Transit Riders Union

2008-06-11T12:46:00.002-06:00

UTA Pollutes. Now, More than Ever with FrontRunner

Give a cheer for those earnest, high polluting, folks over at UTA.

They claim to reduce dangerous pollution.

But, FrontRunner actually makes ozone and fine particulate worse.

UTA lied through their teeth in their environmental impact statements for both FrontRunner extensions by refusing to reveal the huge jumps in NOx they cause.

That is a NEPA requirement. NEPA is National Environmental Policy Act.

After full system developed, FrontRunner trains will likely burn over 4 million gallons of diesel a year.

They will dump an added 400 to 500 tons of NOx into our air each year, (beyond reductions from car/truck emissions and bus “economies”).

The big jump in FrontRunner pollution will wipe out many times over whatever small reductions in NOx that might come from new light rail lines.

A similar analysis for UTA Bus-caused NOx was uncovered by the recent legislative audit of UTA. They said that the small reductions in NOx from TRAX and Vanpools was wiped out by a large excess of NOx from buses. (Audit page 85)

"UTA is a net polluter of NOx,” the report said. 185 tons of net NOx emissions increase.

Now, thanks to FrontRunner, UTA is an even bigger net polluter of NOx than before, hundreds of tons worse.

There were two Alternatives to diesel-guzzling FrontRunner:

DMU cars. These have small diesel engines in each car and can be linked up into trains. This alternative was rejected while UTA was blinded by its own counting mistakes about the “fantastic” TRAX success. They went for really big capacity.

NOx pollution and diesel consumption 75% less than with locomotive-pulled trains. Over 50% cost savings.

Electric locomotives with electric catenaries (wires) above the tracks, like TRAX.

This was how our fine electric interurban trains on the same route were powered nearly a century ago: Bamberger and Orem Lines.

Costs a lot more in the short run, but saves in long run.

Saves burning over 200 million gallons of diesel fuel next 50 years.

Save diesel cost that will greatly exceed $1 billion!

Saves thousands of tons of NOx and pollution.

Saves tens of million$ for expensive diesel locomotive rebuilds and pollution control equipment

UTA got itself into this mess with its eyes wide shut!

Michael T. Packard

2008-06-10T15:37:00.002-06:00

Four fallacies of "transit-oriented development"

This Web only Speakout has not been edited.

Allan Ferguson

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

More Speakout

Story Tools

As the Regional Transportation District has expanded its rail lines through Denver's southeast corridor and looks forward to "FasTracks" expansion along several other corridors westward, northward, and eastward, the planning mantra for development along these corridors has become "transit-oriented development" (TOD).

According to Denver's Office of Economic Development, some fifty-one of fifty-seven planned light rail stations "have TOD potential with eighteen of those sites containing ten acres or more."

In the TOD planners' vision of Denver's future, tens of thousands of people will flock to high-density housing to live, play, and shop near rail stations where they can leave their cars behind and join the happy world of carbonless commuters. To achieve this Nirvana, of course, many current homeowners and business people will have to be bought out, removed by eminent domain, or otherwise displaced to make room for the developers.

This developer's dream seems to have widespread, unquestioning support among elected officials at every level in Denver and Colorado. It's time to debunk a few of main tenets of TOD

Tenet #1 - TOD will encourage a return to the city and discourage suburban sprawl. This, of course, is utter nonsense. Historically, by making it easy to get in and out of the city center, transit lines have had the opposite effect. The development of rail lines and their relationship to suburban growth has been studied to death in Boston, New York, and Chicago. And, yes, even the Denver Tramway Company fed the growth of Englewood and Littleton, just as RTD will feed the continued growth of southeast Denver.

Tenet #2 - Ecologically sound, high-density TOD housing is the "wave of the future." Sorry planners, this is Colorado, not Washington DC or New York. What we have here is space and the desire for single-family home ownership. Relatively cheap land and housing lie outside the city. That has always been true in Colorado and will continue to be true. Those who buy into TOD housing will constitute no more than a drop in the population bucket of the Denver-Boulder metropolitan area.

