000). I I to 00 South (Bountiful) widening the interstate freeway to include HOV lanes. This project is in Phase of the LRP (00). Legacy Parkway I to US89(Farmington) construction of a new fourlane, northsouth stateowned freeway on an alignment paralleling and west of I. This project is in Phase of the LRP (000) and is currently under construction. Redwood Road Salt Lake County Line to 00 South (Bountiful) widening Redwood Road to lanes. This project is in phase of the LRP (00). 00 South I to Legacy Parkway consists of widening 00 South to four lanes between interchanges with I and Legacy Parkway. This project is in Phase of the LRP (000). Transit UTA currently operates seven bus routes in the South Davis County area; the routes are, 60, 6, 6, 6, 70, and 7 (Figure 0). Route 70 is the flagship route for South Davis County, offering the most daily trips and supporting the highest overall ridership. Routes and 70 operate all day on 0 to 60 minutes headways, while all other bus routes are peak period services designed to accommodate commuters. These routes have approximately 0 to 0 minute headways during weekday morning and evening periods. Table 0 shows the daily transit riders for each of the routes serving the study area. Note that Routes and 70 are regional routes that extend beyond the study area boundaries, and data shown in Table 0 reflects the total route ridership. Chapter : Purpose and Need

40 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Figure 9. Planned Transportation Improvements Chapter : Purpose and Need

41 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Figure 0. Existing Bus Service Chapter : Purpose and Need

42 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Table 0. Average Daily Ridership on South Davis County Bus Routes Route Average Daily Ridership Weber State/Davis County/University of Utah,6 60 Woods Cross 9 6 Bountiful via State Capitol 9 6 North Salt Lake 7 6 West Bountiful SLC/Ogden Commuter,9 7 Centerville 0 Source: UTA 006, Summarized by Fehr & Peers, 007 Data averaged over eleven months. UTA s Light Rail Transit (LRT) system, known as TRAX, serves the southern portion of the study area in Salt Lake County. TRAX operates with minute headways on most days. TRAX provides access to the University of Utah through an east/west line that connects to the north/south line at 00 South. The Salt Lake Intermodal Center is located at 00 West and 600 South. Multiple bus routes stop at the center including private coach services, facilitating transfers between bus routes. Two major transit improvements are planned for the South Davis study area by 00. These projects are included in the Wasatch Front Regional Council LRP and consist of: Commuter Rail FrontRunner commuter rail line from Ogden to Salt Lake City is under construction, with completion planned for early 008. The Farmington Commuter Rail Station will be located west of I and south of Park Lane. The Woods Cross station will be located near 00 South and 800 West. The Salt Lake City station will be at the Intermodal Center on 00 South and 600 West. Light Rail the western terminus of the TRAX line is currently on South Temple, adjacent to the Energy Solutions Arena. Construction is in progress to extend the line west and south to the Salt Lake Intermodal Center, mentioned above. Figure 9 shows roadway and transportation improvements planned for 00. Nonmotorized Facilities Plans for bicycle and pedestrian facilities are produced by the WFRC and address pedestrian upgrades, trail construction, and bicycle facility improvements. According to the LRP, the following nonmotorized projects will be implemented by 00: Farmington Main Street Improvements Includes the reconstruction of sidewalks from Farmington Creek to Park Lane. Chapter : Purpose and Need 6

43 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Beck Street Bike Lane Commuter Connector, Phase Includes a bikepedestrian enhancement along Beck Street. The bike trail will be a fully separated 0foot wide, dual direction, shareduse path that extends. miles in Salt Lake City and. miles in North Salt Lake. Denver and Rio Grande Railroad Corridor Trail The railroad corridor will be preserved through the development of a multiuse trail from West Bountiful to Roy. This will be a Class I facility with a completely separated rightofway from travel lanes and highways. Center Street Trail Located in North Salt Lake and federally funded. Farmington Creek Trail Underpass. Specific bicycle related facilities in the 00 LRP relevant to this study include: bike lanes on 00 South through Woods Cross, West Bountiful and Bountiful and 00 East and State Street in Farmington; and bike routes on Highway 89, Pages Lane, and Parrish Lane. Performance of the System and Deficiencies The NoBuild Alternative 00 The future traffic operational conditions were evaluated on a simulated transportation network that included the roadway projects (new construction and improvements) and transit projects described above and identified in the Wasatch Front Regional Council LRP. The results in this chapter portray transportation conditions in 00 (see Figure ), including the improvements within the LRP, but not including any additional proposed transit alternative for South Davis County. This scenario is referred to as the NoBuild Alternative. The WFRC Regional Travel Model was used to determine the future traffic conditions in the study area. The evaluated period was the p.m. peak, from :00 to 7:00 p.m. This peak period, capturing the peak commute time, has been proven in numerous previous studies to be the most congested traffic time of a typical day. Generally, the overall future traffic conditions in the study area indicate acceptable levels of service (LOS A through D), except for the CBD of downtown Salt Lake City. However, some roadways are forecast to operate at LOS E or F. Mobility problems are identified in the following specific areas within the study area: The majority of Salt Lake City CBD streets, such as North Temple and State Street Northbound lane of I Northbound and some southbound sections of Redwood Road Northbound Beck Street Center Street area and Orchard Drive in North Salt Lake 00 West and Main Street between Bountiful and Centerville 000 West in Centerville near the Legacy interchange Northbound I between Centerville and Farmington Chapter : Purpose and Need 7

44 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Figure. Corridor Congestion Areas Chapter : Purpose and Need 8

45 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Based on the projects included in the regional travel model for 00, transit ridership will increase from 9,000 to approximately 77,000 trips overall, when taking into account transit trips to Salt Lake City. Because the regional model shows several projects in Salt Lake City that have little bearing on South Davis County, predicted transit share without Salt Lake City is also shown. Table shows the difference between 00 ridership demand and estimates for the NoBuild Alternative in 00. Table. 00 and Estimated 00 Transit Use Within the Study Area Total Trips With Origin or Destination in the Study Area 97,000,0,000 Total Transit Trips With Origin or Destination the Study Area 9,000 77,000 % Transit Trip of Total.0% 6.0% Within South Davis County Only Total Trips With Origin or Destination in South Davis County,000 6,000 Total Transit Trips With Origin and Destination in South Davis County,000,00 % of Transit Trip Total.7%.8% Source: WFRC Travel Demand Model, Version 6.0, Summarized by Fehr & Peers February 007 Route 70 is the primary route service in South Davis County, with service between Farmington and downtown Salt Lake City (see Figure 0). This route serves the large employment center at the downtown Salt Lake City Church Office Building. In 006, this route carried approximately,000 riders, and is considered a successful route in the system. With transit demand doubling in each scenario above (,00 trips in South Davis County alone), premium transit service will be needed to serve the increased demand. Development of Goals and Objectives As part of the development of community goals and objectives, Subcommittee meetings were held in each community. Each Subcommittee Working Group was asked to identify a vision for their community relevant to transportation. Comments received during this exercise assisted in the development of goals and objectives for the project. Representatives from each Subcommittee met at a Regional Workshop to ensure that the goals and objectives were refined to represent the entire study area. The top five goals identified for the project were: Create a complete transit system within the region that connects to transit options serving outside the region, Improve eastwest connectivity, and Reduce auto congestion. Chapter : Purpose and Need 9

46 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Integrate transit investments and land use plans. Provide attractive transit amenities to improve transit use. In addition to identifying goals, the Subcommittees were also asked to identify transportation problems in their community. Problem statements highlighted included: Existing transit service is not adequate in terms of coverage, frequency and connectivity. Inadequate auxiliary facilities to transit, including bicycle routes and facilities, sidewalks, bus shelters, and park and ride lots hinder bus use within the region. Pass through traffic and overflow on local roads caused by peak congestion diminishes their desired rural community atmosphere. Problem statements were then used to contribute to the project Need, and goals outline for the community reinforced the purpose statement below. Purpose and Need Statement Purpose of a Transportation Improvement The purpose of a transportation improvement in South Davis County is to increase mobility within the area, as well as to connect to transportation options serving the rest of the region. The transportation improvement should serve the demand for north/south travel, while also improving east/west connectivity. A proposed transportation project should result in the overall reduction of auto trips by providing alternative transportation choices, especially during commute periods. Expansion of transportation mode choice will also create an opportunity for the consideration and integration of land use plans and the coordination with auxiliary facilities that make transit attractive to the passenger. Need for a Transit Investment Increasing Travel Demand Data collection and analysis indicates that the demand for travel will be strongest between the southernmost cities of South Davis County and the CBD of Salt Lake City. Table shows that the highest demand for travel will be between Salt Lake City and North Salt Lake, Woods Cross and Bountiful. Congestion at Key Intersections Modeling indicated that, after planned improvements, automobile trips will outweigh the capacity of the roadways on select north/south roadways as well as at key east/west intersections in the study area, reflecting the need for a reduction in automobile trips to improve mobility. A volumetocapacity ratio analysis revealed high levels of congestion on several roadways in North Salt Lake, which is a choke point along the north/south system, affecting travel at each end of the study area. For efficient travel to occur between the cities in South Davis County as well as between South Davis County and Salt Lake City, congestion must be reduced through North Salt Lake. Orchard Drive, and U.S. 89 and 800 West, Center Street and Redwood Road, 00 South and 00 West, and 00 N and Main Street show high levels of congestion in 00 (see Figure ). Roadways between Chapter : Purpose and Need 0

47 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 downtown Salt Lake City and North Salt Lake will also congested with conditions approaching failing levels on I, Redwood Road, and Beck Street. Table. South Davis to SLC Trip Distribution South Davis Daily Trips % Change North Salt Lake 8,900,00 8% Bountiful,800,00 % Woods Cross 7,000,00 6% West Bountiful,00,600 % Centerville,700,900 % Farmington,00,000 67% Source: WFRC Travel Demand Model, Version 6.0, summarized by Fehr & Peers, February 007 Need for Integration of Land Use and Transportation Investments Growth, development and redevelopment are expected to occur within the study area, with changes in land use patterns in certain locations. Areas with the highest growth rates, and consequently the most land use changes, were discussed earlier. They include the west side of I, within the communities of North Salt Lake, Woods Cross and Farmington. In the more established community of Bountiful, redevelopment is planned and under way in the downtown area. The area of Salt Lake City within the study area is also expected to change significantly between 00 and 00 with additions of both job centers and housing. Prominent development in the study area includes: Foxboro in North Salt Lake, Farmington Station Transit Oriented Development, Downtown Salt Lake City, specifically the City Creek Center, Gateway, and Marmalade area, and Bountiful Main Street area. As development and redevelopment occurs in the study area, coordination of land use plans and transportation improvements must consider the need to reduce overall auto trips to improve mobility. With global warming a real concern, and the impacts of sprawl affecting the quality of air and the local consumption of petroleum, planning around an expanded transit system makes sense. Public Support for Transit Through an extensive public outreach process, stakeholders in South Davis County and Salt Lake City have expressed the need for better integration of the current transportation system and increased transit service. While the overall demand for transportation is strongest in the north/south orientation, there is a need to improve the east/west access to north/south mobility. To increase transportation choices, both the efficiency and attractiveness of north/south transit service in the corridor must be improved. These changes include such elements as () coordinated and timely transfers; () the ability of patrons to access transit stops; () increased route coverage on eastwest streets; () higher Chapter : Purpose and Need

48 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 frequencies on routes; and () improved bus stop facilities and transit information. Residents have also expressed the need for other improved auxiliary facilities such as bicycle routes, sidewalks, and bus shelters. Chapter : Purpose and Need

49 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Chapter. Alternatives Development The alternatives development process entailed three levels of screening. As alternatives were screened using appropriate evaluation criteria (see Figure ) and dropped from further analysis, the range of alternatives narrowed to produce a manageable number to carry forward into a detailed analysis for selecting a locally preferred alternative (LPA). Alternatives screening started with defining a universe of potential alternatives for transit improvements in the South Davis corridor. Level One Screening reduced the Universe of Alternatives down to a Long List of Alternatives, while Level Two Screening reduced the Long List down to a Short List of Alternatives. A final step then occurred with a Level Three Screening, which consisted of evaluating the Short List of Alternatives and resulting in the identification and selection of an LPA (see Figure ). Chapter details the evaluation and screening process to reach the Short List of Alternatives for detailed evaluation. Chapter, Detailed Alternatives Analysis, discusses the evaluation and screening process for the Short List of Alternative. Figure. Evaluation of Alternatives Chapter : Alternatives Development

50 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Universe of Alternatives The transit alternatives consisted of two elements: a technology (mode) and an alignment that described the location of the alternative. Modes In considering the Universe of Alternatives, potential transit technology options included most of the transit modes that are currently serving a public transit purpose in North America. Some transit technologies are operated in other parts of the world and have not been introduced in the United States. For example, magnetic levitation (maglev) is a highcost option that has yet to be implemented here. A 0mile maglev line in China cost $. billion to build, far exceeding the cost of conventional rail transit options. In addition, individuals and companies have proposed new transit technologies, such as MegaRail, MicroRail, and AirTrain. All are proprietary technologies and promise better and faster service at a lower cost than traditional transit technologies, even though there is no practical experience in designing, building, or operating these systems. In this study, only proven transit technologies that have been tested and built in the United States were considered in the Universe of Alternatives for the South Davis corridor. This set of technologies was further refined to exclude those technologies that inherently have a capital cost greater than $7 million per mile, a commitment substantially greater than UTA has made in previous investments. Existing transit modes in operation in the United States that were considered in the universe of alternatives include: Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) For purposes of this study, BRT is defined to include a limitedstop bus service using modern articulated buses of a distinct design; a unique brand name and identity comparable to UTA TRAX or FrontRunner ; segments of bus lanes and queue jump lanes to avoid traffic congestion; stations comparable in design and amenities to light rail stations; frequent service; limited stops; transit passenger information systems; and transit signal priority. There are several variants of BRT, depending upon the degree of separation of the rightofway. One variety involves buses that would operate in shared traffic, which, for this study, is referred to as Enhanced Bus, while the other involves buses that would operate in their own, exclusive lane on city streets. BRT alternatives were evaluated in this study. Commuter Rail Commuter rail typically consists of short trains operating on existing railroad rightsofway to serve longer distance trips to central cities from outlying areas. Trains consist of either nonmotorized cars propelled by a diesel or electric locomotive, or selfpropelled electric or diesel rail cars. The latter are referred to respectively as electric multiple units and diesel multiple units (DMUs). Station spacing is typically five miles or more, serving average trip lengths of to miles. UTA s FrontRunner service from Salt Lake City to Ogden is an example of a diesel locomotivehauled commuter rail service using bilevel cars. FrontRunner includes three stations in the South Davis corridor: downtown Salt Lake City, Woods Cross, and Farmington. Commuter rail already exists in Chapter : Alternatives Development

51 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Davis County; however, enhancements to the commuter rail system were included in the alternatives evaluated in this study. Light Rail Transit (LRT) LRT consists of electricallypowered single rail cars or short trains that can be operated on tracks both in city streets and in exclusive rightsofway. The emphasis is on exclusive lanes wherever possible to avoid delays from vehicular traffic. Light rail generally serves highdemand transit corridors within urbanized and nearby suburban areas. The key characteristic of light rail is its flexibility, considering alignment location, compatibility with adjacent vehicular traffic, and passenger capacity. Station spacing can be as close as onequarter mile in activity centers, but typically averages one mile overall. Average passenger trip length is approximately three to five miles. Vehicles may operate alone or in trains of up to four cars. Typically, these vehicles receive power from an overhead wire. UTA s TRAX is an example of LRT. Expansion of the LRT system was considered in the alternatives evaluated in this study. Streetcars Streetcar service is similar to light rail, except that it customarily utilizes single rail vehicles operating primarily in street lanes shared with other traffic. Streetcar lines in Portland and Tacoma use modern vehicles, while those in San Francisco, Dallas, and several other cities use historic or replica vehicles. Streetcar alignments are generally shorter than light rail alignments, and stops are typically just a few blocks apart. As such, streetcars typically serve as urban circulators or as tourist attractions. They are designed to handle short trips, rather than to serve as a major trunk line fed by other transit lines. Given the longer distance trips to be served by a South Davis trunk line, a modified streetcar line capable of higher speeds, similar to those found in Europe, was evaluated in this study. Heavy Rail Transit Heavy rail operates along exclusive rightsofway and is gradeseparated from traffic, pedestrians, and other rail modes. Heavy rail vehicles receive current in most cases from an electrified third rail, but several systems operate with overhead wires. Most new heavy rail projects have been extensions of existing systems, and heavy rail costs often approach or exceed $00 million per mile. As such, heavy rail costs far exceed the capital cost of other transit investments in the region and were not evaluated in this study. Monorail Monorail refers to electrically powered, rubbertired vehicles which operate along a single steel or concrete beam. The beam supports the vehicle and contains the power source. Monorail must be gradeseparated from other traffic. The majority of installations are elevated; however, monorails could conceivably operate in tunnels or at grade in fenced alignments. Las Vegas has the most recent example of monorail in urban transit use in the United States, with a capital cost in excess of $00 million per mile. Because such costs far exceed those of other transit investments in the region, and operational limitations, monorails were not evaluated in this study. Automated Guideway Transit (AGT) AGT, often referred to as people movers, includes both steelwheel/steelrail and rubber tired transit vehicles which operate under automated control on an exclusive guideway. Because they are automated, AGT systems must be gradeseparated from vehicular traffic. AGT systems are most commonly found in larger airports, where they connect separated terminals, such as those in Denver, Las Vegas, and Dallas/Ft. Worth. Recent AGT projects have approached or exceeded $ billion for airport circulator systems, costs that exceed $00 million per mile. As such, AGT costs Chapter : Alternatives Development

52 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 far exceeded the capital cost of other transit investments in the region and AGT was not evaluated in this study. Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) PRT is a theoretical transit mode similar to AGT but providing individual pointtopoint transportation. As with other automated transit modes, vehicles would operate on gradeseparated guideways. However, service would be operated on demand, with vehicles summoned to a stop by the passenger. This technology is currently under development and is designed to compete with the automobile by providing a direct, nonstop trip between origin and destination in small vehicles for up to four passengers. Like AGT, PRT requires construction of an exclusive guideway completely separated from other traffic. As such, PRT costs would be very similar to AGT costs at over $00 million per mile; therefore, PRT was not evaluated as a transit option in this study. Aerial Tramways Aerial tramways utilize cars suspended from an overhead cable, most commonly offering pointtopoint service in recreational areas. Aerial tramways generally operate over short distances, but the longest is over 8 miles in length. Although numerous aerial tramways of various types are operated around the world, including at Utah s ski resorts, only two serve a public transit function in the United States (New York City and Portland, Oregon). Portland s 0.6 mile aerial tramway cost $7 million to build, or over $9 million per mile. As such, aerial tramway costs far exceed the capital cost of other transit investments in the region and aerial tramways were not evaluated in this study. Cable Cars and Funicular Railways Cable cars and funicular railways, the latter also known as inclined planes, are designed to provide service on steep slopes, generally over a short distance. The Duquesne Incline in Pittsburgh is an example of a funicular railway, and San Francisco has a famous system of cable cars. Although the Wasatch Mountains form the eastern boundary of the corridor where a funicular or cable railway could be constructed, this transit mode could not serve any corridorwide purpose. Therefore, a cable car or funicular railway was not considered a suitable technology for this corridor. Ferry Service Ferry services utilize boats of various configurations to cross bodies of water. Passenger and car ferries carry thousands of commuters in New York City, San Francisco, and Seattle. Because there is no navigable waterway in the study area, ferry service was not considered a suitable technology for this corridor. Table reflects a Level One Screening of all technology modes based on the following basic criteria: Fits within the context of the study area The technology is at the appropriate scale for the study area. Proven technology The technology has been implemented in similar contexts with proven success. Financially practicable The technology does not cost substantially more than transit investments previously made along the Wasatch Front, including Light Rail and Commuter Rail. Chapter : Alternatives Development 6

