Godfrey reverses course; opts for a full combo of streetcar alternatives analysis and EIR studies
By Dan Schroeder
The work session was held in the city council chambers (not the conference room), due to the large number of spectators. Those in attendance included the usual city council and administration staff, representatives from
UTA and
Wasatch Front Regional Council, reporters from the
Standard-Examiner and
Tribune, and over a dozen other interested citizens.
Council Executive Director Bill Cook began the session with a historical summary of how the council got to this point. Cook touched on the 2005 feasibility study (which recommended a streetcar between downtown,
WSU, and
McKay-Dee Hospital), the $200,000 allocation for further studies in the current fiscal year's budget (which the mayor has said he wants reallocated to other projects), the transit discussions held at earlier work sessions, and the mayor's recent
"revelation" to the
Standard-Examiner that he is now willing to support a further study of the streetcar.
Cook clarified the difference between a
"feasibility study", which has already been performed for the transit corridor between downtown,
WSU, and
McKay-Dee, and an
"alternatives analysis", which would be a more detailed study with considerable public involvement. An alternatives analysis is a necessary step toward getting federal funding for a transit project. The cost of the alternatives analysis would be at least $200,000, but
UTA would probably pay half of this and
WSU and
McKay-Dee are both willing to contribute as well.
Near the end of Cook's presentation, both he and Mick Crandall of
UTA emphasized that the longer
Ogden waits to get started on an alternatives analysis, the harder it will be to obtain funding both for the study and for the project itself.
Next, Greg Montgomery summarized the Planning Commission's recent discussion of transit corridors. For historical perspective he showed a map of
Ogden's old trolley lines, and told how the rise of automobiles and suburbs led to the decline of mass transit in the
U.S. Even so, transit is still heavily used in many other parts of the world. He listed three reasons why many people want to increase use of mass transit: to relieve congestion on roads, to improve air quality, and to serve people who do not drive, such as the poor and the handicapped. [Montgomery did not mention several other good reasons, such as promoting economic development of urban neighborhoods.]
Finally, Montgomery described the Planning Commission's recommended transit corridors, in order of priority: (1) downtown to
WSU, continuing south on Harrison to the junction with US 89; (2) a loop around downtown; and (3) a north-south route from North Ogden to South Ogden, ending at Ogden Regional Hospital. Council member Gochnour then asked Greg Scott of
Wasatch Front Regional Council whether extending the
WSU line south to US 89 would weaken its overall feasibility and eligibility for federal funding. Scott replied that yes, the southern extension of this line would attract fewer riders and therefore it would lessen the overall benefit/cost ratio.
Cook then passed out the results of what must have been an informal poll of council members, asking them to rank 13 possible transit routes (including several different routes between downtown and
WSU, as well as corridors connecting downtown to other destinations). The highest-ranked route was the same as recommended by the 2005 feasibility study: downtown to
McKay-Dee Hospital via 23rd, Washington, 26th, and Harrison.
Mayor Godfrey then began to speak, and the rest of the transit discussion centered on his proposal. In short, he stated that he now favors moving forward with an alternatives analysis of the corridor from downtown to
McKay-Dee Hospital. Furthermore, he would like to combine this process with the full environmental impact study, to speed up the eventual application for federal matching funds--if the cost ends up being affordable. [This statement on Godfrey's part was a striking departure from the position he has held for the last 3 years, until as recently as the
WACOG meeting only 10 days ago.] Near the end of the discussion, Council Chair Wicks remarked that she could now go home and die of shock. She was undoubtedly speaking for many others in the room as well.
Godfrey did add a few of his own twists to what he proposes to study. First, he would like to add a downtown loop route to the proposal. [There was very little discussion of this route and it isn't clear how such a route could be part of the same transit corridor. However, these details can presumably be worked out later.] Second, Godfrey stated that he strongly favors an alignment that would go south on Washington to 30th or 36th Street before heading east up to Harrison. He repeated his earlier position that the portion of Harrison between 26th and 30th (or even 36th) is not wide enough for a dedicated streetcar right-of-way, and added that an alignment on Washington would encourage more commercial development in places where it is wanted. However, he was clearly willing to include the 26th Street option in the study, to see how it fares compared to the more southerly alignments. Third, Godfrey vaguely alluded to newer streetcar technologies (probably battery-operated) that might, in his opinion, save money.
Godfrey remains strongly opposed to the bus-rapid-transit (
BRT) option; he went so far as to say that if BRT becomes the preferred mode then the citizens would "come at us with pitchforks". However, he didn't explicitly object to keeping a
BRT option in the study.
In the course of his presentation, Godfrey made a number of minor claims that were inconsistent with this writer's understanding of the facts. Among these claims were: that a streetcar has a maximum speed of only 25 mph; that there are no plans for higher-density development along Harrison; that the 2005 feasibility study took only a
"cursory" look at alternative alignments such as the ones he is now proposing; and that officials at
UDOT and
WFRC have corroborated a number of his statements about feasibility.
Godfrey clearly stated that he is unsure whether projected cost of the streetcar will be less than the maximum that we can afford, which he put at $80-100 million. He said that if the cost turns out to be too high, then we will have to
"face the reality and talk about the other transit options," putting
"everything on the table." But he seems content to postpone any discussion of these
"other transit options" for the time being.
There was no specific discussion of what source of funds
Ogden would use to cover its share of the cost of the alternatives analysis and environmental impact statement. Crandall of
UTA estimated the cost of the full study at approximately $500,000, and made it clear that
UTA will cover approximately half of the cost, but said that not all the money would necessarily become available in the current fiscal year.
Once Godfrey had explained his current position on moving forward with the alternatives analysis and
EIS, and answered a few questions from the council members, the council took a recess before moving on to other agenda items. At that point most of the audience (including this writer) departed.
Editor's addendum: The
Salt Lake Tribune's Kristen Moulton
provides her own write-up here. The
Standard-Examiner's Scott Schwebke version
is available here.