Tenet #3 - TOD will get us out of our cars and cut pollution. Suppose by 2020 we're driving nonpolluting electric and hydrogen-powered vehicles. What then becomes of this argument? How important is it that we get out of our cars? Moreover, in this sprawling metropolitan area, RTD will never have the money or rolling stock necessary to adequately cover the area with dependable, frequent bus service feeding into rail lines. This is Denver, not Boston or New York. We'll still need our cars.

Tenet #4 - TOD will create great, walkable, liveable communities. High-density residences tend to be populated by people with weak ties to their surrounding neighborhood, while those living in low-density housing tend to take greater pride in their property, know their neighbors, and participate more in every aspect of neighborhood life. Of course, this is a broad generalization, but it is also an accurate generalization fully studied by urban sociologists.

One further observation: Wherever the lines between elected officials and developers intersect, one will find unsavory influence, favoritism, and, ultimately, corruption. Denver cannot escape this fact of political life. Let us tread warily toward a future filled with TOD.

Allan Ferguson, a resident of Denver, is a neighborhood activist leading opposition to a proposed high-rise development at University Light Rail Station.

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News

2008-06-04T11:16:00.000-06:00

Light Rail Doesn't Work

by Randal O'Toole

Randal O'Toole is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and author of Great Rail Disasters: The Impact of Rail Transit on Urban Livability.
Added to cato.org on September 11, 2007

This article appeared online at Ottawa Citizen on August 22, 2007.

PRINT PAGE

E-MAIL PAGE

TEXT SIZE

I have always loved trains, and if light-rail transit worked, I would be the first to support it.

So it is with some dismay that I review the sorry record of transit in Canadian and U.S. cities that have built light-rail lines. For the most part, light rail has increased congestion, harmed transit riders, and wasted taxpayers' money.

Randal O'Toole is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and author of Great Rail Disasters: The Impact of Rail Transit on Urban Livability.

More by Randal O'Toole

Even so, there seems to be a consensus among politicians of all stripes in Ottawa that light rail is necessary, and the only debate left is how to implement it.
But let's look at what light rail can and cannot do.
1. Light rail can spend lots of tax dollars.
Rail construction is extremely costly, so it is a great way for politicians to reward favoured contractors. Siemens, the company that is suing Ottawa over the cancelled north-south light-rail line, is obviously more interested in getting lucrative contracts than in improving your transportation network. If you are a taxpayer, hold onto your wallet: between cost overruns, high maintenance costs, and endless proposals for new rail lines, your costs will never end.
2. Light rail cannot get a lot of people out of their cars.
Studies show that transit riders care more about frequencies and speeds than about whether the vehicle they ride has rubber tires or steel wheels. Light-rail lines may boost ridership because transit agencies run the trains more frequently and (because they stop fewer times per kilometre) faster than buses. But, as the U.S. General Accountability Office has shown, transit agencies can run bus services as fast and as frequent as any light-rail line at a fraction of the cost of light rail.
3. Light rail can inconvenience transit riders.
While rail may improve service in one corridor, it is so expensive that it leads transit agencies to neglect service in the rest of the region. Many U.S. cities that built light-rail lines have seen total transit ridership decline because rail costs forced transit agencies to raise fares and reduce bus services.
4. Light rail increases congestion.
Most light-rail lines operate on streets for at least part of their length, and transit planners time traffic signals to favour trains over automobiles. The delays that result greatly exceed the benefit of getting a handful of people out of their cars.
A new light-rail line in Minneapolis so disrupted traffic signals that people using a parallel highway found they were spending an added 20 minutes or more sitting in traffic. Internal documents revealed that the government knew this would happen, but the state says it can never be completely fixed because federal rules require that signals favour the light rail.
5. Light rail benefits downtown property owners at the expense of property owners elsewhere.
A study funded by the U.S. Federal Transit Administration found that "rail transit investments rarely 'create' new growth, but more typically redistribute growth that would have taken place without the investment." Such redistribution, the study found, was usually to downtowns from other parts of the city.
6. Light rail does not stimulate economic development.
Claims by some cities that rail transit stimulated new construction ignore the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies going to those new developments. Without the subsidies, rail lines generate little in the way of new development. In fact, street closures during construction and parking limits after light rail opens put many shops and restaurants out of business.
7. Light rail increases energy consumption and greenhouse gases.
Light rail uses less energy and generates less carbon dioxide, per passenger kilometre, than buses (though not necessarily less than autos). But light rail does not replace buses; instead, transit agencies typically reroute corridor buses to be feeder buses for the light-rail line.
Many people choose to drive to light-rail stations rather than wait for a bus and then transfer to a train, so feeder buses are much more lightly used than the previous corridor buses. When Salt Lake City opened its light-rail system, the average number of people riding its buses fell by nearly 50 per cent.
When taken as a whole, then, most transit systems with light rail use more energy and emit more greenhouse gases per passenger kilometre than they did when they operated only buses. Most also use more energy and emit more carbon dioxide, per passenger kilometre, than typical automobiles.
In the rare cases where light rail has reduced energy use, the energy cost of building it swamps any savings. If we want to save energy and reduce greenhouse gases, automotive improvements such as hybrid-electric cars can do far more at a far lower cost than even the best rail projects.
8. Light rail diverts tax dollars that could be used for truly productive transportation projects.
If you want to boost transit ridership, improve bus service. If you want to reduce congestion, improve highways -- particularly with toll roads, which both pay for themselves and can reduce congestion by varying the toll by time of day. If you want to punish people for driving cars, then take the money that could be used for buses or highways and spend it on light rail.
You can see who favours light-rail construction: Downtown property owners; rail contractors like Siemens; and people who hate automobiles.
If you are not in one of these groups -- if you are among the vast majority of Ottawa taxpayers who use automobiles for much of your travel -- then light rail will cost you far more than any benefits you will ever receive.
Also of interest The Best-Laid Plans: How Government Planning Harms Your Quality of Life, Your Pocketbook, and Your Future
Reveals how government attempts to do long-range, comprehensive planning inevitably do more harm than good.

