Ogden Weber State University Transit Corridor Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Analysis FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Transcription

1 How did this project originate? What is the background? This Alternatives Analysis (AA)/Environmental Impact Study (EIS) was initiated by UTA in response to a request by. and Intermountain Health Care/ joined with in sponsoring the study. A previous feasibility study, Ogden/ Corridor Study, was completed in This study investigated various alignments and modes to serve travel demand in the same corridor and recommended Streetcar on the 26 th Street Corridor, with six stations and an alternative BRT II on the same corridor with the same stations. Subsequently, this corridor was included as a high priority transit capital investment project in the (WFRC) Transportation Plan Update The proposed project was also included in the WFRC Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as an illustrative Federal Transit Administration investment potential. The purposes of the AA phase of the current study were to: clearly identify the problem to be solved and why a major transit capital investment is needed identify and evaluate the range of alternatives that may be able to best meet the purpose of the project and satisfy the underlying need Through an open process, supported by appropriate technical analysis, screen and select viable alternatives for consideration Allow project stakeholders to select a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) that meets the purpose and need identified by the project sponsors and stakeholders The subsequent environmental analysis was intended to advance the LPA through the FTA environmental process such that FTA could issue a finding. Successful completion of the FTA environmental process would make the recommended project eligible for FTA to participate in capital funding through the FTA Section 5309 Small Starts grant program.

2 What is the purpose of the proposed project? The initial purpose of the Ogden Transit Corridor was provided by the City of Ogden in coordination with the other sponsors of the study, which was carried forward from the 2005 feasibility study. The purpose was to identify high capacity, efficient transit service that: (1) Improves the level of service and increases transit ridership between the Ogden Intermodal Center, the Ogden Central Business District,, and McKay Dee Hospital and intermediate destinations; (2) Assists in achieving local and regional economic, land use and community development goals outlined in general plans and related planning studies, (3) Is cost effective, affordable and provides the opportunity for more travel choices; and, (4) Enjoys wide public and stakeholder support, and encourages partnerships among agencies, businesses and organizations in the corridor. During the AA process these original goals were evaluated against the underlying problems to be solved, which include: Sustained population and employment growth Significant traffic congestion, declining roadway level of service and Air Quality issues Inadequate transit service connecting major activity centers Poor transit system reliability and inability to attract choice riders Insufficient service for low income, minority and transit dependent populations Development and geographic constraints that limit transportation options Ogden s redevelopment, economic development and sustainability are not adequately supported by UTA s existing fixed route bus system Growth forecasted for WSU will overwhelm roadway and parking capacity without alternatives to auto travel This resulted in a simplified statement of Purpose for the project, as follows: The purpose of the Ogden Transit Corridor Project is to provide improved transit service from the Ogden Intermodal Center to and and solve key transportation problems in this corridor. The recommended project best meets both the original purpose identified by the City of Ogden and the above Purpose of the Project statement included in the draft AA Report.

3 What is the need for this project? Each of the problems identified in Q2 above were analyzed in detail during the AA process to identify needs that could be met with a major capital investment in transit. During the AA process, alternatives were developed to meet as many of these needs as possible. Specifically, the needs for the proposed project are to: Provide an alternative to automobile trips as population and employment grow in the study area Connect major activity centers (Downtown Ogden, and McKay Dee Hospital) with high capacity transit service Improve transit system reliability and level of service to attract riders that have a mode choice Improve service for low income, minority and transit dependent populations Support Ogden s redevelopment, economic development and sustainability Provide improved service for WSU, and other major institutions and employment centers Provide new service that is cost effective for both UTA and other funding partners

