[Hatman]

Fair point about the capacity. However, I think this is a real chicken-and-the egg problem. Should the capacity be put in place before there is demand, or should we use the added demand to get an increased capacity?

Historically we've built the capacity first; both the West Valley and South Jordan TRAX lines were originally supposed to be 2030 projects, but these were accelerated by popular demand in order to spur the right kinds of development. For FrontRunner, space was left for 10-car trains at all stations and sidings, so the capacity is theoretically there long before the demand is.

But in this case, I'd be willling to abolish fares and then let the transit system get swamped with demand. I have a feeling that images of crowded buses and people not able to fit into trains will cause lawmakers to accelerate transit projects much more quickly than any study would. I think this is part of the reason roads keep getting funded more than transit - because there are traffic jams and the system is perceived as 'failing,' even though it is just very popular.

As far as buses go, I don't think there is much of a capacity problem. If buses are regularly crowded, there is very little keeping UTA away from running more buses on that route. Maybe a shortage of buses. If that's the case, they'll just have to either 1) manage the buses more efficiently 2) cut service on less-popular routes to provide better service on the popular ones, or 3) borrow/buy more buses - second hand from other agencies will suffice. I'm not picky.

For TRAX, there is plenty of room for service increases. There's long been talk of running 12 minute frequencies (5 trains an hour) or even 10 minute frequencies (6 trains an hour), which would mean 50% more trains on the tracks at a time. The track and infrastructure can handle this, or will soon be able to once the half-grand union on Main Street and 4th South is upgraded. The real problem is that UTA doesn't have all the TRAX vehicles it needs for this. More cars would need to come from somewhere, since they are already stretched pretty thin. UTA has the option to buy at least 100 more cars from Siemens at the price they paid for the first batch of S70 cars, but the fixed price is $3.6 million per car. This is a problem they are going to have to solve not only to handle more demand in the future, but also if they want to open the mythical Black Line.

FrontRunner is in a real pickle in terms of capacity. They've got extra Comet Cars that they could add onto their existing trains to increase seating, but these longer trains don't fit on the platforms (and in places like Provo, the train sticks out into the grade crossing). Also, the Warm Springs yard isn't designed to handle longer trains, so some serious upgrades would be needed there. Should UTA decide to fix the platform and yard issues, they would probably also want to get more Bombardier cars to match the lengthened platforms, but these cars also cost in the range of $2 million each. Lastly, UTA has no way of increasing frequency on the line without seriously adding more time into the schedule. They don't have the trains to increase frequency, and even if they did it would add something like 15-20 minutes into the schedule between Provo and Ogden, since trains would need to pass at every single station. Delays would be enormous. The long-term solution is to double-track and electrify, but that would cost the equivalent of 1 large freeway project, and that kind of money doesn't come around often (for transit, that is).

So there we are. UTA is right at the edge of their capacity. I'm almost proud of them for running a very efficient operation for the money they've been given, but it's also really bad because there are no more low-hanging fruits for them to pick in order to grow. Everything will cost many millions of dollars, and unless the legislature gets serious about UTA reform, it isn't likely that these millions will be secured in any meaningful time frame.

Am I missing anything?