DOCSLIB.ORG

2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Comprehensive Annual Financial Report For Fiscal Years Ended December 31, 2017 and 2016 SM U T A H T R A N S I T A U T H O R I T Y UTA Mission Statement Provide integrated mobility solutions to service life’s connections, improve public health and enhance quality of life. UTA Vision We move people Comprehensive Annual Financial Report For Fiscal Years Ended December 31, 2017 and 2016 Finance Department Robert K. Biles Vice President, Finance Troy Bingham Comptroller UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT Years Ended December 31, 2017 and 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTORY SECTION Letter of Transmittal ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7 Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting ………………………………………………………………………… 18 Organizational Chart ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 19 Board of Trustees and Administration …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 20 System Map ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 23 FINANCIAL SECTION Independent Auditor’s Report …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 25 Management's Discussion and Analysis ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 28 Financial Statements Comparative Statements of Net Position ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 38 Comparative Statements of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Position ………………………………………………. 40 Comparative Statements of Cash Flows …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 41 Notes to the Financial Statements …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 43 REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION SECTION Schedules of Changes in Net Pension Liability……………………………………………………………………………………………………... 75 Statement of Required Employer Contributions………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 76 Notes to the Required Supplementary Information…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 76 SUPPLEMENTARY SCHEDULES Schedules of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Net Position Budget and Actual……………………………………………. 78 STATISTICAL SECTION Financial Trends These schedules contain trend information to help the reader understand how the Authority’s financial ppperformance and well-being have changed over time Net Position…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 80 Change in Net Position…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 80 Revenue History by Source ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 81 Expense History by Function………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 81 Revenue Capacity These schedules contain information to help the reader assess the Authority’s most significant local revenue ssssources Local Contributions from Other Governments…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 82 Local Transit Sales Tax Rates by County………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 82 Principal Contributors of Sales Tax………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 83 Fares……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 83 UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT Years Ended December 31, 2017 and 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) STATISTICAL SECTION (continued) Debt Capacity These schedules present information to help the reader assess the affordability of the Authority’s current level ooof outstanding debt and the Authority’s ability to issue additional debt in the future Debt Service Coverage……………………..………………….……………………………………………………………………………………………… 84 Demographic and Economic Information These schedules offer demographic and economic indicators to help the reader understand the environment tttwithin which the Authority’s financial activities take place. Demographic and Economic Statistics…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 84 Operating Information These schedules contain service and infrastructure data to help the reader understand how the information in the Authority's financial report relates to the services the Authority provides and the activities it performs. Principal Employers…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 85 Full Time Equivalent Employees ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 85 Trend Statistics ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 86 Operating Indicators and Capital Assets …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 87 Performance Measures – Bus Service ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 88 Performance Measures – Commuter Rail ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 91 Performance Measures – Light Rail ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 94 Performance Measures – Demand Response …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 97 COMPLIANCE SECTION Schedules of expenditures of federal awards for the year ending December 31, 2017 Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control over financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other nnnMatters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing nnnStandards…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 101 Independent Auditor’s Report on Compliance for Each Major Program and on Internal Control over nnlCompliance Required by the Uniform Guidance…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 103 Schedule of expenditures of federal awards ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 106 Notes to SEFA……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 109 Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 110 OTHER SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Independent Auditor’s Report on Compliance and Report on Internal Control Over Compliance as required by tttttthe State Compliance Audit Guide……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 113 Introductory For Fiscal Years Ended December 31, 2017 and 2016 SM UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY 669 West 200 South Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 1-888-RIDE-UTA May 29, 2018 www.rideuta.com To the Board of Trustees Utah Transit Authority and Citizens within the UTA Service Area We are pleased to submit to you the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) of the Utah Transit Authority (the Authority) for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016. This document has been prepared by the Authority’s Finance Department using the guidelines recommended by the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada and conforms to accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America and promulgated by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. Management assumes full responsibility for the completeness and reliability of the information contained in this report. Management bases their assurance upon a comprehensive framework of internal control that has been established for this purpose. To provide a reasonable basis for making these representations, management