UTA Report Template by lpm17202

VIEWS: 38 PAGES: 26

									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                                                              i                                              14 September 2009
TIGER Grant Application
Summary and Benefits
       Sugar House Streetcar is a modern streetcar            Key Benefits of the Sugar House
       project that will transform the urban                  Streetcar
       environment in a key part of the Salt Lake
       Valley’s metropolitan area. Embraced by its            Short Term Effects Through 2012:
       community and implemented by a unique
       partnership of two cities, a transit authority, and    769 job years of new employment as a direct result
       private developers, the Sugar House Streetcar          of project construction
       line is an investment in a more livable future.
       Development of this project, only three miles          3,876 job years as a result of immediately induced
                                                              property development
       from Salt Lake City (Utah’s central business
       district), is consistent with this rapidly-growing     4,645 job years of new employment, with
       region’s aggressive use of transit to create great,    approximately 50% in lower income job
       sustainable places.                                    concentrations
       This project will operate between the Central
                                                              $356.3 million of direct and induced economic
       Pointe TRAX station at 2100 South and 221
                                                              output
       West, and the Sugar House commercial district
       centered around 2100 South and Highland                3,000 daily riders in 2012 (1500 new to system) and
       Drive, utilizing the Utah Transit Authority            all with direct connection to over 130 miles of
       (UTA) existing rail right-of-way. The route            existing and planned rail transit
       length is approximately 2 miles.
                                                              Long Term Impacts to 2030:
       By the time the project is completed in 2012, it
       will have generated $356.3 million in new              Overall benefit/cost ratio of 5.6 to 1 (complying
       economic activity, leveraged from the requested        with TIGER Guidelines for BCA)
       $35 million federal investment. This economic
       activity derives from the construction of the line     4000 new households and 7700 new permanent
       itself, the first phases of three already-designed-    jobs in the corridor
       and-approved transit-oriented real estate
       developments that will be triggered upon its           $1.2 billion in transit-oriented development over
       funding, and the associated indirect purchases         the 20-year period
       and services spurred by this construction
                                                              $25 million saved in travel time
       activity. Altogether, a projected 4,645 job years
       of direct and indirect employment will be              1.1 million gallons of gasoline saved
       generated through 2012, consistent with the
       goals of the American Recovery and                     26,000 tons of carbon emissions avoided
       Reinvestment Act.
                                                              Innovations and Demonstration Aspects:
       By creating fundamental transit infrastructure
       that will further transform and reinforce this         Planning, financing, and operating partnership
       corridor as one of the region's most walkable,         among two cities, a transit agency, and the private
       livable, and sustainable communities, the              sector
       project is anticipated to attract a total of $1.2
       billion in development activity into the corridor      Strong track record in conceiving, building and
       by 2030, representing an increase of                   successfully operating transit, public works, and
       approximately 4,000 households and 7,700               redevelopment projects
       permanent jobs.
                                                              Co-located streetcar, bike, pedestrian, and open
       The combination of rapid implementation, low           space/landscape corridor linking the communities
       capital cost, and high short-term and long-term
       economic leverage qualifies this project as truly "transformational infrastructure."
Sugar House Streetcar                                   1                                 14 September 2009
TIGER Grant Application
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                                  2                               14 September 2009
TIGER Grant Application
                          Figure 1: Study Area


Sugar House Streetcar                3           14 September 2009
TIGER Grant Application
Transportation System Impacts
       The existing transportation system in Sugar
       House is challenging. The pedestrian-
       oriented 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 automobile-
       dependent 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, transit-
       oriented 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                                 4                             14 September 2009
TIGER Grant Application
          • 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                   2030*
           Route ridership                                                                    3,000                   4,070
           Auto trips saved                                                                      820                  1,100
           New rail transit trips                                                             1,545                   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                                          5                                       14 September 2009
TIGER Grant Application
       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                                      6                             14 September 2009
TIGER Grant Application
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 automobile-
       dominated 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                                  7                               14 September 2009
TIGER Grant Application
       Table 2: Funding Distribution

       Entity                                               Contribution(millions)     % of Funding
       UTA Land Contribution                                                    $6.3                 14%
       Salt Lake City Local Funding                                             $2.5                  5%
       South Salt Lake Local Funding                                            $2.5                  5%
       TIGER Grant                                                            $35.0                  76%
                                         Project Cost                         $46.3                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 federally-
       funded projects have been completed on time and under budget.

