Get documents about "UTA Report Template
Document Sample
Table of Contents Summary and Benefits ..................................................................................................................... 1 Project Description (Federal Register (FR) Section VII(C)) ........................................................... 2 Transportation System Impacts ................................................................................................................. 4 Development Impacts of the Streetcar ...................................................................................................... 5 Project Parties (FR Sect. VII(D)) ..................................................................................................... 7 Grant Funds and Sources and Uses of Funds (FR Sect. VII(E)) ..................................................... 7 Primary Selection Criteria (FR Sections VII(F) and II(1)) .............................................................. 8 A. Long Term Outcomes ........................................................................................................................... 8 B. Job Creation & Economic Stimulus ................................................................................................... 15 Secondary Selection Criteria (FR Sections VII(F) and II(2)) ........................................................ 21 A. Innovation........................................................................................................................................... 21 B. Partnerships ........................................................................................................................................ 22 C. Program-Specific Criteria ................................................................................................................... 24 Federal Wage Rate Requirements (FR Sect. VII(G)) .................................................................... 24 National Environmental Policy Act (FR Sect. VII(H)) ................................................................. 24 Certification Requirements (FR Sect. X) ....................................................................................... 24 List of Tables Table 1: Ridership and Travel Benefits ............................................................................................... 5 Table 2: Funding Distribution.............................................................................................................. 8 Table 3: Summary of Benefits by Evaluation Criteria....................................................................... 10 Table 4: Summary of Cost Benefit Analysis; 20-Year Life Cycle, 7% Discount Rate ..................... 10 Table 5: Disadvantaged Populations in the Corridor ......................................................................... 14 Table 6: Daily and Annual Emissions Saved..................................................................................... 14 Table 7: Sugar House Estimated Power Consumption ...................................................................... 15 Table 8: Short Term Direct, Indirect and Induced Employment, Value Added and Labor Income by Year from Both Project Costs and Property Development Cost Expenditures ................................. 16 Table 9: Short Term Employment of Key Industries Employing Low Income People Due to Streetcar Project Expenditures and Property Development Expenditures ......................................... 16 Table 10: Capital Cost Estimate ........................................................................................................ 20 Table 11: Innovative Strategies and Outcomes ................................................................................. 21 List of Figures Figure 1: Study Area ............................................................................................................................ 3 Figure 2: Regional Transit System ...................................................................................................... 4 Figure 3: Anticipated Development ..................................................................................................... 6 Figure 4: Cost Benefit Analysis ........................................................................................................... 9 Figure 5: UTA Right-of-Way ............................................................................................................ 12 Figure 6: Annual Delay (Hours) per Traveler for Salt Lake City Region ......................................... 12 Figure 7: Failing Level of Service at Corridor Intersections ............................................................. 13 Figure 8: Sugar House Streetcar Project Schedule ............................................................................ 17 Figure 9: Sugar House Streetcar Collaboration Timeline .................................................................. 22 Figure 10: Overwhelming Public Support for Streetcar .................................................................... 23 Sugar House Streetcar TIGER Grant Application i 14 September 2009 Summary and Benefits Sugar House Streetcar is a modern streetcar project that will transform the urban environment in a key part of the Salt Lake Valley’s metropolitan area. Embraced by its community and implemented by a unique partnership of two cities, a transit authority, and private developers, the Sugar House Streetcar line is an investment in a more livable future. Development of this project, only three miles from Salt Lake City (Utah’s central business district), is consistent with this rapidly-growing region’s aggressive use of transit to create great, sustainable places. This project will operate between the Central Pointe TRAX station at 2100 South and 221 West, and the Sugar House commercial district centered around 2100 South and Highland Drive, utilizing the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) existing rail right-of-way. The route length is approximately 2 miles. By the time the project is completed in 2012, it will have generated $356.3 million in new economic activity, leveraged from the requested $35 million federal investment. This economic activity derives from the construction of the line itself, the first phases of three already-designedand-approved transit-oriented real estate developments that will be triggered upon its funding, and the associated indirect purchases and services spurred by this construction activity. Altogether, a projected 4,645 job years of direct and indirect employment will be generated through 2012, consistent with the goals of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. By creating fundamental transit infrastructure that will further transform and reinforce this corridor as one of the region's most walkable, livable, and sustainable communities, the project is anticipated to attract a total of $1.2 billion in development activity into the corridor by 2030, representing an increase of approximately 4,000 households and 7,700 permanent jobs. Key Benefits of the Sugar House Streetcar Short Term Effects Through 2012: 769 job years of new employment as a direct result of project construction 3,876 job years as a result of immediately induced property development 4,645 job years of new employment, with approximately 50% in lower income job concentrations $356.3 million of direct and induced economic output 3,000 daily riders in 2012 (1500 new to system) and all with direct connection to over 130 miles of existing and planned rail transit Long Term Impacts to 2030: Overall benefit/cost ratio of 5.6 to 1 (complying with TIGER Guidelines for BCA) 4000 new households and 7700 new permanent jobs in the corridor $1.2 billion in transit-oriented development over the 20-year period $25 million saved in travel time 1.1 million gallons of gasoline saved 26,000 tons of carbon emissions avoided Innovations and Demonstration Aspects: Planning, financing, and operating partnership among two cities, a transit agency, and the private sector Strong track record in conceiving, building and successfully operating transit, public works, and redevelopment projects Co-located streetcar, bike, pedestrian, and open space/landscape corridor linking the communities The combination of rapid implementation, low capital cost, and high short-term and long-term economic leverage qualifies this project as truly "transformational infrastructure." Sugar House Streetcar TIGER Grant Application 1 14 September 2009 Project Description (Federal Register (FR) Section VII(C)) Utah, and the Wasatch Front in particular, are among the fastest