4 UTA estimates the construction cost for a streetcar system to be approximately $150 Million. What is that estimate based on, and is it likely to grow? The preliminary capital cost estimate for the proposed project was developed through a rigorous engineering and cost estimating process that far exceeded the detail normally required in an AA. The construction cost for the recommended streetcar system connecting the Ogden Intermodal Center to includes the following elements and costs: FTA SCC Number Description Cost in 2010 $ 10 Guideway and track elements 19,803, Stations, stops, terminals, intermodal centers 9.140, Support facilities, yards, shops and buildings 4,000, Site work and special conditions 25,292, Systems 34,500,000 Construction subtotal (10 50) 92,735,000 The total capital cost includes the following additional elements: FTA SCC Number Description Cost in 2010 $ 60 Right of way, land, existing improvements 1.130, Vehicles (7 streetcar vehicles) 21,000, Professional Services 26,906, Unallocated contingency (10% of categories 10 80) 14,177,000 Subtotal (60 90) 63,213,000 Thus, the total estimated cost, less the cost of financing (interest on bonds) is $155,948,000. This total cost and the cost of each element were calculated using current FTA guidelines. UTA has built a number of rail transit systems and is very confident that these costs are reasonable and appropriate for the project at the current state of development. The unallocated contingency is included to cover any cost increases that occur later in the project that could not be predicted at this level of project development. UTA s experience with very similar rail transit projects is that cost estimates prepared at this stage of engineering exceed the actual cost of the project by a substantial amount. This is due to value engineering initiatives and efficiencies in project delivery. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) remains in consideration as this project moves forward. BRT service could be implemented in the same corridor, provide a very high level of service, and attract approximately 65% of the transit riders at roughly 65% of the capital cost.

5 Who will pay for the construction? This project will require a major capital investment from the FTA under the FTA Small Starts grant program. This will require the project to compete nationally for available funds. The FTA Small Starts project evaluation process will compare the attributes of the project against standard criteria in terms of cost benefit, supportive land use plans and policies and the economic development potential that will result from the capital investment. Although FTA evaluation criteria for Small Starts projects give slightly more emphasis to transit compatible land use, the overriding consideration is the transportation system benefit, which can roughly estimated at the total cost of the project compared to new transit system riders. The project will be evaluated on these Small Starts criteria and will be required to receive at least a recommended rating from FTA before becoming eligible for a Small Starts grant. An environmental evaluation and a federal environmental decision are required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for any federally funded undertaking. This project utilizing FTA funding will require an environmental study, which will be prepared for FTA by UTA. The environmental documentation will evaluate the potential benefits and impacts of the project on the existing and future environment. The percentage of federal participation in the project cannot be predicted at this point. However, based on recent grant awards, UTA anticipates that the FTA share of the capital cost could be approximately 60%, if the project were to receive a recommended or higher rating in the FTA Small Starts evaluation. The Small Starts program requires the federal share not exceed $75 million dollars.

6 Who will operate the system and how will those costs be paid? This project is included within UTA s designated service area, and UTA assumes that UTA would build, own, operate and maintain the system. The operating costs for the proposed project are roughly four times the capital costs over a 20 year period. UTA would need to recover these costs through a combination of fares and local taxes. In 2007 residents approved a quarter cent sales tax dedicated to transportation. One quarter of the quarter cent tax is allocated to roadway right of way purchases. The remaining three quarters of a cent is available for this project and other transportation needs in. UTA estimates that a substantial portion of the remaining three quarters of a cent sales tax will be required to amortize the capital cost of the streetcar project for 20 years and supplement operating funds. A fare structure for the potential streetcar system has not been determined, but it is likely to be similar to the fare structure in place for the UTA TRAX or MAX system. The Weber Area Council of Governments (WACOG) has a long list of priorities for allocation of the transportation sales tax beyond this project. However, a WACOG decision to apportion a substantial portion of the unallocated Transportation Sales Tax revenue to this project is vital.

