Click this link to optimize Open UTA for screen readers Skip to Content
Open UTA

Subscribe to Registered Statements From Forum Participants

Info Hide

Get registered statements in your RSS reader or emailed to you as a daily digest.

A statement is registered if it is claimed, verified and civil:

  1. It is claimed if its author has claimed the statement by signing in before or shortly after submitting the statement.
  2. It is verified if it is claimed and its author has provided their street address in their registration and verified their email address by clicking the verification link emailed by Community Feedback.
  3. It is civil if it is verified and it meets the guidelines for civility.

If any of these conditions are not met, then the statement is unregistered.

You can subscribe to unregistered statements here.

(You may be asked to solve a simple puzzle that is easy for humans but difficult for computers)

Statements are emailed at most once per day (in the morning).


Manage your subscription in your RSS feed reader

Check out some recent Registered Statements from forum participants

Name not available inside Cottonwood Heights December 11, 2020, 2:53 PM

Name Grant Amann
Zip code 84171
Do you currently use, or have you in the past used, UTA public transit services? Yes
Provide your feedback on the 2021 Tentative Budget in the space below. I am a professional planner in the UT. We Desperately NEED to increase RIDERSHIP ON WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY.

Please spend more money on busses and even less on rail. Please spend that money on SALT LAKE / WEST VALLEY and not on Ogden. Rail is awesome in NYC, but it makes less sense in Utah. I was disheartened to hear about the FrontRunner double-track news, because although I cannot complain about how cool that would be, I earnestly believe the money is better off spent on buses, and I know because I have done extensive research on UT and other similar state's transit networks.
This current budget is a great step in the right direction, but please do not ignore this plea. We could have an incredible bus network that people loved using, at a fraction of the cost of rail, if we were not as distracted by rail or building expensive new BRT lines in places where everyone already owns a car. PLEASE FOCUS ON INCREASING RIDERSHIP ON WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY DESPITE COVID IN 2021. Have you seen our air quality lately? With population increases (that are happening in West Valley primarily), the air will only get worse.

This section will cover some proposed recommendations to address each of the issues
mentioned in the former section (which I have listed below, for ease of access). These suggestions include both temporary and long-term solutions, and because sprawl is such an expansive issue, some recommendations might only be
on a small, town or city-wide scale, while others will be on a national or global scale. The first
three solutions need to happen on a city-wide scale.

Solution 1: Prioritize Density
City planning commissions and elected officials need to prioritize density at every level
of government. There are many techniques that governments can do to prioritize density, and
solutions might be different depending on the size and location of a city. However, general
solutions such as eliminating parking minimums, having flexible zoning definitions, and
encouraging multi/mixed use developments can go a long way. Other solutions include
determining city centers and eliminating height restrictions and minimizing street width in those
city centers. As mentioned previously, it is advantageous for cities to have multiple city centers.

Solution 2: Bus innovation
New bus related technology has eliminated some of the huge barriers of inconvenience
that have historically existed on buses. One of the largest barriers is that trains are often electric,
which is much cheaper than buses. However, electric buses are a reality. Los Angeles’ NextGen
Bus Study will pioneer electric buses for the United States. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) makes bus
riding faster and more convenient. Lots of new policies are considering making buses free.

Other new future improvements of buses include: low to ground entry, separate bus only lanes,
bus bulbs (a separate waiting space for people to wait for the bus, often a raised platform in the
street), wireless communication with traffic lights to ensure buses get right-of-way, and better
safety and security. Another improvement to buses that should not be ignored is physical outside
appearance to look more like trains or trolleys so that riding a bus is an experience.
While cars are updated every year to include the latest features, oftentimes buses feel the same as
they always have. Many of these features are standardized in Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems,
with an especially important feature of being able to pay with your smartphone device. Finally,
it is important for public transportation systems to be creative in how they generate income. For
example, by placing better advertisements in buses, or at stops, or by having special
transportation deals. All of these bus innovations can help people get excited about riding public

There is also discussion about making separate buses for people who are willing to spend
more money on their ride if it is nicer. These buses would offer cleaner, protected, less dense
rides with amenities such as food, WIFI, and sleeping pods. More expensive buses would
subsidize cheaper ones. The fact is that planes have first class. Trains have a first class. Buses
have lacked a first-class equivalent, but it would be easy enough to create a fleet of buses that are
more expensive.

