A woman who was hit by a vehicle on Kilby Road two years ago is suing Summit County and High Valley Transit over the intersection’s “negligently designed” crosswalk, which she claims contributed to the accident.

Luana Aparecida Vera Santana, a resident of Santa Catarina, Brazil, said in Third District Court documents filed last week that she was a passenger on a High Valley Transit bus traveling from downtown Park City to a transit stop on Kilby Road on Aug. 3, 2023. She exited the bus around 10:16 p.m. and approached the nearby crosswalk, where she was then hit by a car traveling eastbound on Kilby Road.

“Due to the dangerous and negligently designed condition of the crosswalk — including but not limited to lack of adequate lighting or signals, poor visibility caused by its placement at the crest of a hill on a high-speed road, and the absence of advanced warning systems or signage — an eastbound vehicle struck Plaintiff (Santana) as she crossed,” the complaint says. “As a result, Plaintiff sustained serious and permanent injuries, including a fractured skull, brain injury, broken nose [and] broken ankle.”

The original report from the Sheriff’s Office on the date of the accident said the driver did not show any signs of impairment.

“He (the driver) told me that he had been driving and had not seen her in the crosswalk until his vehicle hit her,” the responding deputy said in the report. “He said that he ‘heard her first,’ then his vehicle hit her. I asked him what he meant by that, and he told me that he wasn’t sure but knew he heard a sound before his vehicle hit her. It had been raining heavily, and he said he had not seen her until he was unable to stop.”

The driver then backed up his vehicle to prevent Santana from being struck by other cars.

The police report said deputies later spoke to Santana at the hospital, and she said she’d exited a High Valley Transit bus on Kilby Road across from Powderwood Drive and had been crossing the street toward her apartment. Deputies also noted in their report the “possibility of the incident to result in a fatality” because of the severity of Santana’s injuries at the time of the accident.

Santana’s lawsuit states the decision to name Summit County and High Valley Transit as defendants because they “were responsible for designing, placing, approving and constructing the roads, crosswalk, warnings (or lack thereof), signage and signals.” 

Alyssa Wood, a personal injury attorney representing Santana, said her client chose to not include the driver in the lawsuit because he has “already taken accountability.”

“The driver was willing to resolve the case pre-litigation, but my client has extensive injuries,” she said. “This road is unsafe, and this crosswalk is unsafe. If the county doesn’t make changes to this crosswalk, other people are going to get injured. For us and for our client, one of the most important things is ensuring that, in the future, changes are made so that this doesn’t happen again to someone else.”

The court filings similarly mention the County Courthouse’s and bus system’s responsibility to “ensure that the condition of the road and crosswalk was not defective, unsafe and unreasonably dangerous at night or under low-light conditions.”

Specifically, the lawsuit alleges the crosswalk and bus stop location were “negligently selected” because of poor visibility, a lack of proper lighting and a lack of warning systems for approaching cars.

The complaint further claims Santana has incurred more than $3,000 in medical bills as a result of the accident and “will continue to suffer from injuries into the future.”

Santana and her attorneys demanded a jury trial in addition to relief in the form of damages to cover her medical expenses, lost wages, future care and compensation for her “physical pain and suffering.”

The County Courthouse declined to comment on the ongoing litigation, and High Valley Transit representatives have not yet responded to a request for comment as of Monday afternoon. There are currently no scheduled court hearings related to the case.

The post County Courthouse, High Valley Transit sued over Kilby Road crosswalk safety appeared first on Park Record.

Park City officials and High Valley Transit District representatives met Friday to address lingering questions about a $90 million project designed to improve transportation options from the Kimball Junction Transit Center to Old Town.

The meeting was a follow-up about the proposed bus rapid transit (BRT) project, which faced scrutiny from city councilors last month about rising costs and concerns about the value to Park City residents. Those who were skeptical about the plan showed more willingness to support the project, though they pressed for assurances that the investment would directly address the city’s unique transportation needs.