growing regions in the United States. According to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget of the State of Utah, Salt Lake County, the county in which this project is located, grew by approximately 24% between 1990 and 2000, and an additional 14% between 2000 and 2008. By 2030, approximately 1.46 million people will call Salt Lake County home. Staggering growth has led to sprawling development patterns, increased vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and a struggle to keep pace with the demand for transportation. Recognizing the challenges associated with growth, the citizens of Salt Lake County have fully embraced public transit as a necessary travel option, and ridership on UTA’s growing transit system consistently exceeds projections. The streetcar project will help change the "genetic code" of growth in this portion of the Wasatch region, increasing the region's competitiveness through the critical livable-community components essential to sustainable economic growth. Moreover, there will be significant long-term environmental benefits derived by facilitating transit-oriented, compact corridor growth. These are not new concepts in this region. Residents have supported a growing transit network with both ridership (consistently exceeding forecasts) and countywide votes in favor of transit. The project consists of a modern streetcar line, two miles in length, that will connect a thriving regional commercial center (Sugar House business district) to the highly successful regional TRAX light rail system. This link will further strengthen the extent and intensity of use of the existing public transportation infrastructure as an increasingly competitive alternative to automobile trips. The project has features that meet both community and mobility goals. These include seven stops approximately 0.3 miles apart, and service every 15 minutes during peak hours (and every 30 minutes during off-peak hours). When the project opens in early 2012, daily ridership is estimated to be approximately 3,000, rising to over 4,000 by 2030. The streetcar will serve a unique area of both Salt Lake City and South Salt Lake City, where a strong identity and rich community history exists. As one of the original streetcar communities of Salt Lake City, the commercial center of Sugar House developed into a walkable environment with storefronts, sidewalks, and densely populated residential neighborhoods on a traditional grid network. The full Sugar House streetcar corridor includes a broad mix of land uses, ranging from light industrial to residential. The portion of the corridor between 900 East and 1100 East is one of the few areas along the Wasatch Front with land uses that facilitate non-motorized travel. This area harbors dense residential neighborhoods that are within a convenient walk to many businesses. West of 900 East, in the Salt Lake City portion of the corridor, land uses transition to commercial strips along 2100 South, with higher density residential to the north and south. The proximity of mixed land uses keeps walking distances short, ultimately promoting walking as a preferred mode of transportation. The critical missing element is a high-quality transit option that extends walking trips and acts as a ‘pedestrian accelerator” to move people efficiently over longer distances. The western half of the corridor (in South Salt Lake) is characterized by a mix of aging warehouses, many of which are non-conforming to current city zoning, and light industrial uses, bordered by higher density residential neighborhoods. Altogether, the streetcar corridor currently contains approximately 2,300 households (5,300 people), and over 2 million square feet of retail and commercial space. Sugar House Streetcar TIGER Grant Application 2 14 September 2009 Figure 1: Study Area Sugar House Streetcar TIGER Grant Application 3 14 September 2009 Transportation System Impacts The existing transportation system in Sugar House is challenging. The pedestrianoriented development patterns do not allow for roadway expansion on 2100 South, the major east/west arterial in the area. 2100 South is consistently congested at peak and non-peak travel times. Interstate 80 parallels the proposed streetcar line and is not conducive to community-oriented travel and development. Though light rail (TRAX) touches this area at 2100 South and approximately 200 West, it serves north/south travel, with no options for east/west travel through South Salt Lake and into Sugar House. Although once served by streetcar transit, the Sugar House corridor has, in recent decades, defaulted to a largely automobiledependent pattern. This pattern is evident both in mode split and in the form of development taking place in the area. The streetcar line will dramatically change this picture, positively impacting the transportation mode share in the corridor, and facilitating a more walkable, transitoriented pattern of development and movement. This outcome will be due to the project's key characteristics: • A dedicated rail corridor, providing faster, more certain transit travel times than buses operating on the congested 2100 South arterial. Buses are currently delayed in traffic at key intersections, which will worsen over time as congestion increases. Travel time is expected to be 8 minutes on streetcar between Sugar House and the Central Pointe TRAX station. To destinations beyond, such as West Valley City and south to Sandy, travel time savings realized on transit will be even further enhanced. Figure 2: Regional Transit System • Direct, cross-platform transfers to the trunk line of the UTA TRAX network at the Central Pointe station. The Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) regional travel demand forecasting model (2007) suggests a strong demand for travel to the Salt Lake City central business district (three miles to the north), and growing demand for travel to West Valley City (due west), South Jordan (to the southwest), and to Sandy (approximately 10 miles due south). Sugar House Streetcar TIGER Grant Application 4 14 September 2009 • Integration with the existing street grid, providing full pedestrian access to the project throughout the project area. • Integration with the planned regional PRATT trail to be co-located in the right-of-way. The existing right-of-way is 66 feet wide in most locations, allowing for development of a regional trail system within the right-of-way. This will promote additional mode split that increases biking and walking. • Co-development of the streetcar project with major planned transit-oriented development projects at key sites in the corridor, including Market Station in South Salt Lake and the Granite Block in Salt Lake City’s Sugar House business district. As shown in table 1, implementation of this project will provide net transportation benefits through a combination of new transit trips and trips diverted from auto travel to transit. The large number of new transit-focused housing units and businesses included in the co-development projects will build ridership and increase automobile "trips not taken." Table 1: Ridership and Travel Benefits 2012 Route ridership Auto trips saved New rail transit trips 3,000 820 1,545 2030* 4,070 1,100 2,100 * In this application, the planning horizon of 20 years has been generally followed, with that period running from a project opening in early 2012 to the end of 2031. In some cases, data used as the basis for the application used a slightly different basis, such as the transportation demand model managed by the Wasatch Front Regional Council. Thus the 2030 horizon in this and other tables is based on those data. Development Impacts of the Streetcar In addition to the short-term employment gains to 2012 caused by the construction of the streetcar and the first phase of approved, but currently suspended mixed-use real estate projects along the line, the streetcar project will produce enduring and highly beneficial long-term economic, developmental, and environmental impacts. Land use in the study area is expected to change as a result of Sugar House Streetcar, becoming more dense and more diversified. Two major designated and planned activity centers will be able to accelerate their development and be completed in the next decade. These significant projects are the multi-block Market Station project (located at approximately 2300 South State Street) and two developments planned for the Granite Block property (located on the south side of 2100 South at 1100 East). All three of these are in tax-increment redevelopment districts, and receive strong support from their local jurisdictions. Each of the developers with projects along the