Spotlight on Transportation Issues

Notes for the 30 November Work Session of the Ogden City Council

By Curmudgeon

The meeting began at 5:15 P.M. with a presentation by Mr. Doug Hattery, Deputy Director of the Wasatch Front Regional Council. He had been invited specifically to discuss the pending revision of the WFRC long range transit study, and the three possible new transit route plans, two of which include a route between the Intermodal Hub in downtown Ogden and Weber State University as a designated transit corridor [meaning, Mr. Hattery explained, a corridor with sufficient potential as a transit route that a major investment of funds to improve it would be justified] and one of which does not. Mr. Hattery and Mr. Gregg Scott [also of the WFRC] both told the council that in their view, based on the feasibility studies that had been done by the WRFC, that the downtown to WSU corridor made “the most sense in terms of transit” and should remain in the new Long Range Transit Plan as a designated transit corridor. Mr. Hattery was asked specifically about Mayor Godfrey’s suggestion that if a gondola went in, privately funded, over the same route, transit funds would be “freed up” to be used on projects elsewhere in the County, such for example as a trolley line along Washington Ave. to Riverdale. And so it might be wise, in anticipation of the gondola, to remove the downtown Ogden to WSU corrider from the WFRC long range transit plan. Mr. Hattery replied that in his view, the Long Range Transit Plan should continue to list the downtown to WSU route as a priority transit corridor. If non-public funded gondola is built along that route, all well and good. But [in response to questions from several members], if no privately funded gondola is built, and if the downtown to WSU route is not included in the Long Range Transit Plan, then the city would have to wait some years, for the next revision of the plan [it is revised at four year intervals] before a street car or BRT [bus rapid transit] line over that route would be eligible for federal funds, since a project “must be in our long range transit plan to be eligible for federal funds.”

There followed several questions regarding the availability of funds, both state and federal, for an Ogden transit project like a streetcar line or a BRT line. Mr. Hattery, seconded by Mr. Scott, explained that (a) the Frontrunner was going to soak up all available funds for transit construction in the County “for many years to come.” Asked how many, Mr. Hattery was reluctant to be specific, pointing out that it depended to some extent on receipts from sales taxes and the speed with which Frontrunner construction debt could be retired. But “many years” was the answer. Maybe ten or more? Maybe. He did add that the legislature recently enacted a law to permit counties to add a quarter cent sales tax for transit purposes, and Salt Lake County voters had agreed to do that. Weber County voters had that option as well, and funds might come on line from that source more quickly.

Asked several times, in several ways, about how long it would take for federal funds to become available, presuming Ogden began the application process now, Mr. Hattery thought that “ten years” was a reasonable estimate The next step for Ogden would be to do an Alternatives Analysis study of the two transit options WRFC thought best suited to Ogden between downtown and WSU, a streetcar line or a bus rapid transit line.... and probably he said it would be necessary to include the Mayor’s gondola option in the Alternative Analysis study too.... so that the city could agree on the technology it wanted, and then begin an environmental impact study for that technology over that route.

Asked how much doing the necessary studies to become eligible for federal funding would cost, the WFRC spokesmen said “$500,000 to $1,000,000.” Asked whether Ogden would have to come up with that sum on its own, Mr, Hattery said that in most cases, UTA chipped in substantial amounts to help out. They did this, for example, on the environmental impact study for the TRAX line to the airport, and on other projects. He also indicated that often other sources of funds could be identified. In Salt Lake County these included UDOT, the LDS church, and a few others.

Mr. Safsten asked how Mr. Hattery would reply to people who objected that putting in a streetcar line or a BRT line would take road space away from cars and thus result in fewer people moving over the route [because of reduced space for cars] rather than more? Mr. Scott replied that experience had shown that in the very early stages, briefly, there might be a decline in the number of people moving over the corridor route when a trolley or BRT line first went in. But very quickly, the numbers changed because streetcars or BRT lines could move many many more people in a small amount of usable space than cars could. This was not, in his opinion a serious objection to putting in public transit in a high use corridor. Mr. Safsten asked if it was true then, based on the Salt Lake example, that rail ended up moving many more people over a route than could be moved by cars. Mr. Scott replied: “Yes.” In fact, putting a rail line in for transit was the equivalent of adding “ an extra lane” to an interstate. It moved that many people.

