Projects
|
Ordinance Committee Minutes
Attending: Mayor JoAnn Seghini, Midvale City; Ken Bullock, LCT; Jess Agraz, TMA; Christine Richman, Midvale City; Jerry Benson, UTA; Mike Hansen, UTA; John Hiskey, Sandy City; Tosh Kano, Holladay City Consultant; Nick Duerksen, Sandy City;
Lynn Pett, EDCU; James Sorenson, Sandy City; Susan Davis, EDCU; Roger Borgenicht, Assist Inc.; Martin Pezely, Attorney for Midvale City; and Marvin Hendricksen, Salt Lake County.
Conducting: Mayor JoAnn Seghini, Midvale City
Business:
- Purpose. This committee was formed to address an action item generated during a Future Search Conference hosted by Utah Transit Authority on September 19-21, 2001. The action item draft with enhancing the effectiveness and use of public transit through incentives and coordination among cities, businesses and transit.
- Ideas. Members of the committee generated a number of ideas, including the following:
- Focus on transit oriented planning and zoning along existing and planned transit corridor; such as, relaxing height restriction and reducing allowed parking.
- Create a nexus between transit/transportation planning and land planning.
- Give business licensing incentives for transit oriented development.
- Develop transportation management corridor.
- Use transit to facilitate and support economic development in south and west.
- Implement a "Transit First" policy, as in San Francisco.
- Implement transit oriented planning around planned transit nodes, such as, suburban malls.
- Provide businesses with multiple levels and options for transit oriented development.
- Use the WFRC 2030 plan to advance transit's balance of emphasis and funding.
- Concerns and needed information. The committee members raised several questions, concerns and requests for information.
- Need to consider both existing businesses as well as new businesses.
- What happens when properties turn over to new owners?
- What have other regions done in this area?
- What are the other Future Search committees working on?
- What if a business sets up a van shuttle to a transit station but the employees don't use it?
- Should manufacturing zones along transit corridor be changed?
- What is the comparative cost of transportation in Utah verses other states?
- Have to consider the financial and competitive implications of zoning and business incentives.
- What organization structure should be used to advance the committee's purpose?
- Committee focus. The committee believed that it could accomplish its purpose by working on a coordinated master planning process and on options and incentives for businesses.
- Next steps.
- Jerry Benson will prepare and distribute minutes and will find out what other Future Search action committees are doing.
- JoAnn Seghini will host a meeting of a smaller group to clarify the committee's purpose and charter. The following members agreed to participate in a subcommittee on November 2, 2001, 10:00 a.m. to noon at the Midvale City offices: Mayor JoAnn Seghini, Sam Klemm, WFRC; Jess Agraz, Tosh Kano, Roger Borgenicht, Lynn Pett, Jerry Benson, Jeff Harris, Chad Bennion, and John Hiskey.
Urban Mobility Minutes
Committee Attendees: Carole Verschoor, Bonnie Fernandez, Necia Christensen, Jeanetta Williams, Toby Alires, Paul Bay, Pam Roberts, Sam Klemm, Edward Santillanes and Nancy Wright.
Absent members: Alex Beseris and Mike Allegra
Committee Goal: With the issue of cooperative partnerships, the goal is to get cities, counties, UTA, UDOT and business communities to work together effectively to achieve better transportation systems.
The committee members discussed exactly what the goal/mission of the committee was and who the stakeholders were.
Stakeholders to include are:
- County planners
- UTA
- UDOT
- Chambers of Commerce
- Social Service Groups
- COGS
- Homeowners Association
- Association of Apartments
The committee would like to talk with Jess Agraz, Transportation Management Association for Salt Lake City, and see if he would be willing to give presentations to other cities regarding establishing a TMA for each city. This could be a recognized group to work within the scope of this committee. A group of these associations could also unite and propose resolutions to the legislature.
It was reported by Sam Klemm, WFRC, to have COGS request that the legislature make transportation issues a priority. Ask COGS how to get the money from the legislature.
Carole Verschoor suggested that CMAQ money be applied for to ascertain a director to this committee enabling the work of this committee to progress and not fall by the wayside. Carole Verschoor will draft a proposal for application for CMAQ monies for 2002.
Railvolution Conference (Livable Communities) has been rescheduled for November 29th. There was a suggestion to send designated people from the various cities and counties to the Railvolution Conference to educate them in the possibilities.