This week’s discussion centered around the financial viability of the project and the potential benefits for Park City residents as well as broader Summit County. Gabriel Shields, High Valley Transit’s BRT project manager, emphasized the long-term economic value of the project and the positive impact it will have on the community. 

Shields acknowledged most of the bus rapid transit project occurs in Summit County, but there will be intersection improvements that benefit the Old Town area as well as new bus stops proposed near Thaynes Canyon or Kearns Boulevard.

He noted data from High Valley Transit and Park City Transit indicate that 75% of trips that start in Kimball Junction end up in Park City. An estimated 10,000 employees commute into the Wasatch Back, and at least half of them are expected to find quick, reliable and efficient transportation to the city limits by way of the bus rapid transit system.

“However you define value, it’s in this project,” Shields said.

City Councilor Jeremy Rubell wanted to wait before committing more money to the roadwork and said he isn’t questioning the project as a whole but rather the value each element might have. He said it’s missing quantitative benefits for Park City and questioned the need for turning the road into a “seven-lane highway,” saying it doesn’t feel right for neighborhoods in the area.

“Why do it?” Rubell asked.

High Valley Transit Executive Director Caroline Rodriguez was quick to push back on the characterization. A preliminary design shows a small shoulder on each side with a 12-foot bus lane in either direction, two 11-foot travel lanes in each direction and a turn lane down the center. 

Shields explained the original design was 28 feet wider than what currently exists, but the current design was scaled down by 65% to help save money as the cost estimate has risen by 45%.

The bus rapid transit project was estimated to cost a total of $70.9 million in 2022, but it’s now jumped to between $90 million and $103 million with inflation. High Valley Transit has already secured $64 million through state and federal funding as well as the transit sales tax. 

High Valley Transit is expected to have a more finalized cost estimate in the spring when the design is 30% finished. There will be more fidelity in the cost estimate by the summer at 60% completed. Funding commitments are expected to be made in the fall of 2025.

Park City Municipal expected to contribute around $6 million to the original project, and city councilors were irritated last month to learn it could be more if High Valley Transit is unable to bridge the remaining $12 million funding gap. Rodriguez warned it could be as high as $20 million at the time, though that was a worst-case scenario. It will likely be a lot less.

Rodriguez and Shields affirmed High Valley Transit has already proven the bus rapid transit project is effective. However, they encouraged Park City Municipal to complete its own analysis if there are still doubts.

Park City Mayor Nann Worel advocated for collaborating with High Valley Transit and Summit County because officials have been working on the Bus Rapid Transit project since at least 2012 and again in 2020 when the city and county separated transit services. Worel said the project has “long been in motion.”

A connection between Summit County and Park City, especially on an important road such as S.R. 224, has been regarded as critical by city and county officials as well as the public.

There will continue to be discussions between High Valley Transit, Park City and Summit County regarding the best strategy for the bus rapid transit project.

The post High Valley Transit defends benefits of bus rapid transit project appeared first on Park Record.

High Valley Transit launched in January 2021 as a special service district of Summit County designed to bring transportation services, and solutions, to the Wasatch Back.

Since then, staff have been focused on building the transit district from the ground up — providing 3.5 million rides in three years. But now that High Valley has reached cruising speed, it’s considering the best ways to sustain its success, build permanence and ensure the long-term vitality of the organization.

A major component of that goal involves moving operations out of the large white tent erected in the Ecker Hill park-and-ride more than two years ago and into a new headquarters on an 8-acre campus near Home Depot on U.S. 40. The three-building facility was originally expected to be finished in late 2023 after the groundbreaking in October 2022, but construction delays pushed the opening by more than a year.

A new occupation date has been set for February or March 2025, marking what’s expected to be the start of improved and expanded services.

“Launching a transit district is no small task. It’s a huge effort to get a hold of buses and mechanics and drivers and space and put together routes,” said Chief Development Officer Gabriel Shields. “To date, the lion’s share of the effort was focused on operations, and then the other side of our agency really has kind of focused on capital.”

Shields started with High Valley Transit in February after working as a transportation engineer for Park City Municipal for two years. His job is to deliver a $150 million capital program, including the S.R. 224 Bus Rapid Transit project and the new headquarters as well as the purchase of new buses or other assets to improve rider comfort.