Solution 3: Congestion Pricing
Raising taxes for car ownership and streamlining that money directly back into public
transportation networks is one of the best ways to mitigate negative externalities created by
private vehicle transportation. Congestion pricing is a method that considers the times during the
day and week that certain streets and freeways are most heavily used, and then charging people
to use those roads during peak hours. Congestion pricing has the two-fold benefit of getting
people out of their cars and onto public transportation networks and generating revenue for those
exact networks.

Solution 5: Safety and Cleanliness
Safety and cleanliness are often difficult goals for a transportation system to reach if they
are not generating money. However, these two goals should be prioritized because the reality is
that people will be unlikely to ride buses if they are not clean. Simple things, like providing
trash receptacles on the bus, can go a long way. Other solutions include covering frequently
touched surfaces with removable plastic and providing dedicated people in each bus or at regular
stops who are dedicated to safety and cleaning.

Solution 6: Culture
Finally, American “car culture” does detract from public transportation usage. Major
transportation networks in cities with media creators should consider offering filming
opportunities to encourage the usage of public transportation in everything from short online
videos to professional films. Cars are sometimes tied to the identity of being “American” with
movies about cars, and single-family homes having garages that are bigger than bedrooms,
giving more priority to cars then the residents. Car ownership and usage is also subsidized by
the government. That means the overall social costs associated with driving are being ignored.
The point of this research report is not to discourage rail usage. The point of this research report
is to promote the necessity of a cultural shift that needs to happen in the United States. We need
to stop subsidizing cars and start promoting public transit.

Overall, it is possible for cities to control growth and establish dense, walkable
cities. These cities will help diminish negative externalities that come from private vehicle
usage. The most effective way for most cities on the American continent to establish
transportation networks is by incorporating and focusing primarily on bus transportation. By
prioritizing buses over rail and car transportation, in most circumstances, US city governments
will be able to focus on building a public transportation network that generates enough revenue
to hit a farebox recovery ratio of 1:1. These networks will be safer and better for the
environment, and even better for the overall economy of each city, and the country as a whole.


One of a city’s greatest challenges is moving its population from destination to
destination within and outside of the city. Connecting people to their places of work and places
of commerce is a difficult task, and because it is so difficult to solve, many cities forego planning
effective systems because growth is fast and uncontrolled. Instead of being able to plan effective
transportation networks, cities run them at a loss, subsidizing them with taxpayer money. There
are few bus and rail networks in the United States which generate more money than they cost to
run (Stromberg, 2015).

Not only do current systems of transportation cost cities and individuals
a lot of money, but they also generate a lot of negative externalities, such as air pollution and
human injuries and deaths, which are extremely costly to society with the burden being shared by
society as a whole. However, with accurate planning, established priorities, and the use of
modern technology, cities are able to effectively provide equal and equitable transportation
access to every individual, while also generating income for the system itself to be improved.
Since widespread ownership of private automobiles, American city planners have
focused on building cities and towns for people to get around in with their cars. This became the
standard and oftentimes other modes of transportation were neglected because of the emphasis
on private vehicle ownership. Nowadays, however, the negative externalities that private
automobile ownership causes are well documented. Public transportation systems have never
been more important but building infrastructure for public transportation is costly and time