streetcar line have expressed strong support for this project, as evidenced in letters of support located here: http://www.rideuta.com/files/DeveloperLettersofSupport.pdf The Market Station development, located in South Salt Lake, will be a mixed-use development with approximately 900 dwelling units, 100,000 square feet of retail space, and 350,000 square feet of office space. The developers of Market Station were a catalyst to launching the initial streetcar concept, seeing it as a critical component of their vision of dense, transit-oriented development in this part of the region. The Granite Block is in the existing Sugar House commercial district, which is a formal redevelopment area. The block will be redeveloped with a mix of residential, commercial, and office use. Two projects have been approved by Salt Lake City for this block: the "Mecham Sugar House Streetcar TIGER Grant Application 5 14 September 2009 Development" and the "Streets of Sugar House." In total, these developments will add 560 residential units, 275,000 square feet of office, 450,000 square feet of retail space, and a hotel. More information on each of the developments is located here: http://www.rideuta.com/files/DevelopmentPlansandRenderrings.pdf Longer term, by 2030, the presence of the streetcar will accelerate and reinforce revitalization and shift travel modes throughout the corridor, furthering its evolution into one of the Wasatch region's premier pedestrian-oriented, sustainable, mixed use, highly livable, and popular "green" communities. This synergy between a properly-placed streetcar line and large-scale transit-oriented redevelopment has been achieved with great success in Portland, Oregon; Seattle, Washington; Little Rock, Arkansas; Tampa, Florida; Kenosha, Wisconsin; and other cities. Salt Lake City and South Salt Lake, along with their private sector partners, have put the pieces in place to replicate this dramatic economic improvement in the Sugar House corridor. Figure 3 shows the extent and characteristics of total projected new development in the corridor to 2030, beyond the three developments described above. Most of the presently vacant or extremely low-density commercial and light industrial parcels within 600 feet of the line are anticipated to be completely redeveloped into a combination of mainly 3–5 story residential areas, interspersed with ground floor retail, and anchored by higher-density office and residential nodes near the ends of the line. It is estimated that up to 4,000 new units of housing (6,400 people) and 7,700 permanent jobs could be added in these areas and other blocks within Figure 3: Anticipated Development walking distance of the line (1/4 mile), representing a possible 121% increase in population and 46% increase in employment over the next 20 years. This new development could approximate $1.2 billion (2009 dollars) in new construction in the corridor by 2030 and represents an approximate 34-to-1 return on investment relative to the requested $35 million in federal TIGER funds. In the absence of the streetcar, some redevelopment would still be projected to occur but at much reduced density and pace. New housing units added in the corridor by 2030 would be projected to be in the range of 1,300 units, rather than the 4,000 projected with streetcar. Similarly, new permanent jobs added would be closer to 2,900 than to the 7,700 with the streetcar project. Sugar House Streetcar TIGER Grant Application 6 14 September 2009 Project Parties (FR Sect. VII(D)) This grant application is submitted by Utah Transit Authority, in cooperation with Salt Lake City and South Salt Lake City. This project's readiness is a result of early and ongoing collaboration between these three local governmental entities. Utah Transit Authority's mission is to "strengthen and connect communities enabling individuals to pursue a fuller life with greater ease and convenience by leading through partnering, planning, and wise investment of physical, economic, and human resources." UTA has one of the most aggressive and successful transit programs in the country, and work is underway to add five new rail lines by 2015. Many of these rail lines are under construction and will be operational prior to that date. UTA has identified streetcar transit as a next step in connecting communities to major transit investments, and in creating a more complete and sustainable transportation system. Salt Lake City is a stable urban community of 180,000 residents, with a number of historic neighborhoods and a lively downtown. Salt Lake City once had more than 15 streetcar lines and 145 miles of streetcar tracks throughout the city, including one line to the Sugar House area. Compared with other cities on the Wasatch Front, Salt Lake City travel patterns are more aligned towards transit, walking, and biking. Mayor Ralph Becker of Salt Lake City has pledged support and resources to the development of this streetcar, and the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City is leading Salt Lake City’s efforts in the planning of this line. South Salt Lake City is a community of 22,000 people adjacent to and directly south of Salt Lake City. South Salt Lake is a city on the cusp of major change and redevelopment. The city has taken an aggressive approach to redevelopment by creating mixed-use and transit-oriented development (TOD) zoning in existing transitional zones. Major freeways bisect South Salt Lake, such as I-80 and I-15, and wide surface arterials such as State Street and 300 West have imposed automobiledominated land uses on the city’s landscape. These high-speed and high-capacity roadways have stigmatized South Salt Lake as being a pass-thru for major transportation facilities without gaining benefit. The streetcar will change that picture for South Salt Lake, providing a slower service and frequent stops that will directly benefit residents, and re-shape the pattern of development in positive and profound ways. South Salt Lake City qualifies as an “Economically Distressed Area” as defined in section 301 of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965. According to the American Fact Finder Survey of the U.S. Census Bureau, the average per capita income of the United States is $26,178. In South Salt Lake, the average per capita income is $16,184, which is 62% of the national average. Though Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County do not officially qualify, the average per capita income is 10% and 5% lower than the national average respectively. Grant Funds and Sources and Uses of Funds (FR Sect. VII(E)) Together, the project parties have each committed funds toward the capital and operating costs for Sugar House Streetcar. The total match provided by UTA and the cities is $11.3 million (24%). The allocation of funds is shown in table 2. Sugar House Streetcar TIGER Grant Application 7 14 September 2009 Table 2: Funding Distribution Entity UTA Land Contribution Salt Lake City Local Funding South Salt Lake Local Funding TIGER Grant Project Cost Contribution(millions) $6.3 $2.5 $2.5 $35.0 $46.3 % of Funding 14% 5% 5% 76% 100% Primary Selection Criteria (FR Sections VII(F) and II(1)) A. Long Term Outcomes i. State of Good Repair The reduction of vehicle trips associated with Sugar House Streetcar will slow the need for maintenance investments on roadways in the project area. The savings in pavement maintenance, like other variable costs, will be due to the reduction in vehicle-miles on nearby arterials as trips are diverted onto transit. The analysis combined and estimated per-unit savings of pavement maintenance costs, estimated at $0.003 per vehicle-mile avoided, with the estimated reduction in the opening-year costs. As a result, savings in pavement maintenance is calculated to be approximately $3,247, amounting to $41,853 for the study period. The Sugar House Streetcar project will eliminate a community eyesore. The existing right-of-way, now owned by UTA, has been out-of-service for approximately three decades. Residents have complained about overgrown weeds and a perception of increased crime. This project will transform the right-of-way from an abandoned freight corridor to a safe, active, and attractive community amenity. UTA, the largest transit service district in Utah, is the operator of the transit systems in Salt Lake, Weber, Davis, Tooele, Utah, and Box Elder counties, and is well-equipped to take on the operation and maintenance responsibilities for this addition to its regional network. UTA maintains a 30-year financial plan that outlines the development of future transit projects as well as ongoing transit system operations and maintenance. On November 7, 2006, Proposition 