Mrs. Van Hooser noted that initial rider projections for TRAX were lower than actual ridership turned out to be, and asked if WFRC had estimates about how many people might be using Frontrunner to arrive in Ogden. Mr. Hattery said initial projections were six thousand people a day would use Frontrunner, but that was over the whole route, not specifically to Ogden. Ms. Van Hooser asked about whether there was or would be sufficient public transit in place to move commuters efficiently from the Intermodal Hub to WSU Some discussion of existing bus transit from the Hub to WSU, and how schedules would be keyed to commuter train arrivals. Mr. Scott pointed out that neither street car or BRT transit would materially shorten the trip to WSU from downtown initially.... maybe by a few minutes. No more. He did point out that when you have a transit system with “fixed stations” rather than just street corner bus stops, more people tend to use it. They look upon fixed stations transit as inherently more dependable transit.

Mr. Safsten asked whether Ogden was hurting itself in the competition for federal funds. by dithering around trying to decide on which form of transit to endorse, and which route to follow? If, he said, it’s going to be ten years or more before transit construction money becomes available [because Frontrunner has it pretty much all encumbered until then], would it be better to delay until we get everyone on board behind one transit plan? Rather than press ahead with one now when there is no general agreement?’

A long discussion ensued, which got complex and rambled a little. The upshot seemed to be this: with respect to getting federal funds, waiting a long time to begin the application process could push the project off years into the future. On the other hand, Mr. Hattary and Mr. Scott both emphasized, several times, that in the federal applications process, it was important to have everyone agreed on a particular transit option, it was important to be able to demonstrate that the community [through its officials] was united behind the project, and was taking steps to make it happen: doing the necessary environmental impact studies, identifying additional non-federal funding sources, etc. Asked if a community actually had to undertake an environmental impact statement to satisfy federal funding application rules, or was a community stating an intention to undertake the study be enough? Mr. Scott said stating the intent to do it would be enough to satisfy initial federal funding application rules. Then some discussion of how federal funding was allocated, the role of earmarks, the importance of state congressional delegations in the process and how fortunate Utah was to have Sen. Bennett on a key transportation committee in the Senate. The WFRC spokesman did suggest that there are “many communities” lined up applying for federal transit funds, and that it was probably not wise to delay “getting in line” so to speak.

Councilman Stephenson asked if the $100 million dollar estimated cost for building a street car line [contained in the feasibility study the Administration did some three years ago] included the money needed to do the various environmental impact and other studies required? The answer was no, the $100 million referred only to capital construction costs.

The Council then thanked the WRFC representatives for their time and moved on to the rest of the work session agenda.

[Note: the discussion took some time, with considerable back and forth and questions from the Council members and far more detail than I have summarized above. Additions or corrections by anyone else who was there are welcome.]

The rest of the work session was devoted to hearing three reports from the Council’s newly hired director of communications, Mr. Greg Phares. His first report dealt with improvements to the Council’s newsletter. The second dealt with a history of community meetings in Ogden, and suggestions about whether and how they might be resumed. Mr. Phares reported that Ogden used to hold four community meetings a year until 2003, one in each of the four Council districts. They were dropped for several reasons: cost which topped $8000 in 2003, the fact that often there was no real issue to discuss and meetings were being held just to hold meetings, and the fact that some citizens treated the meetings as gripe sessions at which to raise minor matters that might easily have been handled other ways, and this made discussion of significant issues, when there were any, difficult. Mr. Phares reported that if community meetings were revived as a means of Council outreach and soliciting community input, that (a) they be held only when there was a real and current interest affecting a neighborhood like the Mt. Ogden Community Meeting, for example, or an issue affecting the entire city to which all citizens would be invited. Mr. Stephenson wanted to know how many people attended these meetings when they were held. Mr. Phares said from 50 to 150. Mr. Garcia thought the numbers high. Mr. Safsten said he’d always thought enough people showed up at the meetings he attended to make them worthwhile.

