Salt Lake City Downtown Transportation Master Plan Light Rail & Bus; Presentation Background and...
-
Upload
michael-head -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of Salt Lake City Downtown Transportation Master Plan Light Rail & Bus; Presentation Background and...
Salt Lake City Downtown Transportation Master Plan
Light Rail & Bus; Presentation Background and Introduction
August 23, 2006
Project Goals
Transportation Should…
– Serve Downtown– Be Pedestrian Friendly– Be Easy to Use– Enhance Mobility– Balance Modes
Inferred Goals
Transportation Should Also…
– Serve suburban areas efficiently– Facilitate seamless transfers– Increase transit ridership– Support transit oriented development (TOD)– Support anticipated land use
Dow
nto
wn T
ransp
orta
tion M
aste
r Pla
n
Stu
dy A
rea
Dow
nto
wn T
ransp
orta
tion M
aste
r Pla
n
Medium Density
Residential & Mixed-Use
Residential
Institutional
Core
Expanded Core
Exp
and
ed
Co
re
Hotel Row
HD Residential & Mixed-Use
Commercial & Mixed-Use
An
ticipated
Lan
d U
se (Gen
eralized)
Existing Track
Dow
nto
wn T
ransp
orta
tion M
aste
r Pla
n
High DensityMix of Regional
& Local Trips
Highest Density Regional Trips
Do
wn
tow
n T
rips
Existing Track
Dow
nto
wn T
ransp
orta
tion M
aste
r Pla
n
2015 Lig
ht R
ail Op
erating
Plan
Hub to U of U
West Valley to U of U
Draper to Airport
Mid Jordan to Hub
Draper to Hub
CommuterRail
Facts: 1) Existing track is
sufficient for 2015 suburban extensions.
2) Doesn’t fully support anticipated land use.
Regional & Local Trips
Regional Trips
Dow
nto
wn T
ransp
orta
tion M
aste
r Pla
n
Short Walk, Frequent Service, High Ridership
Levels o
f Service, 2015 P
lan
Longer Walk, Less
Frequent, Lower
Ridership
Regional & LocalTrips
Regional Trips
2015 Light Rail System Observations
Benefit
– Excellent connection of suburban trips to regionally significant destinations
Challenge
– Little or no excess track capacity for local circulation
Why Identify Future Light Rail Track Now?
– UTA may need more frequent service than planned for 2015.
– Improve bus-rail connectivity.
– Decision will facilitate traffic, planning, and development decisions.
– Allow circulator concepts to advance.
Dow
nto
wn T
ransp
orta
tion M
aste
r Pla
n
Regional & Local Trips
Highest Density Regional Trips
Lig
ht R
ail Op
tion
s Stu
died
Existing Track
3 East-West Options: 200 S, 300 S, or 400 S
3 North-South Options:
700 S to 600 W,700 S to 400 W,
200 West
Planned Light Rail extensions can make use of one yellow and one pink.
Scenario 1
– East-West Choice• 400 South
– North-South Choice• 700 South to 400 West
Dow
nto
wn T
ransp
orta
tion M
aste
r Pla
n
400 S. an
d 700 S
. to 400 W
. Op
erating
Op
tion
Mid Jordan to Hub
Hub to U of U
West Valley to U of U
Draper to Airport
CommuterRail
Excess Track
Capacity
Improved circulation, but
lengthens some suburban trips Regional
& LocalTrips
Regional Trips
Dow
nto
wn T
ransp
orta
tion M
aste
r Pla
n
400 S. an
d 700 S
. to 400 W
. Op
erating
Op
tion
A-Train:Normal routing
Other route choices exist, but all reduce service from suburbs
B-Train:Alternate routing increases track
capacity, but lengthens trip
Regional & LocalTrips
Regional Trips
Dow
nto
wn T
ransp
orta
tion M
aste
r Pla
n
Level o
f Service fro
m S
ub
urb
s, 400 S. an
d 700 S
. t0 400 W.
Coverage is maximized, but
quality of suburban trips
may be reduced.
1.8 miles new track
Short Walk, Frequent Service, High Ridership
Longer Walk, Less
Frequent, Lower
Ridership
Regional & LocalTrips
Regional Trips
Scenario 2
– East-West Choice• 200 South
– North-South Choice• 200 West
Dow
nto
wn T
ransp
orta
tion M
aste
r Pla
n
200 S. an
d 200 W
. Op
erating
Op
tion
Mid Jordan to Hub
Hub to U of U
West Valley to U of U
Draper to Airport
CommuterRail
Excess Track
Capacity
Regional & LocalTrips
Regional Trips
Dow
nto
wn T
ransp
orta
tion M
aste
r Pla
n
Level o
f Service fro
m S
ub
urb
s, 200 S. an
d 200 W
.
Circulator Opportunity Excellent
suburban access to regional
destinations
1.3 miles new track
Short Walk, Overlapping Access
Longer Walk, Less Frequent,
Lower Ridership
Local Trips
Regional Trips
300 South Track Potential
– Light Rail or Streetcar on 300 South• Excellent transit oriented development
• Nostalgia of station near Rio Grande
• Compatible with angled parking
• Potential advantages over 200 South and 400 South options
– Warrants further analysis
Downtown Bus Options
UTA Bus Service Objectives
– Improve traveler information and amenities.
– Facilitate on-time arrivals.
– Create connectivity options.
– Consolidate service on primary bus corridors connecting to a transit center.
– Locate transit center near high concentration of regional destinations, convenient to bus and rail corridors.
– No layovers envisioned
Transit Center Benefits
– Good visibility, accessibility, connectivity
– Premium amenities for patrons• Airport-style arrival screens
• While you wait conveniences (coffee, paper)
• Bike lockers, rental opportunities
• “Plan my route” kiosks to inform passers by of alternative travel options
– Significant increase in ridership
On-Street Transit Center Concepts
– Offers better pull-through efficiency than off-street sites.
– Create a bus pocket for pull-out
– An intersection works better than a single street segment.• Waiting areas on each corner to be in line with bus’s natural
path.
• No single location has an inordinate number of buses.
Off-Street
– A single terminal space for patrons, but more difficult for buses to maneuver.
– Requires property purchase or special arrangements with compatible uses.
Transit Center Location
– Westside Intermodal Center is too far from the Core.
– Most routes access the Core via State or 200 South.
– Location should consider existing and new rail stations.
“Transit Intersection” Concept
Bus Stop On-street amenities (bike lockers/rental, etc.)
Primary area: Ground-level traveler info;
coffee; bike shop; off-street waiting Secondary areas:
Inside waiting, info, small retail
1-block walk to Trax
State / 200 South is an ideal intersection. Others may also work well.
200 South
Sta
te
Off-Street Transit Center Concept
Bus Stop On-street amenities (bike lockers/rental, etc.)
1-block walk to Trax
200 South
Sta
te
Ground-level traveler info;
coffee; bike shop; off-street waiting
Example off-street site: Many similar sites exist each with pros and cons
Same routes, adjusted to off-
street site.
Intersection vs. Off-Street
– Intersection is more efficient• Few left turns = reduced congestion
• Improved speed = higher ridership
• Operating costs greatly reduced
– Off-street offers chance to create mid-block alignment, (but at high cost)
– Intersection is mobile• With little or no construction, a new site can be selected later if necessary
Transit Center Site Preferences with 200 South Trax
200 S. Bus-Rail Connectivity
Transit Center Site Preferences with 400 South Trax
400 S. Bus-Rail Connectivity
The End