In many circumstances, rail transportation networks are the most cost effective and best
options for public transportation in cities around the world. However, there are environments
where rail transit has limited effectiveness. Rail transportation is most cost effective over long
distances, with a high density of people, and for freight and goods. In places where these
circumstances don’t exist, rail transportation is ineffective at getting people out of their cars, it is
inflexible, can cause sprawl, and is difficult to update. Many low-density cities’ rail farebox
recovery ratio is extremely low, and rail infrastructure isn’t helping decline automobile usage,
and the negative externalities that personal automobiles bring. In these circumstances, it seems
buses are more flexible, don’t cause sprawl, and are easier to update. According to the study,
buses are better poised to fix American issues of low public transit ridership and high single
occupancy vehicle usage than systems of light rail. Cities of low density, like most non-coastal
cities of the American continent and other developing countries, should strongly consider bus
transportation for most public transportation needs, and should only implement rail
transportation for freight and goods, in population corridors of high density, or over long 100+
mile distances.

II. Measures of Successful Public Transportation
There are two main measures of effective transportation systems: ridership and revenue
generation. It can be argued that either one of these issues is the cause of the other issue. For
example, if more people rode public transit, revenue would increase. If revenue generated better
amenities, such as technology and security, buses or trains could be constantly improving, which
would also increase ridership.

1) Revenue Generation
In many cases, transit networks cost cities more money than they generate. This is
proven by looking at the farebox recovery ratio. This is often ignored, because the value of
moving people to their jobs, jobs which give people money to spend in local economies and on
taxes, is not readily quantifiable and is likely worth more than the money lost to supporting a bus
or rail system.
Farebox Recovery Ratio
One metric used to determine the cost effectiveness of a transportation network is called
the “farebox recovery ratio.” It is the “fraction of operating expenses which are met by the fares
paid by passengers. It is computed by dividing the system's total fare revenue by its total
operating expenses” (Rodrigue CITE). Very few global rail transportation networks have a
farebox recovery ratio at or above 1:1, as seen in the chart below, and in most cases, the network
is costing the government a lot more than it is generating. For most American transit networks,
the ratio is shockingly low, and costs a lot more than the system is generating.

Continent Country System Ratio Fare System
Asia Japan Osaka Municipal Transportation Bureau 137% Distance Based
Europe UK London Underground 134% Zone Based
Asia Hong Kong MTR Hong Kong 124% Distance Based
Asia Japan Hankyu Railway 123% Distance Based
Asia Japan Tokyo Metro 119% Distance Based
Asia Singapore SMRT Corporation 101% Distance Based
Asia Taiwan Taipei Rapid Transit System 100% Distance Based
Europe Netherlands Rotterdamse Elektrische Tram 99% Distance Based
Source: Jean-Paul Rodrigue, The Geography of Transport Systems

2) Ridership
Ridership is the amount of people utilizing public transportation. American ridership and
farebox recovery ratios are extremely low compared to international levels. Cars are king in the
United States, and when public transportation networks are built, they usually are run at a loss to
the city and have to be subsidized because they do not generate enough revenue on their own
from ridership to be self-sustaining. Lack of ridership is a very important issue because if rail
systems are built, but no one uses them, they will take up space and go unused. Los Angeles is
dealing with this issue currently because more and more money is being spent on public
transportation, including new rail lines, with ridership decreasing every year (LA Metro, 2019),
which may necessitate future removal if ridership rates do not improve.

III. Environments Where Rail is Most Effective
Rail transit is undeniably more attractive than bus transportation. Rail transit is sexier,
sleeker, and something about it is just fun. Movies such as Harry Potter and Some Like It Hot
have romanticized the form of transportation, whereas bus transportation is associated with
negative experiences, everything from going to grade school to racist acts against Rosa Parks.
There are three environments where rail transit is extremely effective in town transportation
infrastructure. They are: over long distances, in corridors of mass human population, and when
transporting freight and goods.