Discussion then shifted to the gondola/streetcar matter as an example of how community meetings might be useful for the Council as a way to both inform the public and solicit public opinion. Ms. Van Hooser said she favored “taking [issues like this] to the people.” That at, say, a public meeting on transit, the Council should invite to present “not Lift Ogden and SGO” but “unbiased expert opinion” by “professionals” on the various forms of transit. “Just the facts.” She thought the general public would be more likely to take such presentations seriously, and she thought it important that the people of Ogden have an opportunity at least to “know what we know” when we have to make our decision.

There ensued a more general discussion of ways the Council could better reach the whole community and get feedback from people on various issues. Mr. Stephenson wondered if there was money in the budget to finance flyers he could distribute in his district, asking people to phone, email him, write to him with their views. [General discussion of the costs of various means of doing this: newspaper inserts, something in the monthly utilities bill perhaps, etc.] There seemed to be general consensus that a significant number of residents don’t access the internet and don’t want to, and so cannot be reached by email or website. Some means of informing them, and soliciting their views was needed as well. More general discussion on how to reach the public, gain their views. Staff promised to research the matter and present options to the Members.

[Comment: I was impressed by the evident strong desire broadly across the council, and by this time all were present, to find more and better ways to inform the public of what the Council was doing and to find more and better ways for residents to let Council members know what they thought.]

Mr. Phares then moved on to his third report. The Council had declined Mayor Godfrey’s invitation to go along on his gondola tour to Telluride, but the Council had asked Mr. Phares to research urban tram or gondola systems that might be worth looking at. Before he began his report. Chairman Garcia read a comment Mr. Safsten [who had to leave the work session] wanted read into the record. Mr. Safsten said “I am not interested in a trip to gondolas until we actually get a proposal. If a proposal is much more delayed, a trip right now might not be particularly valuable.”

That said, Mr. Phares reported that, trying to find “urban gondolas or trams” had been a little difficult. He’d done and internet search and “80% of what came up related to the gondola and Ogden.” Finally he settled on seven gondola or tram systems [now running, defunct or planned] for the Council’s consideration. He presented a chart listing all seven side by side and comparing them as to cost, how funded, length, ownership and about a dozen more categories. [The chart, with some added information such as size of the cities involved, etc. will be I think available as a PDF file via a link on the Council’s “Discovery Ogden” webpage in the fairly near future. ] Some discussion of reproducing the comparison chart and report in hard copy for distribution to the public. Mrs. Jeske objected that “I don’t want to spend any more money on this until we have a proposal.” Mrs. Van Hooser said “I agree.” There seemed to be general consensus on the point.

The seven systems Mr. Phares briefed the Council on were:

1. The Roosevelt Island Tram in NY City. Losing money, having mechanical problems, scheduled for $15 million overhaul shortly and for long maintenance shut down.

2. MART gondola: installed for the New Orleans Worlds Fair. Ridership only a third of what had been projected during the fair, and declined more after that. Connected east and west banks of the Mississippi River in NO. Defaulted on the bank loans to construct it. Shut down in 1985, ordered demolished by the Coast Guard in 1994.

3. Telluride gondola. “Not really an urban gondola “ said Mr. Phares. Included only because it’s the gondola the Mayor invited the Council to visit. The two villages it connects total 3500 population, but it does draw over two million riders a year. Free to passengers. Operations funded by real estate sales tax.

4. Metro Cable, Medillin, Columbia. A true urban public transit gondola system, intended to serve mostly the poor of the city. People with bus passes ride free. Has reduced crime along the route [by apparently cutting street auto and pedestrian traffic]. City is building a second gondola line now. “Ripple effect” among businesses near stations/terminals.

5. Portland [Oregon] Tram. Due to come on line Jan. 07. Original cost estimate: $15 million. Actual cost: $57 million. 85% of operating costs to be paid by Oregon Health and Science University, which the tram will connect with the rest of the city.

6. Baltimore Gondola: not built. Planned to tie Convention Center to other city locations near the harbor. Mr. Phares said the company doing the study for this one “claims to be studying the gondola in Ogden.” [ I did not catch the name of the company.]

7. The Camden Waterfront Gondola. Project, at this point, abandoned. Planned to connect Camden, NJ to Philadelphia PA across the Delaware River. Developer of a $350 million “entertainment complex” on the Camden side pulled out, and the project is currently dormant.

Follwing Mr. Phares report, and some housekeeping matters discussed between Staff and Council members, the work session adjourned just after 8 PM.

Further deponent sayeth not.