7 What steps are necessary before the project can be built? The original schedule for the AA EIS project called for preparation of an environmental study after selection of the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA). During the course of the study there were many variables that the stakeholders wanted the project team to evaluate more thoroughly (i.e. traffic impacts, economic development). While the level of evaluation of these issues is not typically warranted for an Alternatives Analysis level study, the project team fulfilled these requests. The additional analysis meant that time and funds originally allocated to the AA and environmental study were exhausted prior to the completion of additional environmental analysis. On June 16, 2010, the project Policy and Management Committees met to determine: If there was consensus support for the recommended project, and The next steps. At this meeting all the designated representatives chose to advance the recommended alignment and mode (modern streetcar) to an environmental analysis if: There was general support from residents as evidenced at the scheduled public meeting on September 30 th, WACOG and the formally adopted the recommended project as the LPA. Based on the decision of the project Policy and Management Committees on June 16, 2010, to advance the recommended project, UTA prepared a scope, schedule and budget for the environmental study and has informally notified FTA of UTA s intent. During the environmental study, UTA would prepare a Small Starts application for FTA outlining the details of the project and the rationale for FTA participation. FTA would evaluate the project s merits against the Small Starts requirements and assign a rating of not recommended, recommended or highly recommended. If a recommended or higher rating was obtained, UTA could submit a full funding grant application requesting FTA participation in the capital cost as described above. The Small Starts rating depends partially on UTA demonstrating that the project is financially feasible. UTA must show that local funds are available to supplement the FTA Small Starts grant to design and construct the project. UTA must also demonstrate that operating funds are sufficient and committed to sustain the operation.

8 Presuming that these challenges were met, FTA could approve entry of the project into Project Development, which would constitute approval of all aspects of the project by FTA. At this point, UTA could select from several different methods of project delivery, including design bidbuild, design build or other methods. The nominal time from commencement of the environmental study to completion of construction and revenue service is approximately 5 7 years.

9 Several experts have visited Ogden and reviewed the recommendations of this project. What was their view of the recommended project? The City of Ogden and members of the public have sponsored visits by consultants and other independent experts on public transportation and land use to review the results of this AA and provide their views. Most recognized the challenges faced in providing both downtown circulator service and service to east central Ogden neighborhoods. Visitors and other transportation professionals have suggested that all of the parties associated with this study work closely with UTA in continuing to move forward toward a feasible and practicable solution.

10 Why was the 25 th Street alignment eliminated from consideration? Who made this decision, on what basis did they make it, and who do they represent? The 25 th Street alignment was carried forward in the alternatives analysis to final screening. In full recognition of the strong desire on the part of some Ogden residents, the project Management and Policy Committees chose unanimously to screen this alignment from further consideration at the June 16, 2010 meeting. At that meeting, it was also decided that the 30 th Street alignment would be carried forward into the environmental study as an alternative to the recommended alignment on 36 th Street. The Policy and Management Committees represent the jurisdictions and institutions that sponsored the study. They include: (with representation by both City Administration and City Council IHC McKay Dee Hospital South Ogden\Weber Chamber of Commerce Commission Weber Area Council of Governments (WACOG) UTA The 25 th Street alignment was screened out from further consideration not because of any particular issues related to 25th Street, but rather the impacts associated with Harrison Blvd. Any alignment using 25 th Street must also utilize Harrison Blvd. between 25 th and 36 th Street in order to arrive at WSU and. The Utah Department of Transportation () is the owner and operator of several roadway facilities under consideration in this study, including Harrison Blvd, Washington Blvd, and 30 th Street. Compliance with design and traffic standards will be required to meet s objectives for preserving all existing and future capacity in Harrison Blvd. In working to maintain the capacity and pedestrian safety of a transit facility in Harrison Blvd., it was determined by the project team that a dedicated transit guide way (approximately 24 ft. in width) would be necessary in Harrison Boulevard (see figure below). Further, both UTA and do not believe that shared travel lanes on Harrison Blvd. are acceptable. This type of facility would require large scale acquisition of private property in order to provide the required right of way for the transit guide way and preserve existing travel lanes for automobiles. Also, this study assumed