Sugar House Streetcar                                   8                               14 September 2009
TIGER Grant Application
       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
                                                                    Generalized
       framework. The red square                                    Travel Cost

       represents the benefit of reduced
       travel cost accruing to existing                                                Benefits to
                                                                                      Existing Trip
       trip makers. The blue triangle                                                      Makers     Benefits to Induced
                                                                                                      Trip Makers
       represents the benefit resulting                                 Base Case
                                                                     Cost of Travel
                                              Reduction in Travel




       from new trips. The change in
       generalized cost from no-build
                                                    Costs




       to build represents only the                                  Alternative
                                                                     Case Cost of
       change in user cost, which is                                       Travel                                                  Demand For Trips

       specific to travel time and
       monetary trip costs.
       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                                                      9                                                14 September 2009
TIGER Grant Application
          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                  Benefits                                  Description

 State of Good Repair       Pavement Maintenance Savings              Reductions in pavement maintenance
                                                                      costs due to reductions in roadway usage
 Economic                   Short Term Employment                     Value of new short-term jobs created
 Competitiveness            Net Real Estate Premiums                  Incremental property value appreciation
                                                                      due to streetcar proximity, net of travel
                                                                      time savings
 Livability                 Vehicle Operating Cost Savings            Reductions in monetary costs to drivers
                                                                      switching to public transit
                            Travel Time Savings                       Door-to-door trip time savings to both
                                                                      streetcar users and remaining roadway
                                                                      users
                            Impacts to Low-Income Population          Portion of total trip cost and time savings
                                                                      accruing to low-income users
 Sustainability             Vehicle Miles Traveled and                Reductions in pollutants and greenhouse
                            Emissions Reductions                      gasses due to auto use reductions relative
                                                                      to the no-build condition
 Safety                     Accident Reduction                        Reductions in property losses and injuries
                                                                      and deaths due to reductions in
                                                                      automobile use and removal or upgrade
                                                                      of existing at-grade crossings


Table 4: Summary of Cost Benefit Analysis; 20-Year Life Cycle, 7% Discount Rate
                                                                                                    Value
                        Selection Criteria
                                                                           Quantity             (in millions)
State of Good Repair
  Pavement Maintenance Savings ($ millions)                                                         $0.04
Economic Competitiveness
  Additional Short-Term Employment (new jobs associated                       769
with construction of streetcar)
    Direct Employment                                                         280
    Indirect Employment                                                       175
    Induced Employment                                                        314
  Benefits of Short-Term Employment ($ millions)                                                    $26.5

Sugar House Streetcar                                    10                                14 September 2009
TIGER Grant Application
                                                                                               Value
                      Selection Criteria
                                                                      Quantity             (in millions)
 Economic Development ($ millions)                                                            $211.0
Livability
 Vehicle Operating Cost Savings ($ millions)                                                  $19.73
 Travel Time Savings ($ millions)                                                             $24.70
 Low Income Mobility ($ millions)                                                              $1.03
Sustainability
 Gallons of Gasoline Avoided                                          1,134,573
 Reduced Emissions (tons)
    TOG_exh                                                             16.62               no estimate
    SO2                                                                  0.25                  $0.00
    Diesel_PM                                                            1.04                  $0.07
    PM2.5                                                                1.75                  $0.13
    PM10                                                                 1.90                  $0.14
    Nox                                                                 65.13                  $0.11
    CO2                                                               25,963.34                $0.37
    CO                                                                 359.61                  $0.08
Safety
 Accident Cost Savings ($ millions)                                                             $0.3
Benefit Cost Analysis Results
        Without Incremental Economic Development
  Total Discounted Benefits ($ millions)                                                       $72.8
  Total Discounted Costs ($ millions)                                                          $50.5
  Benefit - Cost Ratio                                                    1.4
  Net Present Value ($ millions)                                                               $22.3
  Internal Rate of Return                                                                      14%
        With Incremental Economic Development
  Total Discounted Benefits                                                                   $283.8
  Total Discounted Costs                                                                       $50.5
  Benefit - Cost Ratio                                                    5.6
  Net Present Value                                                                           $233.3
  Internal Rate of Return                                                                      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                                 11                              14 September 2009
TIGER Grant Application
       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                                 12                               14 September 2009
TIGER Grant Application
       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                                       Within ½ mile

          Sugar House business district (entertainment,       Westminster College, a regional liberal arts
          shopping and office)                                college with approximately 2,000 students
          Market Station (mixed use and regional              Salt Lake Community College
          shopping and entertainment)
                                                              Granite Education Center and Utah State
          Sugar House Park                                    University Extension
          Fairmont Park and community swimming pool           Columbus Community Center—which
                                                              includes a library, senior and after school
          Boys and Girls Club
                                                              programs
          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.