If Summit County decides to partner with Dakota Pacific Real Estate to build a new transit center in Kimball Junction — or if High Valley Transit wanted to build one elsewhere, like Wasatch County — Shields would also be involved in that.

High Valley Transit’s new headquarters will support its mission of moving the Wasatch Back forward with sustainability and innovation by creating a 17,000-square-foot shop with space for maintenance work such as tires, parts, fluid storage and a bush wash facility, an 18,000-square-foot administrative building with the second floor dedicated as employee housing and a 31,000-square-foot garage with enough room for 24 buses.

It was estimated to cost around $27 million in 2022, but the expenses increased by $2.7 million when crews encountered bedrock during construction. They had to blast the material rather than excavate it to flatten the ground, pushing the 18-month timeline back several months. 

The scope of the project also changed to include nine apartments for High Valley Transit drivers and electric vehicle charging capabilities, pushing the total price tag to about $46 million. 

“It is absolutely no secret that it’s super hard to find a good workforce in Summit County. I think that High Valley has those same challenges that you know, there are a lot of really good, high-paying jobs out there, and sometimes money doesn’t buy everything you need. ” Shields said. 

High Valley Transit Executive Director Caroline Rodriguez considered how to build community, and opted to spend more on the headquarters if it meant housing nine drivers. After all, that’s one piece to solving the traffic puzzle.

High Valley received around $8 million in state and federal funds to help construct the new headquarters as well as a discretionary grant for several low- and no-emission vehicles. The Board of Trustees previously approved borrowing up to $18 million against sales tax revenue bonds to pay for the project on its own, if necessary.

GSB architects designed the facility, while Big D Construction handled the groundwork. Once the ground was flat, work started on the eastern portion of the parcel where a tilt panel building resembling a warehouse sits. That will be the bus storage facility, which is nearly finished. There’s minimal activity in the building as crews put on the finishing touches such as painting and installing light bulbs.

The maintenance building, which is concrete masonry, sits in the middle of the lot. It was designed to serve High Valley’s fleet of buses, but Shields said the transit district also realized it needed a different type of space for its smaller vehicles such as microtransit. The walls, roof and floors are in, just leaving crews to establish mechanical connections throughout the facility.

The steel-framed administrative and driver housing site is at the corner of U.S. 40 and Sego Lily Drive. This building is in the earliest stages of construction with a flurry of activity. Crews recently finished hanging drywall to close in the employee housing. The one-bedroom apartments have a living room and bathroom, plus a shared common area outside of the unit.

There’s also a large window in the administrative area downstairs, which is likely to be the spot for many family-style lunches at High Valley Transit. Currently, they eat around tables in a trailer.

Shields said the final component of the project is making site improvements such as installing utilities, parking canopies, trash enclosures and fencing as well as moving dirt. He estimated that 70 to 80 people are working on the job site now, but there were around 150 in the peak of the summer.

High Valley Transit is also embarking on a short-range planning effort to help drive the future of transit services over the next five years. The transit district is considering how to address gaps in service and improve productivity. 

For example, the 109 Snowball Express from Jeremy Ranch to Park City Mountain is launching Dec. 8 and other improvements are planned in the 2025 budget.

The post High Valley Transit on track to open new headquarters in early 2025 appeared first on Park Record.

Park City almost hit the brakes on an estimated $100 million improvement project nearly a decade in the making as new City Council members raised concerns about the updated cost and value of the design.

Representatives from the High Valley Transit District met with the Summit County Council and Park City Council for a joint meeting on Monday to provide an update about the bus rapid transit project. However, members of the City Council were accused of trying to figure “out a way to gum up the works” just as those involved approached a critical stage in the process.

High Valley Transit is well into the design phase for the S.R. 224 improvement project, which would create dedicated transit lanes and bus stops from Kimball Junction to Old Town, and plans to select a contractor next month. 

While everyone from the county was on board with the proposal, a majority of the City Council indicated they had reservations about it.