11 that the current 5 lane configuration of Harrison Blvd. would remain unchanged into the future. All travel modeling and traffic analysis in this project used the current lane configuration. In evaluating the 25 th Street alignment and guide way in Harrison Blvd., this AA evaluated a single track, 12 ft. dedicated guide way between 25th Street and 32nd Street in an attempt to reduce impacts while maintaining acceptable traffic flow and pedestrian safety. This singletrack dedicated guide way configuration still resulted in additional costs, impacts and risks. The combination of capital costs with potential environmental impacts for historic era properties could lead FTA to question whether more feasible and less harmful alternatives were considered. Additional project risk may be introduced if requires guarantees from UTA regarding the impact to existing and future capacity. UTA has experience with similar projects (i.e. the fixed guideway 400 South in Salt Lake City and the West Valley Light rail project s 900 South light rail crossing), and the agency has found that s requirements add considerable cost compared to transit alignments on non state managed roadways; in some cases this has been as much as 50% to the capital costs of a project. Mixed Flow Configuration Dedicated Guideway Configuration

12 To aid in the understanding of travel time estimates, please provide a rough estimate of the effect of each stop, and of each traffic light, on average travel time. How do these numbers vary based on light load vs. heavy load in terms of ridership and traffic volumes? Are travel times assuming Streetcar preemption of traffic signals? There are two components to travel time for a trip. First is simply the time that the vehicle takes to traverse the length of the route. The overall travel time for a route is affected (increased) as more stops are added to the route and is reduced if the number of stops are decreased. The second component of a trip involves how the mode is accessed and the wait time. A traveler may access the various modes by several means, walking, driving or transferring from another mode. Each of these means of access has its own coefficient used by the model that increases or reduces the total trip time for a traveler. Travel time is calculated by assigning trips to certain paths on the network based on several criteria including such things as the purpose of the trip and the origin and destination. Travel times in the model are critical in determining the geographic distribution of trips and the final choice of mode for the trip. However, assigning trips to the network immediately affects the travel times of all other trips (i.e. increased traffic congestion on the network). So, travel times are actually calculated through an iterative process in order to reach a convergent solution that best approximates the most likely path a trip will use. Trips travel across network links that have certain attributes including number of lanes and maximum speeds (not necessarily equal to posted speeds) that take into consideration such things as traffic signals along the route. The travel time is also affected by the time of day (there are four periods, AM Peak, Mid day, PM Peak and Evening/Off Peak). Once a path for a trip has been assigned, the trip is evaluated for which mode (i.e. drive, transit, non motorized etc.) best serves this trip. This mode choice is affected by several socio economic factors such as household size and automobile ownership. The travel times produced as a result of the Ogden WSU study are average travel times for trips that have been assigned to the streetcar mode based on the methodology described above.

13 How was the recommended alternative selected? All modes and alignments proposed by public and the stakeholders during scoping were carefully considered in the Alternatives Analysis process in order to identify a Recommended Alternative with the highest potential to meet the project s stated purpose and needs. In that context, the following conclusions and recommendations assisted the project partners in selecting a Locally Preferred Alternative and moving forward with project development activities. The Alternatives Analysis found that some alignment segments that emerged from detailed quantitative analysis, but which are not part of the Recommended Alternative, had merit for meeting the project s purpose and need although they may not have had the highest ratings in all categories. Other segments, primarily those using Harrison, involved weighing difficult tradeoffs between benefits, constraints and impacts that made incorporation of these in the Recommended Alternative much more difficult. The recommended alternative was developed from the final set of alternatives that emerged from secondary, quantitative screening. At each stage of the analysis the results were presented to the Policy and Management Committee for discussion and approval. The project team was often requested to perform additional analysis which is not typically required at this level of Alternatives Analysis (i.e. traffic simulations, economic development analysis and station spacing as it related to over all travel time). After presenting the findings of each of the separate analysis a final recommended mode and alignment was presented to the Policy and Management Committees as the Recommended Alternative at the June 16 th 2010 Policy and Management Committee meeting. The recommended alignment and mode were overwhelmingly supported by the Stakeholders with the addition of the 30 th Street alignment to be considered in the Environmental Analysis.

