Is UTA run well? In order to answer that question we need to understand the role of UTA in our economy. The problem is that the role has not been well-defined.
Many people think that the UTA exists to provide transportation services to those who can't afford an automobile or are unable to drive, and to provide those services at the lowest possible cost. If this is the role of the UTA, it is doing a poor job.
Over the past decade, UTA has concentrated on the development of rail transit systems that primarily serve affluent areas of the city. Because rail is inflexible and expensive, one result of this is higher fares and larger subsidies, as well as some inconvenience as bus routes have been changed so that riders must use light rail to travel downtown.
Understandably, those who work with the poor and disabled are upset. A look at future plans, which include extension of light rail to the Salt Lake City airport and to West Jordan, should not make advocates for the poor happy.
According to the UTA's own annual report (for 2003), the cost of the transit system has grown dramatically in the past 10 years. For example, the cost per mile increased 71 percent between 1994 and 2003, almost 8 percent per year. Costs per passenger have gone up 82 percent!
This understates the growth in costs per passenger, because the UTA measures passengers by counting the number of "unlinked passenger trips." Since TRAX started service in late 1999, more commuters are counted twice - once when they mount the bus, again when they mount the train.
Fares have also increased much more rapidly than inflation during the past 10 years - increasing from 65 cents in 1994 to $1.35 in 2003, going up to $1.40 last month. Another increase is scheduled for next year. So in the past 10 years, fares have increased 115 percent, while the Consumer Price Index, a broad measure of inflation, has increased by only 32 percent.
Furthermore, these costs refer to operating costs only - this analysis completely ignores the huge capital cost of the TRAX system. Are you starting to get the idea that Wal-Mart isn't going to be asking Mr. Inglish for management advice?
Mass transit is also sometimes portrayed as a way to reduce traffic congestion. Much of the public support for rail transit systems comes from the misperception that such systems reduce highway congestion. For example, in its recent Environmental Impact Statement, the UTA suggests that commuter rail is needed because of increasing congestion in the Ogden/Salt Lake City corridor.
However, traffic engineers generally recognize that improvements in mass transit will have no noticeable effect on highway congestion. Discussion of mass transit options in UDOT's 1990 I-15 corridor plan state that "None of the improvements induce a large enough shift away from automobiles to significantly affect highway traffic volume." Similar wording can be found in transit plans for other cities from the past dozen years.
It is extremely difficult in an urban area like greater Salt Lake City, with dispersed housing and employment, to build a transit system that will lure riders from cars, particularly commuters who tend to use the highway system at periods of peak congestion.
Apparently the UTA doesn't believe that commuter rail will alleviate congestion on the Salt Lake/Ogden corridor either, as this is not mentioned as one of the purposes for construction of commuter rail. Instead, they offer vague justifications like "facilitate the safe and efficient movement of people and goods." Couldn't we "facilitate" with something less expensive - maybe a bike path?
All of this hasn't stopped the UTA from pushing for more rail systems. The current proposal to build a commuter rail from northern Weber County to Salt Lake City is particularly nonsensical. The system will cost about $550 million to build, and the UTA has projected initial ridership of only 5,900 per day.
Amortizing the capital cost over 30 years, assuming 5 percent for interest, gives a monthly capital cost $2.9 million - about $492 per rider per month. This is well short of Mr. Inglish's $771 monthly vehicle allowance, but would still be enough to lease each of these potential riders a decent car - say a Mercedes C-class.
Of course, the rail system will also operate at a deficit. Even an optimist has to believe that the operating subsidy would add another $100 per month per rider, for a total cost of at least $592 per month. With that kind of money we could get them a car they could be proud of!
Sadly, the situation is probably even worse, as transit planners are notoriously optimistic about rail ridership and construction costs. Basically, the current plan is to take commuters from where they don't live (in downtown Ogden or downtown Clearfield, for example) to where they don't work (the area around the old train station in Salt Lake City).
So no one should be sanguine about the numbers who will commute by train.
Unfortunately, all of this money spent on rail transit doesn't buy the majority of us, car-driving or bus-riding taxpayers, anything. It will do nothing to help the poor and disabled, as they aren't interested in commuting from Ogden or Pleasant View to Salt Lake City, and they would need a car to get to the rail stations, anyway. In fact, it will hurt them, because resources used to fund new rail services will make fewer resources available to bus lines that serve poor neighborhoods, and likely will lead to higher fares for bus riders.
Furthermore, commuter rail provides no relief for increasing congestion, an issue that demands immediate attention. Because it doesn't reduce congestion, it has no impact on air quality, either. So unless you have some vague concern about "safe and efficient movement of people," your life isn't going to be any better because of the UTA's rail proposals.
In short, I don't think Mr. Inglish deserves $300,000 per year. Maybe we could just give him a bus pass instead of this year's bonus?
---
Michael R. Ransom is a professor of eonomics at Brigham Young University.
