The Ogden Transit Corridor Study
For well over a decade, our regional transportation planners have included in their long-range plan the development of a better mass transit system for the corridor between downtown Ogden and south Harrison Boulevard. Now they have taken the next step and conducted a preliminary study of possible transit alignments, station locations, and vehicle types for this corridor. This page summarizes the results of the study.
The study's most important result is that a major transit investment for this corridor is warranted and can be cost-effective, compared to other transit projects that are being proposed regionally and nationally. We are extremely pleased by this result and excited about the prospect of a modern transit system for Ogden. However, in order to meet the city's future transit needs and justify a major investment, the transit system must be optimized to follow the right alignment, with well-placed station locations, using an appropriate technology.
Corridor alignments
The study focused on a corridor beginning at the Ogden Intermodal Hub (23rd and Wall) and ending near Weber State University. Eight different alignments between these locations were considered, ranging from a western route along Wall Avenue and 36th Street, to an eastern route that climbs 23rd Street to the east bench and then turns south along the foothills. The alignments were ranked based on several factors including the number of employers and households near the route, the projected ridership, travel time, and ease of construction.
By these criteria, the highest-ranked route was one that follows 23rd Street to Washington, turns south for three blocks to 26th Street, then climbs to Harrison which it follows all the way to 4400 S. The second-ranked alignment follows 23rd Street all the way to Harrison (missing more of the downtown area), while the third-ranked alignment would take Washington all the way to 30th Street before turning east (taking in more of downtown but missing the neighborhood just east of downtown. All of these routes are only approximate at this stage; further studies could recommend various adjustments and refinements.
Station locations
In any transit system, there is a trade-off between the frequency of stops and the total travel time. Additional mid-route stops attract riders who need to board or exit at these locations, but lengthen the trip for everyone else. A general rule is that most riders are unwilling to walk more than a quarter mile (about two Ogden blocks) at either end of their trip.
The Ogden Transit Corridor Study therefore took a careful look at which potential mid-route stops would be most likely to attract additional riders. The graph below shows the ratings for the 26th Street alignment. Based on the ratings, the study team tentatively decided to recommend a total of six stations: four in the central city, one near the WSU main entrance, and one at 4400 S. Harrison to serve McKay-Dee Hospital and the Dee Events Center. Potential stations farther north on Harrison received the lowest ratings. However, several observers have pointed out the benefits of serving Ogden High School and the potential for transit-oriented development near 30th and Harrison. An additional station in this neighborhood will surely be reconsidered before any final decisions are made.
Vehicle types
When people consider whether to use transit, the first question they ask themselves is not what kind of vehicle it uses, or even how long the trip will take. The first question is, "Does it go where I need to go?" If the answer to this question is no, everything else is irrelevant. This is why the Transit Corridor Study focused on route alignments and station locations before even considering the type of vehicle to be used.
Still, it is the vehicle options that have received the most attention from the media and from the public. The study examined a total of five options: light rail (TRAX), an electric streetcar, two levels of bus rapid-transit (BRT) service, and, at the specific request of the Ogden City administration, an aerial gondola. The table below summarizes the main characteristics of three of these systems, all for the 26th Street alignment with the six recommended station locations. (Light rail was rejected by the study due to its excessive cost. The lower-level "BRT-I" service, without dedicated lanes, would be much less expensive than BRT-II but received lower ratings because it is slower and less attractive to riders.)
| Streetcar | Bus Rapid-Transit (BRT-II) | Gondola | |
|---|---|---|---|
 |
 |
 |
|
| Vehicles | Bus-sized, zero emission | Train-like appearance, low emission | 10-passenger, zero emission |
| Infrastructure | Rails, overhead electrical lines, exclusive-use center lanes, signal priority | Exclusive-use center lanes, signal priority | Cables, support poles, large structures at stations and bends |
| Travel time (Intermodal Hub to 4400 S. Harrison) | 15.8 minutes | 15.3 minutes | 20.7 minutes |
| Interval between vehicles | 8 minutes | 10 minutes | 30 seconds |
| Flexibility (adding stops, changing route) | Moderate | Greatest | Least |
| Weather limitations | Snow, ice | Snow, ice | Wind, lightning |
| Heating, cooling | Standard | Standard | Difficult; requires custom equipment |
| Construction cost | $100.6 million | $22.4 million | $50.5 million |
| Annual operating cost | $2.6 million | $1.4 million | $4.3 million |
| Total annualized cost | $10.8 million | $3.4 million | $8.4 million |
| Predicted annual new rides | 642,000 | 292,000 | 321,000 |
| Cost per new ride | $16.82 | $11.64 | $26.29 |
| Eligible for federal funding? | Yes | Yes | No |
It's clear from the table that each vehicle type has its advantages and drawbacks. The streetcar and BRT systems are faster than than gondola, but have longer intervals between vehicles. The gondola interferes less with auto traffic along most of its route, but has a larger footprint at stations and bends. The streetcar is the most expensive, but the gondola isn't far behind when the capital cost is annualized and operating costs are included.
But the most important statistic, we feel, is the number of new riders that the system is predicted to attract. This is a direct measure of the benefit to the riders themselves, the amount of auto traffic and congestion that the system would eliminate, and the degree to which station locations would attract new businesses and generate further investment in our neighborhoods.
This study is the only true "apples to apples" comparison of the various transit modes. Changing the corridor alignment, or the number of stations, or the hours of operation would affect the ridership and cost of any of the modes. Gondola proponents have suggested that their preferred system could be built for as little as $20 million, but this figure has not been corroborated by impartial authorities. More importantly, such a stripped-down system with fewer stations would not be optimized to attract riders or to meet the transit needs of Ogden's residents.
Some have accused the transit corridor study team of using criteria that were biased against the gondola option. However, the Ogden City administration, which supports the gondola, was a full participant in the study team and even commissioned its own separate study of the gondola option as a preliminary step toward comparing the gondola to other transit modes. The study team made every effort to give the gondola the benefit of the doubt while still basing its analysis on known facts and empirically tested models. We would welcome any further information on the gondola option, provided that this information is objective and verifiable.
The issue of funding sources is also important. Capital costs for transit projects such as this are typically funded by the Federal Transit Administration at the 50% level. In Utah, the remainder of the capital cost and most of the operating costs typically come from UTA, whose revenue comes mostly from sales taxes. Cities that benefit from transit projects have contributed only nominal amounts for environmental studies and improvements to streets and sidewalks. It is not true, as some have implied, that Ogden City would have to pay half the cost of a streetcar or BRT system.
The gondola option would almost certainly be ineligible for FTA funding, because its cost per new rider is above the threshold that the FTA will ordinarily consider. Upon learning this, gondola proponents gave a "sour grapes" response: FTA funding takes too long anyway, so they will build the gondola without FTA funds. It is true that an FTA-funded transit project takes a long time--roughly ten years from the initial planning to the final completion. But lining up alternative funding will also take time (if it is possible at all), and no transit project should be undertaken without careful planning, consideration of alternatives, and opportunities for public involvement. For those of us who intend to live the rest of our lives in Ogden, and who hope our children and grandchildren will live here as well, it's better to do it right than to do it fast.
NEW "Transit Corridor Study Report October 2005"