By Richard Anderson "Route 223 change sucks!"

2008-03-07T10:50:00.000-07:00

Dear S.L. Tribune Et Al, I wrote UTA the following
response to their recent proposal to a Route 223
change.
"Your proposal sucks. I do not approve of this
proposal. One of the U. of U. professors pulled a
whine and cheese act and UTA immediately jumped up to
accommodate her.
UTA would not return "nightride" to the southeast
section of Sugarhouse UTA took away. So, why should
the 100 (plus) of us who used the "nightride" give
approval to this bunk.
UTA did not have a public meeting on this proposal.
UTA did not notify the public when UTA added the 7:09
p.m. 223 bus to the outbound schedule.
She, the U. of U. professor, is not going to get to
arrive at work five minutes earlier.
The Sugarhouse area did not get the return of
"nightride" so why should she get the proposed change
she wants? Richard"
I wrote this response for the following reasons. I
did not send these reasons to UTA.
#1 The routes were cut last October because the UTA
managers wanted their bonuses. I was informed by
"insider information" that the managers had received
their bonuses when they made the route cuts. I was
also informed by the "insider" that UTA planned to cut
driver jobs. This is a violation of the contract UTA
and ATU(Amalgamated Transit Union) agreed to recently.
These managers make more money and bonuses then most
other transit managers. What a shame!
#2 UTA lied about the ridership increase. UTA "cooked"
the figures they claimed they had counted during their
recent UTA TRAX survey.
#3 I agreed with The Deseret(Morning) News article of
January 2007 and a BYU economics professors assessment
that the ridership would not increase or get people to
leave their cars and ride public transit.(verbatim
quotes) The Deseret News article stated that using
public tax money would also not get people out of
their cars. The TRAX spurs were a waste of taxpayer
money.
#4 My, and other riders, time has increased. Every
rider I have a chance to talk to complains about this
sometimes vociferously. The riders also complain about
the numerous transfers they must make.
Instead of taking 40 minutes to get to the downtown
area it now takes me 60 to 90 minutes. If I decide to
ride mid-day it takes longer. IF, I say, IF I am lucky
and the bus/Trax is on time it takes me 66 minutes.
Every day I catch the 6:18 a.m. 223 Route(20th E. 27th
S.). If it is on time I get to the Stadium Trax
Station at 7:10 a.m. There is a 4 minute wait for trax
then another 10 minutes to ride downtown. So where is
my time decrease/speedier arrival as promised by UTA.
#5 UTA has threatened Davis County with cuts in
service for not allocating Davis County public tax
monies to UTA.
#6 The situation that pissed me off the most was
hearing from several of my insiders that this U. of U.
professor continues to pull her "whine with her cheese
act" and complain about one specific driver. This
driver does his/her best at the job. The driver read
several complaints that stated the driver was ten
minutes late on several occasions. This driver told me
that the supervisor checked the UTA GPS and found one
time the driver was late 1.5 seconds.
#7 I am not able to attend downtown nightlife
functions because UTA took away the Sugarhouse area
"nightride."
I have read several "Letters to the Editor"
lately critical of UTA. I agree with the complaints.
UTA had several meetings with Transit Riders Union
membes in my apartment area. All 4 UTA reps came in,
blew smoke in our collective ears,and did nothing.
So, my question to all of you is this,
Why is one U. of U. professor," with a whine with her
cheese act" getting what she wants and those of us who
use bus/trax because we need to get diddly squat?
Richard Anderson SLC UTAH 801-363-5631