3 in Salt Lake County, a measure designed to raise the local option sales tax for regionally-significant transportation projects, was passed by 64 percent of voters. UTA receives revenues from a number of federal, state, and local sources. These include revenues that are unrestricted as to use, revenues that are restricted to operations and maintenance, and revenues that are restricted to use for capital projects. UTA typically commits its unrestricted revenues and its revenues restricted to operations and maintenance to cover its ongoing operating costs in advance of other expenditures. Any revenues beyond those needed for operations and maintenance are considered net revenues available for debt service and capital, and are used for those purposes. Sugar House Streetcar will cost $1.6 million annually to operate. This amount represents approximately 1% of UTA’s overall operating budget. UTA has committed to operating the Sugar House Streetcar line, working together with Salt Lake City and South Salt Lake. UTA has a strong record of responsible grant management. In its history to date, all federallyfunded projects have been completed on time and under budget. Sugar House Streetcar TIGER Grant Application 8 14 September 2009 ii. Economic Competitiveness The economic competitiveness section of this grant application includes both the methodology for the benefit-cost analysis as well as results. Within this benefit-cost analysis, the long-term economic competitiveness of Sugar House Streetcar is demonstrated. Summary figures are shown in this section for livability, sustainability, and safety, which are all fully addressed in the sections directly below. Short-term job creation is also explored more fully in a subsequent section. A full description of the methodology and results, including a comparison of the 3% and 7% discounted rates and an estimate of long-term job creation, is provided in the following file: http://www.rideuta.com/files/SugarHouseBCAMethodologyandResults.pdf The benefit-cost analysis (BCA) framework used for this review is based on a fundamental relationship between the demand for travel and the cost of trip making. 2030 is generally used as the "long term" horizon, to coincide with existing regional growth and transit forecasting periods. However, BCA methodology and outputs follow the FTA's mandated 20-year life cycle and thus uses some inputs that were extrapolated to 2031. Though each travel benefit is estimated separately, the BCA assumes a relationship between the quantity of travel demanded, the generalized costs of a trip to trip-makers, and the benefits to existing and new travelers. The demand for transit increases due to the reduction in travel time and costs resulting from the investment. Furthermore, additional induced trips (beyond diversion from personal auto and current transit modes) are expected. These induced trip makers represent a portion of potential trip makers who previously did not make trips (or as many trips) in the no-build scenario but now will be attracted by the lower costs (reduction in time and trip costs) and greater convenience and access of the new transit trip. Figure 4 presents this general framework. The red square represents the benefit of reduced travel cost accruing to existing trip makers. The blue triangle represents the benefit resulting from new trips. The change in generalized cost from no-build to build represents only the change in user cost, which is specific to travel time and monetary trip costs. Generalized Travel Cost Benefits to Existing Trip Makers Reduction in Travel Costs Base Case Cost of Travel Benefits to Induced Trip Makers Alternative Case Cost of Travel Demand For Trips Within this framework, the BCA estimates lifecycle benefits and Existing New Number of costs accruing to both transit and Trips roadway users as well as more Induced Trips widely experienced benefits including emissions reductions, Figure 4: Cost Benefit Analysis economic development effects, and short-term job creation. In support of this application, costs and benefits of the investment have been estimated over a 20-year life cycle at present value using the required 7% discount rate. All benefits are estimated using unit values prescribed by USDOT, or where specific guidance was not provided, standard industry practice. The present value of life-cycle costs has been estimated based on the capital construction cost and an annual operations and maintenance cost estimate. In real 2009 dollars, the 20-year (from the date the project begins passenger operations in early 2012 to the end of 2031) present value cost of Sugar House Streetcar TIGER Grant Application 9 14 September 2009 the improvement is estimated to be $50.5 million. This figure includes $38 million over three years in capital construction and $1.6 million annually in operations and maintenance expenses. Benefits have been estimated for each primary evaluation criterion. Where appropriate, these are aggregated and compared to project costs. Table 3 below describes the benefit estimated for each criterion. Table 4 describes the primary outcomes of the evaluation and presents the benefit-cost analysis outcomes. As table 4 indicates, the ratio of total discounted benefits to costs is 5.6 to 1. The benefits generate a net social value of $233.3 million (in present value). Table 3: Summary of Benefits by Evaluation Criteria Criterion State of Good Repair Economic Competitiveness Benefits Pavement Maintenance Savings Short Term Employment Net Real Estate Premiums Description Reductions in pavement maintenance costs due to reductions in roadway usage Value of new short-term jobs created Incremental property value appreciation due to streetcar proximity, net of travel time savings Reductions in monetary costs to drivers switching to public transit Door-to-door trip time savings to both streetcar users and remaining roadway users Portion of total trip cost and time savings accruing to low-income users Reductions in pollutants and greenhouse gasses due to auto use reductions relative to the no-build condition Reductions in property losses and injuries and deaths due to reductions in automobile use and removal or upgrade of existing at-grade crossings Livability Vehicle Operating Cost Savings Travel Time Savings Impacts to Low-Income Population Sustainability Vehicle Miles Traveled and Emissions Reductions Accident Reduction Safety Table 4: Summary of Cost Benefit Analysis; 20-Year Life Cycle, 7% Discount Rate Selection Criteria State of Good Repair Pavement Maintenance Savings ($ millions) Economic Competitiveness Additional Short-Term Employment (new jobs associated with construction of streetcar) Direct Employment Indirect Employment Induced Employment Benefits of Short-Term Employment ($ millions) Quantity Value (in millions) $0.04 769 280 175 314 $26.5 Sugar House Streetcar TIGER Grant Application 10 14 September 2009 Selection Criteria Economic Development ($ millions) Livability Vehicle Operating Cost Savings ($ millions) Travel Time Savings ($ millions) Low Income Mobility ($ millions) Sustainability Gallons of Gasoline Avoided Reduced Emissions (tons) TOG_exh SO2 Diesel_PM PM2.5 PM10 Nox CO2 CO Safety Accident Cost Savings ($ millions) Benefit Cost Analysis Results Without Incremental Economic Development Total Discounted Benefits ($ millions) Total Discounted Costs ($ millions) Benefit - Cost Ratio Net Present Value ($ millions) Internal Rate of Return With Incremental Economic Development Total Discounted Benefits Total Discounted Costs Benefit - Cost Ratio Net Present Value Internal Rate of Return Quantity Value (in millions) $211.0 $19.73 $24.70 $1.03 1,134,573 16.62 0.25 1.04 1.75 1.90 65.13 25,963.34 359.61 no estimate $0.00 $0.07 $0.13 $0.14 $0.11 $0.37 $0.08 $0.3 $72.8 $50.5 1.4 $22.3 14% $283.8 $50.5 5.6 $233.3 N/A Sugar House Streetcar is expected to attract new investment, as well as raise the value of existing properties in proximity to alignment. As noted in multiple studies summarized in Transit Cooperative Research Publication (TCRP) 102, transit-proximity premiums (additional property value due to transit proximity holding all other value-affecting attributes constant) range from 2% to over 30%. Applying a conservative 4% premium, we estimate that the presence of the streetcar will provide a "net real estate premium" of over $211 million (on a discounted basis) in monetized benefits net of total travel time savings, as illustrated in table 4. Sugar House Streetcar TIGER Grant Application 11 14 September 2009 iii. Livability Sugar House Streetcar will improve the quality of living and working environments in Salt Lake City and South Salt Lake City. The quality of the