of the Authority has established a comprehensive internal control framework that is designed both to protect the government’s assets from loss, theft, or misuse and to compile sufficient statements in conformity with GAAP. Because the cost of internal controls should not outweigh their benefits, the Authority’s comprehensive framework of internal controls has been designed to provide reasonable rather than absolute assurance that the financial statements will be free from material misstatement. This report contains financial statements and statistical data which provide full disclosure of all the material financial operations of the Authority. The financial statements have been prepared on the accrual basis of accounting in conformance with generally accepted accounting principles. The Authority is accounted for as a single enterprise fund. This CAFR is indicative of the Authority’s commitment to provide accurate, concise and high-quality financial information to the residents of its service area and to all other interested parties. -Page 7- UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY INTRODUCTORY Years Ended December 31, 2017 and 2016 The Authority The Utah Transit Authority was incorporated on March 3, 1970 under authority of the Utah Public Transit District Act of 1969 for the purpose of providing a public mass transportation system for Utah communities. The Authority is governed by a 16 member board of trustees which is the legislative body of the Authority and determines all questions of Authority policy. Twelve members of the Board of Trustees (one non-voting) are appointed by each county, municipality or combination of municipalities which have been annexed to the Authority. The Board also includes one member who is appointed by the State Transportation Commission who acts as a liaison between the Authority and the Transportation Commission, one member of the board is appointed by the Governor, one member is appointed by the Speaker of the Utah State House of Representatives and one member is appointed by the President of the State Senate. All fifteen voting members have an equal vote as the Board of Trustees passes resolutions an ordinances and sets policies for the Authority. The responsibility for the operation of the Authority is held by the President/CEO in accordance with the direction, goals and policies of the Authority’s Board of Trustees. The President/CEO has full charge of the acquisition, construction, maintenance, and operation of the facilities of the Authority and of the administration of the business affairs of the Authority. The President/CEO supervises the executive staff which includes the Vice President of Operations, Vice President of External Affairs, Vice President of Finance, Chief Safety, Security, and Technology Officer, and Chief People Officer. The Chief Executive
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bus & Motorcoach News
    May 1, 2007 WHAT’S GOING ON IN THE BUS INDUSTRY Transit agencies lambaste charter rules proposal WASHINGTON — Disgrunt- Most of the rest are from pri- for public transit agencies, which While the formal comments led pubic transit operators from vate motorcoach operators who have been the subject of much con- filed by the transit agencies with Charter comments across the country have inundated also have an important stake in the troversy and disputes between pri- the FTA zeroed in on a number of the Federal Transit Administration rules that regulate the type of char- vate and public carriers. issues, their harshest words were available on Web with complaints about the agency’s ters public transit systems can pro- Many of the measures in the directed at the definition of charter WASHINGTON — Upwards of proposed charter bus regulations. vide. proposal came from a joint com- service, which they said would 300 letters, many of them 6-to-10 Of the nearly 300 letters and “We’ve got our work cut out for mittee of representatives of public severely limit their ability to pro- pages long, have been sent to the messages sent to the federal agency us,” noted an FTA attorney who transit operators and private vide shuttle service for many of the Federal Transit Administration, com- in response to its call for comments will help review the materials motorcoach carriers who took part community events that take place menting on its proposed rules for on the proposed rules changes, received during the two-month in a series of negotiated-rule-mak- in their communities each year.
    [Show full text]
  • Caltrain Fare Study Draft Research and Peer Comparison Report
    Caltrain Fare Study Draft Research and Peer Comparison Report Public Review Draft October 2017 Caltrain Fare Study Draft Research and Peer Comparison October 2017 Research and Peer Review Research and Peer Review .................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 2 A Note on TCRP Sources ........................................................................................................................................... 2 Elasticity of Demand for Commuter Rail ............................................................................... 3 Definition ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Commuter Rail Elasticity ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Comparison with Peer Systems ............................................................................................ 4 Fares ................................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Employer Programs ..................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Mar.-Apr.2020 Highlites
    Prospect Senior Center 6 Center Street Prospect, CT 06712 (203)758-5300 (203)758-3837 Fax Lucy Smegielski Mar.-Apr.2020 Director - Editor Municipal Agent Highlites Town of Prospect STAFF Lorraine Lori Susan Lirene Melody Matt Maglaris Anderson DaSilva Lorensen Heitz Kalitta From the Director… Dear Members… I believe in being upfront and addressing things head-on. Therefore, I am using this plat- form to address some issues that have come to my attention. Since the cost for out-of-town memberships to our Senior Center went up in January 2020, there have been a few miscon- ceptions that have come to my attention. First and foremost, the one rumor that I would definitely like to address is the story going around that the Prospect Town Council raised the dues of our out-of-town members because they are trying to “get rid” of the non-residents that come here. The story goes that the Town Council is trying to keep our Senior Center strictly for Prospect residents only. Nothing could be further from the truth. I value the out-of-town members who come here. I feel they have contributed significantly to the growth of our Senior Center. Many of these members run programs here and volun- teer in a number of different capacities. They are my lifeline and help me in ways that I could never repay them for. I and the Town Council members would never want to “get rid” of them. I will tell you point blank why the Town Council decided to raise membership dues for out- of-town members.