Peace,Love,and Gods`Light for all Gods` Children TLNXTTM

COMMUNITY GROUPS ASK UTA BOARD TO RESPOND TO ISSUES

2008-01-31T14:51:00.000-07:00

RAISED IN LEGISLATIVE AUDIT

On Wednesday, January 30, representatives from five community organizations asked the Utah Transit Authority Board of Trustees to investigate issues uncovered in a legislative audit that was released on Friday in the following letter. This audit raises several serious questions about the management of UTA and the compensation paid to top UTA employees. The audit also suggests that legislators consider altering the way that UTA is governed so that UTA is more accountable to the public. The signers of the letter are asking the Board of Trustees to take action on these concerns to prove that the Board members are capable of fulfilling their responsibilities as caretakers of hundreds of millions of dollars in public money.

January 30, 2008

Board of Trustees

Utah Transit Authority

3600 South 700 West

Salt Lake City, UT 84119

re: legislative audit

Dear Members of the Utah Transit Authority Board of Trustees:

On Friday, January 25, the Office of the Legislative Auditor General released an audit of the Utah Transit Authority that raises serious issues that need to be addressed by the Board of Trustees. Low income people rely on public transportation to be able to get to work and other appointments. It is essential that money taxpayers have set aside for public transportation is used wisely. Therefore we would like to ask you to do the following:

1) Investigate whether performance bonuses were awarded to staff improperly: The audit highlights serious flaws with the methods UTA has used to count passengers in recent years and asserts that TRAX ridership may have been overestimated by twenty percent. The audit also highlights the fact that increased ridership was a significant factor in determining whether top level UTA employees would receive large performance bonuses. If ridership truly did not go up in recent years there is a very real possibility staff members were awarded tens of thousands of dollars in bonuses inappropriately. As trustees for the public's money, you have a responsibility to investigate that possibility and establish procedures to prevent inappropriate awards to staff in the future.

2) Investigate allegations the public relations department has misled the public: The audit asserts that on several occasions UTA's public relations staff released statements that were inaccurate. It is imperative that an agency that receives hundreds of millions of dollars in tax money every year provides honest information to the public. If staff have consistently misled the public in the past then the Board of Trustees has a responsibility to put procedures in place to ensure truthful communication in the future.

3) Develop a serious plan for increasing bus ridership: The audit is full of several statistics about the negative impact declining bus ridership has on UTA's revenue and the quality of the air we all breathe. The audit also shows that bus riders pay 50 percent more for each ride than do TRAX riders and so increasing bus ridership is the fastest way to increase UTA's fare box revenue. UTA's staff has complacently watched bus ridership decline during the past decade and so the Board of Trustees needs to take a leading role in developing plans for increasing bus ridership. Community organizations would be very happy to help develop and promote such a plan.

The audit is lengthy and contains numerous concerns that are not mentioned in this letter. We would strongly encourage you to read the entire document. Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. We look forward to work with you in the coming year to ensure that our public transportation system works better for the people of the different communities served by the Utah Transit Authority.