1) Mass Human Population
Initially, rail is difficult and expensive to build due to infrastructure costs (rail
infrastructure must have its own dedicated land use, where buses can use the same roads as
cars). However, with more and more people, this cost is better offset. Because rail transit can
have multiple cars, it can move more people at the same time than buses can. Buses have a
typical max capacity of 35 passengers, although double decker and articulated buses can carry up
to 80 passengers (CODOT). However, trains can be twice as long (or even longer) to fit twice as
many people and more. Buses simply will not be able to efficiently accommodate population
centers that exceed the 60-80 passenger limit on larger buses.
Rail transit systems of New York, Tokyo, Singapore, and Hong Kong are incredible in
what they accomplish. However, the common thread between these cities is that they are
extraordinarily dense. Rail transportation is effective in densely populated areas, but, with the
exception of New York City and a few others, cities in the United States (and on most of the
American continent) are not densely populated.

2) Goods and Freight Transportation
Freight transportation is also cost effective over rail over long distances. Rail
transportation can move very heavy objects, or large amounts of people at a low cost over
extended distance. This is where rail transit is undeniably advantageous. America’s goods and
freight transportation rail “is more than 10 times more energy efficient than trucks per mile”
(Zipline Logistics).

IV. Environments Where Bus Infrastructure May be More
Effective Than Rail

1) Corridors of Low Human Population
Areas that have low density simply aren’t able to fill trains to capacity. Due to rail
transportation’s ability to carry more passengers than buses, they are literally designed to work in
cities of high density. Buses can be smaller depending on the size of demand and can run more
frequently if demand increases. In cities with low populations, rail construction will be
excessive and unnecessary.

2) Areas that Require More Miles of Infrastructure
In locations that suffer from sprawl, public transportation networks require more lines
and more miles of track to be able to reach individual neighborhoods. If two neighborhoods are
too far apart from each other, they might both require a separate rail line. Sprawled cities require
more miles of infrastructure. When more miles of infrastructure are needed, bus networks are
cheaper per mile than rail networks. This is because bus networks can utilize the same
infrastructure that automobiles are already using, whereas rail needs completely new
development. The head of a transportation center at the University of South Florida claims “you
can build up to 10 Bus Rapid Transit lines for the cost of one light rail line” (Dennis Hinebaugh).
It should be noted that some improvements to bus networks, such as Bus Rapid Transit
are comparable in some cases to construction costs of Light Rail in some cities. Boston,
however, claims that 25 miles of BRT infrastructure would be the same cost of less than 4 miles
of light rail.

3) Areas Where Buses Have Already Been Given the Priority
In areas where buses have already been given the priority, it will be difficult for cities to
build successful rail transportation networks that integrate well with their bus systems. Usually
cities will have one mode of transportation that has the majority share of public transportation
infrastructure. If this mode of transportation is bus, then many argue that money spent on new
rail infrastructure could go to improving existing bus infrastructure.
As a part of this study, I interviewed an organizer of the LA Bus Union named Kikanza
Ramsey-Rey. She says that rail is currently receiving more attention than buses in LA, but that
LA already has an extensive bus network. Kikanza represents the Bus Union that supports
prioritizing bus improvements over light rail improvements in Los Angeles. According to her
research, she says “in history, out of all MTA's passengers, 90% use the buses, yet buses only
receive 30% of MTA's money, while the other 70% is going to the rail system. The rail system
that only 10% of passengers use" (Kikanza Ramsey-Ray, LA Bus Union Organizer). Kikanza
represents the vast majority of minority and disadvantaged communities that do not otherwise
have a voice in Los Angeles policy making. It is frustrating to her and her union when expensive
rail projects do not serve her community and are too slow to be built due to infrastructure
barriers. While it is true that rail could serve her and her community, she argues that buses are
already serving her community, but that the buses need improvements. These improvements
would be feasible if rail projects did not get priority over bus improvements. Because the
majority of rail networks aren’t connected to every residential location, if a city chooses to
invest in rail, then it will have to also continue to spend to improve bus lines.

