Main Menu

UTA and WFRC on the Streetcar, Bus Rapid Transit, and Gondola proposals

We reproduce below in full a December, 2005 letter from the Utah Transit Authority and the Wasatch Front Regional Council to Ogden City. This letter should shed some light on the competing proposals for transit in the corridor between downtown Ogden and WSU/McKay-Dee Hospital. Some noteworthy points made in the letter are:

  • A streetcar system could be built in as little as 7 years if new funding becomes available, or in 10-15 years without new funding sources.
  • Applying the model that UTA has followed in the past, Ogden City's share of the construction cost of a streetcar would be only 5-10 percent of the total, of which part or all would be right-of-way or other in-kind contributions.
  • Mayor Godfrey has asked UTA to make a "limited financial commitment" to a public-private gondola project. (A later letter from UTA indicates that the amount being discussed is $8 million.)
  • Any contribution of UTA to the gondola project would come at the expense of existing bus service, and would have to be supported by local officials throughout Weber County.
  • UTA has provided a list of detailed questions about the gondola that would have to be answered before it further considers a role in the gondola project.
  • If a gondola is built in this transit corridor, UTA will not support a second transit investment (streetcar or bus rapid transit) in the same corridor.
[On UTA letterhead]

December 6, 2005

Mr. Rick Safsten, Chair
Ogden City Council
2549 Washington Blvd., Suite 320
Ogden, UT 84401

Dear Mr. Safsten:

We received your letter of November 17, 2005 concerning the transit study recently completed by Ogden City, the Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC), Weber State University, and the Utah Transit Authority (UTA). The study recommends a major transit investment connecting the Ogden Intermodal Center to Weber State University and McKay-Dee Hospital with a Streetcar as the first choice and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) as an alternate mode. We also recognize that the City is still actively pursuing an Aerial Cableway in a public private partnership as an alternative.

Your letter states that the Council is being asked to accept or reject the recommendations of the study. We feel that it may be premature to try to come to a final conclusion on the recommended mode and alignment of the corridor. Your letter does raise several very pertinent questions concerning financing, timing, and possible alternatives that need to be addressed thoroughly before we proceed.

Before we respond to the questions we would like to begin by recalling why we undertook the transit study. The WFRC Long Range Plan (LRP) identifies a transit guideway in the corridor connecting the Ogden Intermodal Center and WSU because it connects two major trip generators. The study reaffirmed that a major investment was justified and developed planning level estimates of capital and operating costs and demand for several alternatives. The study compared the alternatives on the basis of their ability to provide cost effective transportation between the Intermodal Center and WSU/McKay-Dee Hospital and their compatibility with Ogden's development objectives. The conclusions of the study are a direct result of the limits of the study area and the objectives of the improvement.

Additionally, a proposal was made for an Aerial Cableway extending beyond the scope of the original study limits and purposes. The additional Aerial Cableway proposal would be funded in large part by private funds and its primary objective is economic development. As a result of the changes in project limits and objectives it is difficult to make an informed decision without additional information.

We have agreed with Mayor Godfrey to cooperatively conduct an analysis of the new Cableway proposal which would provide information necessary to determine the appropriate level of a limited UTA financial commitment to a public-private project. In the absence of additional revenue any near term financial commitment by UTA will require a reallocation of existing transit service to free up funding to meet the commitment. The data gathering and analysis would include the private interests and would address the public transit benefits as well as engineering and financial feasibility. We have attached a preliminary list of information needed to make this evaluation.

Your first question focuses on funding for the recommended improvement. It is important to understand the current situation for funding transit improvements in the Ogden area. The WFRC Long Range Plan (LRP) recommends an accelerated schedule for implementation for this and other projects in the region. That schedule is entirely dependent on additional public funding for UTA at a regional level. The Commuter Rail line from Weber County to Salt Lake City and the operation and maintenance of the existing bus system will require all of the current funds collected for transit. Without the new funding it will be at least a decade before UTA has resources to implement the recommendations of the Study.

