View source for SLCBC Intermodal Hub Bike Transit Center TE Application

This is a funding proposal for the [http://www.slcbikecollective.org/content/view/109/41/ Intermodal Hub Bike Transit Center in Salt Lake City] based on the [http://www.slcbikecollective.org/downloads/bikestation/TEApp07.pdf Application]

== SECTION-1 APPLICATION REFERENCE INFORMATION ==

07-PTE#107

Registration Date: December 8th, 2006

Approved Date:

== 1.1 NAME OR TITLE ==

Salt Lake Intermodal Hub Bike Transit Center

''When applicable include location, start and end limits in the name or title.''

== 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND LENGTH ==

''State information regarding your project starting point, route, direction, project end point or project area affected, and length.''

The proposed Bike Transit Center would be located in the downtown Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub at 320 South 600 West. The project would have two phases.  The first would be a feasibility and design study.  Pending the results of that study, the second phase would be the build out in the Intermodal Hub as well as establishing initial operations.

== 1.3 PROJECT SPONSOR(S) ==

Lead Sponsor: '''UTA Rideshare, a division of Utah Transit Authority'''

Co-Sponsor(s): '''Salt Lake City Corporation and the Salt Lake City Bicycle Collective'''

== 1.4 APPLICATION CONTACT PERSON(S) ==

(1) Shaina Miron Quinn
Title: Regional Marketing Specialist / UTA Rideshare
Address: 3600 South 700 West City: SLC State: UT Zip: 84130
Phone: 801-287-2066 Fax: 801-262-8031

(2) [[User:jonathan|Jonathan L. Morrison]]
Title: Project Coordinator / Salt Lake City Bicycle Collective
Address: 2312 S. West Temple City: SLC State: UT Zip: 84115
Phone: 801-328-2453 Fax: 801-466-3856

(3) Jordan Gates
Title: Environmental Advisor to the Mayor / Salt Lake City Corporation
Address: 451 S. State St. #306 City: SLC State: UT Zip: 84111
Phone: 801-535-7939 Fax: 801-535-6331

== 1.5 Funding Request ==

A = FEDERAL FUNDS REQUESTED = $86,000

B = ALL CASH REQUIRED PLUS FLEX (SOFT) MATCH = $88,500 + $17,200

SPONSOR MATCH = B / (A+B)X 100% = $17,200 / ($17,200+$88,500) * 100% = 20%

''Example - for a project size of $625,000 that meets the minimum match is: $1,125,000 including match or equal to $750,000 of federal aid based on the following restrictions; the first $625,000 of project cost must match at a minimum of 20% ($125,000), the next $500,000 of project cost has a minimum match of 50%.  The Sponsor is to pay 100% of the remaining cost above the $1,125,000.  Sponsors are awarded additional points for overmatching (See Section-8.4).''

== 1.6 Statement of Intent to Fund, Pursue Reasonable Progress and Maintain ==

Shaina will sign this.

Jim Pinkston will attest (witness).

== 1.7 Enhancement Categories by Group ==

''Check all that apply.  Enter approximate percentage of project cost estimated for that category.  A project may be awarded additional points if multiple categories apply, provided that the applicant effectively demonstrates how each will complement one another and is significant (>15% of project total cost).''

DONE ON PAPER

'''Bicycle and Pedestrian'''

'''X''' 1-'''100%''' Facilities for pedestrians and bicycles, check system type below

* '''X''' Major Regional system
* '''O''' Local/Link to Regional
* '''O''' Local System (''town, city, etc.,..'')

== 1.8 Executive Summary ==

''Provide a concise overview within the remaining space provided on this page only answering the "Technical Scope or what" is your project.  Other sections are provided for the benefits and users of the proposed project.  When possible list quantity details such as project length, area improved, improvement to resource etc.''

Phase I of the Bike Transit Center at the Salt Lake Intermodal Hub will be to hire a professional consulting firm to produce a feasibility and design study on the opportunity of a Bike Transit Center -- it will not entail any construction.  However, the results of the feasibility study will provide the necessary information to submit a second Transportation Enhancements (TE) application in January 2008 to begin construction.

The results of that feasibility study will be packaged in a Final Report and include: Site and Location Analysis, Demand Analysis, Needs Assessment, Determination of Programming, Resource Analysis, Final Design and Final Operating Plan.  This also includes architectural plans, site plan, elevations and renderings.

As part of the feasibility study, the consulting team will require approximately 600 hours of access and input from the sponsors and appropriate organizations. This is a specialized project, as such the consultant needs to be equally specialized to be efficient with TE funds.