14 How well does the recommended alternative meet the project purpose and need and stakeholder s objectives? The selection of this recommended was tied primarily to the purpose and need statement, as described below. Improves the level of service and increases transit ridership between the Ogden Intermodal Center, the Ogden Central Business District,, and McKay Dee Hospital and intermediate destinations The recommended alignment is the most direct and nearly the fastest route in terms of travel time. Estimated ridership is projected to be among the highest of the segments considered and would meet FTA Small Starts rating criteria. Assists in achieving local and regional economic, land use and community development goals outlined in general plans and related planning studies The recommended alignment helps facilitate the City s community development goals by providing a major transit investment in areas identified for continued growth and revitalization. All sections of the recommended alignment, except portions of 36th Street, run within transit supportive land use designations in City s current and future development plans, General Plan, and zoning ordinance. These designations include urban mixed use, commercial mixed use and neighborhood commercial centers. This alignment also traverses all redevelopment areas along Washington Boulevard. Is cost effective, affordable and provides the opportunity for more travel choices Due to the directness of the route, the recommended alignment is one of the least expensive options to get from the Intermodal Center to and does not compromise travel time or ridership. The proposed alignment would have one of the best costs per system rider ratio. A BRT project would have the best cost per system rider ratio but does not yet meet the fourth and final purpose and need objective, based on stakeholder comments to date. Enjoys wide public and stakeholder support, and encourages partnerships among agencies, businesses and organizations in the corridor. Based on the input received, the Recommended Alignment can satisfy the overall objectives of all stakeholders, partnering agencies and businesses better than the other alignments. For UTA, the Recommended Alignment does not include any single track segments and minimal mixed flow operations; both of these scenarios make system reliability difficult. The direct Downtown alignment is supported by UTA to simplify operations and rider perception. It also introduces the least amount of potential environmental impacts to private property and potentially historic structures.

15 For, the Washington Boulevard alignment could meet requirements needed for dedicated guide way transit operations because it has lower traffic volumes and is not the critical north/south facility in Ogden. Washington Boulevard also does not have any intersections which fail under the existing or future PM peak hour conditions with the proposed project incorporated. Recent modifications to Washington Blvd. in the Downtown area indicate this facility is already slowly transitioning into a more contextsensitive facility. These modifications include traffic calming measures and bicycle and pedestrian enhancements. Rather than maximizing vehicular throughput, these changes support a more pedestrian friendly environment where travel speeds are lowered and safety is improved. These elements are transit supportive. Harrison Boulevard does not have a north/south an alternate relief route to distribute future traffic volume and is envisioned as the primary regional route for vehicular traffic in eastern Ogden. This role is consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) future transportation network. For the City of Ogden, the Recommended Alignment supports existing development at the Junction and future development north of Downtown. It takes advantage of the most significant transit oriented development (TOD) potential that exists in Ogden by continuing economic development momentum south along Washington Boulevard. It is also consistent with adopted land use, zoning and municipal development policy. For the City of South Ogden, the Recommended Alignment provides an opportunity for residents of this community to connect to the regional transit network and supports planned redevelopment near Washington Boulevard and 36th Street. For, the Recommended Alignment traverses the heart of campus and serves the major on campus housing facility. The alignment also connects to the Dee Events center which provides satellite parking for auto commuters and allows the University to reduce on campus parking supply. For, the Recommended Alignment provides a high capacity transit option which provides front door service connecting the City s major activity centers and the Intermodal Hub. Although travel time is higher than some of the other alignment options, trade offs were necessary to balance the needs of the other stakeholder groups and create a feasible project.

16 What is the relationship between the Downtown Ogden Trolley and this project? Following the decision by UTA and to advance an alignment that did not provide circulation in Downtown Ogden, began investigating ways to supplement the UTA service with a City provided circulator. Two separate initiatives were undertaken by the City. FTA initiated an Urban Circulator grant program as part of the ARRA process. UTA assisted in preparing a grant application to FTA using analysis that had been completed earlier in the AA process. This application was submitted by late in 2009; however, the project was not selected for a grant by FTA. During the summer of 2010, petitioned the Weber Area Council of Governments for Transportation Sales Tax funds to purchase and operate two rubber tire trolleys. These trolleys will be operated by the City and will provide additional circulation in Downtown Ogden. Potentially they will operate on routes studied in the AA.