Therefore, an accelerated implementation schedule for the new service could only be undertaken by raising additional funds or by reducing existing bus service. It is essential that any proposal that relies on reallocating existing service to make funds available for this corridor have the explicit support of local officials from throughout the County. It also needs to be clear that only one major transit investment in the corridor is possible. Neither the travel demand nor the financial resources can support two competing investments in the corridor.

Sources of additional funding being explored by WFRC and UTA to meet the accelerated LRP schedule on this and other priority projects include an increase in the sales tax for transit or a regionwide or county by county general obligation bond supported by a property tax levy. The sale tax option would require legislative authorization and a favorable public vote. The general obligation bond proposal would require only a public vote. Obviously, the City could use its own resources to build and operate an improvement. With additional funding, the next steps in the implementation process could begin immediately.

The total costs of a Streetcar project would almost certainly be $50-$100 million in capital costs and $2-$5 million in annual operating expenses. Each of the major projects that UTA has implemented over the past decade has been funded with at least 50% federal funding and substantial funding from the sales tax UTA receives. Local partner contributions have been in the range of 5% to 10% of the construction costs and have come in the form of right of way, facilities and cash contributions. However, increasing competition for limited federal funding may delay the project to the extent that we opt to pursue construction without federal funding. The existing local sales tax and fares are the primary sources of operating funds.

The process of implementing a major transit investment typically takes 7-15 years. The steps include an alternatives analysis (which is largely complete), an environmental impact statement, engineering and design, a financial plan, construction, and start up and testing. The process can be streamlined somewhat if funding is in place and the City assists in solving the problems associated with construction in a public street. However, a major transit investment would be difficult to accomplish in less than 7 years and a 10 to 15 year period is more likely.

The environmental impact statement for a project of this magnitude would cost between $500,000 and $1 million dollars and could be accomplished in 2 to 2 1/2 years. For the two environmental impact statements ongoing in the region, local governments and UTA have shared the cost evenly. Sharing the costs allows UTA two[sic] undertake multiple projects at a time.

We hope that we have addressed your questions and look forward to continuing to work with Ogden City to implement a transit improvement in the corridor that is effective and meets the city's needs. We would be happy to meet with the Planning Commission or Council at your convenience.

Sincerely,

John M. Inglish
General Manager
Utah Transit Authority

Charles W. Chappell
Executive Director
Wasatch Front Regional Council

Cc: Mayor Godfrey

Ogden Cableway Information Needs

In order to be able to support a request for financial participation UTA needs to be able to Assess:

  • The Engineering Feasibility of the Proposal and any significant risks
  • The Financial Feasibility

The Proposal needs to state a clear description of what will be built and how it will operate.

  • Description of the technology including vehicle size and type, cable support type and general spacing, cable height
  • General Alignment - streets to be used and center or side running, locations of turns,
  • Station locations - including whether it will include dedicated parking
  • Connection to facilities on the mountain,
    • Will the cableway be a continuous system or will it be a separate system,
    • What facilities on the Mountain will be accessible by the cableway,
    • General alignment of the connection.
  • Operating plan to include operating times, number of vehicles, security, how ADA requirements are met
  • Who owns the system and is liable
  • Who operates - What are the contractual assurances of performance?

What characteristics are critical to achieving the economic development potential? Operating times, ski season and summer.
What ski facilities need to be accessible?
How does it connect to WSU?
What kind of connection will be made downtown?
How much will the system depend on parking at the Intermodal Center?

Financial Plan
We will need a capital cost estimate in enough detail to allow an independent review.
Operating cost estimate including manpower levels and major component maintenance schedules
Schedule for construction and operation
Source of operating funds.
Source of construction funds.
Will the system be considered part of the public transit system for the purpose of fare collection.
Contingency plan if costs or revenues do not match protection[sic].
If debt is part of the plan - type and term of the debt

What permits are necessary.

Smart Growth Ogden. "Who we are."
801-334-9680; P.O. Box 1347, Ogden, UT 84402
We are not affiliated with any other state or national group. We are Ogden residents, volunteers, etc., who love our city and are not embarassed to say we live here...