Sugar House Streetcar                                13                               14 September 2009
TIGER Grant Application
Table 5: Disadvantaged Populations in the Corridor

           Disadvantaged Population                                           Number of People
           Population under poverty                                                              4,700
           Households with no vehicles                                                           2,390
           Population 65 years or over                                                           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 non-
          attainment 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          Daily Saved               Annual Saved          Annual Tons       Lifecycle Savings
                        Emission (grams)*           Emissions (g)
 TOG_exh                        3,255                   950,515               1.05                16.62
 SO2                              49                     14,346               0.02                 0.25
 Diesel                          203                     59,241               0.07                 1.04
 PM2.5                           343                    100,219               0.11                 1.75
 PM10                            373                    108,819               0.12                 1.9
 Nox                           12,761                  3,726,198              4.11                65.13
 CO2                          5,086,632              1,485,296,422          1637.26             25,963.34
 CO                            70,453                 20,572,284             22.68               359.61
        Total grams             3,255                   950,515               1.05                16.62



Sugar House Streetcar                                      14                            14 September 2009
TIGER Grant Application
       Sugar House Streetcar will reduce dependence
       on oil by providing choice in travel. An            “A comprehensive effort to reduce global
                                                           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.”
       calculation is based on an average price of                            Mayor Becker of Salt Lake City
       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                                   78,000
           Average kWh/Mile                                                     8.1
           Power Consumption (kWh)                                         631,429
           Source: Portland Streetcar, Inc.


       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 intersection-
       related 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 short-
       term 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                                  15                               14 September 2009
TIGER Grant Application
         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             2011            2012           TOTAL

Employment                                               676           1,547           2,422           4,645

Value Added                                           $52.0           $118.8          $185.5          $356.3

Labor Income                                          $35.6            $81.0          $125.8          $242.4



Table 9: Short Term Employment of Key Industries Employing Low Income People Due to
Streetcar Project Expenditures and Property Development Expenditures

                                                                                               Labor Income
              Key Industries Employing Low-Income People                        Job Years
                                                                                                ($ Million)
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting                                          48           $     1.2
Construction                                                                      1,123          $    59.2
Retail trade                                                                       338           $    10.3
Truck transportation                                                                54           $     2.4
Administrative, support, waste management, and remediation services                320           $     9.7
Nursing and residential care facilities, home health care services                 157           $     4.8
Accommodation and food services                                                    242           $     5.4
Personal and laundry services                                                      36            $     0.6
TOTAL                                                                             2,313          $    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                                  16                                14 September 2009
TIGER Grant Application
                                                         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.
                                                                   2009             2010                 2011            2012
        ACTIVITY NAME                     START       FINISH
                                                                 Q3    Q4    Q1   Q2    Q3   Q4   Q1   Q2    Q3   Q4   Q1    Q2
Funding                                  Aug-01-09   Feb-17-10
Submit AA Summary Report to FTA
ARRA Grant Award and Processing                      Feb-17-10
Environmental Document                   Aug-01-09   Mar-30-10
Environmental Assessment through Draft   Aug-01-09   Feb-01-10
FONSI                                                Mar-30-10
Engineering                              Aug-03-09   Apr-27-10
Conceptual Engineering (PE) to RFP       Aug-03-09   Oct-31-09
Contract for Final Design                Nov-01-09   Dec-31-09
Final Design (FD)                        Feb-17-09   Apr-27-10
Procurement                              Aug-03-09   Nov-16-11
TPSS                                     Apr-28-10   Feb-13-11
TPSS Procurement                         Apr-28-10   Feb-13-11
Right-of-Way Acquisition                 Feb-17-10   Nov-04-10
ROW Acquisition                          Mar 1-09    May-30-10
Vehicles                                 Aug-03-09   Nov-16-11
Vehicle Procurement                      Feb-26-10   Mar-24-10
NTP Vehicle Manufacturer                 May-24-10
First Vehicle Delivery                               May-20-11
Vehicle Manufacture (18 mos)             May-24-10   Nov-16-11
Construction                             Sep-15-09   Feb-17-12
Negotiate/award CM/CG contract           Jan-16-10   Feb-14-10
Phase I Preconstruction Services         Feb-17-10   Apr-27-10
Phase II Construction (17 mos)           Apr-28-10   Oct-01-11
Systems Integration Testing              Oct-01-11   Oct-31-11
Pre-revenue Operations                   Nov-17-11   Dec-31-11
Revenue Operations                       Jan-01-12   Feb-30-12

                                          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                                                17                              14 September 2009
   TIGER Grant Application
           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.

           Mid-August 2009:                     Sent scoping letters to agencies, which will summarize the
                                                project and request scoping comments; initiate Section 106
                                                process; and conduct field work.

           September 22:                        Agency scoping meeting.

           September–October 2009:              EA chapter development.

           October 30, 2009:                    Complete administrative draft EA.

           November 15, 2009:                   Revise administrative draft EA per comments.

           November 23, 2009:                   Submit draft EA to FTA for review and comment.

           November 23, 2009–January            FTA review and comment period.
           15, 2010:

           January 15–February 15,              Issue notice of availability, begin public comment period, and
           2010:                                hold public meeting.

           Mid-February–March 2010:             Produce final EA; and draft a finding of no significant impacts
                                                (FONSI), if applicable.