17 What is the proposed alignment to connect with WSU and? How was this decided? Who made the decision? This segment of the project proved to be the most difficult to determine, and a final alignment was not decided upon until March Initially, more than six primary alignments were evaluated, and each primary alignment had several variations. During the screening process conducted in 2009, these alternatives were narrowed to three. The primary issue with service to WSU and McKay Dee was: How can you serve the heart of the WSU campus and ensure good student and faculty patronage without incurring additional travel time for riders going to? Ultimately, this was decided directly by WSU and policy representatives. The alignment chosen enters the WSU campus at Dixon Drive and proceeds across campus as shown in the diagram below. The alignment crosses Country Hills Dr. near the LDS church and enters the Dee Events Center parking lot. It then uses the access road at 4400 South to cross Harrison and enter the McKay Dee Hospital access road. The line terminates near the main entrance to the Hospital. There are four planned stops along this segment including the stop at.

18 I have heard this project referred to as the Trolley or Streetcar project. Were other modes of transit considered? If so, were they eliminated, or are they still under consideration? The purpose of the Ogden Transit Corridor Project is to provide improved transit service from the Ogden Intermodal Center to and and address transportation issues in this corridor related to anticipated population and employment growth. In the 2005 feasibility study, many modes were considered and eliminated for reasons ranging from cost to inefficiency. The modes that were carried forth in this analysis were bus, BRT and streetcar. There was a strong preference among the project sponsors for rail transit, and modern streetcar is the recommended mode. All alternative alignments studied in the AA were evaluated without consideration for the ultimate transit mode (bus, Bus Rapid Transit, or streetcar) that might operate in the alignment. In this sense, the study was mode neutral. Ultimately, FTA will evaluate the total cost of the mode selected against the benefit of that mode, and UTA will have to justify the additional cost of streetcar versus Bus Rapid Transit, or even improved fixed routs bus service. This precise and objective evaluation will be part of the next phase of the project development process where UTA and the other project sponsors will have to make the case with FTA that the additional cost of streetcar is justified. The terms Trolley and Streetcar are sometimes used interchangeably, however each connotes a very different level of service. Trolley service implies circulation through a continuous urban environment with frequent stops where the purpose is to carry patrons very short distances between activity centers that are closely spaced. Streetcar service falls between trolley and light rail transit in the sense that it is intended to provide circulation between activity centers, but it is also expected to provide travel times from end to end that are competitive with other modes, especially the automobile. This is particularly true in Ogden. The purpose is to connect major activity centers five miles apart (Downtown Ogden and the Ogden Intermodal Center, and WSU) and provide an alternative to automobile trips. Analysis conducted during this project showed that the majority of the patrons boarding all streetcar alignments would board in Downtown Ogden or at WSU or. The destination for most of these trips would be the opposite end of the line. The total travel time for these trips is a significant factor in attracting riders, and a trolley service with frequent intermediate stops would adversely affect the choice to use the service and ridership.