53 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Table. Level One Screening of Modal Alternatives Mode Fits within the context of the study area Proven technology Is financially practicable Bus System Improvements Bus Rapid Transit Light Rail Transit Streetcar Commuter Rail Heavy Rail Transit Monorail Automated Guideway System Personal Rapid Transit Aerial Tramways Cable Cars and Funicular Railways Ferry Service Technology options were advanced in the following manner: Modes with two or more negative marks were dropped from additional analysis. Modes with two or more positive marks were retained for additional analysis. The technology options advanced for further study included: Bus system improvements (TSM/Baseline Alternative) Bus rapid transit Light rail transit Streetcar Commuter rail Alignment Options The following is a comprehensive list of alignment segments examined for this project. This list is derived from the South Davis Transit Needs Analysis, as well as from team analysis and reconnaissance, both of which identified a range of potential alignment alternatives. Alignment segment options are described in each jurisdiction from north to south, along with an assessment of their ability to meet the following criteria for selecting an alignment (Level One Screening Criteria): Serves existing or planned centers of population and/or employment Alignments must serve the demand for travel within the study area, and must serve Chapter : Alternatives Development 7

54 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 concentrations of either jobs or housing. Areas with higher densities of housing and jobs were also more favorably considered. Favorable field review results Field review occurred on several occasions and included all of the alignments listed above. Review focused on compatibility with surroundings, engineering constraints, and overall possibility for implementation. Identified by the public Alignments or segments identified by the public at Subcommittee meetings or Regional Workshops, especially ideas that have recurred through the process, are worthy of further investigation. Level One Screening Analysis and Results Table describes the application of the Level One Screening Criteria. Table. Level One Screening of Alignment Alternatives Pop. and/ or Alignment Emp. Density Farmington (terminus assumed at Farmington Station) Park Lane, 600 North, Main Street, State Street, 00 East Park Lane, Lagoon Drive, State Street, 00 West, Frontage Road Park Lane, Clark Lane, State Street, 00 East Park Lane, Clark Lane, State Street, 00 West, Frontage Road Favorable Field Review Identified by the Public Commuter Rail I Legacy Parkway Centerville 00 East/Main Street Frontage Road Frontage Road, Lund Lane, 00 East/Main Street Commuter Rail I Legacy Parkway West Bountiful Frontage Road/00 West Commuter Rail I Legacy Parkway Bountiful Main Street, Parrish Lane, 00 East/Orchard Drive Main Street (Centerville), 00 North, Chapter : Alternatives Development 8

55 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Table. Level One Screening of Alignment Alternatives Alignment Pop. and/ or Emp. Density Favorable Field Review Identified by the Public Main Street (Bountiful) Main Street, 00 North, 00 West 00 South 00 West, 00 North, 00 West Woods Cross Redwood Road Commuter Rail I Legacy Parkway, I North Salt Lake N US 89 to Beck Street N Main Street, Center Street, Commuter Rail N Orchard Street, Beck Street N Redwood Road NCR Commuter Rail N I NLP Legacy Parkway, I Salt Lake City Redwood Road, North Temple to CBD (to Airport Trax) I, 900 West, North Temple to CBD (to Airport Trax) Beck Street, 00 West to CBD Beck Street, 00 West to CBD Beck Street, Victory Road to CBD Commuter Rail to CBD I to CBD I to Airport TRAX Alignment segment alternatives were advanced in the following manner: Alignment segments with two or more negative marks were dropped from further analysis. Alignment segments with three positive marks were retained for additional analysis. Alignments with two or more positive marks were retained for additional analysis unless noted below: Chapter : Alternatives Development 9

56 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 After field review and discussions with the community, Main Street through Bountiful was considered to be less appealing for transit because of its existing character. Although Redwood Road will serve future development, particularly the Foxboro development, it will not compare with the overall densities found on the east side of South Davis County in 00. Orchard Street to Beck Street is a similar option to SR 89 to Beck Street; however, field review showed that it was less suitable for transit. Because an alignment in close proximity (the SR 89 to Beck Street Alignment) demonstrated greater suitability, this alternative was not moved forward. Alignment segments with two or more negative marks were dropped from further analysis unless noted below: Frontage Road was noted on several occasions, among differing public groups, as important to analyze. For this reason, Frontage Road was retained for detailed analysis. The commuter rail alignment through each community was identified by the team as a unique alternative to reduce costs, while still providing transit service to areas of South Davis. For this reason, it was carried forward as a possible segment through each community. Long List of Alternatives Based on the conclusions reached on transit technologies, and the list of candidate alignments above, the following modes and alignments were identified to represent a Long List of Alternatives within the South Davis corridor. While some variations on alignment were explored in the following list, additional detailed alignments were added or dropped as the Long List of Alternatives was fully developed. Modes Five modes were included in the Long List of Alternatives. General descriptions of each mode follow: Enhanced Bus Enhancement measures include signal priority, more frequent service, queuejumper lanes, and passenger amenities such as information systems and infrastructure improvements at stops. The service could be branded with distinctive vehicles and waiting shelters. Enhanced bus operates in a shared rightofway, which means it that shares lanes with auto traffic. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) With BRT, there is the possibility for exclusive bus lanes, signal prioritization, wayside fare collection, easier boarding, and enhanced passenger information technology. BRT can operate in either a shared rightofway, or an exclusive rightofway, with an emphasis on the latter. In an exclusive rightofway, the transit vehicle does not share the lane with auto traffic, thereby increasing speed and reliability. Chapter : Alternatives Development 0

57 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Streetcar Streetcars run on steel rails and are powered by electricity from an overhead wire. Vehicles typically share city streets to provide circulation or connector services in more dense land use environments. While this exemplifies the American model of recent streetcar application, European tram operations include a mix of shared and exclusive rightsofway on streets to improve travel time and reliability. For the purposes of the South Davis Transit Study, the European model is being considered. Streetcar can operate in either a shared rightofway or an exclusive rightofway. Light Rail Transit (LRT) LRT is a mediumcapacity, higher speed service applicable in both urban and suburban settings. LRT operates on steel rails and is powered by electricity from an overhead wire. LRT can operate in either a shared rightofway or an exclusive rightofway, with an emphasis on the latter. Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) DMU refers to selfpropelled passenger rail cars that operate on railroad rightsofway. DMUs operate on a shared track with another, heavier, transit system. The vehicle requires no overhead power. Alignments Alignments were divided into three main trunks: the Main Street Trunk (referred to as M Alignments ), the Frontage Road Trunk (F Alignments) and the Commuter Rail Trunk (C Alignments). The alignments are briefly described below and shown in Figure. Main Street Trunk (Alignment ) Originating in Salt Lake City at approximately State and 00 S, continuing to Farmington via SR89 and Main Street. There is also the opportunity for a connection to the Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub. Frontage Road Trunk (Alignment ) Originating in Salt Lake City at approximately State and 00 South, continuing to Farmington via SR89, 00 West, and Frontage Road. There is also the opportunity for a connection to the Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub. Commuter Rail Trunk (Alignment ) Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub to Farmington via existing commuter rail tracks. In addition to the main trunks, branch alignments were also considered. Branches in the study area would leave the main trunk at several points along the corridor to offer certain neighborhoods with a singleseat ride into downtown during peak hours. This differs from the local bus network which would support the alternatives created, but would not offer a single seat ride to downtown. The trunk and branch concept is only relevant to the BRT mode. Modes are discussed below. For each of the trunk alignments, various modes are applicable (see Table ). Chapter : Alternatives Development

58 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Figure. Long List of Alternatives Chapter : Alternatives Development

59 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Table. Alignments and Modes Possible Alignment Main Street Trunk Main Street Trunk with Branches Frontage Road Trunk Frontage Road Trunk with Branches Commuter Rail Trunk Modes possible Enhanced Bus Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Streetcar Light Rail (LRT) Bus Rapid Transit Enhanced Bus Bus Rapid Transit Streetcar Light Rail Bus Rapid Transit Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) Long List Alternatives Combining alignments and modes resulted in the identification of a Long List of Alternatives. Each alternative is coded by M, F, or C, depending on whether the alternative is associated with the Main Street, Frontage Road, or Commuter Rail trunk. Modes are represented by a number through. M Enhanced Bus on Main Street Assumptions: All shared rightofway M Bus Rapid Transit on Main Street Assumptions: Combination shared and exclusive rightofway M Bus Rapid Transit on Main Street, including branches Assumptions: Combination shared and exclusive rightofway on trunk, shared rightofway on branches M Streetcar on Main Street Assumptions: Combination shared and exclusive rightofway M Light Rail on Main Street Assumptions: Primarily exclusive rightofway F Enhanced Bus on Frontage Road Chapter : Alternatives Development

60 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Assumptions: All shared rightofway F Bus Rapid Transit on Frontage Road Assumptions: Combination shared and exclusive rightofway F Bus Rapid Transit on Frontage Road, including branches Assumptions: Combination shared and exclusive rightofway on trunk, shared rightofway on branches F Streetcar on Frontage Road Assumptions: Combination shared and exclusive rightofway F Light Rail on Frontage Road Assumptions: Primarily exclusive rightofway C Diesel Multiple Unit on Commuter Rail Line Assumptions: Shares existing commuter rail track Termini The southern terminus for each of the transit alternatives described above is located in downtown Salt Lake City. For bus options, a terminus of 00 South and State Street would provide a connection to several other bus services, as well as Light Rail, while servicing the major employment center of the Church Office Building. For rail options, the Intermodal Center terminus would provide a railtorail connection, as well as many transfers for bus routes. The northern terminus of the study area is the Farmington Commuter Rail Station, and hence this is considered a logical end point for any alternative. However, at the time of the development and evaluation of the Long List of Alternatives, the discussion of Pages Lane as a possible terminus was also explored. To reflect this possibility three additional alternatives are described as: P BRT to Pages Lane P Streetcar to Pages Lane P LRT to Pages Lane While initial modeling and analysis focused on Pages Lane as a possible terminus, later public feedback and the development of Centerville s Main Street Master Plan pointed to the need to consider Parrish Lane as a terminus. In addition, the data presented for the Pages Lane alternatives was assumed on the Main Street alignment, but an option to stay on 00/00 West through Bountiful was also considered. Chapter : Alternatives Development

61 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Evaluation Criteria for Long List Alternatives The performance of Long List Alternatives was measured based on a combination of quantitative and qualitative criteria. These alternatives were measured by basic criteria that highlighted the ability of the alternative to effectively meet the Purpose and Need of the project. The following criteria were general categories applied to each alternative, at increasing levels of detail as each level of alternatives screening is analyzed. Ridership Ridership estimates were assembled using the Wasatch Front Regional Council Travel Demand Model, Version 6.0. Sensitivity testing occurred over the course of a threemonth period. Preliminary results were subjected to a formal peer review by the Wasatch Front Regional Council and the UTA. Changes that were suggested by these two entities were incorporated to achieve the results used in this AA. Model runs were performed in order to understand the differences between alternatives, and to interpolate between alternatives when necessary. At this level, ridership is expressed as the total daily boardings for the proposed alternative, as well as the new riders added to the system for each alternative. Travel Time Travel time was determined as part of the ridership forecasting process and serves as an input in determining ridership. Travel time is expressed as the number of minutes it would take a rider to travel from downtown Salt Lake City to Farmington, as well as time to Parrish Lane, for each alternative. Cost Costs for the Long List of Alternatives were assessed on a conceptual level using only capital cost (construction cost). This is primarily based on cost per mile information and is reflected as a range. Environmental Impacts Environmental constraints included cursory analysis of wetlands, historic structures and any other environmental resource located within the corridor. Possible impacts were evaluated from the perspective of a fatal flaw analysis. RightofWay Impacts Potential impacts to rightofway were determined using estimated rightofway needed for each alignment. A typical cross section for each mode was overlaid on cross sections of the existing roadway rightsofway to obtain the total additional feet necessary. Land Use Effects Land use effects considered the possible benefits to land use as a result of implementing each of the alternatives. Positive benefits included the encouragement of transit oriented development or support of existing plans. Research shows that development is more likely at fixed guideway stations and was highest around rail alternatives. Community Support At meetings with the Project Team, political leaders, and the Subcommittees, individuals were given information on each alternative and asked to evaluate and recommend an alternative. The results from these series of meetings were used to assess community support (see Table ). Chapter : Alternatives Development

62 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Performance of Long List Alternatives Ridership Ridership ranges presented in Table 6 show the high and low results, based on the degree to which travel time improvements are made with exclusive or shared rightofway. Ridership is expressed as both daily and new riders. Table 6 shows ridership results for each alternative. Table 6. Projected 00 Conceptual Ridership Alt Description Estimated Daily Ridership Range for Route Estimated Range for New Daily Riders to the System M Enhanced Bus on Main Street 9,900,900 N/A M Bus Rapid Transit on Main Street,000,700,00,00 M Bus Rapid Transit on Main Street, including branches,00,900, M Streetcar on Main Street,000 6,00**,00,00 M Light Rail on Main Street 8,600 9,00 6,00 7,00 F Enhanced Bus on Frontage Road* 8,00,000 N/A F Bus Rapid Transit on Frontage Road 9,00, ,00 F Bus Rapid Transit on Frontage Road, including 8,00,00 900,00 branches* F Streetcar on Frontage Road,00,000,800,00 F Light Rail on Frontage Road*,800 6,00,00,600 C Diesel Multiple Unit on Commuter Rail Line,00,900 (,00) P BRT to Pages 7,000 9, ,000 P Streetcar to Pages 9,900,000,800,00 P LRT to Pages,00,00,00,00 *Interpolated ** Lower range being developed. Based on the results shown for ridership, the following categories were established to define low, medium, and high performance for new riders: Low performance: <,900 daily riders Medium performance:,90,00 daily riders High performance: >,00 daily riders Chapter : Alternatives Development 6

63 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 For each evaluation category, some data fell between the low, medium, and high categories. In this instance, a half score, such as. or. was used. Estimated Travel Time Modeling results also produced estimated travel times for each alternative. Travel times are shown below (see Table 7) in ranges. Table 7. Travel Time Alt Description Estimated Travel Time (min) M Enhanced Bus on Main Street 0 70 M Bus Rapid Transit on Main Street 0 M Bus Rapid Transit on Main Street, including branches 0 M Streetcar on Main Street 60 M Light Rail on Main Street 0 F Enhanced Bus on Frontage Road 0 70 F Bus Rapid Transit on Frontage Road 0 F Bus Rapid Transit on Frontage Road, including branches 0 F Streetcar on Frontage Road 60 F Light Rail on Frontage Road 0 C Diesel Multiple Unit on Commuter Rail Line 6 0 P BRT to Pages 0 0 Approximately min. to Farmington by bus P Streetcar to Pages Approximately min. to Farmington by Bus P LRT to Pages 0 0 Approximately minutes to Farmington by Bus Based on the results of travel time analysis, the following categories were established to reflect low, medium and high performance: Low performance > 60 minutes Medium performance: 0 60 minutes High performance: < 0 minutes Conceptual Cost The following costs shown in Table 8 do not include rightofway acquisition or transit vehicles and represent only conceptual level construction costs. A range of cost is indicated to account for the uncertainties at this stage of the project. Chapter : Alternatives Development 7

64 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Table 8. Conceptual Cost (In Millions, $007) Alt Description Conceptual Cost M Enhanced Bus on Main Street $0$0 M Bus Rapid Transit on Main Street $00$00 M Bus Rapid Transit on Main Street, including branches $00 $00 M Streetcar on Main Street $00$00 M Light Rail on Main Street $70 $90 F Enhanced Bus on Frontage Road $0$0 F Bus Rapid Transit on Frontage Road $00 $00 F Bus Rapid Transit on Frontage Road, including branches $00 $00 F Streetcar on Frontage Road $00 $00 F Light Rail on Frontage Road $70 $90 C Diesel Multiple Unit on Commuter Rail Line $0 P BRT to Pages $0$0 P Streetcar to Pages $0$0 P LRT to Pages $00 $700 Based on the analysis of conceptual costs, the following categories were established to reflect low, medium and high performance: Low performance: > $69 million Medium performance: $0 million $69 million High performance: < $0 million Environmental Impacts The natural and built environment varies greatly along the South Davis Transit Study corridor. Environmental factors that may be considered in more urban areas may not be relevant in less developed portions of the study area. In general, alternatives that pass through the main parts of the city centers or close to them affect the resources that are more population based such as cultural, hazardous materials, social and economic, and environmental justice. The alternatives that pass more westerly than the town centers are more likely, in general, to affect natural resources. A cursory review of environmental factors did not identify any environmental fatal flaws for any of the alternatives. Because the environmental factors at this point do not help distinguish between alternatives, a general assessment of no fatal flaws for the alignments has been made. RightofWay Impacts Possible impacts to rightofway along the alignments were determined using estimated rightofway needed for each alignment. A typical cross section for each mode was overlaid on cross sections of the existing rightsofway to obtain the total additional feet necessary. For each alternative, the amount of area required for the typical cross section was applied to the entire length of the corridor. Calculations were made for the additional Chapter : Alternatives Development 8

65 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 amount of rightofway necessary to construct the alternative without affecting current travel lane configuration. Totals are shown below in Table 9 in acres and represent a worstcase scenario. Table 9. Preliminary RightofWay Impacts Alt Description RightofWay Required (acres) M Enhanced Bus on Main Street. M M Bus Rapid Transit on Main Street Bus Rapid Transit on Main Street, including branches Discussion Assumes no additional rightofway required for alignment, except for stops or station areas and possibly queuejump lanes.. Typical cross section for BRT is Typical cross section for BRT is 8. Some rightofway required at intersections and stations on branches. M Streetcar on Main Street.8 Typical cross section for Streetcar is. M Light Rail on Main Street.7 Typical cross section for LRT is 8. F Enhanced Bus on Frontage Road. Assumes no additional rightofway required. for alignment, except for stops or station areas possibly queuejump lanes. F Bus Rapid Transit on Frontage Road 0. Typical cross section for BRT is 8. F Bus Rapid Transit on Frontage Road, including branches.7 Typical cross section for BRT is 8. No new rightofway needed on branches. F Streetcar on Frontage Road 8 Typical cross section for Streetcar is. F Light Rail on Frontage Road 0. Typical cross section for LRT is 8. C Diesel Multiple Unit on Commuter Rail Line Minimal rightofway acquisition at stations. P BRT to Pages. Typical cross section for BRT is 8. No new rightofway needed on branches. P Streetcar to Pages.0 Typical cross section for Streetcar is. P LRT to Pages. Typical cross section for LRT is 8. Based on the analysis above, the following ranges were established to determine low, medium and high performance: Low performance: > 7 acres Medium performance: 7 acres High performance: < acres Land Use Effects A comparative analysis was undertaken in order to determine the likelihood of transitoriented development (TOD) along each alternative. Most research on transportation and land use focus on how TOD can potentially increase ridership. Some suggest that particular transit modes can encourage development around transit facilities. Development Chapter : Alternatives Development 9

66 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 and investment are more prevalent along fixed guideways because the transit alignments will not likely change; in contrast, bus routes have greater flexibility but generally attract less economic development and new construction. For instance: Light rail can also spur new economic development. Portland, Oregon opened its Westside light rail line in 99, and within one year new businesses opened along the corridor; 0 businesses were recipients of Portland s storefront improvement grants. A new streetcar line, in Seattle, which opened in December 007, was the impetus behind a 0acre neighborhood revitalization, and is also the focus of an emerging commercial district. Commuter rail can encourage new development, particularly around stations. Examples include the New Jersey Transit Villages, and a new sports arena in Brooklyn along one of New York s commuter rail lines. The research cases above show that development will more likely occur around fixed rail alternatives. Table 0 assigns a low, medium or high ranking, based on the qualitative evaluation of each alternative. Table 0. Potential Land Use Effects Alt Description Potential Effects Discussion M Enhanced Bus on Main Street Low No anticipated development or redevelopment around bus stops. M Bus Rapid Transit on Main Street Medium Stations in exclusive lanes may encourage some development. Four locations in particular along Main Street are considering TODtype development. M Bus Rapid Transit on Main Street, including branches Medium See above. M Streetcar on Main Street High Could encourage TOD development. Four locations in particular along Main Street are considering TODtype development. M Light Rail on Main Street High Could encourage TOD development. Four locations in particular along Main Street are considering TODtype development. F Enhanced Bus on Frontage Road Low No anticipated development or redevelopment around bus stops. F F Bus Rapid Transit on Frontage Road Bus Rapid Transit on Frontage Road, including branches Low Low F Streetcar on Frontage Road Medium More limited opportunity for land use changes around Frontage road. See above. Fixed guideway would encourage more land use investment, however more limited opportunity for land use changes around Frontage Road. Chapter : Alternatives Development 60