Sincerely,

Glenn Bailey, Executive Director

Crossroads Urban Center

Jerry Costley, Executive Director

Disabled Rights Action Committee

Laine Gardinier, Board Co-Chair

Anti-Hunger Action Committee

Linda Hilton, Director

Coalition of Religious Communities

Linda Parsons, Executive Director

Utah Jobs With Justice

One of the Road Blocks to Transportation Freedom

2007-12-27T12:03:00.001-07:00

We all know that the biggest block to Transportation Freedom for many disabled and Transit Dependent people is UTA's canceled routes and the rise in bus fares but here is one of the difficulties that people at Preston Place face every time they need to get to the recently relocated Bus stop. The bus stop used to be right in front of their building but was changed to further down the street. You can see a video on Google (Here). With the snowfall this winter the problem gets worse. Here's some pics of the big snow pile which forces the residents of Preston Place to walk into the street.

Route Change Jumble

2007-12-26T11:08:00.000-07:00

This picture was taken by our friend Jason which shows the confusion that occured when UTA first instituted its route changes. Its hard to believe people had a easy time deciphering what bus changed to what.....

MEETING @ PRESTON PLACE

2007-12-21T13:48:00.001-07:00

REMINDER!!

The next meeting with UTA will be TODAY Friday December 21 at 6:00pm-8:00pm at Preston Place (2673 S. Preston St).

The Demands are:

Restore Bus Stop to Original Location on 2200 East.
Restore Night Ride
Get a date for the restorations

Be ready to discuss further actions. Bring your ideas!!

Revenue drop could cut northbound UTA service

2007-12-21T13:44:00.000-07:00

Davis, Weber asked to replace $3.8M lost in tax change
By Lynn Arave
Deseret Morning News

Published: Sunday, Dec. 16, 2007 12:09 a.m. MST

OGDEN — Weber and Davis county commissions have decided to wrestle until Jan. 31 with how to deal with the projected loss of $3.8 million in sales tax revenues to the Utah Transit Authority for transit services in the two counties.

UTA has an anticipated deficit because the two counties have yet to pass an 0.05 percent sales tax increase to compensate for revenue lost from a reduction in the sales tax on food. All the other counties with which UTA is involved have approved a sales tax change effective Jan. 1.

The first full-scale meeting on the issue with UTA and the Davis/Weber commissions was held Tuesday afternoon for two hours in the Weber Commission Chambers.

The $3.8 million represents about 27 percent of UTA's total revenue from the two counties and could, if not at least partially funded, equal the largest-ever cutbacks in UTA history.

The difficulty is what cuts to make, or how to come up with the money. Many residents, especially in Davis County, feel recent property tax increases have already hit them hard.

"It couldn't be worse," Davis Commissioner Louenda H. Downs said of the timing of the UTA shortfall.

Fellow Commissioner Alan Hansen agreed. "The public perception is this is another tax increase."

But UTA doesn't see it that way.

"In our view, this is not an increase," said UTA's general manager, John Inglish. He reasons that if county residents receive a $52-a-year average savings with the absence of sales tax on food next year, and UTA seeks only to get $7 a year back, that's a a net tax decrease of $45 for residents.

"We're trying to protect taxpayer dollars," said Jan M. Zogmaister, Weber County commissioner. "We want to have (public) transit remain healthy and strong ... We only want to tax the people as needed."

Commissioners want UTA to provide them with a breakdown on ridership and continue to study the issue. They seem to favor a combination of cutbacks and fare increases over any sort of tax increase.

Inglish said he will cut services and/or raise fares, if that's what the commissions end up wanting.

"This is a critical time, with FrontRunner (commuter rail) coming," Zogmaister said. "We're not through meeting."

UTA officials said that each county gets what it pays for and so cutbacks or fare increases would be needed in the two counties if nothing changes by early next year.

If the option is for a transit rider fare increase only to satisfy the $3.8 million deficit, a $4 increase on top of the existing fare of $1.60 would be needed, UTA officials said.

With no fare increase and just service cutbacks, examples of what might be cut include:

• Saturday FrontRunner service could be eliminated, as well as weekend evening runs after 7 p.m.