19 Please explain how a streetcar can operate in 36 th Street in mixed flow with traffic and not in 25 th Street or Harrison Blvd. Please provide specific reasons that a streetcar cannot operate in mixed flow with automobiles in Harrison Blvd. The recommended alignment includes approximately 50% dedicated guideway. Dedicated guideway was chosen for all alternatives where traffic conditions require separation of the transit vehicle from other vehicular traffic for safety. The factors used to make the determination included the posted speed limit, free flow speed and the ability of the transit vehicle to maintain a compatible speed considering acceleration and deceleration at stops. must permit mixed flow operations on their facilities (Washington Blvd., Harrison Blvd. and 30 th Street) and have indicated that will require a safety analysis as part of the application. Harrison Blvd.: Posted speed limits on Harrison Blvd. (40 mph) and traffic volumes are not compatible with transit vehicles operating in mixed flow. Therefore, all alignments in Harrison Blvd. were planned to operate in a dedicated guideway. required maintenance of no project traffic conditions (volumes and LOS) after implementation of the guideway. This required extensive property acquisition along the entire length of Harrison. A single/shared guide way between 25 th Street and 30 th Street was evaluated in an attempt to make this alignment more acceptable. However, based on UTA criteria, most of the homes along this segment would have to be acquired if this segment was chosen, and operating in a single guideway would restrict future headways. South of 32nd Street, Harrison Blvd. is wider, but traffic volumes increase substantially and the future intersection Level of Service (LOS) at several locations does not meet requirements. All alignments south of 30 th Street are in double track dedicated guide way and significant impacts to commercial properties would be required to construct the guideway and maintain the no project LOS. South of 36 th Street, almost all of the impacts are to commercial properties, but some can be mitigated through optimizing roadway geometry and signal design. All of the traffic analysis conducted in Harrison Blvd. assumed a 5 lane facility (not 7 lane) as the no project condition. Washington Blvd.: The posted speed limit and free flow speeds on Washington Blvd. are more consistent with the transit vehicle speed largely due to the number of signalized intersections present. Future traffic demand on Washington Blvd. is not as substantial as Harrison Blvd., and it was determined that transit and traffic operations are compatible. The recommended cross section width of Washington Blvd. with the transit guideway is compatible with pedestrian crossing and transit platform access without an excessive pedestrian signal phase. 30th Street: There is sufficient right of way for the dedicated transit guide way without excessive property impacts; however, on street parking will be lost. The posted speed on 30 th Street is 30 mph, which could be compatible with mixed flow transit operations, particularly if

20 queue jumpers are employed. There are several disadvantages to the 30 th Street alignment, including: 30 th Street is a road and the central Ogden connector between Wall Ave./Washington Blvd. and Harrison Blvd. could oppose construction of the transit guideway or mixed flow operations on the basis that a less impactful alignment is available Any alignment using 30 th Street still must face significant impacts upon entering Harrison Blvd. 25 th Street: 25 th Street is a city owned facility and mixed flow operations are compatible with future traffic volumes. Minor property impacts would occur at curbside platforms. Although 25 th Street is compatible with mixed flow streetcar operations, utilizing the 25 th Street alignment would require operations in Harrison Blvd. to reach key destinations at the south end of the corridor. Both fixed guideway and mixed flow transit operations in Harrison Blvd. between 25 th and 30 th Streets are not feasible for reasons presented above. 36 th Street: 36 th Street is a city owned facility where the speed limit can be controlled. With minor modifications, 36 th Street was found to be compatible with mixed flow transit operations, even in 2030 peak period conditions. Property impacts are relatively minor along the corridor, and full property takes are located only at intersections/platforms.

21 How is this project related to plans to widen Harrison Blvd. in the future? As noted earlier, this AA process utilized the current 5 lane configuration of Harrison Blvd. for all travel modeling and traffic engineering to forecast future conditions both with and without the proposed project This project is not related to any future plans to increase automobile capacity on Harrison Blvd. by adding additional travel lanes. However, if transit were incorporated in Harrison Blvd. (either dedicated guide way or mixed flow) and further automobile capacity was required by, even more substantial property acquisition and neighborhood disruption could occur.