== 2.0 Application Inventory ==

=== 2.1 Please check the appropriate box for each question or cross out if Non Applicable.  You may insert a sentence of explanation for "No" answers in the space provided below that question: ===

{|
|Application has required registration number (07-PTE XXX)?
|'''Yes'''
|-
|Has the applicant UDOT regional office been contacted?
|'''Yes'''
|-
|For historic resources only: have you contacted the SHPO?
|'''N/A'''
|-
|Will the project be open to the public for at least 25 years?
|'''N/A - this is just a feasibility study.'''
|-
|Will a fee be charged for public access?  If yes, how much?
|'''N/A - this is just a feasibility study.'''
|-
|If yes, explain how the fees charged will be used.
|-
|'''N/A - this is just a feasibility study.'''
|-
|* Is the project a component or extension of a previously awarded transportation enhancements project?
|'''No'''
|-
|If so, give the project number: STP-
|-
|* Does all right of way necessary for the project fall within public ownership or lease?
|'''Yes'''
|-
|* Does the project sponsor own all of the right of way/property?
|'''Yes'''
|-
|* If right-of-way/land acquisition is necessary, has the owner signed a letter of understanding & intent to sale the property?
|'''N/A'''
|-
|* If no, does the applicant have an option on the property executable within one year of application?
|'''N/A'''
|-
|* Have utilities been Blue Staked for critical areas?
|'''N/A'''
|-
|If yes, list those areas or limits of survey:
|'''N/A'''
|-
|* Have utilities been contacted or consulted on the project?
|'''N/A'''
|}

=== 2.2 Sponsor Experience with any Federal Aid Programs ===

''Briefly describe sponsor's experience with federal funded programs.  Include specific staff by name if assigned to this project.''

'''UTA Rideshare -- Bicycle Lockers:'''

In 2006 UTA Rideshare accepted 60 bicycle lockers funded by a TE grant totalling $63,000. These bicycle lockers will be used by commuters connecting bicycle trips with a UTA TRAX light rail or UTA bus trip. The lockers are currently being assembled by UTA facilities and will be installed at 15 locations during the spring of 2007. The UTA Rideshare staff member assigned to this project is Shaina Miron Quinn.

'''Salt Lake City Bicycle Collective -- BikeEd Program:'''

In 2006 the Salt Lake City Bicycle Collective started a Bicycle Education program funded by a TE grant.  The grant was written by Jason Bultman (jason@slcbikecollective.org) and executed by Jonathan Morrison (jonathan@slcbikecollective.org).  The total amount awarded was $200,000.

=== 2.3 Environmental and Cultural Resource Inventory ===

The TE program is intended for projects that required only a Categorical Exclusion Environmental Clearance. If the project involves any of the following natural or cultural items the applicant may be required to meet with UDOT to confirm application eligibility, or to obtain specific permits and clearance forms to ensure compliance with local, state and federal requirements, or fund the Environmental Phase prior to obtaining matching federal funds.

Will the project involve:
{|
|* Historic buildings or archeological sites?
|'''No'''
|-
|* Existing parks and recreation areas?
|'''No'''
|-
|* Designated or undesignated wetlands and/or swamps?
|'''No'''
|-
|* Canals, creeks or rivers?
|'''No'''
|-
|* Stream straightening and/or crossing?
|'''No'''
|-
|* Lakes or ponds?
|'''No'''
|-
|* Known hazardous materials and/or waste?
|'''No'''
|-
|* Features under the 100-year flood elevation?
|'''No'''
|}

For all "yes" answers, explain any measure needed to avoid negative impacts during or after the implementation of the project.  You may use th remaining space on this page for expanded explanations.

'''N/A'''

'''(7 POINTS) APPLICATION QUALITY No input required.  You are allowed to deleted all of the Blue Italics to provide additional space for your application information needed to support the above section only.'''

'''Applications may be awared points for overall clarity and the use of new innovative techniques.  Clarity include following the instructions, organization of the application materials and well-written but concise descriptions (no grammar, typographical or mathematical errors).'''

== 3.0 Project Purpose, Benefits and Direct Affects ==
''Use and arrange the spacing over the next two pages as needed to answer sections 3 & 4.  Do not exceed two pages.''

=== 3.1 Describe the fundamental purpose and need for the proposed project: ===
''Why is there a project?  The project purpose solves or meets a need of your community, county or state.  Parts of this section may be redundant.  That is OK.  Section 3.1 is the most important sub section here and should be the foundation and support for the complete proposal.''

The fundamental purpose of this project is to increase bicycle use as a viable transportation option by making bicycling more appealing and accessible to the public.  Surveys taken at secure bicycle storage facilities across the U.S. consistently show that an average of 30% of their users previously drove alone to their destination and would still be doing so if the facility were not available.

As the population along the Wasatch Front continues to grow so will traffic, congestion and air pollution from vehicles. As many transportation planners have noted, building only more roads and more car parking is ultimately an unsustainable venture. From an international perspective a common solution to this issue has simply been to develop additional alternative and public transportation options. It is well documented that improving the connectivity between bicycles, transit, and places of business is one of the most cost effective, equitable, efficient, and environmentally beneficial means of addressing transportation dilemmas. The use of bicycles as a form of transportation also reduces air pollution, vehicle congestion and mitigates the effects of urban sprawl, thus enhancing the quality of life. Today, approximately .06% of all transportation trips are taken on bicycles (State of Utah Census, 2000). Achieving greater bicycle use will require, among other things, developing bike-transit facilities that offer enhanced services to bicyclists as well as a secure place to park their bike, thereby enabling the use of both bicycling and transit over single-occupant vehicles. 