Hold forums or seminars to educate the public and government entities on "livable communities", ask Congressman Earl Blumenauer, (Representing Oregon's 3rd District) or one of the other enthusiasts to be the keynote speaker.
Sam Klemm from the WFRC reported, environmental studies for the commuter rail and additional light rail extensions are going to start as soon as the consultants are hired.
Next meeting: November 13, 2001 at 4:30 p.m., 2100 S. State St., 2nd Floor, Rm 2019.
Privatize UTA Project Minutes
Utah Urban Mobility Conference / Privatize UTA Project
Minutes - 10/17/01
Meeting started at 8am.
Attending the meeting: Drew Chamberlain, Michael Packard, Ken Olafson, and Tom Boley.
Discussion started with Light Rail Ridership figures from UTA. Official data shows Ridership is on a steady decline. LRT started at about 19,500 weekday, now it is at 15,600 (July). Bus Ridership is also down. Michael Packard showed a study showing how UTA systematically hides Ridership statistics. UTA changes data collection to show a false performance picture, this is typical of many government and private organizations. Bottom line is that UTA is a very poor excuse for a transit system, even a Public transit system. We agreed that we probably need to have a Public transit system, but there is no excuse for such poor performance at UTA. We discussed solutions to our problem.
Perhaps the UTA board could be elected, therefore more accountable to the taxpayers. Another benefit of elected Board members is that they may have some competence in the transportation field.
We discussed weather it would be less expensive to send TaxiCabs to shuttle the Transit Dependent, it may be.
Perhaps all planning functions should be turned over to UDOT. UDOT is generally accepted as doing "a good job".
We decided that the best approach to the problem at hand (ridreship/cost) is to force competition at UTA. Most agree that the best public transit system in the country is in San Diego Ca. San Diego is required by law to have 30% of its system Competitively Contracted. We thought that a good start at UTA would be 15% of it’s routes. Initially this will not save very much money. UTA will only contract their Junk routes. However over a 2 year period more private interest will surface and contract bids will come down. We also expect the public will have a new interest in public transit. As more and more routes are contracted we may even be able to have a totally private transit system, Hooahh!
Drew Chamberlain was assigned the task of forming a letter to send to the Legislature. All other members will work with Representatives and Senators. We will also check with WFRC and the Utah Urban Mobility Conference people to see if they will provide assistance, we do not expect any help from these groups.
Next meeting is to be determined.
Meeting ended at 8:50am.
Meeting Minutes
Future Search Meeting Follow Up October 15, 2001
12/3/2001
Long Range Plan Development
- Elements in the Long Range Plan are based on a modeled need.
- Elements in the Long Range Plan are Financially Constrained, however funding
assumptions are made.
- Current Long Range Plan includes a Increased funding method for Transit.
Long Range Plan Elements
- Regional Commuter Rail
- Bus Rapid Transit (to be included)
- Significant Increase in the Bus System
- Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program – Rideshare
- Park and Ride Development
- Further Study of Light Rail
Regional Commuter Rail
- Serves inter-city trips
- Average trip length > 20 miles
- Station spaced every three to five miles
- Cost approximately $2 - $9 million per mile
- Generally operates within freight railroad right-of-way
Bus Rapid Transit
Typical Busway/BRT Characteristics
- Capital Cost / Mile:
$8-$25 million
- Variable system length: 5 miles or more
- Typical maximum speed: 55-75 mph
- Typical service frequency: 3-15 minutes during peak
- Seated capacity per bus: 35 to 69 passengers
Light Rail Transit (LRT)
- Serves travel within urban areas
- Total length to 20 miles
- Average trip length < 4 miles
- Station spaced every mile or less
- Cost approximately $20 - $55 million per mile
- Can be at grade and run in street right-of-way
Increase Local Bus Service
What Can You Expect? Increase in bus system, to include:
- Holiday Service
- Sunday service Increased
- Night service Increased
- Saturday service Increased
- Express service Increased
- Fixed route Improvements
- Paratransit Improvements
- Technology/ITS
How UTA is Funded…..
- Utah County entered the UTA Transit District on a city by city basis.
- UTA receives a one quarter of one percent sales tax.
How has the Financial Support of Transit grown ?
UTA Funding by County Sales Tax Collected in 2000 (Source: UTA Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report for 2000)
- Box Elder County $536,904
- Davis County $6,244,100
- Salt Lake County $38,853,481
- Tooele County $688,163
- Utah County $9,909,756
- Weber County $5,990,640
- Total $62,223,044
Today’s Situation
- UTA cannot operate Commuter Rail in Utah County on the current level of
funding that Utah County provides.
