Oh, Did We Tell You That The Rail Line Doesn't Qualify for Federal Funds

I was somewhat surprised at what I found on page 5-12 of the Environmental Study Report. I will just provide for you, their words. I think they say it best.

"Historically, UTA has received federal New Starts, Section 5309, discretionary grant funds for fixed quideway projects. FTA sets a maximum of 80% federal contribution for these funds, yet it is increasingly rare that this maximum is realized by project sponsors. Projects requesting New Starts funding are required to meet a threshold of several indicators specific to these applications, including an index of cost-effectiveness. The cost-effectiveness index is a calculation based largely on the project cost divided by the Transportation System User Benefit. The Transportation System User Benefit is a measure of the aggregate time saved by users of the system, which is a function of ridership and improved transit trip time. FTA sets the minimum cost-effectiveness threshold, which is currently $24.99/hour, although it is subject to change.

The Build Alternative has a New Starts cost-effectiveness index of $32.51. Therefore, the Build

Alternative as it is proposed in this ESR would not qualify for News Starts funds. To meet the current New Starts project evaluation threshold for cost-effectiveness, there would need to be extensive design changes that reduce costs, improve travel time, or increase ridership; an extensive decrease in cost or a significant increase in Transportation System User Benefit; or a relative combination of both." (Bold & Italics Added)

Did the UTA just say that this project, the rail line on Centerville and Bountiful Main Streets, is too costly, moves people too slowly, and will not attract enough riders? Finally I agree.