4) Changing Cities
Once built, rail networks rarely change. Old stops stick around, and if any changes
occur, they often are adding additional stops further away from city centers. Cities change and
job centers can change, but rail networks do not allow for flexibility.
In a personal interview with Jody Litvak, who is a director of Community Relations at
LA Metro, Jody discussed the flexibility that buses offer public transportation networks. She
said, “The bus system is very flexible given the available street network suitable for the
operation of transit buses remains extensive, available with only occasional disruptions for
maintenance or auto accidents, and funded by other agencies (so no recurring costs to the transit
agency). However, the bus network operates in a shared environment, so speed and reliability are
reduced compared to rail (but are generally stable).” It is important to note that bus
transportation is negatively impacted by utilizing the same transportation network that
automobiles use. Rail benefits from being in a separate lane, however, most rail networks in LA
are still slowed down by having to stop at stop light intersections.
Jody also mentioned the future of the NextGen bus study in Los Angeles and discussed
how “bus services can and are changed on a regular basis.” She went on, “In the case of Metro,
service changes occur twice per year (June and December) but additional changes can be made at
any time when a need arises, with a relatively short time to adjust. Buses even bridge for the rail
system at times of disruption and construction.

5) Areas Where Public Transportation Ridership is Low
According to a survey by Global Consumer Survey, only 11% of United States citizens
use public transportation to get to school or work (GLS, 2020). While it is true that rail can
encourage people to ride public transportation, the data shows that rail alone (without cities
implementing other methods) does not get people out of their cars. When small cities build rail
networks, car ridership and ownership do not decline significantly (William Mallet, 2018).
American ridership is low, and rail infrastructure alone is not helping decrease a
significant amount of automobile usage. The negative externalities that come from personal
automobiles cannot be ignored, and public transit needs to be a priority to reduce negative
externalities that cars create.

V. Profile of American Cities
American cities are characterized by sprawled out locations, suburbs, large distances
between economic and residential centers, and small population sizes. This is important because
transportation systems need to be adapted to the populations they represent. Because of this, cars
have been prioritized in nearly every city in the United States.

1) Car Subsidization
Although it is often cheaper for individuals to drive than it is for them to take public
transportation, this is often because negative externalities that automobiles create are completely
ignored by the government covering them up. The average automobile owner considers her
costs of owning a car such as the price of the car, the price of gas and the price of
repairs/maintenance. However, the reality is that each person’s automobile is costing the United
States money needed to create and maintain roads, resources to address poor air quality, health
care costs associated with vehicle collision related deaths and injuries, and money being lost to
parking spaces that could have money generating commercial developments on top of them.
Considered and Overlooked Costs per Passenger-Mile of Automobiles
Source: Todd Litman, 2018

In 2019, Gössling and Choi, researchers from Europe and South Korea, analyzed the
cost-benefit ratio of European Union transportation projects. The research showed that projects
would fail to include negative externalities of automobiles. Gössling and Choi were interested in
factors such as climate change, noise, soil and water quality, land use, travel time, health, safety,
and quality of life to reflect a more accurate cost-benefit analysis. Gössling and Choi estimated
that “automobility costs the European Union about $566 billion (€500 billion) per year, while
cycling and walking produce respective benefits of $27 billion (€24 billion) and $75 billion (€66
billion)” (Gössling, Choi 2019). Externalities are being ignored, and governments are willing to
support this trend without realizing the benefits and savings that denser cities can have.
Car use causes a decline in the use of public transportation. By subsidizing car ridership, the
United States has been encouraging its declining transit ridership. As shown by the graph below,
US transit ridership has been declining by about a quarter million every year.
Source: American Public Transportation Association

2) Sprawl
Sprawl is simply defined as the natural outward growth of physical developments, such
as homes and businesses, from city centers. Cities in the United States have experienced sprawl
from many planning decisions and technology impacts over time. A key factor of cities with
effective rail transportation is high density. The greater density, the higher the ridership.
However, in cities with low population density, people rely on cars a lot more. The use of cars
further promotes urban sprawl, and other undesirable outputs such as carbon waste, unwalkable
towns, and dangerous communities.
Sprawl has many negative effects such as “higher water/air pollution, increased traffic
fatalities and jams, loss of agricultural capacity, increased car dependency, higher taxes,
increased runoff into rivers and lakes, harmful effects on human health, including higher rates of
obesity, high blood pressure, hypertension and chronic diseases, increased flooding, decrease in
social capital and loss of natural habitats, wildlife and open space” (Everything Connects).