67 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Table 0. Potential Land Use Effects Alt Description Potential Effects Discussion F Light Rail on Frontage Road Medium Fixed guideway would encourage more land use investment, however area around Frontage Road is limited. C Diesel Multiple Unit on Commuter Rail Line Medium P BRT to Pages Medium P Streetcar to Pages High P LRT to Pages High Development would likely occur around new stations, however only two additional are proposed. Increased opportunity for development around end station, however still considered less desirable than rail. Increased opportunity for development around end station. Increased opportunity for development around end station. Community Support Since February 007, key decision makers, including staff, citizens, and elected officials were engaged in a process to gather input. This data has been used to determine the level of community support for the Long List of Alternatives as shown in Table below. Table. Community Support Alt Description Degree of Support Discussion M M M Enhanced Bus on Main Street Bus Rapid Transit on Main Street Bus Rapid Transit on Main Street, including branches Low Medium High M Streetcar on Main Street Medium High M Light Rail on Main Street Medium High F Enhanced Bus on Frontage Road Low Community support for the enhanced bus alternative was low, as it was felt to offer little over the existing transit service in South Davis. Subcommittees/regional workshop attendees indicated that while BRT is better than enhanced bus, BRT along the trunk line (without branches) does not provide many oneseat alternatives. Many regional workshop attendees expressed their preference for this alternative, which provides several one seat options to down town SLC. The support for this mode type was mixed during Subcommittee meetings; however the Main Street alignment gained a lot of community support. Some communities feel streetcar would fit well within their community context. LRT along Main Street gained a high level of community support south of Parrish Lane, as it fits within the context of many of the communities. Community support for the enhanced bus alternative was low, as it was felt to offer little over the existing transit service in South Davis. Chapter : Alternatives Development 6

68 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Table. Community Support Alt Description Degree of Support Discussion F F F F C P Bus Rapid Transit on Frontage Road Bus Rapid Transit on Frontage Road, including branches Streetcar on Frontage Road Light Rail on Frontage Road Diesel Multiple Unit on Commuter Rail Line Bus Rapid Transit to Parrish Lane Medium High Medium Medium Low Medium P Streetcar to Parrish Lane Medium High P Light Rail to Parrish Lane High Subcommittees/regional workshop attendees indicated that while BRT is better than enhanced bus, BRT along the trunk line (without branches) does not provide a oneseat alternative. Regional workshop attendees expressed their preference for this alternative, which provides several one seat options to down town SLC. The support for this mode type was mixed during Subcommittee meetings. Some communities feel streetcar would fit well within their community context. The Frontage Road alignment is not as accessible as the Main Street alignment and therefore many communities were concerned about accessing this alternative. LRT along Frontage Road gained moderate community support south of Parrish Lane. Many of the communities were concerned about accessibility of the Frontage Road alignment. Results from the mode preference exercise at the Subcommittee meetings and community support exercise at the Regional Workshop indicated low support for this alternative. North of Parrish Lane, communities expressed significant support for a bus alternative; however, south of Parrish there was only moderate support. This mode gained moderate community support through the Subcommittee meetings. As it is a rail option (creating a sense of permanency), it is preferred over a bus alternative. This alternative gained significant community support through the public involvement process. Evaluation of Long List Alternatives Based on the information included in the above sections, an assignment of Low, Medium, or High was given to each evaluation criteria. A score of through was then assigned to represent a measurement of Low, Medium and High, respectively, to arrive at a ranking of alternatives shown in Table. The highest performing alternatives were Light Rail and Streetcar (ranking and, respectively) to Parrish Lane on the Main Street alignment. These alternatives had moderately high ridership, strong community support and a higher likelihood of creating positive land use effects. Light Rail to Farmington on Main Street also performed well (rank ), however because the option to end at Parrish Lane showed stronger performance, and considerable opposition in Farmington to the Main Street alignment through their city even though the regional process supported it, this alternative was not advanced. Chapter : Alternatives Development 6

69 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Table. Level Two Screening the Long List Alternatives M M M M M F F F F F C P P P Bus BRT BRT+ SC LRT Bus BRT BRT+ SC LRT DMU BRT SC LRT Conceptual Ridership (Net new) L/M/H L L/M L/M M H L L L L M L L L M Scoring.. Travel Time L/M/H L M M L/M M/H L M M L/M M/H H M M M Scoring.... Construction Cost L/M/H H M/H M/H M L H M/H M/H M L H H M/H M Scoring..... Environmental Constraints/Impacts Right of Way L/M/H H L L L L H L L L L H M M M Scoring Land Use Effects L/M/H L M M H H L L L M M M M H H Scoring Community Support L/M/H L M H M/H M/H L M H M M L M M/H H Scoring... AGGREGATE SCORE RANK Chapter : Alternatives Development 6

70 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 BRT with branches on Main Street also ranked high (rank to Parrish Lane, and rank to Farmington) was also advanced. This alternative performed well in community support and construction costs. The flexibility of BRT to function essentially as an enhanced bus encourages the consideration of BRT, with branches to Farmington, versus stopping at Parrish Lane. One alternative that ranked well was considered to have a fatal flaw and was not advanced for consideration in the Short List of alternatives. The DMU alternative, though inexpensive and relatively simple to construct, fails to attract new riders to the system in any measurable way. This alternative was not carried forward for consideration. None of the Frontage Road alignments performed as well as the Main Street alignments, and for this reasons, none have been moved forward for consideration in the Short List of Alternatives. Though not a strong performer, Bus on Main Street was advanced because of its potential to serve as the New Starts Baseline Alternative (discussed in Chapter ) The following alternatives were advanced for further study: Enhanced Bus on Main Street Alignment to Parrish Lane Bus Rapid Transit on Main Street Alignment (with branches) to Farmington Commuter Rail Station Light Rail on Main Street to Parrish Lane Streetcar on Main Street to Parrish Lane Chapter : Alternatives Development 6

71 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Chapter. Detailed Alternatives Analysis This chapter describes the Short List of Alternatives in detail, and includes: Detailed Description of Short List Alternatives Evaluation Criteria for Short List Alternatives Performance of Short List Alternatives Evaluation of Short List Alternatives Recommendation of a Locally Preferred Alternatives Short List of Alternatives Based on the analysis performed for the Level Two Screening, the Enhanced Bus (Baseline), BRT, Low Cost BRT, Rail (LRT), and Low Cost Rail (Streetcar or Light Rail) alternatives were advanced for final review (see Figure ). Each of the alternatives assumed use of the Main Street Alignment. The Low Cost BRT and the Low Cost Rail (Streetcar or Light Rail Vehicle) alternatives are to operate in a combination of exclusive and shared sections as explained below and exhibited in Figure. The alignment lengths vary by mode. Rail alternatives (terminating at the Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub) include one mile of existing track between the Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub and North Temple,. miles of new track between North Temple and Parrish Lane in Centerville, and six miles of bus service from Parrish Lane to the Farmington Commuter Rail Station, for a total of 8. miles. Bus alternatives (terminating at 00 South and State Street in Salt Lake City) include service on. miles of existing roadway between 00 South and North Temple that is assumed to remain unchanged. The remaining lengths of the bus alternatives are the same as Rail for a total of 8.8 miles. For cost estimating purposes, it was assumed that new guideway construction as defined for the rail and BRT alternatives exist on the. mile length between North Temple in Salt Lake City and Parrish Lane in Centerville. For both the rail and BRT alternatives, enhanced bus service would operate on the additional 6 miles from Parrish Lane in Centerville to the Farmington Commuter Rail Station. Enhanced Bus Baseline Alternative In addition to the build alternatives such as light rail or buses operating in exclusive lanes, the FTA Alternatives Analysis process requires development of lowercost transportation solutions. The process usually includes development of transportation systems management (TSM) strategies, such as implementation of relatively low cost transit service improvements. For the South Davis Transit Study AA and DEIS, the TSM and Baseline Alternatives were combined and considered as one alternative, and are referred to as the Baseline Alternative throughout this document (see Figure 6). More detail on the Baseline Alternative is included in Appendix B. Chapter : Detailed Alternatives Analysis 6

72 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 The Baseline Alternative assumes operation of Enhanced Bus in shared lanes, similar to the segment of Route 70 between Salt Lake City and Farmington, but offering more competitive travel time with fewer stops, signal prioritization/queue bypass lanes, more frequent service, and enhanced rider amenities. The service would be branded with distinctive vehicles and waiting shelters. Enhanced Bus would operate through downtown Salt Lake City from 00 South and State Street, North Temple, and 00 West to the Farmington Commuter Rail Station (8.8 miles). New bus stations would begin at 600 North and continue to the State Street station in Farmington ( new stations). There are three existing bus stations between 600 North and 00 South in downtown Salt Lake City (. miles). Stations: There are new station areas (6 platforms); platforms would be 0' wide/0' long, and have larger shelters and amenities (trash cans, lighting, benches, etc). The cost is assumed at $7,000/platform. As shown on Figure 6, the stations include the 600 North station in downtown Salt Lake City to the State Street station in Farmington. Site Work: There is a $.0 million allowance per mile (7. miles) to accommodate minimal utility modifications at new stations and provide pedestrian access improvements to stations throughout the corridor. RightofWay: There are sliver rightofway acquisitions at intersections to accommodate queue bypass lanes and stations for platforms. Chapter : Detailed Alternatives Analysis 66

73 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Figure. Short List of Alternatives Chapter : Detailed Alternatives Analysis 67

74 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Figure. Shared and Exclusive Segments for Low Cost Alternatives Chapter : Detailed Alternatives Analysis 68

75 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Figure 6. Baseline Alternative Chapter : Detailed Alternatives Analysis 69

76 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 BRT From 00 West and North Temple in Salt Lake City to Parrish Lane in Centerville (approximately. miles), buses would operate in exclusive lanes in the center of the street (see Figure 9 and Figure 0). North of Parrish Lane buses would continue to Farmington (approximately 6 miles) as enhanced bus service in shared lanes. In addition, there would be bus service on three branches (Center Street, Orchard Drive and 800 West) which would originate in neighborhoods and continue onto exclusive bus lanes during peak hours to offer a oneseatride to downtown Salt Lake City. Stations: There are new station areas (0 Guideway and Enhanced Bus). New bus stations begin at 600 North in downtown Salt Lake City and continue to the State Street station in Farmington (see Figure ). There are three existing bus stations between 00 South and 600 North in downtown Salt Lake City. Station platforms are 0' wide/00' long, and have LRT type amenities in the Guideway section. Costs are assumed at $00,000 for exclusive guideway stations and $7,000/platform for shared guideway Enhanced Bus stations. Site Work: Guideway section (approximately. miles) would require curbtocurb street reconstruction and medium level of utility/drainage modifications. Enhanced Bus segment (approximately 6 miles) would require minimal utility modifications and some pedestrian access improvements throughout. Costs are $7.0 million/mile in Guideway section (same as recent downtown Salt Lake City LRT project Site Work costs/mile) and $.0 million/mile in Enhanced Bus segment. RightofWay: There are sliver rightofway acquisitions along both sides of Guideway section to accommodate retention of existing travel lanes. In the Enhanced Bus segment there are sliver rightofway acquisitions at intersections to accommodate queue bypass lanes and station platforms. Figure 7. Lane Street with Enhanced Bus Chapter : Detailed Alternatives Analysis 70

77 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Figure 8. Lane Street with Enhanced Bus Low Cost BRT During the analysis of the Short List of Alternatives, it became clear that a middle cost range alternative had not been considered. Since the AA process encourages examining a range of alternatives at varied cost, a low cost BRT option was developed. This option is similar to that described above, except that vehicles would operate in a combination of exclusive and shared lanes (see Figure ). The exclusive segments (approximately 7. miles) would be from downtown Salt Lake City to the SR89/US 06 junction and the 00 North segment (see Figure 9). The shared segments (from the SR89/US 06 junction to 00 North in Bountiful and from 00 North to Parrish Lane equal approximately miles) would operate in shared traffic as Enhanced Bus with signal prioritization/queue bypass lanes (see Figure 7). The Low Cost BRT Alternative also includes a shared segment from Parrish to the Farmington Commuter Rail Station (6 miles). The same additional bus service in shared traffic on three branches, as described above, would be offered during peak hours. Stations: There are new stations (6 platforms). There are 6 exclusive guideway stations assumed at $00,000 each and 7 shared guideway stations assumed at $7,000/platform. Platforms are 0' wide/0' long, with regular bus shelters and no amenities. The new bus stations begin at 600 North and continue to the State Street station in Farmington (see Figure ). There are three existing bus stations between 00 South and 600 North in downtown Salt Lake City. Site Work: Guideway section (7. miles) would require curb to curb street reconstruction and medium level of utility/drainage modifications. Enhanced Bus segment (approximately 0 miles) would require minimal utility modifications and some pedestrian access improvements throughout. Costs are assumed at $7.0 million/mile in Guideway section (recent downtown Salt Lake City LRT project Site Work costs/mile) and $.0 million/mile in Enhanced Bus segment. Chapter : Detailed Alternatives Analysis 7

78 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 RightofWay: There would be sliver rightofway acquisitions required along both sides of the Guideway section to accommodate retention of existing travel lanes. In the Enhanced Bus segment there are sliver rightofway acquisitions at intersections to accommodate queue bypass lanes and station platforms. Chapter : Detailed Alternatives Analysis 7

79 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Figure 9. Lane with Exclusive BRT Lanes Figure 0. Lane with Exclusive BRT Lanes Alignment variation considered: Through Centerville via 00 West/00 West, past 00 North to Parrish Lane (see Figure for alignment options). Chapter : Detailed Alternatives Analysis 7

80 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Rail (LRT) This alternative consists of light rail transit (LRT) from the downtown Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub to Parrish Lane in Centerville (. miles) operating in exclusive lanes (see Figure and Figure ). In addition, an enhanced bus service would operate between Parrish Lane and Farmington (6 miles) in shared lanes (see Figure ). Stations: There are 9 new Guideway stations (from 600 North in downtown Salt Lake City to Parrish Lane in Centerville) and new Enhanced Bus stations (from Parrish Lane in Centerville to State Street in Farmington. LRT platforms are 0' wide/0' long, and have LRT type amenities. Enhanced Bus platforms are 0' wide/0' long and have larger shelters and amenities. Costs are assumed at $00,000 for Guideway stations and $7,000/platform for Enhanced Bus. Site Work: Guideway section would require curbtocurb street reconstruction and medium level of utility/drainage modifications. Enhanced Bus segment would require minimal utility modifications and some pedestrian access improvements throughout. Costs are assumed at are $7.0 million/mile in Guideway section (same as recent downtown Salt Lake City LRT project Site Work costs/mile) and $.0 million/mile in Enhanced Bus segment. RightofWay: There would be sliver rightofway acquisitions required along both sides of the Guideway section to accommodate retention of the number of existing travel lanes. In the Enhanced Bus segment there would also be sliver rightofway acquisitions needed at intersections to accommodate queue bypass lanes and station platforms. Low Cost Rail (Streetcar or Light Rail Vehicles (LRV)) Similar to the case with Low Cost BRT, a Low Cost Rail option was developed to provide a range of alternatives. This option could either be streetcar or light rail vehicles that would operate in a combination of exclusive and shared lanes (see Figure ). The exclusive segments (approximately 7. miles) would be from downtown Salt Lake City to the SR89/US 06 junction and the 00 North segment (see Figure and Figure ). The shared segments (approximately miles) would be from the SR89/US 06 junction to 00 North in Bountiful and from 00 North to Parrish Lane (see Figure ). In addition, an enhanced bus service would operate between Parrish Lane and Farmington in shared lanes (approximately 6 miles). For the purposes of estimating cost, streetcars were used. Stations: There are 9 new guideway stations: Four exclusive guideway center platform stations (0' wide/0' long), from 600 North in downtown Salt Lake City to 600 South and shared guideway side stations from 00 South in Bountiful to Parrish Lane (0 curbextensions of sidewalks 0' long). There are new Enhanced Bus stations (0' wide/0' long platforms) north of Parrish Lane: North, Lund Lane, and State Street in Farmington. Guideway station costs are assumed at $00,000 each; shared travel lane platforms are assumed at $0,000 each, and Enhanced Bus platforms are $7,000 each. Platforms have regular bus shelters and no amenities. Site Work: Guideway section was assumed to require only minimal roadway and utility modifications. Shared travel lane and Enhanced Bus segment would require minimal utility modifications and some pedestrian access improvements throughout. Costs are assumed at $9.0 million/mile in Guideway section (0% recent downtown Salt Lake City LRT project Chapter : Detailed Alternatives Analysis 7

81 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Site Work costs/mile); $.0 million/mile in shared travel lane section; and $.0 million/mile in Enhanced Bus segment. RightofWay: There would be sliver rightofway acquisitions required along both sides of Guideway section to accommodate retention of existing travel lanes. In the Enhanced Bus segment, there would also be sliver rightofway acquisitions needed at intersections to accommodate queue bypass lanes and station platforms. Chapter : Detailed Alternatives Analysis 7

82 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Figure. Lane Street with Exclusive Rail Lanes Figure. Lane Street with Exclusive Rail Lanes Chapter : Detailed Alternatives Analysis 76

83 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Figure. Lane Street Shared with Streetcar Alternative Not Carried Forward The 00 West alignment option through Centerville City was identified as a Short List possibility. This alignment variation was suggested by Centerville City as a bypass to the Main Street Alignment. Since this suggestion, the Centerville Main Street Master Plan was adopted, which strongly recommends a preference for transit on Main Street. City leaders, as well as the public, have expressed their support for the Main Street alignment. In addition, the Main Street alignment produced higher ridership than the 00 West Alignment. For these reasons, the 00 West alignment option was not considered in any further evaluation. Evaluation Criteria for Short List Alternatives The performance of the Short List Alternatives used several of the same criteria as for the Long List analysis, however greater refinement occurred within each category at this level. In addition to ridership, travel time, cost, land use effects, and community support, traffic effects and preliminary environmental analysis occurred at Level Three Screening (see Table ). Chapter : Detailed Alternatives Analysis 77

84 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Table. Physical and Operating Characteristics of the Short List of Alternatives Daily Ridership (boardings) Travel Time SLC to Parrish Lane (minutes) Travel Time SLC to Farmington (minutes) Service Frequency (peak/offpeak, minutes) NoBuild UTA s Route 70: 6,600 Enhanced Bus/Baseline BRT Route: 9,00 Route:,00 New:,00 Low Cost BRT Route:,600 New:,00 Rail (LRT) Route:,00 New:,000 Low Cost Rail (Streetcar or Light Rail Vehicle) Route:,700 New:, (transfer to Enhanced Bus in Centerville) 0 (transfer to Enhanced Bus in Centerville 0/0 0/ 0/ 0/ 0/ 0/ Estimated Capital Cost N/A $70 mil $800 mil $000 mil $60700 mil $080 mil Estimated Annual O&M Costs (in millions/007 dollars) N/A $. trunk line $9. study area $7. trunk line $. study area $7.7 trunk line $.7 study area $.6 trunk line $8.6 study area $.8 trunk line $8.8 study area RightofWay (approximate acres needed) Environmental N/A.7 N/A Low Environmental Impacts 0.7 to Parrish.6 to Parrish.7 to Parrish.7 to Parrish. Parrish to Farmington. Parrish to Farmington. Parrish to Farmington. Parrish to Farmington + Air quality* + Air quality* + Air quality* + Air quality* Cultural or historic resources** Cultural or historic resources** Cultural or historic resources** Cultural or historic resources** Land Use Benefits N/A LOW MEDIUM MEDIUM HIGH HIGH Chapter : Detailed Alternatives Analysis 78

85 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Table. Physical and Operating Characteristics of the Short List of Alternatives NoBuild Enhanced Bus/Baseline BRT Low Cost BRT Rail (LRT) Low Cost Rail (Streetcar or Light Rail Vehicle) Traffic Community Support (results from meetings described above) 00 projections remain constant 00 projections remain constant LOS E to F at 600 South/NSL LOS C to D at Main and Parrish N/A MEDIUM LOWMEDIUM LOS E to F at 600 South/NSL LOW MEDIUM LOS E to F at 600 South/NSL LOS C to D at Main and Parrish HIGH LOS E to F at 600 South/NSL HIGH Chapter : Detailed Alternatives Analysis 79