living environment will be enhanced in three key ways: redevelopment or upgrading of deteriorating properties, creation of major new "livable places" where vacant or industrial properties currently exist, and bringing choice in transportation options. The right-of-way, a long-abandoned freight rail spur, is an eyesore in each of the communities, and its rehabilitation will bring a community-oriented resource and betterment to each of the neighborhoods it serves. Figure 5 shows the current condition of the right of way. The approved developments will bring shopping, dining, and entertainment to both Salt Lake City and South Salt Lake. Existing residents in the historic and already-pleasant neighborhoods will benefit from this redevelopment, which will bring to their communities a more robust "urban village" environment, and an alternative to downtown as the only available truly urban environment. New residents to the area as a result of the developments will have choice in travel. Jobs, businesses, and homes will be located in close proximity to one another, which will lead to a greater internal capture of walking trips and lower automobile use. Figure 5: UTA Right-of-Way The choice in travel created by the streetcar will enhance user mobility through convenient travel options such as streetcar, bicycle, and walking, and through a seamless connection to the regional rail system. With growing population along the Wasatch Front, Salt Lake City transportation demand has increased substantially in recent years. The rate of growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) has far outpaced roadway capacity investments and population growth rates, with resulting congestion and delay as shown in figure 6 (data taken from the WFRC Regional Transportation Plan (2007). Figure 6: Annual Delay (Hours) per Traveler for Salt Lake City Region The 2007 WFRC Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) states, "Transit investment is required with arterial highway investment to maintain annual hours of delay per person at what it is today." The needs assessment of the RTP demonstrates that combining highway, arterial, and transit investments lowers VMT (WFRC, RTP). Interstate 80, which is adjacent and parallel to the Sugar House streetcar corridor, is a highway of national significance, traversing the Western states. I-80 is also one of the only high-capacity east/west transportation facilities in the Salt Lake Valley. As Sugar House Streetcar TIGER Grant Application 12 14 September 2009 such, this facility experiences daily traffic volumes of over 100,000 vehicles. Though a major reconstruction project is underway, any added road capacity will be rapidly consumed. Also parallel to the Sugar House streetcar corridor is 2100 South Street, which is a Salt Lake City arterial. 2100 South has two lanes in each direction, with no center turn lane or median. Because Sugar House is a major destination in the valley, 2100 South is heavily used, and at typical peak hour in the study area, delay at critical intersections reaches level of service (LOS) E, and is predicted to reach LOS F in the future. Figure 7 demonstrates congested roadways in the study area in no-build conditions. Figure 7: Failing Level of Service at Corridor Intersections The resulting reduction of automobile trips will increase livability by easing congestion and will contribute to the improvement to air quality (as reflected in table 6). Improving mobility means improving access to neighborhoods and community assets. As shown in figure 1, the streetcar will deliver people to the following community assets either on or within 2 blocks of the streetcar line: Within ¼ mile Sugar House business district (entertainment, shopping and office) Market Station (mixed use and regional shopping and entertainment) Sugar House Park Fairmont Park and community swimming pool Boys and Girls Club Kearns/St. Anne's school and church Sugar House Streetcar will provide a more efficient and comfortable transit option for disadvantaged populations. As shown in table 5, the following disadvantaged populations exist within ½ mile of the streetcar line. Within ½ mile Westminster College, a regional liberal arts college with approximately 2,000 students Salt Lake Community College Granite Education Center and Utah State University Extension Columbus Community Center—which includes a library, senior and after school programs Sugar House Streetcar TIGER Grant Application 13 14 September 2009 Table 5: Disadvantaged Populations in the Corridor Disadvantaged Population Population under poverty Households with no vehicles Population 65 years or over Number of People 4,700 2,390 5,600 These populations will enjoy greater access to locations in and out of the study area, as noted above. Within one block of the project, Deseret Industries employs approximately 70 individuals in their rehabilitation services program at their Sugar House store. Through rehabilitation services, people with special needs are given the opportunity to work, receive needed training, and participate in the job-placement course. The program combines rehabilitation, work-adjustment, and skills training, with the goal of helping participants find long-term employment. iv. Sustainability Sugar House Streetcar will be part of a larger transportation system that will promote sustainability in the Salt Lake metropolitan area. In September 2006 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) changed the 24-hour PM2.5 standard from 65 g/m3 to 35 g/m3. Under this stricter PM2.5 standard, several areas along the Wasatch Front have experienced violations. The EPA will make final nonattainment designations by December 2009 and these designations will be effective April 2010. 2030 projections in the air conformity analysis of the RTP show passing levels of emissions, however passing levels assume that the recommended projects in the LRP are built, and Sugar House Streetcar is one of those projects. The following document shows the streetcar project in phase 3 of the LRP: http://www.wfrc.org/cms/publications/Adopted_2007-2030_RTP/Chapter%208%20%20Recommended%20Improvements.pdf To achieve better air quality every measure possible must be taken to improve the quality of our air, and Sugar House Streetcar is identified as one of those measures in the WFRC RTP. The following table shows VMT and emissions saved as a result of this project. Methodology for the calculation of these savings is included here: http://www.rideuta.com/files/RidershipVMTandGHGMethodolog.pdf Table 6: Daily and Annual Emissions Saved Pollutant TOG_exh SO2 Diesel PM2.5 PM10 Nox CO2 CO Total grams Daily Saved Emission (grams)* 3,255 49 203 343 373 12,761 5,086,632 70,453 3,255 Annual Saved Emissions (g) 950,515 14,346 59,241 100,219 108,819 3,726,198 1,485,296,422 20,572,284 950,515 Annual Tons 1.05 0.02 0.07 0.11 0.12 4.11 1637.26 22.68 1.05 Lifecycle Savings 16.62 0.25 1.04 1.75 1.9 65.13 25,963.34 359.61 16.62 Sugar House Streetcar TIGER Grant Application 14 14 September 2009 Sugar House Streetcar will reduce dependence “A comprehensive effort to reduce global on oil by providing choice in travel. An warming pollution must encompass transportation estimated 10,200 vehicle miles traveled will be demand management strategies, balanced funding avoided by 2030 as a result of this project (an approaches to transportation infrastructure overall 460 gallons of gasoline saved on a daily investment and a commitment to mass transit basis). To the driver, this translates into options, development of alternative forms of approximately $5.00 a day in savings, or transportation, and changes in our habits to approximately $1,500 each year. This reduce vehicle miles traveled.” Mayor Becker of Salt Lake City calculation is based on an average price of gasoline of $2.90, average trip length of 5.7 miles, and an estimated 8 trips per household per day. Streetcars are powered by electricity. The amount of electricity used is shown in table 7. Table 7: Sugar House Estimated Power Consumption Estimated Annual Revenue Miles Average kWh/Mile Power Consumption (kWh) Source: Portland Streetcar, Inc. 78,000 8.1 631,429 v. Safety Sugar House Streetcar is anticipated to have a greater effect on travel conditions on 2100 South than on any other roadways in the study area. On the parallel section of roadway to the streetcar, for a three-year time period, 252 accidents occurred, with 133 intersection-related accidents. Assuming an even annual distribution, a total of approximately 84 accidents, 45 intersectionrelated accidents, occurred each year. Of the 252 total accidents, 18 were caused by drivers following too closely, which is a typical condition of