Although a relatively new concept in the United States, secure bicycle parking is an everyday way of life in Europe and Japan, where facilities that house and park over 3,000 bicycles per day are not commonplace. Raising the Wasatch Front to this level of bicycle ridership will require a cultural shift, which can be accomplished by education, marketing, enhanced facilities (including bicycle transit centers, routes and signage), and continued leadership by the public sector to make bicycling a safe and effective mode of transportation.

The Salt Lake Intermodal Hub not only connects nearly every mode of transportation to the residents of the Salt Lake Valley, but it defines Salt Lake City's strong commitment to addressing the growing alternative and public transportation needs of the Wasatch Front.  The addition of a bicycle transit center will galvanize and complement numerous other forms of alternative transportation already in place throughout the Salt Lake Valley. With the completion of [http://rideuta.com/calendarAndNews/commuterRail/ FrontRunner], the new UTA commuter rail, we will see an estimated three thousand commuters into Salt Lake City every day. Today, on average, 2% of all UTA passengers travel by bus or train with their bicycle. If this 2% trend continues, FrontRunner alone will bring over 60 bicycles through the Intermodal Hub each day. 

To further encourage cyclists and complement the efforts of UTA, the bicycle transit center will make bicycle commuting even more convenient. A repair center, the sale of last minute convenience items, a secure place to store a bike, and a place to rent a bicycle appeal to the on-demand character of our busy society.

=== 3.2 Project Description: ===
''Provide a complete scope.  What are the existing conditions, where is the project in relation to the greater area or system, linkage to destinations and the surface transportation system.  Coordinate this section with Maps, illustration and photos provided.''

The project scope is to study and develop a design strategy to include a bike transit center at the Salt Lake Intermodal Hub. The feasibility study will include the following components: Site Location Analysis, Demand Analysis, Needs Assessment, Design, and Operating Plan.

In just a few years the Salt Lake Intermodal Hub will become ''the'' surface transportation nerve center for the entire Wasatch Front. Today its convenient downtown location serves travelers well by connecting Salt Lake City to the local community via city streets and bicycle lanes, the Jordan River Parkway Bike Trail, UTA local buses, taxis, car parking lots and pedestrian access. The Intermodal Hub also connects Salt Lake City and Utah with other states via Greyhound buses, Interstate 15 and Amtrak trains. In 2008 the Intermodal Hub will add the much anticipated UTA FrontRunner commuter rail from Weber and Davis County, UTA express buses serving Weber, Davis and Utah County, and UTA TRAX light rail serving Salt Lake County. Eventually the Intermodal Hub will also serve a UTA TRAX light rail extension to the Salt Lake City International Airport, UTA FrontRunner commuter rail to Provo, and the Legacy Parkway Bike Trail. The addition of a bicycle transit center to the Salt Lake Intermodal Hub will add bicycles as a regional transportation option to those living and working along the Wasatch Front.

=== 3.3 Describe Direct Benefits and/or Affects of the project: ===
Include any social, environmental, economic, system operations and other applicable elements.
''Note that the EAC will want to know why other possible alternatives are not available to meet your project purpose and need.  You may want to address this issue in section 6.3 if not here.''

Bike transit centers include much more than just bicycle racks. A bicycle transit center will ensure that bicycles become an integral part of the transportation system. 

Please note that this is NOT a request for another bike path, more bicycle signage or bicycle education. All of those projects are important and necessary, but a bicycle transit center is unique in that it provides unique benefits. A bicycle transit center is the best alternative due to the installation of secure bicycle parking at transit stops, combined with targeted bicycle facility improvements, and will increase suburban transit use significantly in many communities. In California, surveys have shown that over 30% of secure bicycle parking users previously drove a car alone to their destination or to a transit park-and-ride lot. Bike-and-ride systems offer transit agencies the ability to tap market segments untouched by the existing car-based transit systems.

Direct benefits of a bicycle transit center include taking additional vehicles off the road and reducing vehicle miles traveled. A shift from park-and-ride to bike-and-ride will free up valuable and very limited car-parking spaces at park-and-ride lots, resulting in a direct increase in transit ridership and a reduction in overall vehicle miles traveled in the region. By encouraging bike-and-ride to a major transportation hub, a bicycle transit center will effectively expand the service area of the public transit operation from a few blocks to a few miles. Situating a bike transit center at a multi-modal transit hub will also significantly increase the efficiency of the entire transportation system.  A bike transit center succeeds helping to keep all traffic flowing including buses, cars and shipping trucks. In other words, encouraging bicycle travel meets both the goals of reducing costs for transit agencies and effectively managing demand on the increasingly congested roadway system.

A bicycle transit center completes the picture for a true multi-modal transportation network with a bike-specific community resource. It brings national visibility to Salt Lake City's efforts to be recognized as a bicycle-friendly city. It keeps Salt Lake City's transportation system on par with other western cities such as Portland, Denver and Seattle. For the public, a bicycle transit center becomes ''the place'' to go to for bicycle information and services. Nothing similar exists along the Wasatch Front today, and there is no other location more appropriate than the Salt Lake Intermodal Hub in Utah.