City Councilor Bill Ciraco asked to see more schematics and data. He also noted the total estimated cost nearly doubled, yet City Hall might be asked to triple its contribution. City Councilor Ed Parigian questioned the negative impacts the bus rapid transit project could have within the city limits. Jeremy Rubell, also on the City Council, said the issue was whether there was enough value for the money being spent.

County Councilor Roger Armstrong was confused about what the newest elected city officials were asking for in terms of delivery. He said something has to be started and completed within a reasonable amount of time. 

Armstrong criticized Ciraco, Parigian and Rubell as slowing down the progress on something that officials have been working on for almost 10 years. He noted something similar happened last year when the city and county considered creating a joint housing authority, which stalled when Park City officials raised concerns about the overall benefits of the program.

Rubell acknowledged it was a fair comparison, but he said the problem is a lack of consensus and a failure to answer lingering questions. He said the city wants to collaborate with Summit County and High Valley Transit instead of being told what it’s going to do. Rubell and his dissenting colleagues were adamant that they weren’t saying, “no,” they just wanted more time to mull the project over and for staff’s input to be included.

County Councilors Canice Harte and Malena Stevens as well as Caroline Rodriguez, the executive director of High Valley Transit, also acknowledged “resistance” from a few of the City Council members. They advocated for proper planning to ensure the success of the bus rapid transit project — something they said city and county staff have been working on for a long time.

“As a county, we’re committed to this project, understanding what the total costs are likely to be at this point and that there’s some portion of that that we’re going to need to pay for,” Stevens said.

The remaining two city councilors, Ryan Dickey and Tana Toly, were quick to offer their vocal support for the bus rapid transit project. 

Toly emphasized the positive impact the improvements would have on small business owners like herself who rely on people coming in and out every day for work. Dickey was sympathetic to his fellow City Council members’ concerns about the rising price, but he also acknowledged the long history of the project.

“It’s pretty simple for me. It’s sort of unthinkable to me that we would back out of the BRT project after working on this for several years,” Dickey said. 

He was open to pausing a formal decision on whether City Hall would reaffirm its support to High Valley Transit until more information is acquired. Yet Rodriguez was clear that she wanted a decision made this week on whether the two councils support the bus rapid transit project.

“Do we have commitment that your staff and your council are fully engaged in this project to the point of being champions? Are you dedicated to this project and getting it done? Because if the answer is no, then we have to approach this in a totally different way, and we are past that. We are past the point of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars delaying and reworking,” Rodriguez said. “The data shows this is the project. The community says this is the project. We need to move forward and it’s going to cost us so much more money to delay again and rework things again … when all of that has been done multiple times over multiple years.”

Summit County, Park City and High Valley Transit agreed to continue collaborating on the bus rapid transit project process. All 10 city and county councilors as well as Park City Mayor Nann Worel agreed they’re committed to the success of the project, offering vocal support.

The post Concerns about rising costs nearly stall bus rapid transit project appeared first on Park Record.

Plans to transform S.R. 224 into a 96-foot-wide corridor from gutter to gutter, with two 12-foot bus lanes, a 4-foot shoulder on each side, a two-foot buffer, and four 11-foot car lanes separated by a 12-foot center median, are well underway and could be completed as soon as late 2028.

The bus rapid transit project is touted as a solution for moving people through the community by reducing travel times, increasing frequency and improving the reliability of public transportation services in Summit County and Park City by creating dedicated transit lanes from Kimball Junction to Kearns Boulevard. 

Additional bus stops, new amenities at existing stations and traffic signal improvements are also included in High Valley Transit District’s project plans. 

“At HVT, we’re about providing access to our community without the use of cars and demonstrating that modern bus technology is a cost-effective, quality strategy for doing that,” Executive Director Caroline Rodriguez said. “S.R. 224 is the backbone of our regional system, enabling far more daily trips than any other corridor, and providing critical connectivity to both the Wasatch Front and the Wasatch Back.”