86 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Ridership Optimization of ridership for each alternative occurred to help determine the best coverage, minimization of transfers and ultimately the best alternative for the study area. Ridership is also expressed in riders per mile, in order to normalize between alternatives ending at Parrish Lane versus the Farmington Commuter Rail Station. Travel Time Travel time was determined as part of the ridership forecasting process and serves as an input in determining ridership. As with ridership, this measure was optimized for each alternative. Travel time is expressed as the number of minutes it would take a rider to travel from downtown Salt Lake City to Farmington, as well as time to Parrish Lane, for each alternative. Cost Capital costs included engineering each alternative, acquiring land, building facilities, and purchasing transit vehicles. These were developed using the standard FTA categories for transit construction projects and costs from recent similar projects (see Appendix D). Operating and maintenance costs were based on UTA s current hourly costs, expanded to an annual basis, using today s dollars. Environmental Impacts Environmental constraints included cursory analysis of wetlands, historic structures and any other environmental resource located within the corridor. The major categories examined at this conceptual stage included cultural resources and air quality. Because little difference was found among the alternatives, and no distinguishing factors could be made between alternatives, this cursory analysis was used only to identify where detailed study will be necessary and not to evaluate between alternatives. RightofWay Impacts Possible impacts to rightofway were assessed using a County property parcel GIS layer to determine the estimated rightofway needed along each alignment. A typical mode cross section was overlaid and applied to the entire length of the corridor to obtain the estimated rightofway acres necessary. Land Use Effects Land use effects considered the possible benefits to land use as a result of implementing each of the alternatives. In addition to considering modes more likely to have an effect on land use patterns, the number of specific locations where change is likely to occur (stations) was also considered. Traffic A planninglevel traffic analysis was performed to determine traffic impacts of the various alternatives on key intersections in the corridor. The alternatives were compared based on the number of intersections where the level of service (LOS) was degraded by at least one LOS grade due to the transit alternative. Community Support At meetings with the Project Team, political leaders, and the Subcommittees, individuals were given the information above and asked to evaluate and recommend an alternative. Chapter : Detailed Alternatives Analysis 80

87 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 In order to determine community support for the Short List of Alternatives and begin to narrow down to a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA), a series of meetings were held with the general public, Subcommittee Working Group members, the Technical Project Team and the Elected Officials Committee. The results of these meetings were used to evaluate community support for the Short List of Alternatives. Public Open House Meeting A Public Open House meeting was held at the South Davis Recreation Center on November 8, 007. Over,000 invitations were sent to residents/businesses within 00 of a potential transit alignment. Subcommittee Working Group members, the Technical Project Team and the Elected Official Committee were also invited. A total of 6 people attended this meeting. Meeting attendees wrote comments regarding the short list alignments directly on maps and comment cards, as well as indicated preferred alternatives using dots. Input received at this meeting highlighted strong community support for ) Rail on Main Street to Centerville with enhanced bus to Farmington ) Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) on the Commuter Rail Alignment ) Enhanced Bus. Reasons given for this support included: Rail on Main Street to Centerville would be fast, has high expected ridership and is able to provide a permanent transit solution that can be incorporated into future land use plans. By using the existing Commuter Rail alignment, the DMU alternative would have low rightofway impacts in comparison to other alternatives. Note: The DMU alternative was still under consideration as a Short List Alternative when the Public Open House meeting was held. In addition, low cost BRT and low cost Rail alternatives were not yet being considered when this meeting was held. Enhanced bus is a low cost alternative with minimal rightofway impacts expected. Technical Project Team Meeting Results from the Public Open House meeting were presented at a Technical Project Team meeting on November 0, 007. A matrix showing preliminary results from Level Three screening was also presented. Much of the discussion at this meeting focused around the Rail alternative along Main Street to Centerville, with enhanced bus to Farmington. Centerville City indicated a rail alternative along their Main Street to Parrish Lane fits well with the City s newly developed Master Plan, provided this alternative will have minimal rightofway impacts. North of Parrish Lane both Centerville and Farmington agreed there would be significant impacts to residential land uses due to the narrow rightofway along Main Street in this location. During this meeting the decision to no longer consider the Rail alternative along the Frontage Road was discussed. Reasons given included mixed community support from Farmington residents between the Frontage Road and Main Street alignments, low expected ridership, land use impacts and the benefits of the future Commuter Rail station in Farmington. Elected Officials Committee Meeting A meeting was held on December, 007 with the Elected Officials Committee. A similar discussion to the Technical Project Team meeting occurred. Centerville City reiterated Chapter : Detailed Alternatives Analysis 8

88 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 their support for a rail alternative along Main Street in Centerville south of Parrish Lane. Farmington City expressed their desire for a rail alternative along the Frontage Road and therefore suggested that this be considered later during Phase of the project. While there was a lack of consensus regarding the alignment north of Parrish Lane in Centerville/Farmington, all of the meeting attendees expressed their support for a rail based system in South Davis. There was no support expressed for a bus based system. Regional Workshop Subcommittee Working Group members attended the final Regional Workshop for the Alternatives Analysis phase of the project on December, 007. Meeting attendees reviewed the Level Three screening results and discussed the pros and cons of each of the short list alternatives in small groups. Each meeting attendee was asked to indicate their preferred alternative. Following are the results: Alternative Recommendations Enhanced Bus BRT with branches Standard BRT with branches Low Cost Rail on Main Street to Parrish Standard 0. Rail on Main Street to Parrish Low Cost. Input received at this meeting clearly highlighted community support for Rail on Main Street to Centerville with enhanced bus to Farmington. Reasons given for this support included: Positive land use impacts associated with Rail. Rail alternatives are more attractive and are likely to encourage new transit riders. A Rail based system will be compatible with other systems throughout the Wasatch Front. Rail is politically palatable and is therefore more likely to be funded. Elected Officials Committee Meeting During an additional meeting with Elected Officials and City Staff from Centerville and Farmington held on December 7, 007, it was agreed that both Centerville and Farmington would support the Rail to Centerville along Main Street, with an enhanced bus extension to Farmington alternative as the Locally Preferred Alternative for the South Davis Transit Study. It was explained to Farmington City that in order for a Rail alternative to be constructed along the Frontage Road from Parrish Lane to the Farmington Commuter Rail Station in the future, the City should work to make appropriate land use plans for the Frontage Road. It was stated that during Phase of the South Davis Transit Study, the project will not be studied as part of the upcoming Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Evaluation of Short List Alternatives Based on the information included in the previous section, an assignment of a score between one and ten was used to indicate higher versus lower performing alternatives. Table shows the results of the technical evaluation of each of the categories. The comprehensive analysis is shown in Appendix C. Chapter : Detailed Alternatives Analysis 8

89 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Table. Higher Versus Lower Performing Alternatives Baseline BRT Low Cost BRT Rail Low Cost Rail Total Score Average Score Rank Based on the evaluation above, Low Cost Rail was moved forward as the Locally Preferred Alternative Chapter : Detailed Alternatives Analysis 8

90 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Chapter 6. Locally Preferred Alternative General Description The Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) is a low cost rail system between Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub and Parrish Lane, with continuing bus service to the Farmington Commuter Rail Station. The recommended transit system (see Figure, Locally Preferred Alternative) consists of three components: Route. A highfrequency rail trunk line with limitedstop service that serves as a regional transit backbone.. A bus service extension to Farmington that provides service between the rail s north terminus (Parrish Lane) and Farmington Commuter Rail Station.. A local bus network consisting of several routes that provide intraregional mobility and transit access to the rail trunk line. The rail alignment is approximately. miles in length and will take minutes to traverse at an average speed of mph. The rail corridor is assumed to operate on both exclusive and shared (mixedflow) sections; these sections are determined primarily by rightofway constraints (see Figure ). The bus service extension to Farmington, operating in shared lanes, travels the remaining 6mile route of the corridor in 6 minutes at an average speed of mph. A three minute layover between rail and bus is assumed. Termini The rail service terminates at the Salt Lake Intermodal Hub (00 South/600 West in Salt Lake City) and Main Street/Parrish Lane in Centerville. Coordination with other transit projects and plans in Salt Lake City may result in a different terminus. The termini for the bus service extension to Farmington are Main Street/Parrish Lane in Centerville and the Farmington Commuter Rail Station. Chapter 6: Locally Preferred Alternative 8

91 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Figure. Locally Preferred Alternative Chapter 6: Locally Preferred Alternative 8

92 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Stations Rail Trunk Line Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub (00 S/600 W) 00 W/00 S 00 W/00 S 00 W/600 N SR89/Eagle Ridge Drive SR89/Center Street SR89/600 S SR06/00 S 00 W/00 S Main St/00 N Main St/Pages Lane Main St/Parrish Lane Note: The LPA was not modeled with a stop at 00 N/00 West, although this may still be a desired stop for the final configuration. Farmington Extension Main St/ N Main St/Lund Ln (or Glovers Ln) Main St/State St Farmington Commuter Rail Station ParkandRide Locations Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub (00 S/600 W) SR89/600 S SR06/00 S Main St/Pages Lane Farmington Commuter Rail Station Service Frequency The Low Cost Rail Alternative would operate every 0 minutes during weekday peak hours, minutes offpeak and all day Saturdays, and 0 minutes on Sundays and most holidays. The Farmington bus service extension would operate at the same headways in order to allow timed transfers between bus and rail at Parrish Lane. The background (local bus network) bus system will operate daily at 0minute intervals. Ridership Ridership forecasts were prepared using the WFRC Travel Demand Model, Version 6.0. Following the organization of the LPA, ridership is organized into four categories: trunk line ridership, the Farmington bus service extension, and the background local bus network. Trunk line ridership is expected to be,900 average daily boardings. Figure shows total daily boardings north and south at each proposed station. Chapter 6: Locally Preferred Alternative 86

93 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Figure. Daily Activity for Low Cost Rail Alternative Daily Station Activity for Low Cost Rail Alternative Southbound Northbound,00,000 Daily Boardings,00,000,00, Main St / Parrish Ln Main St / Pages Ln 00 W / 00 N 00 W / 00 S SR06 / 00 S US89 / 600 S US89 / Center St Gravel Pit / 00 W / 600 N 00 W / 00 S 00 S / 00 W Central Station / Station The bus extension to Farmington is expected to add an additional 800 average daily boardings, and reflects ridership on the bus route between Parrish Lane and the Farmington Commuter Rail Station. The background local bus system is expected to attract approximately,600 average daily riders. The total net new riders to the transit system in South Davis County is expected to be,700 daily riders. This value is calculated by summing the difference in trunkline ridership, background bus ridership, and FrontRunner ridership, relative to the overall system ridership under the Baseline Alternative. Additional technical information on ridership estimates is included in the Ridership Methodology Technical Memorandum dated February 6, 008. Construction of the LPA is expected to reduce demand on FrontRunner North, which will provide commuter rail service between Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub and Pleasant View. The predicted ridership on FrontRunner between Pleasant View to Payson, using Version 6.0 of the WFRC Travel Demand Model, is 6,00 daily riders. This estimate is higher than that predicted with the previous Version.. With improved access to premium transit between South Davis County and Salt Lake City, between,00 to,00 riders are anticipated to divert from FrontRunner North in the LPA relative to the NoBuild and Baseline Alternatives. Figure 6 illustrates FrontRunner boardings for the entire North segment (Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub to Pleasant View) and for the South Davis Transit Study corridor only. The four study area stations include Farmington, 00 South Bountiful, North Temple, and Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub. Note that the North Temple station was present in the modeling because it is included in the WFRC Version 6.0 travel demand model, though the station will not exist in the FrontRunner service on opening day (approximately April 008). The WFRC travel demand model Version 6.0 indicates that FrontRunner boardings will decrease in Layton, Clearfield, Roy, Ogden, and Pleasant View by 00 to 800 in the LPA Chapter 6: Locally Preferred Alternative 87

94 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 scenario, relative to the NoBuild and Baseline scenarios. Additional research is necessary since there is little ostensible reason for a decrease in commuter rail boardings north of the study area as a result of this project. Looking at the FrontRunner stations in the South Davis corridor only, boardings decrease by,00 to,600 under the LPA relative to the NoBuild and Baseline Alternatives. Figure 6. Estimated Ridership for FrontRunner North Estimated Ridership for FrontRunner North FrontRunner North South Davis Study Area only 6,000,000,800,000,00,000 Daily Ridership 0,000 8,000 6,000,000 9,000 9,00 7,800,000 No Build Baseline LPA Alternatives Capital and Operating Costs For the purposes of calculating costs for the Low Cost Rail Alternative, capital and operating estimates for streetcar have been made. It should be noted that no final decision has been made on the specific type of vehicle to be used; this will occur during Phase of the study. The costs estimates assume the service frequencies described above. Peak load point, peakdirectional demand in 00 of 760 passengers for the peak hour requires alternating two and threecar trains of streetcars operating at tenminute intervals; single cars will probably suffice for most offpeak service. Roundtrip running time, with layover, was estimated through model simulations at 7 minutes, resulting in 6,00 revenue hours per year. For the Farmington bus service extension, the round trip running time was estimated at. minutes, accruing,00 revenue hours per year. Streetcar operating costs were based upon current TRAX costs of $9.0 per vehicle revenue hour and 6,00 annual vehicle hours per year, resulting in annual operating costs of approximately $. million. For this level of analysis, it was assumed that the cost of operating a streetcar and a light rail vehicle were identical. Should there be some savings in terms of electricity consumption or maintenance, then this figure could be adjusted accordingly. In addition to this figure, the cost of the Farmington bus service extension must be added. With an estimated,00 hours per year at UTA s current cost of $06 per bus vehicle revenue hour, the shuttle operation would cost $. million annually. Based on these assumptions, total annual operating expenses for the streetcar alternative in 00 (expressed in 007 dollars) are $.8 million. Chapter 6: Locally Preferred Alternative 88

95 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 The operating plan would require streetcars (similar to those found in Portland), including spares. The capacity of each vehicle is assumed to use a peak load factor (number of passengers divided by number of seats) of.8, which is the current standard for TRAX. Capital costs include engineering, acquisition of vehicles, purchase of rightofway, and project construction. Total vehicle costs are estimated at $6.8 million. This includes the purchase of streetcars at a cost of $.6 million each, for a total of $9.8 million; and six low floor, articulated buses (also including spares), estimated at $6 million. Rightofway and construction are estimated at $0 million, professional services at $8.6 million, and contingencies at $7.6 million. Total capital costs, including vehicles, are thus estimated at $0 million. See Appendix D for additional detail about costs. Preliminary Design Concept Shared vs. Exclusive Sections Figure shows the segments of the rail alignment that are exclusive versus shared rightofway. Rail will have exclusive rightofway between the Salt Lake Intermodal Hub and the US89/SR06 junction in Bountiful. The rail will share a travel lane with traffic north of that point except for the segment on 00 North, which is between 00 East and Main Street. Figure 7 shows the typical cross sections for the streetcar where it runs with exclusive right of way on a fourlane street. Figure 7. Typical Cross Sections for the Streetcar Figure 8 shows the typical cross sections for the streetcar where it runs in shared lanes with traffic on a twolane street, resulting in one shared lane and one autoonly lane each direction. Chapter 6: Locally Preferred Alternative 89

96 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Figure 8. Typical Cross Sections for the Streetcar Figure 9 shows the typical cross sections for the streetcar where it runs with exclusive right of way on a twolane street. Figure 9. Typical Cross Sections for the Streetcar Vehicle Considerations During Phase, selection of a rail vehicle for implementing the LPA will need to take into account the following considerations: Community context, Wheel type and the ability to or not to run on existing LRT tracks, and Tradeoffs of vehicle speed and size versus cost. Chapter 6: Locally Preferred Alternative 90

97 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Funding Options Federal Through its Section 09 New Starts program, the FTA has several specific programs available to help fund new capital fixed guideway improvement projects. Depending on the construction cost of the proposed project, these programs include: New Starts Major capital investment grants of $7 million or more. The statutory local match for New Starts funding is 80 percent federal, 0 percent local. However, FTA continues to encourage project sponsors to request a Federal New Starts funding share that is as low as possible in all of the funding categories. Small Starts Capital investment grants less than $7 million with a total project cost not to exceed $0 million. Very Small Starts Capital investment grants less than $ million with a total project cost not to exceed $0 million and $ million per mile (excluding vehicles). The South Davis Transit project would likely fall into the New Starts category. As mentioned above, each category in the program requires a local government match and would not cover the total cost of the project. Local Regardless of federal funding, local governments should be prepared to provide a substantial portion of capital funding for this project. Both local option taxes and beneficiary sources can and should be considered by each of the participating cities, and by the County. The following should be considered: Adoption of local option taxes including sales and property taxes, Enactment of beneficiary changes such as impact fees and Special Improvement Districts, and Use of General Obligation Bond. Private With development occurring along the corridor and developers willing to participate in the planning process, the cities and UTA should discuss opportunities for creating publicprivate partnerships, whereby developers can enhance the success of their development projects by helping fund the transit improvement project. Adoption/Next Steps/Other Issues City Council Updates During January/February 008 the Rail to Centerville along Main Street, with enhanced bus to Farmington alternative was brought forward for consideration as the LPA at City Council meetings in each of the seven municipalities within the study area. City Councils were provided with an update on the project and given the opportunity to ask questions Chapter 6: Locally Preferred Alternative 9

98 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 regarding the LPA. Meeting dates and times were posted on the project website and the general public was invited to attend these meetings. City Council updates occurred on the following dates: Centerville City January, 008 City of North Salt Lake January, 008 Farmington City January, 008 Bountiful City January, 008 Salt Lake City Transportation Advisory Board February, 008 Woods Cross City February, 008 West Bountiful City February 9, 008 Salt Lake City meeting to be held in March 008 The seven municipalities within the study area were invited to adopt a resolution during March 008 indicating their support for UTA to adopt an LPA consisting of Rail to Centerville along Main Street, with enhanced bus to Farmington. The LPA will be taken forward for further environmental analysis in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The public will continue to have the opportunity to provide input on the project during Phase of the study and preparation of the DEIS. The LPA will continue to be refined throughout this process. The next steps after completion of the AA include: Finalizing resolutions in each of the seven municipalities, Initiating an environmental process through a DEIS, Investigating Federal, Local, and Private funding, Developing conceptual level construction and implementation costs, Continuing to educate the public about the LPA, Advancing the project to preliminary engineering and design, Conducting a detailed analysis of LPA termini Salt Lake City Hub and Parrish Lane, and Address possible future phasing of a fixed guideway between Parrish Lane and Farmington. Chapter 6: Locally Preferred Alternative 9

99 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Appendix A Public Involvement Materials Appendix A

100 to w o H olved v n I Get Contact Us South Davis Transit Study Team c/o H.W. Lochner 0 East 00 South, Suite 600 Salt Lake City, Utah 807 Saffron Capson (80) Fax: (80) 6888 Project Hotline: info@southdavistransit.com ces i o h nsit C a r T ting a e r C

101 Project Description Community Involvement Utah Department of Transportation and Utah Transit Authority have teamed to develop a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for mass transit in South Davis County. The study is being conducted to identify the best transit solution or solutions for South Davis County. The DEIS builds on a previous study conducted by the Wasatch Front Regional Council and is divided into two phases. The first phase is comprised of an Alternative Analysis process that marks the first step toward obtaining eligibility for federal funding through the Federal Transit Administration. The Alternatives Analysis will conclude with the identification of a Locally Preferred Alternative in late 007. The second phase of the South Davis Transit DEIS is the detailed evaluation of impacts pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. The timeline for the second phase of the DEIS has not yet been determined. Funding Committee Major Tasks Identify Existing Conditions, and Develop Goals and Objectives Develop Purpose and Need, and Evaluation Criteria Evaluate Alternatives (Determine the top three alternatives) Identify Locally Preferred Alternative Subcommittee Meetings A subcommittee will be created for each community in the project area to help project team identify local issues. The communities include Salt Lake City, North Salt Lake, Woods Cross, West Bountiful, Bountiful, Centerville, and Farmington. Subcommittees will provide a forum for open communication to assist with identifying goals, problems, and potential solutions within their communities. Members will represent a variety of interests for each community. Regional Workshops The regional workshops will bring together ideas and information collected at the local level (e.g. subcommittee meetings and other community outreach activities) to develop regional transportation solutions. Subcommittee Meeting Spring 007 Subcommittee Meeting Spring 007 Subcommittee Meeting Summer 007 Subcommittee Meeting Fall 007 Meetings Funding Committee A funding committee has been established to explore opportunities for securing the capital necessary to build and operate proposed transit solutions. To ensure a creative approach to this task, the funding committee will consist of representatives from a broad spectrum of backgrounds including both private and public spheres. Other Community Outreach Website Speakers Bureau School Projects Comment Cards Open Community Meetings Presentations at Community Events Regional Workshop Spring 007 Regional Workshop Summer 007 Regional Workshop Fall 007 Regional Workshop Late 007 Ongoing Community Outreach

102 Community Newsletter March 007 South Davis Transit Study To Identify Mass Transit Alternatives In South Davis County The Utah Department of Transportation and the Utah Transit Authority are partnering to perform the South Davis Transit Study. The study will identify mass transit alternatives that will best serve the residents of south Davis County. The study will include the creation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), which will be divided into two phases. The South Davis Transit DEIS will identify both the positive and negative impacts of different types of mass transit and determine which type of transit is the best overall fit for the area. The first phase of the DEIS is an alternatives analysis, which will identify all of the potential transit corridors and types of transportation that could potentially be used. Those alternatives will then be analyzed based on criteria such as potential ridership, local impacts and cost. The alternatives analysis will conclude with the identification of a locallypreferred alternative sometime later this year. The second phase of the South Davis Transit DEIS is the detailed evaluation of impacts pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. The purpose of the Act is to promote efforts that will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and promote the health and welfare of mankind. The timeline for the second phase of the DEIS has not yet been determined. The project study area begins in downtown Salt Lake City and ends in Farmington, including the communities of North Salt Lake, Woods Cross, Bountiful, West Bountiful and Centerville. Please plan to attend an Open House at the Centerville City Hall on April 7, 006 from :007:00 pm to learn more about the project. An extensive stakeholder and public involvement program has been developed in order to gain community input on the project as it progresses through each phase. For more information on the project or to provide comments on the project, visit the South Davis Transit Study Web site at or call the project hotline at March 0, 007

103 South Davis Transit Study March 007 News Article South Davis Transit Study Draft Environmental Impact Statement The Utah Department of Transportation and the Utah Transit Authority have teamed to develop a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for mass transit in South Davis County. The study is being conducted to identify the best transit solution or solutions for South Davis County. The DEIS builds on a previous study that was conducted by the Wasatch Front Regional Council and is divided into two phases. The first phase is comprised of an Alternative Analysis process that will conclude with the identification of a Locally Preferred Alternative in late 007. The second phase of the South Davis Transit DEIS is the detailed evaluation of impacts pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. The timeline for the second phase of the DEIS has not yet been determined. The project study area begins in downtown Salt Lake City and ends in Farmington, including the communities of North Salt Lake, Woods Cross, Bountiful, West Bountiful, and Centerville. An extensive stakeholder and public involvement program has been developed in order to gain community input on the project as it progresses through each of the major tasks. To provide comments on the project or to attain additional information please visit the South Davis Transit Study website at call the project hotline at 8887, or contact the public involvement team at Your input is greatly appreciated!