congested roadways. Sugar House Streetcar will remove approximately 800 autos per day from the local street network, from a total future volume of 21,000 to 29,000 daily. Most of these trips would have either crossed or traveled on 2100 South. In the same three-year time period, 14 bicycle-related accidents were reported. Because the streetcar project will accommodate the trail, improvements to bicycle safety as a result of this project are anticipated as bicycles reroute from congested, narrow 2100 South to exclusive right-of-way. vi. Evaluation of Project Performance As a recent recipient of FTA New Starts grant awards, UTA is familiar with the requirements to produce a "before and after study" as defined by FTA guidance. These studies gather, compare, and analyze data on certain characteristics of a project at three important milestones. UTA has prepared plans for before and after studies, and a sample of one of these studies is included in the following link: http://www.rideuta.com/files/SampleBeforeandAfterStudy.pdf. B. Job Creation & Economic Stimulus The cost benefit analysis described in section A does not account for all jobs contributing to overall economic stimulus. This section is intended to summarize total employment effects. The construction of Sugar House Streetcar, and the associated first phases of the three ready-to-go mixed-use real estate projects waiting for it to start, is estimated to create 4,645 job years of shortterm direct, indirect, and induced employment throughout the construction period (end of 2012) with a value added to the economy estimated at $356.3 million, of which $242.4 million is labor income. Fifty percent of the total job-years of employment are projected to be in key industries Sugar House Streetcar TIGER Grant Application 15 14 September 2009 that traditionally employ low-income workers, resulting in a total benefit of $93.6 million in labor income to lower-income workers during the construction period. The tables below provide a forecast of total job creation resulting from spending on the streetcar improvements and associated (or related) economic development, estimated using the IMPLAN input-output model for the state of Utah. The impacts of the streetcar and property development were estimated separately and only forecasted job creation associated with Sugar House Streetcar (769 direct, indirect and induced jobs) were used in the estimation of benefits. Table 8: Short Term Direct, Indirect and Induced Employment, Value Added and Labor Income by Year from Both Project Costs and Property Development Cost Expenditures 2010 Employment Value Added Labor Income 676 $52.0 $35.6 2011 1,547 $118.8 $81.0 2012 2,422 $185.5 $125.8 TOTAL 4,645 $356.3 $242.4 Table 9: Short Term Employment of Key Industries Employing Low Income People Due to Streetcar Project Expenditures and Property Development Expenditures Key Industries Employing Low-Income People Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting Construction Retail trade Truck transportation Administrative, support, waste management, and remediation services Nursing and residential care facilities, home health care services Accommodation and food services Personal and laundry services TOTAL Job Years 48 1,123 338 54 320 157 242 36 2,313 Labor Income ($ Million) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1.2 59.2 10.3 2.4 9.7 4.8 5.4 0.6 93.6 i. Project Schedule The schedule demonstrates a streamlined approach, developed through coordination with UTA, FTA Region 8, and the project technical team. Streamlining is achieved by expedited update and re-use of technical work, and implementation of overlapping activities, as much as is feasible, to ensure timely project delivery. Significant financial planning, engineering refinements, and environmental documentation have been completed throughout the project-related studies to ensure that this schedule is feasible and achievable. Ongoing coordination with FTA Region VIII and FTA headquarters has occurred, through periodic meetings with FTA staff, as well as submittal of draft and final project information throughout the recent technical analyses. Sugar House Streetcar TIGER Grant Application 16 14 September 2009 • • • • • Schedule Highlights EA/FONSI: August 2009 – March 2010 Preliminary and Final Design: August 2009 – April 2010 Vehicle and equipment procurement: April 2010 – November 2011 Construction: February 2010 – March 2012 Revenue Operations: March – April 2012 UTA plans to begin the process of additional right-of-way (ROW) acquisition in November 2009. No delay to the project is anticipated as a result of ROW acquisition discussions based on the premise that ROW impacts are limited to minor partial acquisitions located in a single sector of the project corridor. Final acquisition is anticipated immediately following the FONSI. As shown in figure 8 below, the project will move quickly to final design, contractor procurement, and vehicle tendering immediately upon award of grant funds. ACTIVITY NAME Funding Submit AA Summary Report to FTA ARRA Grant Award and Processing Environmental Document Environmental Assessment through Draft FONSI Engineering Conceptual Engineering (PE) to RFP Contract for Final Design Final Design (FD) Procurement TPSS TPSS Procurement Right-of-Way Acquisition ROW Acquisition Vehicles Vehicle Procurement NTP Vehicle Manufacturer First Vehicle Delivery Vehicle Manufacture (18 mos) Construction Negotiate/award CM/CG contract Phase I Preconstruction Services Phase II Construction (17 mos) Systems Integration Testing Pre-revenue Operations Revenue Operations START Aug-01-09 FINISH Feb-17-10 Feb-17-10 Mar-30-10 Feb-01-10 Mar-30-10 Apr-27-10 Oct-31-09 Dec-31-09 Apr-27-10 Nov-16-11 Feb-13-11 Feb-13-11 Nov-04-10 May-30-10 Nov-16-11 Mar-24-10 May-20-11 Nov-16-11 Feb-17-12 Feb-14-10 Apr-27-10 Oct-01-11 Oct-31-11 Dec-31-11 Feb-30-12 2009 Q3 Q4 Q1 2010 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 2011 Q2 Q3 Q4 2012 Q1 Q2 Aug-01-09 Aug-01-09 Aug-03-09 Aug-03-09 Nov-01-09 Feb-17-09 Aug-03-09 Apr-28-10 Apr-28-10 Feb-17-10 Mar 1-09 Aug-03-09 Feb-26-10 May-24-10 May-24-10 Sep-15-09 Jan-16-10 Feb-17-10 Apr-28-10 Oct-01-11 Nov-17-11 Jan-01-12 Figure 8: Sugar House Streetcar Project Schedule ii. Environmental Approvals NEPA documentation began in August 2009, with initiation of FTA and local agency coordination and consultation. Scoping meetings are scheduled for mid-September and Section 106 consultation is underway. UTA, as a result of intensive coordination with concerned agencies and the FTA, has determined that a six-month EA process can be accomplished, with completion in February, 2010 and FONSI the following month. Environmental approvals are anticipated to be complete by March, 2010 per the following schedule: Sugar House Streetcar TIGER Grant Application 17 14 September 2009 August 5, 2009: Met with FTA to discuss review of AA and review process for EA. FTA and project team agreed on fast-track review schedule for EA document. Sent scoping letters to agencies, which will summarize the project and request scoping comments; initiate Section 106 process; and conduct field work. Agency scoping meeting. EA chapter development. Complete administrative draft EA. Revise administrative draft EA per comments. Submit draft EA to FTA for review and comment. FTA review and comment period. Issue notice of availability, begin public comment period, and hold public meeting. Produce final EA; and draft a finding of no significant impacts (FONSI), if applicable. Receive signed FONSI, if applicable. Mid-August 2009: September 22: September–October 2009: October 30, 2009: November 15, 2009: November 23, 2009: November 23, 2009–January 15, 2010: January 15–February 15, 2010: Mid-February–March 2010: March, 2010: Because the right-of-way is an abandoned railway in an urban environment, very few, if any environmental impacts are anticipated. A preliminary screening has been completed in advance of the formal environmental assessment (process described in subsequent section). Results of the screening showed the following: • Benefit to land use, improvement to accessibility to employment and educational destinations, and improved air quality. • Little anticipated noise and vibration, since the corridor is located in an urban environment and will have an existing ambient noise. • No disproportionately high or adverse effects are expected on any environmental justice populations in the evaluation area. • No other adverse impacts to natural, cultural, geological, wetland, floodplain, wildlife (and threatened and endangered species) or paleontological resources. iii. Legislative Approvals No state or local legislative approvals are necessary