=== 3.4 Maps, illustrations, photos: ===

''Up to four standard borderless pages are allowed.  Pages that fold over are not allowed.  For trail way project include: Project map, area map showing context of project in larger area, illustrations of typical sections & plans, width, length, material types, and examples of existing conditions.  All maps should clearly note: North direction, project beginning, end and length, generators, destination and linkage features as identified in other sections of your application.  Maps may be illustrations or schematic in nature.  TIP - some applicants incorporate typical sections on project area maps leaving more space to show other project existing features, needs and illustrations of improvements.''

# [[Media:FutureFoodServicearea.pdf|Salt Lake Intermodal Hub blueprint]] highlighting proposed space for bicycle transit center '''Jonathan: Change Title of Document'''
# [http://www.slcgov.com/Transportation/BicycleTraffic/PDF/SLCbikes_Figure7-1.pdf Salt Lake Intermodal Hub location map showing transportation connections] - '''Jonathan: Add a dot to show location of the Intermodal Hub'''
# [http://www.slcbikecollective.org/component/option,com_gallery2/Itemid,44/?g2_itemId=508 Gallery of existing bike station photos]
# [[Media:WFRCbikemap.pdf|Wasatch Front Regional Council's 2030 Long Range Plan Bicycle Plan Update Map]]
# [[Media:BikeStationLocations.pdf|Map of the United States marking all the existing and proposed BikeStations]]

== 4.0 Safety: ==
'' Are there safety elements or issues of this project addresses or corrects?''

A Bicycle Transit Center is an excellent resource to promote bicycle safety and distribute essential information to cyclists. Today a multitude of websites, schools, government agencies, non-profit organizations and bicycle shops serve this purpose, but there is no single spot to efficiently gather a cross-section of bicycle safety information. The staff at the bike transit center will help the public choose safe bike routes and can publicize bike safety classes. The bike transit center will stock and distribute printed materials like the Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County bike maps, copies of bicycle laws, bicycle commuter guides, and bikes-on-transit brochures.

Cyclists are safest when their bicycle is properly equipped and functioning well. Cyclists will use the bike transit center for minor repairs such as changing a flat tire or getting a bike tune up. They can pick up bicycle safety accessories such as lights, reflectors and helmets.

A Bicycle Transit Center's visibility also means greater exposure of cycling to motorists. When motorists are more aware of cycling as a transportation choice, it reminds them to look for cyclists on the road and it will help to decrease car-bicycle accidents.

== 5.0 Quality of Life Enhancement and/or Indirect Affects ==

''Describe improvements: Social or estimated economic affects, health, environmental, aesthetic or historic value the project provides, how it may complement existing efforts and the overall feasibility of the long-term goal(s) of master planning or community vision.''

'''Estimated economic effects''' – Shifting car trips to bike trips can represent an enormous economic and service benefit. An average car parking space costs about $10,000 in surface parking lot and up to $30,000 in a parking garage, not including annual operating expenses. By comparison, secure bicycle parking spaces cost between $1,500 for a locker and $5,000 per space for a full-service facility. Moving just 100 commuters from driving a car to riding a bicycle could represent a capital savings of $850,000 to $2.5 million. This shift also frees up valuable car parking spaces at transit park-and-ride lots reducing the need to expand parking lots. Also, bicycles do not contribute to street traffic congestion and traffic jams that delay people and products and have a real economic cost. For individuals, commuting by bicycle is a smart economic decision. Bicycles can be maintained for less than $300 a year compared with $3,000 a year for cars, thereby increasing a cyclist’s personal disposable income. A bicycle transit center with secure bike parking can virtually eliminate the risk of bicycle theft too.

'''Social benefits''' – A positive side effect of making cycling more convenient, easier and safer is that traveling by bicycle starts appealing to a broader audience. The cycling community grows, which in turn attracts even more bikers. Cyclists often enjoy meeting their fellow bike commuters which can strengthen the social fabric of a community. It becomes natural to strike up conversations with other cyclists; this experience is impossible in confines of a car. Furthermore, bikes used as transportation can improve a neighborhood's quality of life. Bikes quietly gliding by on roads add vibrancy and color to street life.

'''Health benefits''' – Those who frequently travel by bike experience the benefits of regular exercise, reduce their personal health risk and lower their impact on the healthcare system.

'''Historical value''' - The Salt Lake Intermodal Hub was orignially a train station. Adding a bicycle transit center to this site retains the original transportation heritage of the Salt Lake Intermodal Hub.

'''Environmental benefits''' – Bicycles simply do not contribute to the air pollution the Wasatch Front suffers from. Switching car trips to bicycle trips eliminates motor vehicle emissions including PM 2.5, ozone, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. The more people we can get on bikes, the better off our air will be. 

'''Aesthetic benefits''' – A bicycle transit center with secure bike parking results in fewer bicycles left chained to unattended, outdoor bike racks that attract potential thieves and vandals. Secure bicycle storage would encourage more bike commuters to leave their bike at the transit station, reducing wear and tear on UTA trains and buses from bike tires. Bicycle transit facilities are designed with stunning architecture. With public art elements, site-specific design, and state-of-the-art technology a bicycle transit center can capture the imagination while addressing the needs of bicyclists in creative and important ways.

== 6.0 Project Significance/Importance ==

=== 6.1 What sets your project apart as a priority: ===

''Communicate how this is a priority from other potential projects in your city or county.  Is there a one time or development timing opportunities, consensus of community or public agencies that this project is a top priority?''