104 Project: South Davis County Transit DEIS Date/Time: Thursday, March 8, 007; :00 A.M. :00 P.M. Subject: Goals and Objectives, Problem Statements Location: Bountiful City Hall Attendees Utah Transit Authority Utah Department of Transportation Carter & Burgess Kerry Doane Angelo Papastamos Rex Harris Keith Hall Michael Adams Andrew Gemperline Colleen Lavery Bill Lieberman H. W. Lochner Kim Clark Saffron Capson Jacqueline Jensen Ross Peterson Fehr & Peers WFRC UBET Bountiful Centerville Farmington North Salt Lake Jon Nepstad Robin Hutcheson Greg Scott Roger Borgenicht Dorothy Barlow Grant Horsley Clark Jenkins Aric Jensen Tom Smith Bill Davies Tami Fillmore George Fisher Sherri Lindstrom Cory Snyder Steve Thacker Scott Harbertson (Mayor) Chadwick Greenhalgh Scott Ogilvie David Petersen Sid Young Shanna Schaefermeyer (Mayor) Blaine Gehring Regional Workshop # Summary Page

105 Salt Lake City West Bountiful Woods Cross Conrad Jacobson Kevin Young Michael Eggett Jim Hanks Dave Tovey Wendell Wild Roger Wray Vic Arnold Anne Blankenship Tim Stephens Notes The notes contained within this document provide a summary of the content discussed during the meeting on the given date and time stated above. If this content differs from your understanding, please notify Jacqueline Jensen of any discrepancies within five working days. Summary of the Regional Workshop () Welcome and Introductions o Upon entering the Regional Workshop, each participant was given a nametag; a packet with the agenda, compiled list of problem statements from the various subcommittee meetings, and a sheet of goals and objectives; and five colored dots. o Angelo Papastamos began the meeting be introducing himself from UDOT and Kerry Doane from UTA. Explained that this is to understand the regional issues. Kerry invited attendees to a UTA bus route redesign open house later in the day and explained that it was an effort by a different UTA department and separate from our study. () Overview of Regional Meetings o Kim Clark explained the general focus of this workshop and went through the agenda. The main focus is going to center on creating problem statements for approximately one hour. Each participant will have the opportunity to work on two topics. Second, the focus will be on ranking the importance of the goals and objectives. Representatives from the same city should be dispersed among the various tables. o All participants were invited to have lunch which was provided. () Overview of Regional Meetings o Kim Clark introduced all of the project management team members who were in attendance. Each participant from the various cities then introduced themselves to the group. o Kim explained the Code of Conduct, the Regional Workshop Objectives, and the Responsibilities. o She also explained the purpose of having a different topic at each table, but that there may still be some overlap of problems between topics. Regional Workshop # Summary Page

106 o o There will be two rotations to the Problem Statement portion of this workshop. After spending time creating Problem Statements at a first table, participants will then move to a second table of their choice to again create problem statements during the second rotation of this exercise. Kim then explained the difference between a problem statement and a solution, and emphasized again that the purpose here is to create problem statements. () Problem Statements Exercise o The subcommittee members divided themselves among the eight tables and created generalized, condensed problem statements using the broader list of problem statements that had been compiled from the individual subcommittee meetings. o Groups began their conversations at approximately : A.M. o Each statement was written on a piece paper and placed under its respective table s topic on a board in the front of the room. o At :00 P.M. the participants were directed to finish their conversations at their first table and invited to find a second table they would like to participate in. They were allowed to stay at the same table if they felt strongly to do so. o Similar discussion ensued and more problem statements were created. o The second rotation concluded at approximately : P.M. o The following table shows the total number of participants and consultant facilitators (approximately or ) at each table during both discussion rotations: Table Topic First Rotation Second Rotation Bus Routes Access to Transit 7 EastWest Access General Transportation / Traffic 7 Pedestrians, Bikes, and Trails NorthSouth Access Schools / Bus Stops Growth / Development and Future Needs 6 6 o Jacqueline Jensen typed the list of problem statements as they were added to the board. The statements are in the following list: Bus Routes There are no eastwest bus routes Transit trips the require a transfer often take longer than driving a car There is only limited bus service to the north during the day and after 6:00 p.m. There is no northsouth service west of Main Street Bus are often full during peak hours Future access to commuter rail station is not planned to be well served by buses Bus service is infrequent and unreliable South Davis residents don t use transit because they don t like it, don t create unified demand, and don t understand the benefits **(This statement was later challenged by others in attendance who said that residents do recognize transit s benefits in reducing congestion.)** No northsouth bus routes on west side of I Regional Workshop # Summary Page

107 Buses from South Davis are not well coordinated with Salt Lake County buses and trains No crosstown buses to connect to existing northsouth transit UTA is less committed to South Davis County transit than Salt Lake County Access to Transit Need greater awareness of the use of LDS parking as park and ride Difficult access to West Bountiful and Woods Cross commuter rail station may limit the effectiveness of transit, given the short distance to Salt Lake City For nonsalt Lake commutes (i.e. northbound), the lack of transit to reach final destination may limit effectiveness of transit Transit is commuteroriented and the system does not address need for short trips circulation within South Davis is not convenient Existing transit system requires out of direction travel, if trip is even possible Are existing bus routes frequent enough? Do bus routes link origins and destinations? (No) Lack of bike lanes and sidewalks in some areas limits safe access to transit Transit riders have inadequate access to commuter rail station and to other transit riders (I barriers, lack of pedestrian access, lack of bus connections) Centerville and Bountiful has main streets that are not wide enough to accommodate transit without forcing auto traffic onto other streets Commuter rail addresses long distance commuter, but South Davis is a short commute Lack of transit circulator and routes into Salt Lake City and to commuter rail stations Lack of (known plans for) bike access and parking for commuter rail stations ( lack of recognition of alternative modes that provide safe access to transit ) Lack of eastwest bus routes limits local travel and access to commuter rail Transit is not being provided in newly developing (high growth) areas, such as Redwood Road Transit is not frequent enough nor does it provide adequate coverage Main Street in Centerville and Bountiful is not wide enough to accommodate transit without forcing auto traffic onto other streets EastWest Access Frequency of train blocking eastwest access and contributing and access issue (Pages Street especially) 00 South congestion receives all issues (access, Legacy interchange congestion, future commuter rail influx, commuter rail station location on west side must cross tracks from east side, I, 00 west) Commuter Rail station increases congestion on 00 south. I and Legacy will created congestion to go east to Bountiful. 00 west from 00 north will receive congestion and changes. Park and ride areas are only located on arterial routes where congestion is Frequency of train blocking eastwest access and contributing to the congestion and access issue (Pages Lane) Eastwest transit needed to get to northsouth (mostly Salt Lake City)or it s easier to just drive Eastwest access is an issue, but mass transit education (frequency, headway, etc.) is needed to increase future eastwest ridership to go northsouth Northsouth throughs become barriers to eastwest movement Noncollector routes are receiving congestion spill over from current collector routes Regional Workshop # Summary Page

108 General Transportation / Traffic Neighborhood streets becoming collector streets I access is difficult and ramp meters are effective Poor traffic operations on I interchange crossstreets Minimal transit accessibility to transit Concern about property and access with a potential fixed guide way transit in Centerville and Farmington I becomes a carrier to eastwest travel No transportation planning west of I to keep up with development No transit service on west side of I Commuter rail stations are right on I Need to improve technology related to transit and traffic Need more transportation options thru Centerville and Farmington pinch point Current alternate transit choice are inadequate Ensure transit South Davis integrated with Salt Lake transit system Legacy traffic cannot access east part of Salt Lake City Inadequate current information about transit options Pedestrians, Bikes, and Trails Problems created by snow are not considered in pedestrian and bike facility design and maintenance Too many areas still do not have sidewalks New bus routes will created longer walks for current riders Western expansion and housing not being designed with good pedestrian and bike access Traffic signals not actuated by bicycles Bikeways and trails are not integrated or well marked Commuter rail won t accommodate bikes on commuter rail cars or in stations Not creating parallel surfaces for horses, pedestrians, or bikes on new trails Is enough being done to link transit with bikes, trails, bike lanes, etc. to ensure safe and effective coordination between modes? No safe bike or pedestrian access across I Lack of dedicated bike lanes to access bus stops, commuter rail, and trails Limited bike accommodation on buses NorthSouth Access South Davis County experiences poor northsouth movements at peak travel times due to geographic constraints future capacity improvements are limited South Davis transit riders need good access to other regional transit facilities For many reasons, the population in the growing North Davis and Weber County are continue to find it necessary to commute south. Due to geographical constraints it is impossible for South Davis County to forever meet this trend. Therefore, more must be done to attract people North or provide transit, commuter rail, light rail, etc. Inadequate capacity (all modes) and problems are exhibited at the peak hour Congestion on I cannot be relieved due to lack of redundant routes, especially west of I Regional Workshop # Summary Page

109 Schools / Bus Stops There is a need for adequate, functional, and desirable bus stops that focus on comfort, safety, landscaping, accessibility, and security which needs to be sustainable over time There is a lack of effective and efficient access to school, education, and recreation facilities, both locally and regionally Problems with safe crossings of roads, rails, and routes to access transit and school facilities People are unaware of the bus stops Lack of formal bus stops including concrete pad, ADA accessible, shelter, and usually appealing Lack of feeder bus stops bringing people into the main transit corridor Current bus stops/routes do not get students where they need to go I, commuter rail, and 00 west are major pedestrian barriers (safety, distance, and accessibility) Growth / Development and Future Needs Growth in Syracuse and Nest Point (and other communities north of study area) creates resident travel to the economic engine in Salt Lake County No fixed transit asset to concentrate urban development Macro (regional) solutions may cause micro problems in individual (city) communities Commuter rail is not a time savings south of Farmington Centerville is a bottleneck for traffic geographic limitation in Centerville Enormous west side (west of Redwood) growth is a problem for transportation and transit. Freeway access is a problem (bad west side access), outmoded interchanges (one way offramps and not fullservice to west, and tracks to contend with. Fear of density, change, and fading rural community Value perception does not currently exist for transit benefit Residents do not want to be bullied into compliance (i.e. Centerville conditions are different than Bountiful) relates to micro/macro situations Population increases outside the region has impact on South Davis region and micro changes in population within South Davis also effect other South Davis communities Mass transit is not effective for family transportation (i.e. cost, time, control of kids) **(This statement was challenged later by others in attendance who said that families can and do use mass transit.)** Focal points with South Davis County are changing (i.e. Cultural Center and Recreation Center) Not enough eastwest access for developing areas west of I to efficiently use northsouth transit Capacity of roadways is not keeping up with growth VMT (vehicle miles traveled) is increasing and there are more cars per household North Salt Lake (Eaglewood) area has fast growth that is overwhelming the residential streets and interchanges (Orchard Lane) () Goals and Objectives Exercise Regional Workshop # Summary Page 6

110 o Kim Clark explained that the purpose of the dot game is to understand which statements are most important to the subcommittee members. Participants should place the colored dots they were given on those statements that they feel are most important. o More than one dot per person may be placed on any one goal and objective statement. o Place the dots on the posters on the wall not on the sheet of paper that came in the packet distributed to each individual. o The dot game was explained and completed during the time from approximately : P.M. to :0 P.M. o The results of the goals and objectives dot game are shown in the following table: Goals and Objectives Statements. Create a complete transit system within the region that connects to transit options serving outside of the region.. Develop and improve infrastructure to serve transit system (park and ride, bus stops, stations). Total Number Rank of Dots 7 8. Provide attractive transit amenities to improve transit use. 0. Increase transit ridership especially during commute times Integrate South Davis system with SLC current and proposed transit systems Improve eastwest connectivity. 7. Improve access alternatives to economic centers Integrate transit investments and land use plans. 9. Use potentially dividing corridors to an advantage minimize barriers. 0. Maintain and enhance safety. 0. Enhance quality of life through transportation options. 9. Improve nonmotorized access Eliminate backtracking by improving access to northsouth transportation corridors.. Improve access to public locations. 0. Reduce auto congestion. 8 Regional Workshop # Summary Page 7

111 (6) Summary and Next Meeting o The next meeting will be held from :00 A.M. to :00 P.M. on May 6, 007. o During the remainder of the time until the end of the workshop at approximately :00 P.M., the problem statements were read and reviewed as a group. o There were a few disagreements with some of the problem statements. (i) Families can and do use mass transit. (ii) People do understand transit and the benefit it can have in reducing congestion. (iii) There is inadequate capacity during the peak hour for all modes of travel. o There were statements voicing other considerations. (i) Consider frontage roads, time or schedule the transfers to reduce waiting for transfers, and provide service to all divisions of transit (local, community, and regional). (ii) Dedicated rightofways create better longterm investment possibilities for residents and landuse developments because those transit systems are fixed. Bus routes are subject to change too easily and infrastructure improvements may become obsolete if a change occurs. Next Meeting Date/Time: Thursday, May 6, 007; :00 P.M. Location: Bountiful City Hall Subsequent to the Regional Workshop, the following problem statements were added following the Salt Lake City subcommittee meeting on March st : Transit service is not frequent enough. There is a need for more frequent and after hours transit service from South Davis County to commercial centers, educational facilities, and the hospitality industry in Salt Lake City (SLC SubCommittee) Buses are exceeding capacity at peak hours (SLC SubCommittee) Transit connections are time consuming. The free fare zone in Salt Lake City is not frequent enough. More needs to be done to encourage transit within downtown once South Davis residents reach Salt Lake City. (SLC Subcommittee) A simple and easily understood transit system is needed to attract more ridership. (SLC Subcommittee) Regional Workshop # Summary Page 8

112 Transit service is not well integrated to SL and Weber County service, or does not serve destinations in these areas adequately. A cost efficient transit system is needed that is well integrated with Salt Lake City s transit system. (SLC SubCommittee) Auxiliary facilities to transit, including bicycle routes and facilities (i.e. bikes on buses), good sidewalks, bus shelters, and park and ride lots are inadequate, and hinder bus use. Centralized parking in Salt Lake City is needed to avoid the need to drive in downtown. (SLC Subcommittee) Pedestrian environment facilities and roads around Intermodal Center need to be upgraded. (SLC SubCommittee) Regional Workshop # Summary Page 9

113 Project: Date/Time: Subject: Location: South Davis County Transit DEIS Wednesday, May 6, 007; :00 A.M. :00 P.M. Purpose and Need Statement, Objectives and Evaluation Criteria, and Preliminary Alternatives Exercise Bountiful City Hall Attendees Utah Transit Authority Utah Department of Transportation Carter & Burgess Kerry Doane Angelo Papastamos Colleen Lavery Bill Lieberman H. W. Lochner Saffron Capson Jeein Kim Ross Peterson Fehr & Peers WFRC UBET Davis County Commissioners Bountiful Centerville Farmington North Salt Lake Robin Hutcheson Jonathan Larsen Jon Nepstad Greg Scott Roger Borgenicht Bret Millburn Dorothy Barlow Lynne Bennett Clark Jenkins Aric Jensen Joe Johnson (Mayor) Paul Rowland Tom Smith Becky Stahle Kent Sulser Tamilyn Fillmore Ken Jones Sherri Lindstrom Phil Sessions Nancy Smith Scott Harbertson (Mayor) Scott Hess Scott Ogilvie Dave Petersen Sid Young Blaine Gehring Conrad Jacobson Stan Porter Shanna Schaefermeyer (Mayor) Regional Workshop # Summary Page

114 Salt Lake City West Bountiful Woods Cross Dorothy Barlow Janneke House Carla Wiese Kevin Young Michael Eggett Kent Martineau David Tovey Roger Wray Leo Beecher Charlie Payne Ruth Payne Notes The notes contained within this document provide a summary of the content discussed during the meeting on the given date and time stated above. If this content differs from your understanding, please notify Jacqueline Jensen of any discrepancies within five working days. Summary of the Regional Workshop () Welcome/Overview of Regional Meetings o Upon entering the Regional Workshop, each participant was given a nametag; a packet with the agenda, a handout of presentation materials, and a draft of the evaluation criteria and methodology concepts; and five colored dots. o Saffron Capson reviewed the meeting agenda. She reviewed the project process, including subcommittee meetings and tasks and a timeline for regional workshops. () Review of draft Purpose and Need statement o Saffron Capson outlined the process the project s team took to form a draft purpose and need statement. She reviewed the draft purpose and need statement with the attendees. She requested meeting attendees review the draft purpose and need statements and contact the project team with any questions, comments. She emphasized that these materials have only been recently developed and will continue to be revised over the coming months. () Review of Objectives/Evaluation Criteria o Robin Hutcheson referred to the objectives / evaluation criteria table contained in the meeting materials packets. She did not review the table but requested attendees review the table in their own time and contact the project team with any questions or comments. () Preliminary Alternatives Exercise o Bill Lieberman gave a presentation regarding the essential components of developing a successful transit system e.g. concentrate activity centers, consider access vs. speed, use appropriate technology and free transit from traffic congestion. o Regional workshop attendees were located around one of six tables. Each table had a map of both the study area and a map showing the greater Wasatch Front. Meeting Regional Workshop # Summary Page

115 o o o attendees were asked to use the colored dots found in their packets to identify their homes, place of work and three other key destinations they regularly travel to. They were then asked to worked together to identify a preferred alignment for a transit project within the South Davis region. They were also asked to indicate how riders would access this project e.g. feeders. Bill Lieberman gave the final portion of his presentation by outlining different transit modes. Meeting attendees were asked to specify which mode their groups project would use. Each of the six groups gave a brief explanation of their groups proposed project. () Next Steps and Next Meeting o The next meeting will be held from :00 A.M. to :00 P.M. on September, 007. The committee will review and narrow the proposed alternatives. Next Meeting Date/Time: Thursday, September, 007; :00 A.M. Location: Bountiful City Hall Regional Workshop # Summary Page