Rodriguez and Gabriel Shields, the transit district’s bus rapid transit project manager, met with the Summit County Council and Park City Council on Monday for a joint meeting to provide an update on the endeavor.

The bus rapid transit project is in the final design phase, and High Valley Transit plans to select a contractor by early December. Rodriguez needed confirmation from both the city and county that officials still wanted to pursue the project after almost a decade of work.

However, there won’t be an accurate estimate on the final price tag until next spring.

The worst-case scenario was estimated to cost a total of $70.9 million in 2022, but it’s now jumped to between $97 million and $103 million with inflation. High Valley Transit has already secured $64 million through state and federal funding as well as the transit sales tax.

Park City Municipal expected to contribute around $6 million to the original project, and some city councilors were surprised to learn that it could more than triple if High Valley Transit is unable to bridge the funding gap. They questioned the reason for the increase and whether it was worth the cost to add or improve bus stops at certain locations such as Thaynes Canyon.

Rodriguez said the $20 million request was a placeholder because the transit district was told “this conversation could not be had without a specific number.” She maintained everything was included in the project to improve the quality of life for residents and commuters while promoting connectivity to the Park City Transit system.

“We have always said we are working to lower this cost. It is not going to be an unfair burden on Park City,” Rodriguez said. 

There would be dedicated bus lanes with mixed flow traffic starting at the Kimball Junction Transit Center down to Kearns Boulevard with new bus stops along the way. Then there would be improvements such as turn lanes and more green lights for buses heading from the Fresh Market area into Old Town Park City. 

Shields estimated the time savings is more than 25 minutes.

“On day one, we are ready to provide 5,000 rides every day,” he said. “That is seven days a week from 6 a.m. to midnight, including peak 10-minute service at those really high-demand periods. We recognize that the transportation solution for the community requires a holistic approach. That’s going to require dedicated transit such as BRT as well as regional park-and-ride and parking demand strategies. That is really the first step towards that vision,” Shields said.

The bus rapid transit project was originally designed to be 115 feet wide, but it was reduced to help save money. Shields explained other changes have been made to optimize the design such as changing the entire corridor to a 45 mph zone, decreasing the lane, median and shoulder widths as well as including city and county trail projects — all of which mean cost savings.

Bill Ciraco, Ed Parigian and Jeremy Rubell, the newest members on the City Council, debated the benefits of the bus rapid transit project and seemed to want to wait before committing more money to the road work. There were also discussions about the implications of ending the project at Canyons Village rather than going into the city limits.

Rodriguez warned that if Park City backed out of the partnership, the region would become “a laughing stock” and future funding would be put at risk.

“You can bet it won’t come here, not if we have to give back $25 million in federal funding or $30 million in state funding,” she said. “Let me rephrase: High Valley Transit and the county are not going to go back to [the Utah Department of Transportation] and say, ‘We promised we would deliver on this project where all the data says it will be successful in a benchmark.’ We’re not going to do that. So, one of our other partners is going to have to go back and say … we changed our mind.”

Park City Mayor Nann Worel encouraged all parties to find a compromise because she was not willing to jeopardize the relationships that the municipal government has spent years building. 

“I’m not going to do that,” Worel declared.

The city councilors reaffirmed their support for moving forward with the project at the end of the two-hour-long meeting despite initial suggestions that they should wait to take a vote.

The post S.R. 224’s bus rapid transit project accelerates toward 2028 completion appeared first on Park Record.

High Valley Transit is embarking on a short-range planning effort to upgrade transit services across the Wasatch Back over the next five years by addressing gaps and improving productivity.

The transit district hosted its first open house to discuss the plan at the Summit County Richins Building on Monday as it makes its way through the planning process. High Valley Transit is in the second of five phases, which is designed to identify unmet needs in the community and survey the public on what improvements they’d like to see.

The third step to discuss service alternatives is expected to kick off in November with the next phase, strategy and impact analysis, scheduled for December and January. High Valley Transit’s goal is to implement any changes by March 2025.