Bike Transit Centers are unique, not your average path or a bike rack project.  True to their name they become the center, and the glue, of bicycle commuting in the cities that offer them.  They symbolize the physical address and friendly face for cycling information where bicycle commuters can go, not just a website or contact information.  Without a Bike Transit Center it is hard for cities to scale bike transportation or even gauge the demands and needs of bicycle commuters.

The Bike Transit Center has also been planned to perfectly match crucial development timing of the Salt Lake Intermodal Hub's commuter rail component, FrontRunner, and several planned TRAX light rail additions.  With additional trains more bicycle commuters will follow.  Currently the demand for space at the Salt Lake Intermodal Hub is low and affordable, trying to establish a Bike Transit Center space after the TRAX and FrontRunner will require significant planning and increased costs.

The Bike Transit Center will also compliment future transportation projects such as additional TRAX lines to the Airport and the Denver Rio Grande Western bike trail.  Visitors from the Airport will have the ability to rent a bike, not just a car, and commuters using the bike trail can park their bike, and get last minute items and repairs.

UTA has noted that demand for bicycle-and-transit trips is increasing. From 2005 to 2006, UTA recorded an 11% increase of train and bus passengers traveling with their bicycles. UTA is responding in part by replacing 2-position with 3-position bus bike racks on all future bus orders.

=== 6.2 How does the proposed project coordinate with existing local, regional or statewide long-range plans? ===

''TIP - You should provide a Community Transportation or Master Plan of facility in a separate CD or submittal for the EAC to review.  If this is part of a larger facility, you should provide the overall vision of that plan in a separate CD or submittal.''

The phase one feasibility study for a bicycle transit center to be located at the Salt Lake Intermodal Hub dovetails perfectly with numerous transportation plans already in progress. First, it would support the Wasatch Front Regional Council’s Long Range Transportation 2030 Plan. The plan states that “…bicycle and pedestrian travel are an integral part of the 2030 LRP Update recommendations.” Many existing and new bicycle routes are “intended to serve major activity centers such as Salt Lake City’s central business district,… transit stations…” and that “Priority consideration for implementing bicycle and pedestrian projects and programs should be given within the ‘congestion corridors’ to increase the potential benefits from these facilities and to combine with the implementation of related congestion management strategies.” Salt Lake City is within the ‘congestion corridor’ and generates the bulk of the region’s traffic demand. The plan also states, “Priority consideration for implementing bicycle and pedestrian facilities should also be directed to areas of the Wasatch Front Region experiencing the early stages of urbanization in order to ensure that adequate provisions for non-motorized travel are incorporated in the transportation system as facilities are constructed or upgraded.” The Salt Lake Intermodal Hub is being upgraded by UTA to accommodate new transportation uses, and it’s located in an urban Salt Lake City neighborhood on the verge of redevelopment. Finally, the plan adds “The concerns of the public expressed for not using non-motorized modes, such as safety, traffic, barriers, lack of facilities, and other concerns, should be reasonably addressed in order to encourage higher usage of this mode.” A bicycle transit center can uniquely address these concerns with dedicated support for cycling safety information and secure bike parking at a full-service facility.

[http://wfrc.org/reports/lrp/Regional%20Bike.pdf WASATCH FRONT REGIONAL COUNCIL URBAN AREA LONG RANGE PLAN BICYCLE PATHS]

[http://www.wfrc.org/reports/lrp/CHAP%206%20Recommendations.pdf WASATCH FRONT REGIONAL COUNCIL 2030 LONG RANGE PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS]

[http://www.slcgov.com/transportation/DTP/Goals.htm DOWNTOWN SALT LAKE CITY MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN]

[[Media:ApprovedRevBikePedPlan3.pdf|STATE (UDOT) BIKE AND PED PLAN (I)]]

[http://www.slcgov.com/Transportation/BicycleTraffic/master.htm Salt Lake City Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan]

[http://www.bikecollectives.org/downloads/SLC_Intermodal_Hub_Plans.pdf Intermodal Hub - Final Submission (circa January 2002)]

[[Media:Completestreets.pdf|Complete Streets]]

Recommendations within the Salt Lake City Downtown Transportation Master Plan include on-street dedicated bike lanes for use of bicycles.  The plan also includes on-street auto lanes with special coloration to show legal right of bicyclists to travel in auto lanes.  Bicycle paths adjacent to the sidewalk will include a portion of the existing or widened sidewalk to use by slow moving bicycles, and will host a network of bicycle paths adjacent to the sidewalk. 

Salt Lake City is addressing enhanced mobility to compliment the goals and objectives for downtown Salt Lake City to ensure bicycling is viable and safe.  A supportive environment for bicyclists of all skill levels will be created in downtown Salt Lake City, and land use development policies will be pedestrian, bicyclist and transit supportive.   Mid-block streets will support shared use by vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians.  Bicyclists are welcome on all public rights-of-way with a dedicated network of bicycle lanes within the grid downtown Salt Lake City.   Amenities will be implemented to encourage bicycle use, including lockers and bicycle racks and will be placed in visible locations throughout downtown Salt Lake City.  
See Salt Lake Downtown Transportation Master Plan Goals (January 31, 2007)for details.  http://www.slcgov.com/transportation/DTP/Goals.htm

The current Salt Lake City Corporation – Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan was adopted by the Salt Lake City Council September 14, 2004.  The purpose of the plan is to provide Salt Lake city Corporation with a strong planning tool that will facilitate the continued and orderly development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and implementation strategies that encourage their use.    