116 7TH NORTH SR86 N Temple I SHEPARD Centerville SR06 00 CHASE SR SR0 PAGES 00 BRT mp Ra SR MUELLER PARK BRT I rive DAVIS K Bl vd nd 00 CHARD I oo Lag 89 SR PA R Bo un tif ul 00 NORTH OR Bountiful SEA 00 SR68 Redwood Rd RD SHEPARD HA Farmington MU EL LE R 00 VIRGINIA SR69 SR68 TH RD SOUTH TEMPLE DA VI S L CHE MA IN E ND SR OR C I 800 E IN YL 00 SOUTH B OR CH AR D 800 West Bountiful SK 00 Woods Cross SR 00 SR9 EW VI SR7 SR86 00 S 00 Salt Lake City MAIN North Salt Lake 9 8 SR 00 WEST TEMPLE EY LL VA SR SR9 00 MAIN BRT B W I 900 I 900 CENTER 00 00PR ST Kaysville I PR80 ORANGE 00 WEST 0 WE 0 WEST CUDAHY I8 SB I o Bt 0E ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT MAP (A) REGIONAL WORKSHOP NO. MAY 6, 007 Commuter Rail Station Park and Ride Lots Major Bus Stops Origin Destination Other Primary Secondary Study Area Boundary Major Roads Interstate Roads City Boundary Legacy Highway Wetlands Commuter Rail UTA Bus Routes Route Route 60 Route 6 Route 6 Route 6 Route 70 Route ,800,600,00 7,00 Feet

117 SR86 N Temple 00 WEST K MUELLER PARK SR0 I mp Ra SR7 rive SKYLINE Centerville CHASE SR06 00 DAVIS PA R d 00 nd MU E LL ER Bo un tif ul Bl v PAGES SR CHARD I oo Lag 89 SR OR Bountiful EA ELS 00 NORTH 00 RD HA 00 SR68 Redwood Rd Farmington I DA VI S SHEPARD SOUTH TEMPLE RD VIRGINIA 00 OR C CH West Bountiful MA IN E B ND 00 SR9 OR CH AR D TH SR69 00 SR SOUTH MAIN Woods Cross SR Salt Lake City EW VI SR WEST TEMPLE North Salt Lake 9 8 SR EY LL VA SR SR9 SR68 MAIN SR86 00 S B W I PR CENTER 00 SHEPARD Kaysville I CUDAHY 7TH NORTH I I PR ORANGE 0 WEST ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT MAP (B) REGIONAL WORKSHOP NO. MAY 6, 007 Commuter Rail Station Park and Ride Lots Major Bus Stops Origin Destination Other Primary Secondary Study Area Boundary Major Roads Interstate Roads City Boundary Legacy Highway Wetlands Commuter Rail UTA Bus Routes Route Route 60 Route 6 Route 6 Route 6 Route 70 Route ,800,600,00 7,00 Feet

118 SR86 N Temple 00 WEST SR0 I 00 I mp Ra SR7 nd rive BRT/LRT Centerville SKYLINE SR06 CHASE PAGES 00 oo Lag NORTH SR 89 SR DAVIS PA R d 00 Farmington LL ER Bo un tif ul Bl v K MUELLER PARK Bountiful SR68 Redwood Rd 00 CHARD Bu s 00 s 00 OR SHEPARD 00 RD BRT/LRT HA Bu EA ELS I DA VI S 800 MU E VIRGINIA 00 OR C CH RD SOUTH TEMPLE 900 MA IN E ND B TH SR69 00 SR SOUTH OR CH AR D 800 West Bountiful SR 00 SR9 Woods Cross 0 80 SR7 MAIN EW VI Salt Lake City MAIN SR86 00 S WEST TEMPLE North Salt Lake 9 8 SR EY LL VA SR SR9 SR68 B W I PR T /LR BRT Bus CENTER 00 SHEPARD Kaysville I CUDAHY 7TH NORTH Bus I I PR ORANGE 0 WEST ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT MAP (C) REGIONAL WORKSHOP NO. MAY 6,007 Commuter Rail Station Park and Ride Lots Major Bus Stops Origin Destination Other Primary Secondary Study Area Boundary Major Roads Interstate Roads City Boundary Legacy Highway Wetlands Commuter Rail UTA Bus Routes Route Route 60 Route 6 Route 6 Route 6 Route 70 Route ,800,600,00 7,00 Feet

119 SR86 N Temple 00 WEST 00 SR0 I mp Ra SR7 SKYLINE Centerville SR06 CHASE PAGES 00 NORTH SR 00 K MUELLER PARK 00 rive 00 DAVIS PA R d I nd LL ER Bo un tif ul Bl v 00 SR68 Redwood Rd CHARD RAPID TRANSIT oo Lag OR Bountiful EA ELS 89 SR 00 RD HA 00 DA VI S SHEPARD I Farmington MU E VIRGINIA 00 OR C CH RD SOUTH TEMPLE MA IN E ND B TH SR69 00 SR SOUTH OR CH AR D 800 West Bountiful SR 00 SR9 Woods Cross 0 80 SR7 MAIN EW VI Salt Lake City MAIN SR86 00 S WEST TEMPLE North Salt Lake 9 8 SR EY LL VA SR SR9 SR68 B W 60 RAPID TRANSIT I I 900 CENTER 00 SHEPARD Kaysville PR CUDAHY 7TH NORTH I I PR ORANGE 0 WEST ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT MAP (D) REGIONAL WORKSHOP NO. MAY 6, 007 Commuter Rail Station Park and Ride Lots Major Bus Stops Origin Destination Other Primary Secondary Study Area Boundary Major Roads Interstate Roads City Boundary Legacy Highway Wetlands Commuter Rail UTA Bus Routes Route Route 60 Route 6 Route 6 Route 6 Route 70 Route ,800,600,00 7,00 Feet

120 7TH NORTH SR86 N Temple I SHEPARD Bl vd SR0 LRT SR06 00 CHASE PAGES SR mp Ra SR Centerville I rive DAVIS PA R Bo un tif ul MUELLER PARK Bountiful SEA NORTH 00 CHARD 00 nd 00 SR68 Redwood Rd OR SHEPARD Bus 00 Bus LR T SR68 00 RD I oo Lag MU EL LE R VIRGINIA HA LRT 89 SR K RD 800 SR69 00 I DA VI S L CHE OR C TH 00 SOUTH TEMPLE ND SR SOUTH MA IN E Farmington E IN YL 600 B 800 SK 700 West Bountiful SR 00 OR CH AR D SR7 00 SR9 Woods Cross LR T EW VI Salt Lake City MAIN 9 8 SR WEST TEMPLE North Salt Lake EY LL VA SR SR9 00 MAIN SR86 00 S B W I PR CENTER 00 I ST Kaysville I PR80 ORANGE 00 WEST 0 WE 0 WEST CUDAHY I8 SB I o Bt 0E ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT MAP (E) REGIONAL WORKSHOP NO. MAY 6, 007 Commuter Rail Station Park and Ride Lots Major Bus Stops Origin Destination Other Primary Secondary Study Area Boundary Major Roads Interstate Roads City Boundary Legacy Highway Wetlands Commuter Rail UTA Bus Routes Route Route 60 Route 6 Route 6 Route 6 Route 70 Route ,800,600,00 7,00 Feet

121 SR86 N Temple 00 WEST K MUELLER PARK SR0 Centerville I mp Ra SR7 rive SKYLINE Bus CHASE SR06 00 DAVIS PA R d 00 nd MU E LL ER Bo un tif ul Bl v PAGES SR CHARD CR BRT I oo Lag 89 SR OR Bountiful EA ELS 00 NORTH 00 RD HA 00 SR68 Redwood Rd Farmington I DA VI S SHEPARD SOUTH TEMPLE RD VIRGINIA 00 OR C CH West Bountiful MA IN E B ND 00 SR9 OR CH AR D TH SR69 00 SR SOUTH MAIN Woods Cross SR Salt Lake City EW VI SR WEST TEMPLE North Salt Lake 9 8 SR EY LL VA SR SR9 SR68 MAIN SR86 00 S B W I PR CENTER 00 SHEPARD Kaysville I CUDAHY 7TH NORTH I I PR ORANGE 0 WEST ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT MAP (F) REGIONAL WORKSHOP NO. MAY 6, 007 Commuter Rail Station Park and Ride Lots Major Bus Stops Origin Destination Other Primary Secondary Study Area Boundary Major Roads Interstate Roads City Boundary Legacy Highway Wetlands Commuter Rail UTA Bus Routes Route Route 60 Route 6 Route 6 Route 6 Route 70 Route ,800,600,00 7,00 Feet

122 Project Description South Davis Transit Study Utah Department of Transportation and Utah Transit Authority have teamed to develop a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for mass transit in South Davis County. The study is being conducted to identify the best transit solution or solutions for South Davis County. The DEIS builds on a previous study that was conducted by the Wasatch Front Regional Council and is divided into two phases. The first phase is comprised of an Alternative Analysis process that marks the first step toward obtaining eligibility for federal funding through the Federal Transit Administration. The Alternatives Analysis will conclude with the identification of a Locally Preferred Alternative in late 007. The second phase of the South Davis Transit DEIS is the detailed evaluation of impacts pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. The timeline for the second phase of the DEIS has not yet been determined. Study Area Summer 007 Information Sheet Project Schedule Contact Information For information regarding this project please contact: Kim Clark or Saffron Capson (80) Project Hotline: info@southdavistransit.com May 007

123 Public Outreach South Davis Transit Study In February 007 an extensive public involvement program was undertaken to gain community input on the project as it progresses through the major tasks. Part of this program included the creation of subcommittees to represent each community in the study area. Subcommittees have assisted in a number of tasks including the identification of community concerns and the development of a community vision. Regional workshops with representatives from each of the subcommittees have also been held to maintain a regional perspective for the project. Information below shows the processes through which a draft purpose and need statement has been developed for the project. The development of these statements is a requirement by the Federal Transit Administration and are used to explain why the proposed project is being undertaken. Draft Purpose and Need Statement PURPOSE STATEMENT: The purpose of the transit project in South Davis County is to create a complete transit system within the study area that connects to transit options serving the rest of the region. Transit projects should serve the demand for north/south travel, while also improving east/west connectivity. The proposed project should result in the overall reduction of auto trips by increasing ridership, especially during commute periods. This project creates an opportunity for the consideration and integration of land use plans and the coordination with auxiliary facilities that make transit attractive to the passenger. NEEDS STATEMENT: Residents of South Davis County have expressed the need for better integration of the current system and increased transit service. While the overall demand for transportation is strongest in the north/south orientation (overall), there is a need to improve the east/west access to north/south movements. To increase ridership, both the efficiency and attractiveness of transit service in the corridor must be improved. These changes include such elements as: () coordinated and timely transfers; () the ability of patrons to access transit stops; () increased route coverage on eastwest streets; () higher frequencies on routes; and () improved bus stop facilities and transit information. Residents have also expressed the need for other improved auxiliary facilities such as bicycle routes, sidewalks, and bus shelters. Education of a transit system is a key component of whether an individual decides to use transit. Patrons must be given the knowledge necessary to identify routes and find parkandride locations. Data collection and analysis indicates that the demand for travel will be strongest between the southernmost cities of South Davis County, and the CBD of Salt Lake City. Modeling shows that, after planned improvements, automobile trips will outweigh the capacity of the roadways on select north/south roadways, as well as at key east/west intersections in the study area, reflecting the need for a reduction in automobile trips to improve mobility. Contact Information For information regarding this project please contact: Kim Clark or Saffron Capson (80) Project Hotline: info@southdavistransit.com May 007 Regional Workshops Summer 007 Information Sheet

124 Regional Workshop # Summary Project: Date/Time: Subject: Location: South Davis County Transit DEIS Wednesday, September 6, 007; :00 A.M. :0 P.M. Overview of Long List of Alignments & Alignment Evaluation Exercise. South Davis Recreation Center Attendees Utah Transit Authority Utah Department of Transportation Carter & Burgess Kerry Doane Angelo Papastamos Andy Neff Rex Harris Colleen Lavery Bill Lieberman H. W. Lochner Saffron Capson Ross Peterson Ashley Mason VIA Consulting Fehr & Peers UBET Davis County Bountiful Centerville Farmington North Salt Lake Salt Lake City West Bountiful Kim Clark Robin Hutcheson Jonathan Larsen Jon Nepstad Kyle Cook Roger Borgenicht Scott A. Hess Dorothy Barlow Aric Jensen Tom Smith Lynne Bennett Tamilyn Fillmore Steve Thacker Sherri Lindstrom Phil Sessions Cory Snyder Scott Ogilvie Jared Hall Sid Young Conrad Jacobson Blaine Gehring Dorothy Barlow Kevin Young Wendell Wild David Tovey Alan Malan Regional Workshop # Summary Page

125 Woods Cross Tim Stephens David Jelmini Anne Blankenship Charlie Payne Ruth Payne Notes The notes contained within this document provide a summary of the content discussed during the meeting on the given date and time stated above. If this content differs from your understanding, please notify Jacqueline Jensen of any discrepancies within five working days. Summary of the Regional Workshop () Welcome/Overview of Regional Meetings o Upon entering the Regional Workshop, each attendee was given a nametag; a meeting agenda and a community support matrix. Attendees were asked to sit with individuals from other cities rather than from their own. o K. Clark reviewed the meeting agenda and project process diagram. She explained the meeting was the third Regional Workshop for this project. () Review of Purpose statement o K. Clark used a presentation board to discuss the overall purpose of the project. She encouraged meeting attendees to keep the overall purpose of the project in mind as they consider the long list of alternatives developed for the project. () Review of SubCommittee and Web Site Findings o During the most recent round of subcommittee meetings attendees were asked to identify the most important factors to consider when discussing alternative modes for a transit project. The findings from these meetings were presented at the regional workshop. K. Clark noted the highest ranking factor was I need to be able to get to it easily. A pie chart displaying these results was also shown. o An online comment form has been available since the last round of subcommittee meetings to gain input on this topic from the general public. The findings from the online comment form were also presented in both table and pie chart format. Similarly the highest ranking factor was I need to be able to get to it easily. () Alternatives o K. Clark explained an alternative is developed by combining a mode and alignment. o The long list of alternatives map was shown. It was explained these alternatives are being taken through the alternatives analysis process. o In addition to the north south alignments a background bus network has been created. The background bus network is being used to assist in the modeling of the primary alternatives. It will possibly change in the future. The background bus network was shown on presentation boards at the regional workshop. o K. Clark described the long list of alignments and the modes associated with each alignment. She explained there is the potential for some of the modes to either share their alignment with traffic or be located in their own exclusive lane. The tradeoffs of exclusive / shared lanes were presented. Illustrations of shared and exclusive lanes were shown. Regional Workshop # Summary Page

126 () Alternative Evaluation o The overall evaluation criteria for the project were presented to the meeting attendees. K. Clark explained ridership, travel time and cost for each of the alternatives was currently being evaluated. o Meeting attendees were encouraged to provide input on environmental impacts, rightofway impacts and positive landuse effects during the alignment evaluation exercise by writing on the maps provided. o Community support for the alternatives would be provided by meeting attendees completing the community support matrix provided. (6) Exercise o Meetings were split into groups of approximately six people. A member of the project team facilitated each group discussion. Each group was provided with a copy of each of the five alternative maps showing typical cross sections for different modes. Each group was also provided with a summary of the pros and cons of each mode identified at the recent subcommittee meetings and via the online comment forms. o During lunch attendees were asked to complete the community support matrix. Alignments were evaluated by determining whether they would accomplish the purpose of the project. Each alignment was given an overall rating from (low) to (high). Each group then provided a group overall rating for each of the alignments (the findings of the exercise are shown below). (7) Mode Preferences o Subcommittee meeting attendees and respondents to the online comment form were asked to indicate their preferred mode choice. Findings were shown at the end of the Regional Workshop. (8) Next Steps o An Open House Meeting is planned for early November. Regional Workshop # Summary Page

127 Table : Increase mobility within the area? Connect to transportation options outside Davis County? Improve east/west connectivity in the region? Reduce auto use by providing transit options? Allow for integration of land use plans? Allow for coordination of auxiliary services (i.e. other modes of transportation, locations for stops)? Create a more attractive option to the passenger (i.e. does it feel safe, easy to access, etc.)? Fit the context of the community? Overall Rating (independent of the above options) Overall Rating (independent of the above options) Comments Main Street + Main Street w/ Branches Frontage Road Frontage Road w/ Branches Commuter Rail Line + + Fits into community, frequent stops. Safety in the public eye, centralized location, access, local and commuter service. Alignment change suggestion (for premium service): west on Pages to Main Street in West Bountiful, west on 00 South, south on Redwood. Bus/BRT Redwood is a logical future tiein. N/A Alignment change suggestion: see above. Consider road width. Better for limited stop service. Stop below Parrish is a potential congestion concern. Access is difficult. Regional Workshop # Summary Page

128 *No room on Main in Centerville (Pages to Parrish). Versatile, ability to expand branches, frequent stops, fits into community. Regional Workshop # Summary Page

129 Table : Increase mobility within the area? Connect to transportation options outside Davis County? Improve east/west connectivity in the region? Reduce auto use by providing transit options? Allow for integration of land use plans? Allow for coordination of auxiliary services (i.e. other modes of transportation, locations for stops)? Create a more attractive option to the passenger (i.e. does it feel safe, easy to access, etc.)? Fit the context of the community? Overall Rating (independent of the above options) Overall Rating (independent of the above options) Comments Main Street Main Street w/ Branches Frontage Road Frontage Road w/ Branches Commuter Rail Line Minimizes transfers, utilizes Intermodal hub. Can bus alignment connect into rail options? At termination in Salt Lake City, does the rider have to transfer to the Intermodal Hub? N/A Alignment change suggestion: Continue along 00 West rather than diverting to 00 West on Pages. Using 00 West limits speed and adds to congestion. More ROW available on 800 West in North Salt Lake. Prefer exclusive lane for this alignment. Alignment benefits from Highway 89 being widened. N/A Would residents use it? Increased eastwest congestion. Eastside access. Regional Workshop # Summary Page 6

130 Regional Workshop # Summary Page 7 Table : Main Street Main Street w/ Branches Frontage Road Frontage Road w/ Branches Commuter Rail Line Increase mobility within the area? Connect to transportation options outside Davis County? Improve east/west connectivity in the region? Reduce auto use by providing transit options? Allow for integration of land use plans? Allow for coordination of auxiliary services (i.e. other modes of transportation, locations for stops)? Create a more attractive option to the passenger (i.e. does it feel safe, easy to access, etc.)? Fit the context of the community? Overall Rating (independent of the above options) Overall Rating (independent of the above options) * Comments Farmington residents are concerned about ROW. N/A N/A N/A N/A *One group member voted.