for Sugar House Streetcar, however support has been given by Representative Matheson of District 2. A letter is included here: http://www.rideuta.com/files/MathesonLetterofSupport.pdf. Sugar House Streetcar TIGER Grant Application 18 14 September 2009 iv. State and Local Planning Sugar House Streetcar is included in the fiscally-constrained RTP of the WFRC. The project is included as a phase 3 project, however efforts are underway to move the project to phase 1 because of the tremendous commitment on the part of each city to help fund its construction. WFRC has provided a letter of intent, which is included here: http://www.rideuta.com/files/WFRCTigerGrantLetterofSupportSep09.pdf In addition, the mayors of Salt Lake City and South Salt Lake City have expressed strong support for the project. Letters are included here: http://www.rideuta.com/files/MayorsLettersofSupport.pdf The Utah Department of Transportation is aware of the project, and is participating on the steering committee. Permits to cross two state facilities, 700 East and State Street, are anticipated by the FONSI date. Local approvals are complete. At the close of the alternatives analysis (AA) process Salt Lake City and South Salt Lake adopted the locally preferred alternative and the AA document. Recently, each city adopted a resolution to contribute $2.5 million to fund the streetcar. These resolutions are included here: http://www.rideuta.com/files/SLCandSSLCityResolutions.pdf Subsequent financial and engineering refinements to the LPA were completed in summer 2009, along with continued public outreach, under the direction of the UTA, Salt Lake City, and South Salt Lake. Coordination with FTA RegionVIII has continued throughout the AA, LPA adoption, and the most recent studies. In August 2009 documentation of an environmental assessment (EA) began with the initiation of agency consultation and coordination. The EA/FONSI will be completed in March, 2010. v. Technical Feasibility Track and profile plans were refined to 30% design in May 2009 to facilitate an updated capital cost estimate (2009 dollars, escalated to year 2011), completed according to FTA's standard cost category system, along with appropriate refinements to construction contingencies. The project's finance plan was updated based on these engineering refinements. The detailed cost estimates and complete set of initial design plans are available here: http://www.rideuta.com/files/Sugarhouse_Streetcar_Final_Plans.pdf Design assumptions for the project have already been documented. These are very briefly summarized below, and can be reviewed in detail here: http://www.rideuta.com/files/Sugarhouse_Design_Assumptions_Technical_Memo.pdf The design assumptions memorandum includes the following key design elements: • Track alignment and streetcar clearances designed to accommodate a maximum speed of 35 mph in curved portions. Minimization of earthwork. • Track work complies with the standards of UTA, AREMA, and APTA. All turnout switches are power-operated switch and lock movements. All at-grade crossings will utilize precastconcrete full-depth grade-crossing panels that can be quickly installed in order to minimize disruptions to traffic during construction. • Roadway crossings and drainage conforms to the design guidelines of UDOT, the cities of Salt Lake and South Salt Lake, AASHTO, and APWA. The most conservative requirement was followed when conflicting design criteria was encountered during design. Because the proposed Sugar House Streetcar corridor is a former railroad corridor, modifications to roadway intersections are limited. As a result, intersection grading will have limited impact to adjacent properties. Sugar House Streetcar TIGER Grant Application 19 14 September 2009 • Utilities and corrosion control analysis showed that there are few existing parallel utilities within the railroad right-of-way, and most crossing underground utilities have already been designed to accommodate more stringent freight railroad standards. The streetcar traction electrification system was found to not conflict with existing parallel overhead power lines present in the existing right-of-way. • Station design will be compatible with low-floor modern streetcar vehicles, comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and be standardized to control cost and provide a consistent experience for transit users. • A traction electrification system will provide overhead power to the streetcar, composed of the overhead contact wire and traction power substations. The service will operate by lineof-sight rules and will not require complex signaling or communication systems, and will be incorporated into the existing UTA communications network. • Streetcar maintenance and storage will take place at the planned Jordan River Service Center, which will service fifty light rail and streetcar vehicles. The proposed fleet for this project will consist of three modern streetcars. Vehicles will begin service at opposite ends of the alignment and pass at the mid-point siding track. Vehicles will not operate as multiple units. vi. Financial Feasibility Sugar House Streetcar can be implemented at a modest cost for over two miles of new rail transit corridor due to a combination of: • Previous investments in planning and design—Alternatives analysis has been completed, using local funds contributed by Salt Lake City and South Salt Lake City ($140,000). • Previous investment in preliminary engineering, using local funds contributed by Salt Lake City and South Salt Lake City ($250,000). • A simple, cost-effective project design using single track with passing sidings and an open tie-and-ballast rail guideway. • Previous investment in acquisition of the majority of the right-of-way needed for the project, using funds contributed by UTA ($6,300,000). • Current investment in the completion of an environmental assessment, using funds contributed by UTA and Salt Lake City and South Salt Lake City ($246,603). • An inexpensive non-revenue track connection to the existing UTA TRAX line, allowing use of existing rail vehicle maintenance facilities, thus avoiding several million dollars of project capital cost for support facilities. The resulting capital cost estimate for the project is shown in the following table: Table 10: Capital Cost Estimate FTA Cost Category 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 Cost Category Guideway and Track Elements Stations Support Facilities Sitework 2009 Base Year Cost $4,241,400 $1,163,750 $0 $7,763,015 Sugar House Streetcar TIGER Grant Application 20 14 September 2009 FTA Cost Category 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 Cost Category Systems Right of Way Vehicles Professional Services TOTAL 2009 Base Year Cost $8,723,752 $8,031,500 $11,550,000 $4,926,000 $46,399,417 Local capital funding sources for the project are anticipated as follows: UTA Capital Funds: Salt Lake City: South Salt Lake City: $6,399,417 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 Secondary Selection Criteria (FR Sections VII(F) and II(2)) A. Innovation Sugar House Streetcar will use innovative strategies for financing, construction, and project delivery. The local match for the project will be provided by an innovative tri-partite partnership between Salt Lake City, South Salt Lake City, and UTA. A financial feasibility study completed in summer 2009 suggested using a combination of special assessment and tax increment financing to provide revenue for the project. The shared corridor is a unique and innovative approach to the project. The streetcar will share right-of-way with the trail and the existing power lines. Construction and final design will be completed in an integrated, innovative project delivery methodology, using the construction manager/general contractor (CMGC) procurement option. This approach, used previously and with success by UTA, involves selecting a construction contractor on a qualifications basis, and then engages the contractor on a fee basis in the process of completing design plans alongside an engineering design consultant. Cost savings are achieved through continuous value engineering in the design phase, rather than "circling back" in search of value engineering opportunities after plans have been completed. The construction phase contract is then negotiated, with a high level of confidence and a low level of risk for both the agency and the contractor, further reducing costs, claims, and quality problems. Table 11: Innovative Strategies and Outcomes Innovative Strategy Local financing Shared right-of-way with trail and power lines Pre-cast full depth concrete panels Modular cantilever poles CMGC project delivery Long Term