22 What are the challenges for the 36 th Street alignment? The 36 th Street alignment has been thoroughly evaluated for the potential alterations and impacts that would be required. Unlike 30 th Street, 36 th Street has not been widened to the existing right of way held by the cities of Ogden and South Ogden. It is a city owned street that has a posted speed limit compatible with mixed flow operations and could be widened to the existing right of way limit (if required) without or federal involvement. The 36 th Street alignment has been evaluated by UTA for rail operations suitability in mixed flow with traffic. Minor property acquisition outside the existing right of way and a single business relocation will be required for the curb side platforms at Quincy. This same location will require a queue jumper signal so that the transit vehicles can merge into the travel lane after a stop. Future infill platforms are proposed at the intersections with Jefferson and Harrison; however, these stops can easily be incorporated later and are not recommended as part of the initial project. The environmental study will carefully evaluate potential impacts to the built environment along 36 th Street. Detailed technical analyses will be completed for noise and vibration, light emissions, potential traffic impacts and other required criteria. UTA s experience in constructing rail transit systems in urban streets and neighborhoods shows that such impacts can be prevented or mitigated. Businesses located near the intersections of 36 th Street/Washington Blvd. and 36 th Street/Harrison Blvd. can expect to see a positive economic impact from the proposed project.

23 How was the alignment in Downtown Ogden chosen? I know the Administration was interested in a circulator in Downtown. Why was this eliminated? Who made that decision and why? A wide variety of alignment alternatives were identified to serve Downtown Ogden during the scoping and alternatives development phases of the AA. Since the purpose of the project was to connect to the Ogden Intermodal Center at Wall Ave. and 23 rd Street, all of these alternatives originated at that intersection. North South alignments were evaluated along Lincoln, Grant and Washington Blvd. and East West alignments were identified along 23 rd, 25 th and 26 th Streets as well as an electric alley variation. Future extensions north to 20 th Street were also identified to illustrate s desire to serve this developing area. The decision to serve Downtown Ogden with a single direct alignment along 23 rd Street and Washington Blvd. in mixed flow with traffic was made by UTA in consultation with Administration. It was determined that combining a circulator in Downtown Ogden with efficient service to WSU and would introduce travel time penalties that would affect ridership for the majority of patrons. The recommended alternative, originating at the Ogden Intermodal Center has a planned platform stop at Washington/25 th Street and future stops at 23 rd Street/Lincoln and 23 rd /Washington. This alignment and the location of stops serve Downtown Ogden adequately without introducing excessive travel time for end end riders.

24 What is UTA hoping to achieve from the public meeting on September 30 th? UTA has scheduled the public meeting on September 30 th to inform and Ogden City residents and businesses about the project and answer questions. The intent is to continue an on going dialogue with the community about the study process and Recommended Alternative. This meeting is not a public hearing on the project. Public hearings will be held during the environmental study if this project is advanced. UTA and the other project sponsors have determined that the recommended project and the 30 th Street alternative should be advanced to an FTA sponsored environmental study if there is general support and consensus by the public. and Ogden citizens and taxpayers will have to support the recommended alternative if UTA is to carry it forward. Depending on the results of this meeting, UTA will determine if requesting designation of the Recommended Alternative as the Locally Preferred Alternative is reasonable and prudent.

25 Based on the 2007 referendum, a portion of the sales tax can be used for transit (as well as highway right of way purchases). Why should residents support this project over other transit and highway needs? The Ogden WSU McKay Dee transit corridor was identified by the Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) as having a high potential for a major capital investment in transit and was included in Phase I of the 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan. WFRC s assessment of this potential was based on consideration of all transportation needs in Weber and Davis Counties. The connection that the proposed project provides between FrontRunner and WSU will benefit many residents that commute to WSU by providing a convenient public transportation alternative. Downtown Ogden and the Ogden RDA s along Washington Blvd. both stand to benefit from the construction of fixed guideway transit. Economic development analysis conducted during the AA shows that substantial economic development potential exists along the recommended alignment. This economic development could and should generate additional property tax revenue as property values increase. Additional sales tax could and should be generated by business expansion and development in large underdeveloped parcels that front on Washington Blvd. These potentials, if realized, will help offset the drawdown on the current County sales tax that constructing the project will require.

26 What support does this project have with all jurisdictions and institutions represented on the project steering and policy committees?? The project Policy and Management Committees chose to advance the Recommended Alternative to an environmental study at the joint meeting of these