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 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
Related docs