The master plan was developed with the following vision in mind:  Enhance use of the bicycle for transportation and recreation, and walking for pleasure and mobility.  Foster community respect for bicycling and walking.  Promote bicycling and walking as ways to enhance personal health and improve the community environment.

The plan reflects the needs of current bicyclists and pedestrians as well as the needs of future users.  It was developed through a community-based process that incorporated input, suggestions and critique from established bicycle groups, community councils and interested parties.  
See Salt Lake City Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan

=== 6.3 Project Potential ===

==== 6.3.1 Access to Proposed Resource: ====

''Estimate number of people who will use or benefit from this project in a typical year?''

We estimate that 16,000 to 17,000 people will use the bicycle transit center during the first year of operation.

Explain your logic and/or calculations: ''If numbers are dependent on future development, provide when that development is expected and what percentage of total community growth this represents.''

This number is based on having 1,900 square feet of space with half dedicated to secure bicycle parking and the other half for bicycle repair and retail. This estimate is also based on average usage at similar facilities in the United States.

''Estimate total population size within 1-mile of the project area?''

According to data from Claritas Demographics 2005 projections, which were based upon Census 2000, the permanent population within a one mile radius of the Salt Lake Intermodal Hub is 6,438.

Explain how this is or is not a factor in your project benefits: ''TIP - If not already provided, explaining demographics of temporary or permanent populations could support statements or numbers of higher use for the proposed resource for this and the above question.''

Employment within one mile radius of the Salt Lake Intermodal Hub is 15,313. It should be noted that the area is mainly industrial and not residential. Commuters - the actual target market - using the Intermodal Hub will drastically raise the total number of potential users for the proposed bicycle transit faciity. UTA has estimated weekday travelers passing through the Intermodal Hub as follows: FrontRunner - 3,000, TRAX - 5,000, UTA Bus - 5,000.

==== 6.3.2 Project Function ====

''Provide all information under the sub-group.  Coordinate information with the maps, photos and illustrations sections.  How and when is your project resource used for each of the following sub-groups that were indicated in section 1.7.''

100% is allocated to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Group.

==== 6.3.2a Bicycle and Pedestrian Group ====

''TIP: list trip origination, link from or links along project and destination or link to other trail system.  Have you explained why other alternate routes are not reasonable or availiable?  How does your project meet the transportation demand of the community?''

Target user

% Commuter = '''90%''' Recreational/Tourist = '''10%''' 

If trail expected to be maintained year round? _____ ''TIP - You can answer yes with a yes or no.  Adding a sentence of why could get you a few more points.''

The Salt Lake Intermodal Hub is designed and located to meet the downtown commuting needs of the Wasatch Front and the Bike Transit Center will serve those commuters. The Jordan River Parkway trail, recreational downtown facilities and shopping may draw a recreational demographic.

==== 6.3.2b Scenic and Natural Resources Group ====

''List any scenic byway, existing or proposed view sheds enhanced by this project.  Why should this be a priority over similar proposal?  What makes this an asset to the community?''

'''N/A'''

==== 6.3.2c Historic and Archeological Group ====

''List any local, state or federal agencies connected or supporting this project.  Why should this be a priority over a similar proposal?  What makes this an asset to the community?''

'''N/A'''

== 7.0 Public Support, Involvement and Partnerships ==

''Describe the public involvement outreach activities completed, or planned, to gain support and sustain use of this project resource.  Describe any partnerships that will be developed as part of this project.  Describe any anticipated opposition to the project and how that opposition will be addressed.  Do not exceed this page to complete section 7.''

Listening to the public and gaining their support is an important part of this project. Public outreach was completed with a public notice and a public hearing. The notice of public hearing was mailed to UTA’s Salt Lake County mailing list on January 22, 2007 and appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret Morning News on Saturday, January 20, 2007. The public hearing was held at UTA’s Meadowbrook facility on Wednesday, January 31, 2007. The public hearing record was documented in accordance with Title VI.

UTA Rideshare’s partners in this project are co-sponsors Salt Lake City Bicycle Collective and Salt Lake City Corporation. Both organizations plan on providing feedback and resources for the feasibility study. Other partners include the Salt Lake County Bicycle Advisory Committee, the Salt Lake City Mayor’s Bicycle Advisory Committee, Wasatch Front Regional Council, Salt Lake City’s Environmental Advisor to the Mayor, and the State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Utah Division of Air Quality. These groups support the concept of a feasibility study for a bicycle transit center and would be willing to assist as needed.

=== Opposition ===

Anticipated opposition may include concern about the cost of the feasibility study being too high. Opposition will be addressed by comparing the costs of similar studies and the value a feasibility study would provide to a future bicycle transit center.

== 8.0 Application Funding ==

''All costs exceeding proposed budget are paid 100% by the sponsor.  The Cost Summary Table below is to remain on this page only to format provided.  Changes to task names are allowed when approved by Program Engineer.''