           March, 2010:                         Receive signed FONSI, if applicable.


       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                                        18                            14 September 2009
TIGER Grant Application
       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 precast-
            concrete 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                                       19                         14 September 2009
TIGER Grant Application
           • 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 line-
             of-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          Cost Category                               2009 Base Year Cost
             10.00              Guideway and Track Elements                                 $4,241,400
             20.00              Stations                                                    $1,163,750
             30.00              Support Facilities                                                   $0
             40.00              Sitework                                                    $7,763,015


Sugar House Streetcar                                  20                               14 September 2009
TIGER Grant Application
     FTA Cost Category          Cost Category                                2009 Base Year Cost
              50.00             Systems                                                     $8,723,752
              60.00             Right of Way                                                $8,031,500
              70.00             Vehicles                                                   $11,550,000
              80.00             Professional Services                                       $4,926,000
                                                                 TOTAL                     $46,399,417
        Local capital funding sources for the project are anticipated as follows:
              UTA Capital Funds:                $6,399,417
              Salt Lake City:                   $2,500,000
              South Salt Lake City:             $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                                  Long Term Outcome
        Local financing                                      Community buy-in from local business owners.
                                                             Lower grant request.
        Shared right-of-way with trail and power lines       Lower cost, no relocation. Higher propensity for
                                                             non-motorized travel.
        Pre-cast full depth concrete panels                  Minimal disruptions to traffic and only during
                                                             nighttime hours.
        Modular cantilever poles                             Easy to add on or reconfigure as project moves
                                                             from single to double track.
        CMGC project delivery                                Faster project delivery, with reduced cost and
Sugar House Streetcar                                   21                              14 September 2009
TIGER Grant Application
       Innovative Strategy                                             Long Term Outcome
                                                                       increased quality.
       Electronic fare collection                                      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                      The AA involved
                          Soren Simonsen builds                     stakeholders and the                The cities and UTA
                      agreement with South Salt Lake                 public in numerous               come together again to
                      and cities agree to study transit.          meetings; developers on                 fund a financial
                        Market Station is proposed,                   the corridor begin              feasibility study and an
                         envisioning Sugar House                       working through                     environmental
                        Streetcar as a central focus.              entitlement processes.                   assessment.


            2004                 2005                      2006              2007                   2008                 2009

            Doug White, a local          UTA, SLC, and SSL each give                          Both cities adopt          Cities approve
           property owner, begins         1/3 of the budget required to                     resolutions for Sugar       local funding for
            Sugar House Trolley          do an alternatives analysis for                    House Streetcar as the     the project, TIGER
            Association, studying          transit to Sugar House, and                        locally preferred         grant application
         streetcars in Sugar House.      participating fully in the study.                       alternative.              submitted.




                    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                                             22                                    14 September 2009
TIGER Grant Application
          • 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 transit-
            oriented 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              Figure 10: Overwhelming Public
            speeds, frequent stops, and the                               Support for Streetcar
            accommodation of the PRATT trail.
          • Each community unanimously adopted a resolution supporting streetcar as the locally-
            preferred 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,     Re-drafting of the Salt Lake City municipal code to promote sustainability.
          Office of           Specifically the new draft of code suggests expanding transit's reach from
          Sustainability      downtown by creating incentives for development around transit, reduced
                              parking requirements, and credits for non-motorized transportation
                              accommodation.

          Salt Lake City,     The goals of the Sugar House RDA area are to re-establish the visible image
          Redevelopment       of the Sugar House business district as a "unique place" offering pleasant
          Agency (RDA)        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

                              The RDA works closely with the Downtown Alliance of Salt Lake City




Sugar House Streetcar                                 23                                   14 September 2009
TIGER Grant Application
           Salt Lake City         In many sections of the Salt Lake City Transportation Master Plan
           Transportation         alternative modes is referred to as a key goal to improve mobility within the
           Master Plan            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

                                  Prepared by the Salt Lake City Planning Department, this document outlines
           Sugar House
                                  a higher density, more walkable vision for the Sugar House area. This plan
           Master Plan
                                  is viewable here:
                                  http://www.slcgov.com/ced/planning/documents/MasterPlans/SugarHouseMasterPlan/sugar
                                  house_mp.pdf.

                                  The South Salt Lake City general plan was updated in 2009 and includes
           South Salt Lake
                                  several references to the streetcar. In the transportation section the plan
           General Plan
                                  promotes the pursuit of transit options for Sugar House Streetcar and
           Update
                                  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.

                                  The Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce is an organization representing
           Salt Lake City
                                  business interests of Utah. Their recent plan, Downtown Rising, emphasizes
           Chamber of
                                  regional transit connections to downtown. A letter of support is located
           Commerce
                                  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                                        24                                14 September 2009
TIGER Grant Application

								
To top