Because there are so many negative externalities of sprawl, the factors that cause sprawl
in cities should be examined. In United States cities, rail is often built to sprawl out from city
centers, so by nature of common practices of construction, they will cause sprawl. An example of
sprawl occurring because of rail transportation can be examined in Chicago. Chicago’s rail
networks spread out from the city center like a spiderweb with no connectivity between
lines. As the city grew, it was easy to build rail stops further and further out, and it was a simple
solution to population growth. Now, years later, the negative externalities of sprawl are known,
and although it was simple to build rail networks spreading out from the city center, it was
certainly not without negative impacts.

Although rail networks are good and reliable forms of public transportation in areas of
high density, it is tempting for cities to allow rail networks to grow outward like vines instead of
focusing on dense centers. The idea is simple; that rail networks will connect residential
households to economic job centers. However, the reality is that new rail stops will be built
further and further out from the city, because of rail’s tendency to spread out, instead of circle
and loop around densely populated areas.

These new rail stops often are built where there is little development, and soon, because
of the new ease of access, the area around the stop will start to develop more. This can be shown
in Figure 1 (above), which comes from Newman and Kenworthy’s theory of sustainable Urban
Growth. Newman and Kenworthy outline several steps that cities can take to overcome
automobile dependency. They argue that the automobile allows people to fill in spaces between
rail stops, thus no longer relying on rail, but becoming entirely dependent on their automobiles
(Newman, Kenworthy, 1999).

When people live farther and farther away from their places of work, they tend to opt for
private vehicle use, because it allows them to travel from door to door without taking multiple
different lines of transportation. By having more residential locations closer to job centers,
people will consider other modes of transportation besides private automobiles.

3) Small Populations
While the United States is becoming more and more urbanized, the reality is that city population
sizes are still low. As seen in the graph below, the majority of US cities and towns have less than
10,000 people, and only 10 have greater than one million people. These 10 cities,
unsurprisingly, are the cities with the highest farebox recovery ratios in the United States. There
are roughly 41 cities with rail, and cities such as Little Rock, Arkansas have a light rail system
while having less than 250,000 people in the city. Even when cities in the United States have a
population above one million people does not indicate high ridership. For example, Dallas,
Texas has an annual ridership of only 158,000 on its rail system (Dallas Morning Star, 2018).

Compared to cities with positive farebox recovery ratios, such as Hong Kong which has a
population of roughly 7.5 million, most cities in the United States simply are not dense enough to
create positive farebox recovery ratios.

Also, it is ridiculous that Ogden BRT should cost over 50,000,000.

Name not shown inside Provo December 11, 2020, 12:18 PM

Name Braden Armstrong
Zip code 84606
Do you currently use, or have you in the past used, UTA public transit services? Yes
Provide your feedback on the 2021 Tentative Budget in the space below. We should focus more of our money on places with higher population density (Salt Lake and Utah Valley) and not as much in lower-density areas (Ogden).
More money should be dedicated to safety; COVID will still be around next year!

Name not available inside Pleasant View December 10, 2020, 7:56 AM

Name Monika Kuba
Zip code 84414
Do you currently use, or have you in the past used, UTA public transit services? Yes
Provide your feedback on the 2021 Tentative Budget in the space below. The train should go to Logan and pass through pleasant view. There should be more trains on key days so the wait is not an hour. Should be a trax from Ogden station to Weber state (it takes an hour by bus which is ridiculous )

Name not available inside Taylorsville December 3, 2020, 7:05 AM

Name Paul hughes
Zip code 84123
Do you currently use, or have you in the past used, UTA public transit services? Yes
Provide your feedback on the 2021 Tentative Budget in the space below. If u actually listened to riders u would not have done away with monthly passes from the ticket vending machines but u don't u have ur minds already made up and don't give a damn what the public wants.