Possibilities for the future include more frequent service on bus routes, expanded service to new areas that are currently hard to reach and more reliable microtransit services in Summit and Wasatch counties, according to principal transit planner David Perlmutter. He works for Via Transportation, which is contracted by High Valley Transit to provide digital infrastructure for its transportation systems.

Community members are encouraged to provide public input to help officials develop an action plan that addresses local connections and regional collaboration. High Valley Transit is considering factors such as demographic information, employment density and age to determine which improvements to make. 

Perlmutter highlighted the importance of understanding what motivates people to use public transit. 

Areas with higher transit needs include places with zero-vehicle households, which are most concentrated in the Trailside and Kimball Junction neighborhoods, and communities with higher poverty rates such as Old Town, Deer Valley, Quinn’s Junction, Kamas and Francis. 

They also want to consider where there is a high density of workers living such as Prospector Square or Heber City, which has become a big user of High Valley Transit. Perlmutter said that was a big motivation for extending the 106 route down into Wasatch County.

Most High Valley Transit riders are between 15 to 24 years old, while senior citizens in the Wasatch Back don’t ride as often as in other places.

Around a dozen community members attended the open house this week, most of whom identified themselves as current or former High Valley Transit users. They raised specific issues with overcrowding on the 101 Spiro route from Deer Valley to Jeremy Ranch, the need for more bus stops, missed connections or consistency and seat unavailability. 

High Valley Transit officials said the problems are more of a supply issue than a problem with demands for service. Perlmutter said the transit district is punching well above its weight.

Beth Ko, a transportation planner with High Valley Transit, said the transit district is also considering adding additional service areas to the 107 route and may add another route dubbed the Snowball Express to better serve the Snyderville Basin, Canyons Village and Park City Mountain. There’s also a chance a new line might run to Deer Valley East Village.

The Board of Trustees was expected to discuss some of the options during a meeting on Tuesday morning. Meeting dates for Kamas and Coalville will be announced soon.

A community survey to help drive the decisions will be open for the next few weeks. Additional information is available at highvalleytransit.org

The post High Valley Transit launches short-range plan to improve public transportation appeared first on Park Record.

Demand for public transit in Wasatch County has only grown since the county began partnering with High Valley Transit in November 2022, and, as officials are considering the best way to further grow the services, costs are growing with it.

“Just a reminder that since you started funding services, you’ve provided almost 300,000 rides in Wasatch County,” Caroline Rodriguez, High Valley Transit’s executive director, told the County Council last week. “You have very, very high demand in winter on both fixed and micro.”

Use of the public transportation options increased between the first and second winters they were offered. January 2024 saw 27.3% more micro transit rides, while passenger use of the Route 106 Wasatch Back Connector between Wasatch and Summit counties rose 3.4%.

Despite the community’s growing interest and use of the public transportation services, councilors still questioned how they could best expand the services, and if they are being used appropriately.

They asked Rodriguez about several inquiries they’ve heard from community members about age limits, accident liability, possible fares and ways they can prioritize providing some kinds of trips over others.

She suggested some options to more tightly regulate who rides where and pays what, but she strongly emphasized the role of a public transportation service open to all — to provide transportation to everyone regardless of where they’re going, why or what their circumstances are.

“I’ve heard loud and clear that I think that the council is very interested in paratransit service, those advanced ride bookings for some of your most vulnerable populations, increasing the availability of micro so that your wait times go down,” Rodriguez said. “Some of the other things that we think are necessary in Wasatch County are full day services on your fixed Route 106, and then of course we as a team continue to look at what other services you may need.”

One expanding service she and County Executive Dustin Grabau discussed is additional stops along 106 for travelers headed to Deer Valley East Village, which Grabau said Deer Valley plans to fund this year.

Rodriguez presented councilors with costs the county would face to implement service expansions. Starting a paratransit service would cost an annual $199,020, increasing the micro transit service would be an annual $627,297, and running Route 106 daily through Dec. 9 to April 30 next year would cost $830,381. To do all would set the county back just under $1.7 million.

The councilors decided to form a subcommittee to determine what they should do. But before they did, they asked Rodriguez about what they can do to prioritize what they see as the most important rides, ensure that kids aren’t boarding without their parents’ knowledge, and potentially charge fares.