131 Table : Main Street Main Street w/ Frontage Road Commuter Rail Frontage Road Branches w/ Branches Line Increase mobility within the area? Connect to transportation options outside Davis County? Improve east/west connectivity in the region? Reduce auto use by providing transit options? Allow for integration of land use plans? Allow for coordination of auxiliary services (i.e. other modes of transportation, locations for stops)? Create a more attractive option to the passenger (i.e. does it feel safe, easy to access, etc.)? Fit the context of the community? Overall Rating (independent of the above options) / Overall Rating (independent of the above options). Comments Is there a need for a dedicated lane? Getting a dedicated lane on Parrish would encroach on residential neighborhood. Along Parish to Pages, check if you can get a reserved lane. N/A N/A N/A N/A *Exclusive lanes as much as practical, but probably not feasible north of Parrish Lane. Regional Workshop # Summary Page 8

132 Regional Workshop # Summary Page 9 Table : Main Street Main Street w/ Branches Frontage Road Frontage Road w/ Branches Commuter Rail Line Increase mobility within the area? 0 Connect to transportation options outside Davis County? 0 Improve east/west connectivity in the region? 0 Reduce auto use by providing transit options? 0 Allow for integration of land use plans? Allow for coordination of auxiliary services (i.e. other modes of transportation, locations for stops)? 0 Create a more attractive option to the passenger (i.e. does it feel safe, easy to access, etc.)? 0 Fit the context of the community? 0 Overall Rating (independent of the above options) (if branches are added) 0 Overall Rating (independent of the above options)..8.7 Comments Get exact ROW width between Parrish and N/A The alignment isn t reaching people between Lund and N/A The more closely aligned with the freeway, the more

133 Pages. Alignment changes suggestion: Orchard Parrish. 00 West isn t a TOD. likely residents will be to drive. Too far away from residents. *A lot of disparity among group members. Branches are great, but the reliability and speed on the trunk is essential if ridership is important. *One group member noted the Main Street alignment address environmental concerns, is faster, and is more reliable. The Main Street Trunk w/ Branches picks up more riders, is more flexible with space, and is more cost effective. Regional Workshop # Summary Page 0

134 Table 6: Increase mobility within the area? Connect to transportation options outside Davis County? Improve east/west connectivity in the region? Reduce auto use by providing transit options? Allow for integration of land use plans? Allow for coordination of auxiliary services (i.e. other modes of transportation, locations for stops)? Create a more attractive option to the passenger (i.e. does it feel safe, easy to access, etc.)? Fit the context of the community? Overall Rating (independent of the above options) Overall Rating (independent of the above options) Comments Main Street Main Street w/ Branches Frontage Road Frontage Road w/ Branches + Commuter Rail Line. Farmington residents and Mayor expressed concern about an alignment on Main Street/00 East/SR 06. Add a stop at Glover. Bountiful feels 00 West may be better for an alignment (rather than 00 West) *Potentially destroy character and too narrow ROW. *One group member noted wanting to see shared lanes through downtowns in select areas, and exclusive lanes where traffic is moving faster. N/A N/A Regional Workshop # Summary Page

135 Overall Alignment Evaluation / Community Support: Main Street Trunk with Branches Bus/BRT 0. Frontage Road Trunk with Branches Bus/BRT 0.0 Frontage Road Trunk Various Modes 9.8 Main Street Trunk Various Modes 9.0 Commuter Rail Corridor 0.7 Next Meeting Open House Meeting Early November. Regional Workshop # Summary Page

136

137 SOUTH DAVIS COUNTY TRANSIT DEIS Open House # Summary Project: South Davis County Transit DEIS Meeting Purpose: Open House # Summary Meeting Location: :0 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. South Davis Recreation Center November 8, 007 An open house meeting for the South Davis Transit Study DEIS was held on November 8, 007 from :08:00 p.m. at the South Davis Recreation Center. Sixtyone (6) people registered. Participants wrote comments directly on alignment maps and comment cards, as well as indicated preferred alternatives using dots. Thirtythree () written comment cards were returned and seventy (70) dots were used. The objectives of this meeting were to: Explain why transit is being studied in South Davis County. Describe options for possible transit improvements. Present progress that had been made on the project. Receive feedback from the community about the alternative that would best serve their needs and meet the purpose of the project. Comment Summary: Comment Card Please tell us which transit alternative you prefer: Enhanced Bus on Main Street 9 DMU on Commuter Rail Alignment 7 BRT on Main Street to Centerville with Branches 6 Rail on Main Street to Centerville Rail on 00 West to Centerville Page of

138 Please tell us why you chose that alternative: Enhanced Bus on Main Street Builds on an existing system (makes it better) Construction timeframe Cost () Eastside service Stops in downtown, not the intermodal hub Less rightofway acquisition Lowimpact to residents DMU on Commuter Rail Alignment Cost Integrates with existing system () No rail on Main Street Ridership will be higher than anticipated Travel time Provides access to the north () BRT on Main Street to Centerville, with enhanced bus branches Cost Easy implementation Ability to expand using branches Less impact on street () Noise Less rightofway acquisition () Speed Rail on Main Street to Centerville Alternative to congested traffic Community context Effective () Fits lifestyle Needs dedicated lane Plans for future density Ridership () Speed () Stops (accessibility) Ties to existing system Ties with Centerville's master plan Accessible Avoid traffic incidents/congestion Longterm solution Shorter travel time Page of

139 What would make transit attractive to you to use? Accessibility (6) Access on Main Street Avoid traffic problems Collection system Convenience Clean Dedicated lane Easy to use Fast Frequency () Keep homeless/transients off system Low cost for rider () Low impact on residential community No transfers Not much, perhaps when we are older Only if it reduces travel cost Park and ride lots Reliable () Signal prioritization Speed () Stops (accessibility) Stops (less) Transfers Transit already is attractive! It's the only way to go! Travel time Do you have any additional comments? General Comments Centerville Main Street does not need to be developed or redeveloped I use UTA everyday to work in SLC. This choice [rail] fits my lifestyle and concerns best. Perception is important to people and rail has a very positive image. I think we need to continue to build on the success of TRAX people are excited about it and will use it! Scheduling for transit needs to be evaluated Environmental Impacts We do not look forward to rail on Main Street in Centerville. We love a block away and feel it would impact our lives too much noise, people, road widening, etc. Perhaps Enhanced bus would be best for us! We live near Main Street in Centerville and are interested in preserving property values. We would like to maintain current attractiveness of the area. Alignment Suggestions The rail would be a nightmare for those living on Main Street in Bountiful and Centerville. Any route should be on 00 West, not Main Street. No room in Centerville & Farmington for more transit. I think to accommodate the rail on Main Street is not a very good use of the land. Prefer a fast bus that stops in downtown Better access on 00 West than Main Street, i.e. the Rec. Center, Home Depot, Target, WalMart. In Centerville, very few businesses would be served on Main Street. The Main Street option seems to divide city use. The 00 West option is consistent with city use. I don't want to see bus branches on 00 East in Farmington Use Frontage Road instead of Main Street. Maintain Main Street/00 East as residential. If Rail or dedicated lane, put it on Frontage. Page of

140 I would prefer to keep regular or an enhanced bus, no BRT. Keep in mind using the Frontage Road with parking for those who drive down from the east side. I don't think people will walk down to ride. They will drive. If I have to drive down the hill, I might as well go down to the Frontage Road. My favorite alternative (Light Rail on Hwy 89 and Frontage Road) was discarded. Do not want rail or BRT in an exclusive lane on 00 East in Farmington. Alignment suggestion for buses Run only the number of buses that will be utilized during the commute time between SLC and Ogden. During the day, run two buses hourly from Salt Lake City northbound to Chase Lane and back to Salt Lake City. One would travel via Orchard Drive and the other along the Old Highway, or a better route across Bountiful. Another circulator route could run from Ogden to Kaysville. A small shuttle, or a van, could be run between Chase Lane and Kaysville to meet the routes above at each end. Alignment suggestion for streetcar/brt 00 West/State Street in Farmington, south to the eastside of the Frontage Road, continue south to Lund Lane, head southeast to Jennings Lane and 00 West in Centerville, and continue (becomes 00 West in Bountiful) to 600 South in Bountiful. From there, continue to Salt Lake City. Access Comments Don't want to inconvenience of trying to cross the streets or turn. Little eastwest traffic in Centerville and Farmington mostly northsouth. If DMU is selected, you would need to provide better bus connections to DMU. Need Pages & Parrish stop for BRT in Centerville. Left turns and existing traffic will be impaired by new transit. Rightofway Comments I don't want light rail in my backyard (corner of 00 South and 00 West). It [Light Rail] has not been as bad in Salt Lake City as many thought it would be. My concern is if there would be land taken from residents to put tracks very close to homes. Rightofway is a concern to residents. Main Street is too narrow for light rail and would also disrupt local auto traffic. Community Context Comments Transit interferes with the community context of South Davis Ridership Comments South Davis already has bus service which has low ridership. There are different needs for commuters and local trips, and appeal for local trips could be low. 00 East in Farmington will not produced ridership, as it does not today. Safety Comments Keep mass transit on corridors near mass transit. As far as BRT and Rail goes, keep it off Main Street in Centerville. Too many children crossing Main Street to get to four schools, and the busses in existence are underutilized anyway. On Main Street, there are children crossing the street and rail would be dangerous. Page of

141 At least once per week I see people who are intoxicated ride the bus system. I don't feel we should have to be in their presence. Safety concerns with a train running in a residential neighborhood. Streetcars are fixed and run on rails which is a hazard on roads with traffic because of the size of the vehicle and because it isn't able to stop as quickly as automobiles. Dot Summary: Participants were given a dot to place under the alternative they feel would be best to serve the South Davis region. Enhanced Bus on Main Street BRT on Main Street to Centerville with Branches (Main) BRT on Main Street to Centerville with Branches (00 West) Rail on Main Street to Centerville (Main) Rail on Main Street to Centerville (00 West) 7. DMU on Commuter Rail Line 7. Phone conversation: Tuesday November 6th, :0 a.m. Resident is opposed to any kind of "mass transit" on 00 East (Main Street) in Farmington. The project team explained to him that UTA is looking at different types of transit solutions including BRT and enhanced bus. Regardless, the resident does not want to see any kind of alternative along this alignment. He requested that transit be located along the Frontage Rd, if anywhere. He also expressed concern about South Davis sales taxes being used by UTA for transit. Page of

142 Regional Workshop # Summary Project: South Davis County Transit DEIS Date/Time: Wednesday, September 6, 007; :00 A.M. :0 P.M. Subject: Recommendations for a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) Location: South Davis Recreation Center Attendees Utah Transit Authority Utah Department of Transportation Carter & Burgess H. W. Lochner VIA Consulting Fehr & Peers UBET Sierra Club Davis County Bountiful Centerville Farmington North Salt Lake Salt Lake City West Bountiful Woods Cross Kerry Doane Chad Saley Angelo Papastamos Colleen Lavery Saffron Capson Jacqueline Jensen Kim Clark Robin Hutcheson Kyle Cook Roger Borgenicht Marc Heileson Scott A. Hess Aric Jensen Tom Smith Tamilyn Fillmore Steve Thacker Sherri Lindstrom Phil Sessions Cory Snyder Ken Jones Scott Ogilvie Sid Young Paul Barker Gary Payne Conrad Jacobson Blaine Gehring Shanna Schaefermeyer (Mayor) Patrick Scott (Woodside Homes) Kevin Young N/A Tim Stephens Regional Workshop # Summary Page

143 Notes The notes contained within this document provide a summary of the content discussed during the meeting on the given date and time stated above. If this content differs from your understanding, please notify Jacqueline Jensen of any discrepancies within five working days. Summary of the Regional Workshop Welcome/Where are we in the process? Upon entering the Regional Workshop, each participant was given a nametag; a packet with the agenda, a handout of presentation materials, one colored dot and an alternatives analysis data matrix. Kim Clark reviewed the meeting agenda. She reviewed the project process, including subcommittee meetings and tasks and a timeline for the regional workshop. Review Short List of Alternatives R. Hutcheson outlined the short list the team developed at the end of the second round of screening for the project. She walked attendees through the evolution from that list to the short list. Enhanced Bus on Main Street R. Hutcheson outlined Enhanced Bus as similar to the bus system currently in place, but with more amenities and an improved travel time (less stops). She explained to attendees that this alternative will move forward in the evaluation. This will be the baseline for the alternatives, or what the team will compare the other alternatives to. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) on Main Street with Branches R. Hutcheson outlined the BRT alternative by first explaining the levels of a BRT system. The lowest level looks like a bus system and the highest level BRT system actually looks and feel like Light Rail Transit (LRT). The higher level of BRT has its own rightofway, but BRT can also move with traffic in shared lanes. The BRT on Main Street with Branches alternative will have a main trunk line between Salt Lake City and Farmington, with branches extending into the neighborhoods. Exact branch locations will be defined later in the study. This alternative, explained R. Hutcheson, will provided a oneseat ride for transit users from home to downtown. K. Doane noted the BRT branches are not exclusive, and the trunk line has sections of exclusive/shared lanes. Rail on Main Street to Centerville R. Hutcheson told attendees this alternative has been labeled rail as it could be LRT or a streetcar. She then outlined the reasons why the alternative has been shown to be optimal stopping at Parrish Lane in Centerville, rather than continuing onto Farmington: ) There was a split decision between those in Farmington and Centerville about how far the rail alternative should continue. ) Continuing the rail alternative to Farmington produces less ridership in the team s technical modeling. ) Farmington already has a Commuter Rail station, providing an additional alternative to commuting to downtown Salt Lake City. Regional Workshop # Summary Page

144 R. Hutcheson explained to attendees that during a Political Leaders meeting held on Monday, December some light was shed on the issue of whether or not to continue rail to Farmington by the City of Farmington s meeting representatives. She told attendees there will be additional meetings with Farmington City, and that it is certainly not a closed topic. R. Hutcheson reported to attendees that the option of using 00 West through Centerville for the rail line was taken through detailed analysis. Using this alignment in technical modeling showed a low performance in comparison to using Main Street for the alignment. There was a split between those who prefer Frontage Road and those who prefer Main Street. However, at this point, the preferred alignment we have heard at public meetings is Main Street to Parrish. K. Doane noted that both Farmington City and Centerville City need to be involved in discussions regarding the location of the rail alternative. A Centerville subcommittee attendee noted during subcommittee meetings he has attended, he was under the impression Frontage Road was the preferred alignment for those in attendance. A Farmington subcommittee attendee added that the WFRC study led to Frontage Road being the best alignment for an alternative. R. Hutcheson told attendees that later in the workshop we will discuss specific public data received regarding the issue. Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) on the Commuter Rail Line R. Hutcheson outlined the DMU alternative to attendees. The DMU vehicle travels on the Commuter Rail Line. It does not have overhead wires, and provides a short line, local alternative to Commuter Rail. At least two additional stops will be added to the Commuter Rail Line. A Centerville subcommittee attendee commented that she was surprised the DMU alternative made it to the short list. R. Hutcheson explained that beyond today, DMU will not be seen again. It was on the shortlist because it performed well in several areas of analysis, including low rightofway acquisition and low cost in comparison to other alternatives. However, the alternative does not move forward because it does not attract any new riders in the thorough technical analysis done by the team. Feedback from Public Involvement Activities (Open House, etc.) S. Capson outlined Public Involvement activities since the last Regional Workshop. She said the team has been doing extensive Public Involvement and getting comments via the website comment forms and the Open House on November 8, 007 in addition to subcommittee meetings. At the Open House, the team presented the shortlist of alternatives just outlined by R. Hutcheson and gave an overview of the entire project. Comment cards and dots were used at the Open House to get feedback regarding preferred alternatives. Nearly seventy people attended the Open House, and about 0% was the public and 0% was subcommittee members. S. Capson then reviewed the data received from the Open House. The best performers were: ) Rail on Main Street to Centerville, Enhanced Bus to Farmington ) DMU on the Commuter Rail Line ) Enhanced Bus on Main Street Regional Workshop # Summary Page

145 S. Capson outlined a crosssection of the comments received on the comment cards at the Open House: ) Rightofway acquisition/safety issues associated with Rail on 00 East (Main Street) in Farmington. ) From Salt Lake City to Centerville there was significant community support for a Rail alternative along Main Street. Reasons included speed, ridership, and its ability to provide a permanent transit solution that can be incorporated into future land use plans. ) Support for the DMU associated with low rightofway impacts. ) Various reasons given for enhanced bus as a preferred alternative included low cost and minimal rightofway impacts. ) Concern was expressed about increased and new impacts on parking, safety, noise, congestion, and the community context of South Davis. R. Hutcheson noted the team realized that the alternatives presented were either high cost or low cost. To reach a middleground alternative, the team developed lowcost subalternatives for both BRT and Rail. For both lowcost alternatives, not as many amenities will be utilized, the Cities will be responsible for some of the utility work, and shared lanes will be used to lower the rightofway acquisition needed. The shortlist that the team will be asking attendees to look at today will include these middle ground alternatives. A Farmington subcommittee attendee asked what information came from Farmington residents in particular at the Open House. R. Hutcheson said top questions from Farmington residents that she spoke to were regarding the end of the rail line at Parrish Lane and that if the rail line would continue past Parrish Lane, it should not be on 00 East. K. Clark noted there are concerns in the Farmington community, and so the team has decided, as mentioned before, that there will be an another meeting with the City. In looking at the issue of using Main Street or Frontage Road for the alignment, the community will need to reach a balance between the good of the individual residents and the good of the community as a whole. A Centerville subcommittee attendee asked how much traffic will be taken off the roads on Frontage Road and 00 East when Commuter Rail is being used. G. Scott noted the best way to view this question is by looking at what happens when there is a traffic incident on I, and residents peel off into the local streets. This is happening more and more, and this situation is not shown in the technical model used by the team. Another Centerville subcommittee attendee said her concern was making sure the alternative chosen is kept within the existing rightofway in Centerville, and that roads are not widened. R. Hutcheson noted that using 00 East for the alignment may provide more walkability. However, Frontage Road has more space available. During this phase of the study, the team is building a conceptual alternative. In phase two of the study, more specifics will be discussed such as station size, etc. Review Evaluation Methodology R. Hutcheson reviewed the evaluation measures the team used to narrow down alternatives and compare the final shortlist of alternatives against each other. She reviewed ridership, land Regional Workshop # Summary Page

146 use effects, travel time, environmental impacts, rightofway, traffic, cost (capital and operating costs), and community support. She explained the community support data is ongoing. The team is in the process of compiling all meeting data to determine the community support for each alternative. Where the team is currently at in the compiling the data from the public is reflected in the matrix given to attendees. Dot Game for Evaluation Criteria K. Clark asked attendees to indicated which evaluation criteria is most important by placing a dot on the dot board. She reassured attendees that none of the criteria are being disregarded, rather the team would like to prioritize what is important to the attendees as a group. This data is just being used to give the team more information from the public. K. Doane noted some of the criteria is dependent on each other, i.e. ridership and travel time are juxtaposed to rightofway acquisition. Ridership 7. Travel Time. Cost Rightofway Environmental. Land Use. Traffic Community Support 0 Regional Workshop # Summary Page

147 Group Exercise Alternative Recommendation Attendees were in groups of 6 to 8 attendees/table and given maps of the alternatives, a matrix of evaluation criteria data for each alternative, and a table of assumptions for the alternatives. Each table facilitator was given a packet to record group pros and cons for each alternative. Below are the recorded pros and cons for each group: Enhanced Bus BRT with branches (fixed guideway from Salt Lake City to Parrish Lane) BRT with branches Low Cost (combination of mixed flow and exclusive) Rail to Parrish (Enhanced bus Parrish Lane to Farmington) Rail to Parrish Low Cost (combination mixed flow and exclusive, enhanced bus from Parrish to Farmington) Pro BRT is more flexible, covers a greater geographic area Least amount of impacts N/A Ridership Less rightofway acquisition Lower cost Land use development If we don t effectively use the land other criteria is affected negatively Will bring economic development Exclusive all the way to Parrish Lane Ability over time to increase capacity with land use effects and rising gas prices In regards to rightofway, the more permanent it can be the better the long term solution related to location Both rail alternatives create vitality Both rail alternatives establish permanency at stations Aesthetically pleasing Will bring economic development Table Facilitator : Colleen Lavery Con Doesn t show a better ridership In 0 years, a Parrish to Farmington line would be needed Does enhanced bus really benefit us? Not much change from today. Access points Questions the medium on land use Not much more than enhanced bus If the alternative was to go on Highway 89, it will ruin the tree lined street in Bountiful that adds to the community context. Access points Is permanency a con? LOS D at Main Street Shared sections Safety issues Traffic conflicts Regional Workshop # Summary Page 6

148 Enhanced Bus BRT with branches (fixed guideway from Salt Lake City to Parrish Lane) BRT with branches Low Cost (combination of mixed flow and exclusive) Rail to Parrish (Enhanced bus Parrish Lane to Farmington) Rail to Parrish Low Cost (combination mixed flow and exclusive, enhanced bus from Parrish to Farmington) Table Facilitators: Saffron Capson/Angelo Papastamos Pro Con Low Cost Ease of implementation Flexible can be changed if needed Fixed guideway promotes land use One seat ride Can avoid accidents One seat ride Can avoid accidents More permanent transit solution (land use) Emergency preparedness Land use investments More permanent more exclusive lanes Build a good quality, permanent solution that the cities won t have to change in the future Be careful about what is shared fixed guideway as much as possible More permanent transit solution (land use) Emergency preparedness If it s a matter of cost, a low cost rail option is better than nothing Less disruptive to rightofway Less disruption to Main Street in Centerville Get preferred rail that is politically palatable If it is low cost rail or nothing, go with low cost rail May increase the chance of some kind of transit solution being implemented Low ridership Less land use development Flexible Doesn t increase attractive transit Doesn t offer permanency Reliability Operating and maintenance cost is higher than rail TRAX exists in Sandy BRT would not connect into another BRT system Doesn t attract public Ridership is lower, but operating and maintenance is higher If we are going to have transit, do it right Less areas to have exclusive lanes Reliability Operating and maintenance cost is higher than rail N/A Less area with exclusive lanes Cities (i.e. Centerville) may base their plans on a transit solution with shared lanes that may not be able to be expanded in the future. Regional Workshop # Summary Page 7