Name not available inside Sandy December 2, 2020, 3:07 PM

Name Paul O'Brien
Zip code 84094
Do you currently use, or have you in the past used, UTA public transit services? Yes
Provide your feedback on the 2021 Tentative Budget in the space below. One of the 2021 Agency Goals under the category of "Service" is---Innovate service with a focus on customer experience. The current customer experience on a bus with the windows covered with advertising is not good. The view out the window is distorted making it difficult to read street addresses and business names.
On page 12 of the 2021 Tentative Budget projected advertising revenue is $1,363,000 and on page 16 of the budget document it is noted that advertising revenue is 0.2% of total operating revenue. A small budget reduction in this projected revenue by removing and prohibiting advertising on bus windows will enhance the customer experience and support the agency goals for 2021. If the current contract with Lamar does not allow this, before granting another extension to the contract or going out for bid again this minor adjustment to the advertising protocols should be implemented. The impact on the budget will be minimal and the positive impact for the bus rider will be significant.

Name not available inside Tooele December 2, 2020, 9:27 AM

Name Steven C Blue
Zip code 84074
Do you currently use, or have you in the past used, UTA public transit services? No
Provide your feedback on the 2021 Tentative Budget in the space below. Were would you buy a monthly UTA-Bus Pass ?
Were would find the schedule for UTA ? Seniors do not have a computer access.
Were are these tings posted at ? On the walls of the Bus Stop, I work a Graveyard Shift does UTA have a schedule for that, but I do not live in Salt Lake City but on the outside.

Name not available outside UTA Cities December 2, 2020, 7:58 AM

Name Karl Quist
Zip code 84074
Do you currently use, or have you in the past used, UTA public transit services? Yes
Provide your feedback on the 2021 Tentative Budget in the space below. I think the 2021 budget seems reasonable, especially considering the current circumstances and restrictions. Realizing you mkay not be able to respond, but is there consideration in the future budget for a possible rail project connecting SL County and Tooele County? Thank you for your hard work!

Name not available outside UTA Cities December 1, 2020, 5:43 PM

Name Julie Nester
Zip code 84106
Do you currently use, or have you in the past used, UTA public transit services? Yes
Provide your feedback on the 2021 Tentative Budget in the space below. PLEASE have the drivers “front door” the riders. I am so tired of seeing people take advantage by not paying. Revenue is down because drivers refuse to allow people to pay. I pay when I ride. I buy a pass and I expect others to as well. If drivers and passengers wear a mask and the barrier is in use, there is NO reason not to make people pay. I feel like I am being punished because I am honest

Name not shown inside Layton December 1, 2020, 1:54 PM

Name Philip Sauvageau
Zip code 84041
Do you currently use, or have you in the past used, UTA public transit services? Yes
Provide your feedback on the 2021 Tentative Budget in the space below. I appreciate the planning and proposed items. I could not find the anticipated long range cost needs for FrontRunner Double Tracking and how much the 2021 allocated would cover. Does the budgeted amount cover needs for long range project schedules? How much flexibility is there to purchase real estate along the FrontRunner corridor that becomes available before needed? Are bus stop signage replacements budgeted and scheduled for Weber, Davis, and Box Elder (I just see Salt Lake County in the summary)?

Name not available inside West Valley City December 1, 2020, 12:26 PM

Name Van Reese
Zip code 84120
Do you currently use, or have you in the past used, UTA public transit services? Yes
Provide your feedback on the 2021 Tentative Budget in the space below. I used to ride almost every day, but with pandemic I have stopped. I was going to try riding again, but then the cases spiked. I would like to go back, and perhaps the new cleaning measures and better community mask wearing will help.