=== 8.1 Synergy ===

''The EAC encourages projects to team up.  Is the sponsor partnering with other state, federal, public or private groups for funding?  Is this project part of or combined with another surface transportation project?  List any other federal programs funding this project such as; Safe Routes to School, CMAO or any of the STP roadway program funds.''

This is largely to be determined by the feasibility study.  Part of the contract with the consulting firm will be to identify potential funding sources.

=== 8.2 Cost Estimate Summary ===

''List the major project costs in the table provided below.  Not all budget categories may apply to all projects.  Flexible or Soft match may come from the applicant's resources or from a third-party in-kind donation as property, materials, labor or cash.''

{| border="1"
|'''Project Items Format shown for Traditional Transportation Project.  Modify as needed for Non-Traditional Projects.'''
|'''Total Task Cost & Value'''
|'''Cash Expenses'''
|'''Soft Match, Donations & Contributions'''
|'''Project non-eligible items paid 100% by sponsor.'''
|-
|1. Right of Way Acquisition
|N/A
|N/A
|N/A
|$ Area resold for alternate use.
|-
|2. UDOT Oversight $5-k minimum (Recommend 3 to 5% of items 3-6 below)
|$2,500
|$2,500
|N/A
|N/A
|-
|3. Design/Preliminary Engineering (No more than 15% of items 4-6 allowed for federal funding)
|$86,000
|$68,800
|$17,200
|$ Cost exceeds 15% limit.
|-
|4. Utility Relocation* (Local Government Franchise Agreements may not govern.)
|N/A
|N/A
|N/A
|$ Utility work not project required.
|-
|5. Labor/Construction/Materials, use current UDOT price recommendation
|N/A
|N/A
|N/A
|$ Cost over limit
|-
|6. Construction Inspection/Certification (5% to 15% of items 4 & 5 above)
|N/A
|N/A
|N/A
|$ Cost exceeds 15%
|-
|7. 5% inflation per year on items 4-6 (3 year limit)
|N/A
|N/A
|N/A
|N/A
|-
|8. 25% Contigency required for budget on items 4 & 5.  15% if project already has Environmental Clearance
|N/A
|N/A
|N/A
|N/A
|-
|'''FEDERAL FUNDS $88,500 / SPONSOR CASH $3,000 / FLEXIBLE MATCH $14,200 / APPLICATION MATCH %20'''
|$88,500 Box 1 = Box 2 + Box 3 TOTAL PROJECT VALUE (TPV)
|$71,300 Box 2 Total Cash Budget
|$17,200 Box 3 Total Soft Match & Donations
|$0 Expenses in this column may or may not count as match
|}

=== 8.3 Critical Funding Check ===

==== 8.3.1 Determine maximum Federal Aid request for the application ====

Max Federal Aid if application is $625,000 or less in Box 1

= 0.8 x Box 1 = '''N/A'''

Max Federal Aid if application is greater than $625,000 or less in Box 1

= (Box1 -625,000/2) + $500,000 = '''N/A'''

State the maximum Federal Aid this application can request = $ '''N/A'''

''You may end up not request the maximum.''

==== 8.3.2 Determine the Project Cash Demand (PCD) and if additional cash is required to fund all cash requests ====

''Attach an additional sheet detailing the costs described above.  Clearly identify what the project will have to pay for in cash.  Then determine the Project Cash Demand (PCD) defined as: The total of the cash items plus contingency on all items requiring cash funds to produce the project.  If applicable, describe all local groups/agencies that will complete work as part of the applicant's plan as a donation or are expecting a cash reimbursement.

State your Project Cash Demand PCD = '''$71,300'''

State the Federal / Aid this application is requesting = '''$11,100''' ''Make sure this is the same number that is listed in the summary table section 8.2''

Minimum cash required in addition to Federal Aid requested = PCD - Federal Aid = '''$0'''

This is the minimum cash the Sponsor(s) will need to fully fund the project expenses.  Applicants may elect to add cash beyond the minimum to over match and be awarded additional points.

Calculate application match percentage.

Let $s = Sponsor supplied cash + soft match value

Let TPV = Total Project Value or Box 1

Applicant match percentage = $s / TPV x 100% = '''20%'''

=== 8.4 Application Over Match ===

''Application Over Match: No input is required for this section.  Applications must match 20% minimum for any project expense.  Applications can earn up to 10 points in 0.1 increments up to 40% over match.  The EAC has established matching fund requirements based on the following formula.''

''Project costs from $50,000 up to $625,000 are matched 80% by federal funds or for a maximum federal aid request of $500,000.''

''Example of the largest project that can be matched at 80% is $625,000;''

''80% x $625,000 = $500,000 Federal aid.  Sponsor provides 20% or $125,000.

''Project costs above the $625,000 are matched 50% by federal aid to a maximum of $1,125,000.''\

''Example for the largest project of $1,125,000;''

=== Name and title of individual who prepared the cost estimates for this project: ===

Printed Name of Preparer: '''Shaina Miron Quinn'''

Title: '''Regional Marketing Specialist / UTA Rideshare'''

Phone Number: '''801-262-5626 x1x2066'''

Preparer's Signature:

Date: '''1/31/2007'''

== 9.0 Long-Term Maintenance ==

''List entity responsible for the short and long-term project maintenance if other than sponsor.  Identify all maintenance participation.  Attach supporting documentation to this application if needed. '' 

Will the Sponsor(s) be able to maintain the project for a minimum of 25 years?