• Express bus service (routes 472/473), with about 57 one-way trips between Salt Lake and Ogden each day, could be eliminated.

• All other local bus service in the two counties could be reduced by 5 percent. That, for example, would cut out four or more trips a day off route 470, which makes about 86 trips each weekday between Salt Lake and Ogden.

• Another $300,000 in paratransit cuts could also be required.

County commissioners are not happy about the delay in hearing about this issue.

UTA knew about the coming shortfall from the two counties last February, but county commissioners weren't informed of it until September. Both sides spoke of working toward better communication in the future.

One other downside to the $3.8 million revenue loss is its possible detriment to UTA's bonding ability. A worse bond rate could mean fewer future UTA projects and more expensive ones.

What could change

Davis and Weber counties currently face cuts of at least $800,000 in transit service next year. But the two counties could have to swallow as much as $3.8 million in cuts if they fail to pass a tax increase before the third quarter of this fiscal year to compensate for a reduction in the sales tax on food. Potential cuts could include:

$2 million. Reduced commuter rail service eliminating Saturday service and also on weekdays after 7 p.m.

$1.5 million. Fewer express bus and local routes.

$300,000. Cutbacks to paratransit service.

Source: UTA

E-mail: lynn@desnews.com

UTA Bus-Route Changes will Start on Sunday

2007-12-21T13:42:00.000-07:00

The Utah Transit Authority is making big changes this Sunday to its Salt Lake County bus system, with the aim of boosting declining ridership and making the system more convenient.

Bus riders, however, aren't sold on the idea. Some worry the changes will force people to walk longer distances to bus stops and require more transfers from bus to bus, or bus to TRAX. Those changes will create particular hardships for the elderly and disabled, the critics say.

Express bus riders say they were promised more routes but UTA reneged. Other riders believe UTA is trying to woo money from the "rich in Sandy" at the expense of low-income riders who need the bus to get to hospitals, the grocery store or church.

"This is more of an economic thing for (UTA) and for their business," said Laura Anderson, president of the residents' association at Holladay's Preston Place apartment complex. "It's not about the needs of the people."

UTA officials said they are aware of concerns, but they believe riders will adjust to the changes and support them. The agency did similar redesigns in parts of Davis County, Utah and Weber counties, and ridership went up, said Justin Jones, head of the UTA bus system redesign project. The Utah County redesign was done in 2000, the Weber and Davis ones followed in 2002.

"In the end, we feel strongly this bus system will provide more service to more people," Jones said. "There are some who will be impacted, and we recognize that.

"We hope they can make it to walk an extra block."

UTA first unveiled its redesign plan to the public last February. The agency held several weeks of public hearings and gathered just under 3,000 comments from residents. Nearly 65 percent of the comments opposed the changes, while 35 percent expressed support.

In May, UTA revised the plan and restored several routes that had been proposed for elimination. Fifty-five of the 80 routes the agency had originally proposed were changed under the revision. The redesign that riders will see on Sunday will include more routes that run every 15 minutes, a few more Express buses, and a shifting of the entire system out of neighborhoods and onto busier roads.

By shifting the bus off smaller streets, UTA believes it will save time for riders. Now, instead of having multiple stops in a neighborhood with only a few people getting on at each stop, they can all meet at one location, Jones said.

Steve Sokol, who rides a UTA Express bus from Herriman to Salt Lake City for work, said he believes UTA is making false claims about frequency and better service. The agency first promised he would have more routes on his bus line but then eliminated those extra buses, he said.

"They're advertising it as a big change, but when it comes to our line, they proposed changes and didn't actually make any," he said. "It just seems funny that they're making a big push about improving this, and nothing really changed."

UTA said it needed to take the extra routes on the Express line to help fund routes cut in Salt Lake City. As for the success of the redesign, Jones said his agency will watch to see if ridership increases and then use that to judge the success.

"If people choose to ride it, then we know it's a success," he said. UTA volunteers to help

This Sunday, the Utah Transit Authority is implementing a redesign of its entire Salt Lake County bus system. On Monday, dozens of UTA volunteers will be at bus and TRAX locations throughout the county to answer questions and distribute route maps and new bus schedules.