149 Enhanced Bus BRT with branches (fixed guideway from Salt Lake City to Parrish Lane) BRT with branches Low Cost (combination of mixed flow and exclusive) Rail to Parrish (Enhanced bus Parrish Lane to Farmington) Rail to Parrish Low Cost (combination mixed flow and exclusive, enhanced bus from Parrish to Farmington) Table Facilitators: Kim Clark/Kyle Cook Pro Con Reliability better than existing bus due to shorter line N/A N/A Easier sale to nonrider and casual rider System throughout Wasatch Front Reliability not as good as other alternatives Perception that people would not ride bus Costs (operating and maintenance,/construction costs) Branch on Center needs to be rethought to serve residents Less reliability Still a bus Just a bus not a system N/A N/A Additional facilitator notes: Alignment concerns: A Centerville subcommittee member, who is a business owner on Main Street in Centerville, was vocal in promoting the Frontage Road alignment. He suggested Main Street is already quite congested and a frequent transit service through the corridor would worsen the congestion. Because the study area through Centerville and Farmington is so narrow, transit users could just as easily access the transit line easily regardless of the alignment. Additionally, he suggested that because many major retailers (Walmart, etc.) are located closer to the Frontage Road than Main Street, transit users would better benefit from the Frontage Alignment. Group questions and general concerns: Parking availability for Park & Rides is important. Reliability of the transit system is more important than frequent headways or fast travel time. The supporting background bus network is very important. Several participants didn't think it was realistic to expect people to walk to the trunk line. There was a question regarding how much subsidy each alternative will require. Specifically, what will the fare box revenue be compared to operating costs? Concern that South Davis may not be able to generate enough riders to justify major transit investment. Some concern expressed that fares will be too high. Regional Workshop # Summary Page 8

150 Alternative community support comments: "Communities would support rail over a bus or BRT system." "Concept of South Davis being a bedroom community will change over time. We expect more people to live and work within the area in the future." "Exclusive path rail seems like best longterm solution." "LRT is more attractive and will bring more riders." "LRT is preferred because it is compatible with the LRT system in Salt Lake." Overall, the group was openminded and enthusiastically participated in discussions for all alternatives. Ultimately, most group members preferred the rail options. Comments for Table (facilitator: Robin Hutcheson/Greg Scott) were not documented. The comments below were noted by the facilitators. Alternative community support comments: Most comments simply followed the matrix, such as more ridership alternatives were relative pros and less ridership alternatives cons. Speeds were not considered to be an issue since the variation between the alternatives was small. However, some were concerned about reliability and Robin told them to use speed as a surrogate. Some at the table considered cost to be an issue. This was reflected in some of the votes. Some were concerned about the amount of ROW, while others were not as vocal about the issue. Attendees were very concerned about having a good land use impact. Early on, the group voted unanimously the low cost benefits out weighed the cons as a general rule. Regional Workshop # Summary Page 9

151 After the exercise, K. Clark asked group representatives to share with attendees the group s discussion on each shortlist alternative. K. Clark also asked representatives for a tally of preferred alternatives for the group. Below are the recorded preferred alternatives: Enhanced Bus BRT with branches (fixed guideway from Salt Lake City to Parrish Lane) BRT with branches Low Cost (combination of mixed flow and exclusive) Rail to Parrish (Enhanced bus Parrish Lane to Farmington) 0. Rail to Parrish Low Cost (combination mixed flow and exclusive, enhanced bus from Parrish to Farmington). Where do we go from here? K. Doane explained to attendees that there was a meeting held on Monday, December with Davis County Commissioners and Mayors from South Davis, and the same support was given for rail. Although there is discussion on whether high or low cost rail is best, the preferred alternative for the project team, political leaders, and subcommittee members is rail. The team will now take this data to the City Council meetings in January, then continue with the South Davis Transit Study in phase two. In the second phase, K. Doane explained, the team will look into more alternative specifics, such as station locations, impacts of the system, and rightofway acquisition needed. R. Hutcheson noted the team still has more technical evaluation ahead, and will be meeting with Farmington City regarding the shortlist. C. Lavery noted there will be less Public Involvement in the second phase of the study. However, the project website will still be online. At the end of phase two, there will be a formal public hearing. Regional Workshop # Summary Page 0

152 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Appendix B Baseline Alternative Memorandum Appendix B

153 UDOT Project No. April 8, 008 F0067()0 DRAFT Baseline Alternative Memorandum Alternatives Analysis Element of the South Davis Transit Study DEIS December 007 Introduction and Background The purpose of this memorandum is to outline the Baseline Alternative for the South Davis Transit Study. In addition to build alternatives like light rail or buses in reserved lanes, the FTA Alternatives Analysis process requires that lowercost transportation solutions be investigated. The process usually entails transportation systems management (TSM) strategies, which involve improvements in transit service through such relatively low capital cost measures such as: Implementing transit signal priority (TSP) at congested intersections Optimizing bus route alignments, headways, and span of service Operating peakperiod, peakdirection buses on shoulder lanes Improving facilities at bus stops Expanding parkandride capacity The FTA also requires development of a Baseline Alternative that seeks to achieve the same transit service characteristics as the build alternatives but with minimal capital costs. The objective is to determine how much of the benefit of a build alternative is attributable to its capital improvements and how much is due simply to its improved service characteristics. UTA and many other transit systems typically use TSM strategies to create their Baseline Alternative, thus simplifying the number of options to be studied. However, the baseline (or TSM) is often developed only to meet the federal requirement that it be evaluated as part of the process. There is typically no intent to choose the Baseline Alternative as the LPA. Throughout the Alternatives Analysis process, the baseline performance characteristics are directly compared to the LPA. However, the baseline is seldom, if ever, implemented because the FTA New Starts evaluation process requires that the LPA be evaluated against the baseline. More often, a nobuild or do nothing approach is the fallback if the preferred build alternative is ultimately rejected. For the South Davis Transit Alternatives Analysis and DEIS, the TSM and Baseline Alternatives are considered as one alternative, and will be called the Baseline Alternative. The Baseline Alternative The FTA defines the Baseline Alternative as the best choice that can be implemented without the proposed major investment. It further states that the baseline should include

154 UDOT Project No. April 8, 008 F0067()0 all reasonable and costeffective transportation improvements short of the major build action. Although the FTA provides several options for the development of the Baseline Alternative, the scenario most likely to apply in the South Davis corridor will require development of costeffective transit improvements beyond those that are already identified in the longrange plan. As part of its New Starts evaluation process, the FTA evaluates the costeffectiveness of the recommended build alternative against the FTAapproved Baseline Alternative. Therefore, FTA examines both the baseline and build alternatives to ensure that different elements of the transit system are performing comparable functions. Feeder networks and overlapping transit services are scrutinized to ensure that the Baseline Alternative is comparable to the LPA in terms of markets served and general characteristics. For the South Davis Transit Study, the Baseline Alternative is Enhanced Bus between Salt Lake City and Farmington. The following features are included in the Baseline Alternative: A highfrequency trunk line with limitedstop service serves as a regional transit backbone. Standard bus vehicles traverse the route using transit signal priority to reduce delay at key intersections. A local background bus network consisting of circulator routes that provide intraregional mobility within the study area, as well as bus network consisting of circulator routes that provide intraregional mobility and transit access to the Baseline trunk line. Included in the background bus system is a route that operates on the same alignment as the Baseline trunk line; this route offers frequent local stops and thereby serves intermediate locations not served by the limitedstop Baseline trunk line. Commuter Rail Transit (CRT) offers regional transit service. Note that CRT is currently under construction and is not included in cost estimates for any alternative. Transit signal priority at congested intersections. Transit signal priority is assumed to be in place at approximately half of all intersections through the corridor, and will be implemented at the intersections with the highest traffic concerns. Optimization of intersections to improve traffic flow for buses and cars (including bus priority queue jump lanes). Preliminary locations where queue jump lanes could be effective include North Salt Lake and Centerville. Implement intelligent transportation systems (enhanced reliability and passenger information systems) Some enhancement of transit amenities at bus stops and transit centers.

155 UDOT Project No. April 8, 008 F0067()0 Characteristics of the Baseline Alternative Route The alignment for the Baseline Alternative trunk line is approximately 9 miles long, and will take 7 minutes to traverse at an average speed of MPH. The trunk line vehicles will operate mixed with general traffic. Termini The Baseline trunk line s southern and northern termini are 00 South / 00 E in Salt Lake City and Farmington Commuter Rail Station, respectively. Stations Central Station (00 S / 600 W) 00 W / 00 S 00 W / 00 S 00 W / 600 N SR89 / Eagle Ridge Drive SR89 / Center Street SR89 / 600 S SR06 / 00 S 00 W / 00 S 00 W / 00 N Main Street / 00 N Main St / Pages Lane Main St / Parrish Lane Main St / N Main St / Lund Ln (or Glovers Ln) Main St / State St Farmington Commuter Rail Station ParkandRide Locations Central Station (00 S / 600 W) SR89 / 600 S SR06 / 00 S Main St / Pages Lane Farmington Commuter Rail Station Service Frequency The trunk line will operate at 0 and minute headways during the peak and offpeak periods, respectively. The background bus system will operate throughout the day at 0 minute intervals.

156 UDOT Project No. April 8, 008 F0067()0 Conceptual Ridership Modeling results show an anticipated daily ridership of 9,00 passengers on the trunk line, which does not include riders on the background bus network. Cost The total estimated capital cost associated with the Baseline Alternative, not including the background bus system, is estimated to be between $6 and $68 million dollars. The annual cost to operate and maintain the system (in today s dollars) is estimated to be between $. and $.7 million dollars. Relationship between Baseline and Build Alternative The South Davis Transit DEIS must leave open the possibility that the LPA may be a TSM alternative that does not meet FTA s cost effectiveness index (CEI) requirements. These requirements are tied into the New Starts criteria. The main indicator that confirms a properly defined set of alternatives is the cost effectiveness of the build vs. no build and the TSM vs. the no build, which can be calculated from the Alternatives Analysis results. If the LPA is a TSM alternative that falls below FTA s funding criteria, UTA and local jurisdictions may need to be creative in financing the solution. Alternatively, a minor investment strategy, such as the Baseline Alternative, could be recommended as the LPA. A lower cost improvement with substantially similar ridership benefits as a build alternative may be eligible for Small Starts federal funding and leave open the possibility of further investment in transit facilities in the corridor. It is likely that the baseline and build alternatives will require additional review in order to ensure appropriate comparisons (i.e they must serve the same market, and reach the same destination). The portion of the alignment through downtown is unknown because of simultaneous planning efforts for downtown transit, and Airport Light Rail in particular. The portion of the alignment between North Temple and either 00 South or the Intermodal Hub will be addressed fully in the next phase of this project.

157 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Appendix C Short List of Alternatives Appendix C

158 Short List Alternatives Detailed Evaluation Summary Table Baseline BRT Low Cost BRT Rail Low Cost Rail Total Score Average Score Rank Build Alternatives Calculation Tools Baseline BRT Low Cost BRT Rail Low Cost Rail Low High Steps Ridership (daily ridership per mile) Rideship by mile Score Capital Cost (Cost to construct) Capital Cost $ 6,000,000 $,000,000 $ 0,000,000 $ 700,000,000 $ 0,000,000 $ 6,000,000 $ 700,000,000 $ 70,,6 Score Operating Cost (Annual operating and maintenance) Operating Cost $,00,000 $7,00,000 $7,00,000 $,00,000 $,800,000 $,00,000 $ 7,00,000 $, Score RightofWay (Acres impacted) Acres of ROW to Parrish lane Score Land Use Effects (# of stations where new TOD could be encouraged, not including existing) # of locations where TOD would be encouraged Liklihood index 0 Product 0 0 Score

159 Build Alternatives Calculation Tools Baseline BRT Low Cost BRT Rail Low Cost Rail BRT Low Cost BRT Rail Traffic (Locations where traffic worsens by a LOS grade from 00) Prelim affect on # of intersections Score Community Support (Series of meetings) Project Team Political Leaders Regional Workshop Sum Score

160 UDOT Project No. F0067()0 Appendix D Capital Cost Estimates Using Standard FTA Categories for the Short List of Alternatives Appendix D

161 South Davis Transit Study Capital Cost Methodology The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has implemented a capital costing format, using Standard Cost Categories, to establish a consistent format for the reporting, estimating and managing of capital costs for major transit projects. The move to standardize the format for capital costs is part of FTA s effort to control project costs and risks and to increase the reliability of cost estimates from entry to preliminary engineering forward. The Standard Cost Categories (SCC) were developed by the FTA Office of Planning and Environment and the Office of Program Management, with input and advice from FTA regional administrators, engineers and planners. The SCC are structured to accommodate all possible project elements in the following ten categories:. 0 Guideway and Track Elements Guideway o Atgrade exclusive rightofway, semiexclusive, mixed traffic o Aerial structure o Builtup fill Track o Direct fixation o Embedded o Ballasted o Special (switches and turnouts) o Vibration and noise dampening. 0 Stations, Stops, Terminals, Intermodals Atgrade or aerial station, stop, shelter, mall, terminal, platform Park and ride lots. 0 Support Facilities: Yards, Shops, Administration Buildings Administration building Light / heavy maintenance facility Storage or maintenance of way building Yard and yard track. 0 Sitework & Special Conditions Demolition, clearing, earthwork Site utilities, utility relocation Hazardous materials and contaminated soil removal, ground water treatment Pedestrian / bike access, landscaping Auto, bus, van accessways including roads and parking lots Temporary facilities and other indirect costs Environmental mitigation for wetlands, historic, parks Page

162 . 0 Systems Train control and signals Traffic signals and crossing protection Traction power supply substations Traction power distribution catenary Communications Fare collection system and equipment Central control RightofWay, Land, Existing Improvements Purchase or lease of real estate Relocation of existing households and businesses Vehicles Light rail Commuter rail Bus Spare parts Professional Services Preliminary engineering Final design Project management for design and construction Construction administration and management Insurance Legal, permits, review fees by other agencies, cities, etc. Surveys, testing, investigation, inspection Start up Unallocated Contingency 0. Finance Charges Page

163 Table D. Enhanced Bus on Main St. Cost Calculation Cost Category Category Description OPTION Enhanced Bus on Main St. Cost Approach Summary 0 Guideway $0.0M 0 Stations $.90M New Stations = 6 $0.07M/platform (/station) 0 0 Support Facilities $.0M Site Works yrs const. $7.M $.0M Allowance for vehicle storage & Bus Maintenance Facility Modifications. 7. mi (8.8. mi. existing $.0M/mi allowance for minimal roadway & pedestrian access improvements & utility impacts. 0 Systems & Fare Coll. $0.0M May need upgrades to Bus Central Control to handle additional vehicles. 60 ROW $.M Does not include any costs for off corridor ROW (P&R lots, vehicle storage, etc.) 70 Vehicles $9.0M 9 vehicles (60' $.0M ea. Construction SubTotal $.7M 80 Prof. Serv, (0%) $0.M Includes DEIS/FEIS/PE/Final Design; plus all agency & jurisdiction costs. Sub Total $.M 90 Contingencies (0%) $9.0M Allowance for unidentified project elements. 00 Finance Charges N/A TOTAL $.M Use Range of $$70M

164 Table D. BRT Option Cost Calculation Cost Category Category Description OPTION BRT 0 Guideway $.M 0 Stations $.M Support Facilities $0.0M Site Works yrs const. 98.M Systems & Fare Coll. $.6M 60 ROW $9.9M 70 Vehicles $9.0M Notes. mi (.8. mi.existing $.0M/mi 0 new Exclusive Guideway $0.M ea new Shared Guideway (north of $0.07M ea./platform (/station) $0.0M Allowance for Maintenance & Facility Modifications. mi. (=.8mi.mi) roadway rebuild in exclusive $7.0M/mi 6 miles of Enhanced Bus $.0M/mi TVMs at each station $0.M ea. (/station) Exclusive Guideway Section $9.7M Enhanced Bus Section $0.M articulated vehicles for main line and for $.0M Construction SubTotal $0.M 80 Prof. Serv, (0%) $9.M 0% of 0.M Sub Total $0.M 90 Contingencies (0%) 80.7M 0% of 0.M 00 Finance Charges N/A TOTAL $8.0M Use Range of $80 $0M

165 Table D. Low Cost BRT Cost Calculation Cost Category Category Description OPTION Low Cost BRT 0 Guideway $9.M 0 Stations $.8M Notes 7. mi Exclusive $.0M/mi (7. =.8. mi (existing downtown SLC) mi shared) 6 new Exclusive Guideway $0.M ea. 7 new Shared $0.07M/platform (/station) 0 Support Facilities $0.0M $0M Allowance for Maintenance & Facility Modifications 0 Site Works yrs const. $.M 7. $7.0M/mi for Exclusive Guideway. 0 $.0M/mi for Enhanced Bus Section. 0 Systems & Fare Coll. $.6M TVM's at each station $0.M ea. (/station) 60 ROW $.M 70 Vehicles $0.0M Exclusive Guideway and Shared Sections $.0M Enhanced Bus $0.M 6 articulated vehicles for main line and for $.0M Construction SubTotal $.9M 80 Prof. Serv, (0%) $67.M 0% of $.9M Sub Total $9.M 90 Contingencies (0%) $8.M 0% of $9.M 00 Finance Charges N/A TOTAL $9.M Use Range of $0 $00M

166 Table D. Rail Cost Calculation Cost Category Category Description 0 Guideway 0 Stations Support Facilities Site Works yrs const. Systems & Fare Coll. 60 ROW 70 Vehicles OPTION Rail $0.M $.0M $0.0M $98.M $9.M $.M $9.M Notes. mi NEW (omitting existing rail): 6.9 $6M/mi. $M/mi NEW stations: 9 LRT center platform $0.M ea. Enhanced Bus platforms $0.07M/platform $0.0M Allowance for Maintenance & Facility Modifications. $7.0M/mi for roadway rebuild in guidway section 6 $M/mi for Enhanced Bus shared guideway 6.9 $0.0M/mi in paved track section. $6.0M/mi in ballasted section (All inclusive OCS, TVMs, TPSS and Sig/Com) Exclusive Guideway and Shared Sections $.0M Enhanced Bus $0.M $.6M 6 $M Construction SubTotal $9.M 80 Prof. Serv, (0%) $.7M 0% of $9.M Sub Total $.7M 90 Contingencies (0%) $08.9M 0% of $.7M 00 Finance Charges N/A TOTAL $6.7M Use Range of $60 $700M for Rail OCS = overhead catenary system TPSS = traction power sub station TVMs = ticket vending machines

167 Table D. Low Cost Rail Cost Calculation Cost Category Category Description OPTION Low Cost Rail 0 Guideway $.M 0 Stations $. M 0 Support Facilities $0.0 M 0 Site Works $8.7M 0 Systems & Fare Collection $66.7M 60 ROW $.7 M 70 Vehicles $6.8 M Cost Approach Summary. mi NEW (omitting exisiting rail): categories: ballasted exclusive (. $ M/mi), paved exclusive (.9 $6M/mi), and paved shared (...9 = $M/mi) NEW stations: 9 (omitting existing rail stations) Center $0.M ea Side platforms $0. ea Enhanced Bus platforms $0.07M/platform Assume vehicles will be existing LRT facility. Provide $0M allowance for facility mods. 7. $9.0M/mi for Exclusive Guideway(0% of HUB Extension $) $.0M/mi for Shared Guideway 6 for Enhanced Bus Assume OCS: 7. $.0 M/mi for Exclusive Guideway $.0M/mi (total for both sides of street) for Shared Guideway TPSS: $0.7M ea ( per mi) (rounded to whole number) Signal/Communications:. $.0M/mi TVMs: 8 $0.M ea. (/station) Exclusive Guideway and Shared Sections $.M Enhanced Bus $0.M $.6 M 6 articulated $.0 M 80 Construction Subtotal $7.M Prof. Serv, (0%) $8.6M Includes DEIS/FEIS/PE/Final Design, plus all Agency and Jurisdiction costs 90 Sub Total $7.8M Contingencies (0%) $7.6M Allowance for unidentified project elements at present stage of design development 00 Finance Charges N/A TOTAL $9.M Use Range of $0 80M OCS = TPSS = TVMs = overhead catenary system traction power sub station ticket vending machines

168