'''No''' This is only a feasibility and design study.  The intent is to apply again for construction funding if the feasibility study is approved and successful.  The second TE application will not only include construction but maintenance at which point it '''will''' be maintained for at least 25 years.

List major maintenance activities in the table below:

'''N/A'''

== 10.0 Project Schedule ==

''All applicants are required to submit a schedule of implementation.  For non-traditional or educational projects, the applicant should indicate major milestones and show that funds can be fully expended 30 months after approval of the STIP.  Use the format below to indicate major milestones.''

----

{|
|'''UDOT DESIGN PROCESS'''
! colspan="2"|'''DEADLINE TO COMPLETE'''
|-
|'''Implementation Schedule'''
! colspan="2"|
|-
|
! colspan="2"|'''After STIP Approval'''
|-
|
! colspan="2"|'''CUMMULATIVE'''
|-
|'''STANDARD SCHEDULE DATES'''
|
|
|-
|1. Project Programmed and Approved
|Month 0
|15 OCT 07
|-
|1.1 - Co-operative agreements signed.
|Month 3
|15 DEC 07
|-
|1.2 - Selecting a consulting firm.
|Month 4
|15 JAN 08
|-
|1.3 - UDOT Scope of Work
|Month 5
|15 FEB 08
|-
|2. Feasibility Study
|Month 6
|15 MAR 08
|-
|2.1 - Site and Location Analysis
|Month 6
|15 MAR 08
|-
|2.2 - Demand Analysis
|Month 6
|15 MAR 08
|-
|3. Needs Assessment
|Month 7
|15 APR 08
|-
|3.1 - Determination of Programming
|Month 7
|15 APR 08
|-
|3.2 - Resource Analysis
|Month 7
|15 APR 08
|-
|4. Preliminary Design
|Month 7
|15 APR 08
|-
|5. Intermediate Design
|Month 7
|15 APR 08
|-
|6. Final Design
|Month 8
|15 MAY 08
|-
|7. Draft Operating Plan
|Month 8
|15 MAY 08
|-
|8. Final Operating Plan
|Month 9
|15 JUNE 08
|-
|9. Preparation of Final Report
|Month 10
|15 JULY 08
|}

=== Option 1 ===

'''Project starts October 2007 and bids no later than spring 2010:'''

''All Enhancements projects currently on the STIP or applications awarded funding in this current application process that do not advertise for construction by spring 2010, risk losing federal funds if the Enhancements program is not funded in the next Federal Transportation Bill.''

N/A - this is just a feasibility study.

=== Option 2 ===

'''Project bids on an accelerated schedule prior to fall 2009:'''

''At this time, UDOT anticipates federal funds to be aviliable for project construction that propose an accelerated schedule.''

N/A - this is just a feasibility study.

== Appendix - A ==

'''DETAIL COST ESTIMATE FOR: Salt Lake Intermodal Hub Bike Transit Center'''

{| border="1"
|ITEM
|QUANTITY
|UNIT PRICE OR LUMP SUM
|UNIT DONATION FOR FLEX MATCH
|TOTAL
|-
|Consulting Firm Budget
|1
|$55,000
|$17,200
|$72,200
|-
|Architect Sub-Contract Budget
|1
|$13,800
|$0
|$13,800
|-
|UDOT Oversight
|1
|$2,500
|$0
|$2,500
|}

== Appendix - B ==

''Provide a maximum of five letters of support for application.  The UDOT Region Director letter is required.''

List all letters of support on this page

1. Salt Lake City Mayor's Bicycle Advisory Committee (MBAC), Louis Melini, Chairman

2. Salt Lake County Bicycle Advisory Committee (SLCBAC), Dan Fazzini Jr.,  Chairman

3. Wasatch Front Regional Council, Charles W. Chappel, Executive Director

4. Salt Lake City Corporation, Jordan B. Gates, Environmental Advisor to the Mayor

5. State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality Division of Air Quality, Richard Sprott, Director

== Appendix - C ==

''UDOT Central or Region concept overview analysis''

'''ENVIRONMENTAL'''

''Recommendations to reduce impact or risk''

N/A - To be determined in the feasibility study.

'''TRAFFIC AND SAFETY'''

''Recommendations or Concurrence for project on UDOT Right-Of-Way''

N/A - To be determined in the feasibility study.

''Additional items recommended''

N/A - To be determined in the feasibility study.

'''PRECONSTRUCTION'''

''Viability''

N/A - To be determined in the feasibility study.

'''RIGHT OF WAY'''

''Are easements needed?''

N/A - To be determined in the feasibility study.

'''UTILITY RISKS'''

''Mitigation recommendation''

N/A - To be determined in the feasibility study.

''Risk anaylsis''

N/A - To be determined in the feasibility study.

[[Category:SLCBC Intermodal Hub Bike Transit Center TE Application]]