Nicole Warburton, Deseret Morning News

Vote on TRAX route to airport is delayed

2007-12-21T13:38:00.000-07:00

By Jared Page
Deseret Morning News

Published: December 12, 2007

West-side residents once again made it clear: They don't want light rail running along 600 West.

More than a dozen west-siders spoke during a public hearing Tuesday night, restating to members of the Salt Lake City Council their opposition to an alignment proposed by the Utah Transit Authority that would run the airport TRAX line along 600 West instead of 400 West.

"We are very passionately in favor of the airport TRAX line on 400 West," said Tiffany Sandberg, one of about 40 residents at the meeting who wore homemade badges calling for a "yes" vote on the resolution to set the alignment.

The council had been scheduled to vote on the resolution following a briefing on the project from UTA and the public hearing. Both the briefing and vote were put off, however, "due to the need for additional information and time for more extensive review," according to a council statement.

That puts the decision about the airport line alignment in the hands of a council that will have two new members — Luke Garrott (District 4) and JT Martin (District 6) — when it next meets on Jan. 7.

The location of the intermodal hub and business developments in the area prompted UTA earlier this year to begin studying whether to move a segment of the airport TRAX line from 400 West to 600 West.

The 600 West alignment made sense to UTA officials because it would create a direct connection with the intermodal hub, cost about $12.5 million less and have less negative impact on traffic, said spokeswoman Carrie Bohnsack-Ware.

West-siders have been opposed to the idea, largely because the 600 West alignment would necessitate a new viaduct over the Union Pacific and commuter-rail lines that run near South Temple. They argue that the alignment would hurt views from their homes, increase traffic and crime, and contribute to perceptions that physical and sociological barriers exist between Salt Lake City's west and east sides.

Residents would like to see the North Temple viaduct completely rebuilt to allow the TRAX line to run down the middle of the bridge.

Members of the City Council have said they see the merits of rebuilding the viaduct, but they're concerned about the $40 million it would add to the price tag.

The existing North Temple is still in good enough condition that it would not qualify for federal funding assistance, Councilman Carlton Christensen said.

Mickelle Weber was one of the few residents who spoke in favor of the 600 West alignment, saying it would benefit the entire state, not just one community, by creating a direct route between the downtown intermodal hub and the airport.

In other City Council business Tuesday:

• Old wounds were reopened as the council approved a request by Rowland Hall-St. Mark's School for an extension to meet the conditions of council action that allowed the private school to move forward with plans to purchase land from Mount Olivet Cemetery.

Council members voted by the same 5-2 count, with Nancy Saxton and Soren Simonsen in opposition, as they did in April 2006 to change zoning on 13 acres of cemetery land.

The council's action 18 months ago removed one hurdle the financially strapped cemetery faced in trying to sell the land to Rowland Hall-St. Mark's. That approval required that certain conditions be met within two years. At the request of Rowland Hall-St. Mark's and Mount Olivet officials, the deadline was pushed back until Dec. 31, 2010.

When Congress created Mount Olivet, it included a provision in the land contracts that the property would revert back to the federal government if it were ever used for anything other than a cemetery. The school and cemetery have not yet received congressional approval to complete the land deal.

Thirteen people spoke at a public hearing on the extension, with nine of them urging the council to deny the extension.

Robert Steiner, a member of the school's board of trustees, said the school has been working diligently toward getting that approval and that it's likely to come before the extended deadline.

The school plans to use the 13 acres for a future expansion that would bring its middle- and upper-school campuses to contiguous sites.

• By a 5-2 vote, the council amended its budget for the upcoming fiscal year to include a little more than $200,000 for six new full-time employees in the city prosecutor's office and another $15,000 for attorney salary increases for the Salt Lake Legal Defender Association.

The additional funds will allow the prosecutor's office to hire two new attorneys, one paralegal and three office clerks to help deal with a heavy workload.

The Salt Lake Legal Defender Association will increase base salaries for attorneys from $45,000-$47,0000 annually to $51,000, making them comparable with salaries offered by the city prosecutor's office.