“As a public transit entity, we cannot make the judgment call. This is a policy call,” Rodriguez said when asked if the county could start prioritizing micro transit rides to people with certain needs. “Because you are funding it with local funds, you could potentially say, we as the Wasatch County Council, it is our policy that we will fund, for example, senior services as a priority. We want our money to go to seniors riding first or persons with disabilities first.”

The specifics of how they could do that, however, get more complicated.

“Let me just say that my opinion is that is a really bad idea and a very slippery slope and, outside of senior service, not something that is done really anywhere,” Rodriguez said. “That puts the burden on Wasatch County to say your trip is more important than your trip.”

The price would rise with the increase of administrative work in determining why people are going where they are going, she warned.

Why doesn’t the micro transit take riders to fixed routes instead of to their destinations? Councilor Erik Rowland asked. 

Because there is only one fixed route in Heber Valley, and micro transit does take people to that route when it leads to riders’ destinations, Rodriguez answered.

What if someone doesn’t want their kid using micro transit services? Councilor Kendall Crittenden asked.

“Then they should probably tell their kids not to get on a public transit bus,” Rodriguez answered.

Has transit ever decided to allow kids on only with a token of approval from their parents? Crittenden followed up.

“No,” Rodriguez answered. “We would be sued in a heartbeat.”

Can some micro transit rides be prioritized over others? Council Chair Spencer Park asked.

How would the district know which rides are going where, Rodriguez responded.

She also explained that if the county started charging fares, it’s likely they would lose money due to federal funding logistics while also driving riders away. 

Rowland clarified the council was just trying to figure out how to answer constituents who have taken issue with the transit system.

Rowland asked if reducing ridership isn’t the point of a possible nominal fee, as it would make people question their trips.

“No,” Rodriguez said emphatically. “That, for a public transit agency, is the antithesis of why we exist. We exist to serve the community and give access to anywhere in the community for any reason that people want. We as a public transit entity don’t make the policy or the judgments based on why you’re traveling.” 

“I think there is a very vocal minority that are very vocal about this issue,” Grabau said. “I think it might be worthwhile to seek broader input on this subject.”

The post Wasatch County Council grapples with growing demand for public transit appeared first on Park Record.

The Wasatch County Council next month will consider a small transit sales tax to continue providing and perhaps expand High Valley’s popular and controversial free microtransit service.

The councilors this week discussed officially joining the transit agency, but were wary that this would open them up to another transit tax beyond the 0.3% one they put on next month’s agenda. They also talked about the possibility of a ballot measure.

“I put together some metrics that I think we can use to talk about because some of the discussion centered around how we would establish success in this place,” County Executive Dustin Grabau said at the top of the conversation.

He showed that in March, there were 12,231 microtransit trips with a 57.2% aggregation, meaning about 7,000 of those trips were shared at some point during the route.  

“I think 7,000 trips is something to be proud of,” he said. “We provided all of those connections at a more efficient rate than had they taken place in single occupancy vehicles.”

According to rider surveys dispersed through the High Valley Transit app, 38% of the riders used the service to get to work and 88% of survey respondents said they were more likely to visit nearby businesses when using the service. Responders also indicated 21% of riders have a disability and only six or seven high school students use microtransit to get to school each day.

He also shared a 2020 statistic from an American Public Transportation Association study that showed every $1 invested in public transportation leads to $5 in economic return, $3 of those in actual business transactions. Every $1 million, he said, creates 50 jobs and people who switch from driving to utilizing public transit systems save about $10,000 annually.

“There are certainly deviations from that. But in general, I think it gives you an indication that if people are able to get around — even if it’s teens joyriding to hang out at Walmart, they’re more likely to buy something when they’re at Walmart,” he said. “Some people provided statements when they filled out the survey about their ability to live in the community because they don’t have to have a second car or that they can get to their job.”

Still, even the statistics that support the county keeping and growing its current transit options didn’t make up for the fact that after there was less county tax revenue than expected last year, the system is running at a 20% deficit.