Outcome Community buy-in from local business owners. Lower grant request. Lower cost, no relocation. Higher propensity for non-motorized travel. Minimal disruptions to traffic and only during nighttime hours. Easy to add on or reconfigure as project moves from single to double track. Faster project delivery, with reduced cost and Sugar House Streetcar TIGER Grant Application 21 14 September 2009 Innovative Strategy Electronic fare collection Long Term Outcome increased quality. Ease of use, translating into potentially higher ridership. B. Partnerships i. Jurisdictional and Stakeholder Collaboration Since the birth of the idea of Sugar House Streetcar, this process has been highly collaborative, involving people at every level, including residents, developers, business, stakeholders, elected officials, PRATT coalition officials, and UTA. Figure 9 shows the entities who have been involved in the process over the last five years of study. Salt Lake Councilmember Soren Simonsen builds agreement with South Salt Lake and cities agree to study transit. Market Station is proposed, envisioning Sugar House Streetcar as a central focus. The AA involved stakeholders and the public in numerous meetings; developers on the corridor begin working through entitlement processes. The cities and UTA come together again to fund a financial feasibility study and an environmental assessment. 2004 2005 2006 UTA, SLC, and SSL each give 1/3 of the budget required to do an alternatives analysis for transit to Sugar House, and participating fully in the study. 2007 2008 Both cities adopt resolutions for Sugar House Streetcar as the locally preferred alternative. 2009 Cities approve local funding for the project, TIGER grant application submitted. Doug White, a local property owner, begins Sugar House Trolley Association, studying streetcars in Sugar House. Figure 9: Sugar House Streetcar Collaboration Timeline Since 2006 a steering committee consisting of representatives from each of the cities has guided this process. Representatives included staff from the cities' public works and transportation departments, mayors' offices, community and economic development agencies, and the Redevelopment Agency (RDA). The steering committee also included representatives from UTA, the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), and Wasatch Front Regional Council. A separate stakeholder committee was also established consisting of community council members, special interest groups, developers, and individual citizens. The study team also conducted individual interviews with seventeen stakeholders in April and May 2007. Two public open houses have been held to gain input on Sugar House Streetcar. The purpose of the first open house was to introduce the project to the public and to gain feedback from the public on the development of goals and objectives for the project. Advertising for the event utilized several strategies: • Direct mailers to over 1,500 residents along the UTA right-of-way • Media advisory and publication of newspaper article prior to first event Sugar House Streetcar TIGER Grant Application 22 14 September 2009 • Postings on city and UTA Web sites • Announcements at Salt Lake City community council meetings • Announcements in city newsletters regarding the open house and the project A second open house was held July 12, 2007. At each open house, educational materials were presented and project staff was available to answer questions and to instill a general understanding of the process and technical information being presented. Over 200 residents attended the open houses or commented on the project. The result of this collaborative environment was unanimous support for the project at each level of involvement. Specifically: • The public was highly in favor of streetcar on the UTA right-of-way, as shown in figure 10. • Developers, including Mecham, Red Mountain, and Z-Partners supported the concept of a streetcar, and planned transitoriented developments to suit. • Salt Lake City and South Salt Lake City came together to agree on the community aspects of the streetcar line, such as slow speeds, frequent stops, and the accommodation of the PRATT trail. Figure 10: Overwhelming Public Support for Streetcar • Each community unanimously adopted a resolution supporting streetcar as the locallypreferred alternative. ii. Cross-Disciplinary Integration Several non-transportation public agencies support the Sugar House Streetcar because it also supports goals for other projects and initiatives. In Salt Lake City, the following agencies have related initiatives: Salt Lake City, Office of Sustainability Re-drafting of the Salt Lake City municipal code to promote sustainability. Specifically the new draft of code suggests expanding transit's reach from downtown by creating incentives for development around transit, reduced parking requirements, and credits for non-motorized transportation accommodation. The goals of the Sugar House RDA area are to re-establish the visible image of the Sugar House business district as a "unique place" offering pleasant and convenient commercial, retail, office, entertainment, and residential facilities. The Salt Lake City RDA has been instrumental on the steering committee for Sugar House Streetcar. A copy of the RDA goals for Sugar House are located here: http://www.slcrda.com/First/Images_and_PDF/2009SHGoals.pdf Salt Lake City, Redevelopment Agency (RDA) The RDA works closely with the Downtown Alliance of Salt Lake City Sugar House Streetcar TIGER Grant Application 23 14 September 2009 Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan In many sections of the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan alternative modes is referred to as a key goal to improve mobility within the city, as well as access to the city from other areas. Sugar House Streetcar is noted. A copy of this plan is located here: http://www.slcgov.com/transportation/Master/PDF/MasterPlan.pdf Sugar House Master Plan Prepared by the Salt Lake City Planning Department, this document outlines a higher density, more walkable vision for the Sugar House area. This plan is viewable here: http://www.slcgov.com/ced/planning/documents/MasterPlans/SugarHouseMasterPlan/sugar house_mp.pdf. South Salt Lake General Plan Update The South Salt Lake City general plan was updated in 2009 and includes several references to the streetcar. In the transportation section the plan promotes the pursuit of transit options for Sugar House Streetcar and recommends a new fixed guideway transit option. In the land use chapter, policy is stated that supports creation of a TOD plan along entire length of the corridor. South Salt Lake’s general plan is available for reference here: http://www.southsaltlakecity.com/ECON%20DEV/generalplanmedia/PDF%20plan%20for% 20website%20opt.pdf. Salt Lake City Chamber of Commerce The Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce is an organization representing business interests of Utah. Their recent plan, Downtown Rising, emphasizes regional transit connections to downtown. A letter of support is located here: http://www.rideuta.com/files/ChamberSupportLetter.pdf. C. Program-Specific Criteria As specified in the four programs identified in the Federal Register Guidance for this application, Sugar House Streetcar falls into the transit program. The streetcar project has followed the guidance of the Small Starts program in preparing the alternatives analysis (located here: http://www.rideuta.com/files/Sugar_House_Final%20Report_0808.pdf, and all NEPA documentation will be reviewed by FTA staff at Region 7. The project has not formally entered the Small Starts program, so it is not yet rated under the program-specific criteria outlined. Federal Wage Rate Requirements (FR Sect. VII(G)) UTA will comply with the requirements of subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40, United States Code as evidenced by the attached certification located here: http://www.rideuta.com/files/CertificationofEmployeeProtections.pdf. National Environmental Policy Act (FR Sect. VII(H)) The status of the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the Sugar House Streetcar project are more fully detailed under the project evaluation criteria section (B)(ii). The Sugar House corridor alternatives analysis is available to demonstrate the extent to which other alternatives were considered. Certification Requirements (FR Sect. X) In compliance with the transparence and oversight requirements of the Recovery Act, UTA has a signed Section 1511 certificate available at: http://www.rideuta.com/files/ARRACertification.pdf. Sugar House Streetcar TIGER Grant Application 24 14 September 2009
Related docs