Outgoing council members Saxton and Dave Buhler voted against the budget amendment.

E-mail: jpage@desnews.com

Utah's air: Expert says breathing pollution is like smoking five cigarettes a day

2007-12-21T13:09:00.000-07:00

By Judy Fahys
The Salt Lake Tribune

Article Last Updated: 12/10/2007 06:27:08 AM MST

Cold weather was the biggest adjustment Vicki Evans expected when she and her husband moved to the Salt Lake Valley a few years ago. But it turned out that the breath-grabbing, throat-stinging pollution ended up being far tougher.

"I told my husband," she recalls, after their first bout with wintertime pollution, " 'You have got to get me out of here.' "

Evans found herself on Sunday drawn to a discussion at the Salt Lake City Main Library, "Utah's Air Pollution: Should You Give Up and Move Out of State?"

In short, said the talk's presenter, Brian Moench of Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, the answer for some might sadly be "yes."

Breathing Utah's pollution has the same health impact as smoking five cigarettes a day. It causes about 2,000 premature deaths on the Wasatch Front each year, he told the three dozen people assembled for the talk, one of the twice-monthly programs featured by the nonpartisan, nonprofit Forum for Questioning Minds.

The Salt Lake City anesthesiologist began his presentation with vintage-1940s photos of a Salt Lake Valley hidden under a black cloud of pollution from coal furnaces that many used to heat their homes. And, although government measures show that sort of winter pollution and summertime ozone have declined in the past three decades of environmental controls, more than 2,000 studies in the past decade reveal that the impacts of pollution are much worse than were previously understood, he noted.

He showed a photo of a boy trying to light up a cigarette to remind the group that all Utahns who breathe the polluted air are, in effect, being forced to smoke.

Ordinary Utahns can help clean up the air by acknowledging the problem, changing their own lifestyles and promoting a healthy environment, Moench said. He underscored that they need to "change our political leaders" by letting them know what a high priority it is to deal with air pollution.

"That's the most important part of this whole picture," he said, adding the issue cuts across political and economic boundaries.

The added health care costs are a drain on the economy, Moench said.

The state quickly mobilized this summer when nine people were killed in Emery County's Crandall Canyon.

With thousands of lives at stake on the Wasatch Front, air pollution ought to trigger an equally decisive reaction.

"What," he wondered aloud, "is the morality of knowing thousands of people will die because you won't clean up the air?"

Moench's air-pollution tutorial comes just as Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. prepares to announce his budget priorities for the coming year, a plan that is rumored to include stepped-up attention to cleaning up Utah's air.

It also comes the month before Utah's 75 lawmakers gather to make new laws, set new policies and decide how to spend billions of dollars in government funds.

Two months ago, a legislative committee panned a task force recommendation for raising an additional $3 million a year to step up air monitoring. And, in the 2007 Legislature, lawmakers kept spending on environmental programs flat while infusing most other state programs with some of the $1.6 billion budget surplus.

Moench organized the doctors' anti-pollution group partly in reaction to the Legislature and partly in reaction to the growing number of studies linking air pollution to dangerous health effects. Since then, a new clean-air coalition of 19 groups, representing thousands of Utahns, has formed and promises to keep the issue on the political agenda.

He said it is "a profoundly sad thing to say" that some Utahns may find the cost of living with the pollution too high. Some of them probably ought to relocate because of the hazards ozone and fine particles present to the health of their families and themselves, he told Salt Lake City resident Ruth Carol.

Evans and her husband have tentatively decided to stick around the Salt Lake Valley after they retire despite the pollution.

"Now," she said, "I feel like I'm going to stay around and try to do something about it."

fahys@sltrib.com

UTA leaves riders in the cold

2007-12-20T12:17:00.000-07:00

An example of how the new UTA route changes have negatively affects transit riders. Go to the link to watch the Video.

UTA leaves Riders in the Cold

Meeting at Preston Place

2007-12-20T11:56:00.000-07:00

The next meeting with UTA will be on Friday December 21 at 6:00pm-8:00pm at Preston Place (2673 S. Preston St).

The Demands are:

Restore Bus Stop to Original Location on 2200 East.
Restore Night Ride
Get a date for the restorations