- In November of 2000, the northern part of the UTA Transit District passed
an increase in their Sales Tax to fund future transit improvements.
- Is Utah County next ?
Regional Comparison of Transit Sales Tax Funding
- UTA .25 Cent
- Dallas 1 cent
- Ft. Worth 1 cent
- Houston 1 cent
- Austin 1 cent
- Denver .6 cent
- Phoenix .4 cent
- Cleveland 1 cent
- St. Louis .75 cent
How Did We Get Here?
- Utah Transit Authority was incorporated in March of 1970, under the authority
of the Utah Public Transit Act of 1969.
- In 1978, Provo and Orem Voters approved formation of the Timpanogos Transit
District without a funding source. No service was provided.
- In 1984 Provo and Orem voters approved annexation into UTA.
- In 1989 American Fork, Pleasant Grove, Lehi, and Lindon joined UTA.
- In 1990 Springville annexed into UTA.
- In 1993 Alpine, Cedar Hills, and Highland joined.
- In 1994 the Southern Utah County cities of Mapleton, Spanish Fork, Payson,
Salem and the unincorporated voting precinct of Provo Canyon voted to annex
into the transit district.
Committee Recommendation: Where do we go from Here?
For Discussion by Committee
- Recommend one or more strategies
- Summarize the long term anticipated results
- What to do next
- Identify action items
Urban Mobility Alliance
Committee Attendees: Carole Verschoor, Bonnie Fernandez, Jeanetta Williams,
Toby Alires, Pam Roberts, Alex Beseris, Sam Klemm, Edward Santillanes and Nancy
Wright.
Absent members: Mike Allegra, Necia Christensen and Paul Bay.
Minutes from the October16, 2001 meeting were reviewed. Motion to accept minutes
made by Pam Roberts, seconded by Bonnie Fernandez. Minutes unanimously accepted.
Information Update
Alex Beseris informed the committee about a subcommittee on transportation,
which is part of WFRC. A co-worker of Mr. Beseris attended this meeting where
the topic of having cities and counties work together to determine better land
use was discussed. There was a question whether the subcommittee of WFRC is
headed in the same direction this committee is and whether the two committees
can work together.
WFRC
Sam Klemm from WFRC reported that UTA had requested monies from CMAQ to purchase
25 additional used rail cars from San Jose, CA. In light of this request Mr.
Klemm wondered if this committee should ask for CMAQ monies which would be used
to support a director and or administrator for this committee. Committee members
felt it was important to go ahead with the request, expecting that it may take
a few years for the request to be granted. At that time hopefully the committee
will be well established and beneficial to the communities in the Wasatch Front.
CMAQ
Carole Verschoor presented the first draft proposal to request CMAQ monies for
an administrator for this committee. Carole also mentioned that she would be
attending the RAILVOLUTION Conference in November (conference supports planning
for livable communities), and would gather information regarding APTA grants,
and information on what other communities within the US have done to gather
support for such a group.
Jeanetta Williams and Sam Klemm will meet and discuss other grants that may
be available for UMA use.
Charter
Jeanetta Williams offered to email copies of various charters from other organizations
for review by the committee. Members were asked to bring in names of agencies
that should be recognized by this committee and what that agency could share
with others.
Stakeholders to include are:
8 City planners
8 County planners
8 UTA
8 UDOT
8 Chambers of Commerce
8 Social Service Groups
8 Aging Services
8 Disabled Community
8 YWCA
8 Veterans Administration
8 COGS
8 Homeowners Association
8 Association of Apartments
8 MPO's (WFRC and MAG)
8 Hill Air Force Base
8 Universities (UofU, BYU, SLCC, etc.)
8 C R England representative (trucking)
8 Union Pacific representative (rail)
8 Governors Office of Ethnic Affairs
8 NAACP
Website
The committee discussed creating a Website, where stakeholders could log on
for daily updates on projects within the various communities and agencies.
Non-profit Status
Alex Beseris suggested this committee consider filing as a non-profit organization
in order to solicit private funding. The committee felt this was something that
could be looked into as the committee becomes recognized and working within
the communities.
Next meeting: December 11, 2001 at 4:30 p.m., 2100 S. State St., 2nd Floor,
Rm 2019.
|