“What do we do now?” Grabau asked councilors. “What I wanted to present is what I think are the four general options of what we can do with our transit service, and I ranked them in order of least budget impact to most budget impact.”

Option 1: Cut 20%

The benefit of the first option is that it would not cost the county anything, nor would it cause any tax raises, Grabau said.

“The cons are we would have a decreased service level,” he said.

There would be longer wait times and more restricted hours, which could lead to less confidence in the transit system.

“I think we lose credibility,” he said. “You end up with people who have a lack of confidence in transit or are unwilling to invest in it.”

Option 2: Short-term funding

“We do have things like our fund balance and some potential other revenue sources that we are looking into, but nothing concrete,” Grabau said.

The advantages would include a sustainable service level and no need to raise taxes in the immediate future.

The drawback is that short-term funding is short-term and thus unsustainable.

“What do we do come 2026?” Grabau asked.

Option 3: Sales tax with property tax offset

“We’re still trying to work through if that is possible,” Grabau clarified. “This advantage to this approach is that it would fund our current and potential future transit needs.”

In a previous meeting, he had identified some of those as a transit line stretching from Utah County to Wasatch County, paratransit service riders with disabilities would be able to reserve in advance, an expanded line connecting the valley to Park City, and more microtransit availability.

“There are some disadvantages,” Grabau said.

He wasn’t sure if the option would impact 2024 property taxes. If the funding is needed to close the deficit gap, he said, property taxes would not see much of a decrease.

“We need $600,000 to close that funding gap,” he said. 

“Does that mean we could do option 2 and 3 both?” Councilor Mark Nelson asked.

“Yes,” Grabau answered. “You could say for 2024, we’re going to use fund balance and we are either going to look at or … adopt a transit sales tax.”

Option 4: Sales tax, no offset

“That has some advantages in that we get the most rapid service expansion. Some of those funds could be used for additional public safety services,” Grabau said. “The biggest disadvantage is it has the largest impact to taxpayers.”

Grabau recommended further investing in public transportation, saying it would be more than worth it in the future and cutting back on current services in his opinion would “do more harm than good to those people who do use transit.”

“We have an accelerating growth rate of utilization,” he said. “I think we genuinely want to continue.”

He said he would opt for the second or third options, leaning toward the third to stop the problem from returning next year.

Councilor Erik Rowland didn’t agree with Grabau’s all of assessment.

“I’m finding myself agreeing with the third option, but I don’t really agree with your recommendation to not do the first option. I think this actually will go hand in hand with helping pass the third option,” he said. “If this really is a public service and the public is utilizing it, to me it’s more responsible that we stick to our budget and the send the message, ‘Sorry, we didn’t have the funds to pay for this, we have to reduce it. If you want it, this is what it’s going to take to keep it.'”

Then, he said, taxpayers would understand that to retain transit services would take more tax revenue. He said they could vote for that in a ballot measure.

Grabau said he thought reducing the existing transit options would fall below “a minimum viable transportation service.”

Other councilors were more hesitant to reduce what currently exists.

Nelson said he believed a ballot proposition for a tax raise would be “a terrible idea,” given the community’s lack of real knowledge about High Valley Transit in the county.

He said that popular local Facebook pages — such as Ask (Heber, UT) and Wasatch County Politics — spread misinformation that could cause community members to want to shut the system down.

“I think that we need to join High Valley Transit,” Nelson said. “I think that’s our future. I think that’s the obvious way for us to go.”

He proposed putting the a 0.3% transit sales tax on the council’s June meeting agenda.

The tax, Grabau specified, would not be implemented on grocery or gas costs. 

Councilor Steve Farrell agreed with Nelson, explaining that growth in tourism dollars can help relieve the property tax burden on county residents.

Near the end of the discussion, Rowland once again pushed for a ballot initiative, though he was left without support for the idea. Nelson’s motion passed 5-1, with Rowland being its lone opponent.

The post Wasatch County Council looks to small sales tax to bolster microtransit service appeared first on Park Record.