    [Show full text]
  • Sounder Commuter Rail (Seattle)
    Public Use of Rail Right-of-Way in Urban Areas Final Report PRC 14-12 F Public Use of Rail Right-of-Way in Urban Areas Texas A&M Transportation Institute PRC 14-12 F December 2014 Authors Jolanda Prozzi Rydell Walthall Megan Kenney Jeff Warner Curtis Morgan Table of Contents List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ 8 List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. 9 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... 10 Sharing Rail Infrastructure ........................................................................................................ 10 Three Scenarios for Sharing Rail Infrastructure ................................................................... 10 Shared-Use Agreement Components .................................................................................... 12 Freight Railroad Company Perspectives ............................................................................... 12 Keys to Negotiating Successful Shared-Use Agreements .................................................... 13 Rail Infrastructure Relocation ................................................................................................... 15 Benefits of Infrastructure Relocation ...................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Director of Capital Development $146,000 - $160,000 Annually
    UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY Director of Capital Development $146,000 - $160,000 annually Utah Transit Authority provides integrated mobility solutions to service life’s connection, improve public health and enhance quality of life. • Central Corridor improvements: Expansion of the Utah Valley Express (UVX) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line to Salt Lake City; addition of a Davis County to Salt Lake City BRT line; construction of a BRT line in Ogden; and the pursuit of world class transit-oriented developments at the Point of the Mountain during the repurposing of 600 acres of the Utah State Prison after its future relocation. To learn more go to: rideuta.com VISION Provide an integrated system of innovative, accessible and efficient public transportation services that increase access to opportunities and contribute to a healthy environment for the people of the Wasatch region. THE POSITION The Director of Capital Development plays a critical ABOUT UTA role in getting things done at Utah Transit Authority UTA was founded on March 3, 1970 after residents from (UTA). This is a senior-level position reporting to the Salt Lake City and the surrounding communities of Chief Service Development Officer and is responsible Murray, Midvale, Sandy, and Bingham voted to form a for cultivating projects that improve the connectivity, public transit district. For the next 30 years, UTA provided frequency, reliability, and quality of UTA’s transit residents in the Wasatch Front with transportation in the offerings. This person oversees and manages corridor form of bus service. During this time, UTA also expanded and facility projects through environmental analysis, its operations to include express bus routes, paratransit grant funding, and design processes, then consults with service, and carpool and vanpool programs.
    [Show full text]
  • Impact Analysis of a Potential Mbta Fare Increase
    TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM: IMPACT ANALYSIS OF A POTENTIAL MBTA FARE INCREASE Prepared for Dennis A. DiZoglio, MBTA Asst. General Manager for Planning and Real Estate Prepared by Clinton S7Bench, Manager Transit Service Planning Contributing Staff Vijay Mahal Thomas Hum hrey Jonathan BelcR er Rama Karamalaputi Grace King Central Transportation Planning Staff Directed by the Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization. The MPO is composed of state and regional agencies and authorities, and local governments August 27,2003 INTRODUCTION CTPS has conducted a Fare Increase Impacts Analysis to assist the MBTA Board of Directors in determining the following impacts of the proposed 2004 fare increase: Revenue and Ridership Impacts -- Q- Air Quality Impacts Environmental Justice Impacts Service Reductions In Lieu of a Fare Increase This memorandum will describe our findings on each of these issues in the sections below. Substantial portions of this text were provided by Vijay Mahal, Manager of Transportation Systems Analysis, and Thomas J. Humphrey and Jonathan Belcher, both of the Transit Service Planning Group. REVENUE AND RIDERSHIP IMPACTS Explanation of Fare Elasticity Fares are one of many factors that influence the level of ridership on transit services. Fare elasticity is the measure of the expected or observed rate of change in ridership relative to a change in fares if all other factors remain constant. For example, an elasticity of -0.3 indicates that for every 1%increase in fares, a ridership decrease of 0.3% would be expected. Conversely, with the same elasticity a 1%fare reduction would be expected to increase ridership by 0.3%. Ridership and revenue changes for each mode as the result of a fare increase are calculated using the following formulas: 1) A ridership = ridership ,,, x elasticity factor x O/o increase in fare + 100 2) A revenue = (ridership ,,, + A ridership) x new fare - (ridership ,,, x old fare) For example, with an initial ridership of 1,000 passengers a day and a fare of $1.00, revenue would be $1,000.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 5 W/Addendums
    Tri-Rail Coastal Link Study (formerly known as the South Florida East Coast Corridor Study) Tri-Rail Coastal Link Miami-Dade Getting Southeast Florida To Work Broward Palm Beach Broward Metropolitan Planning Organization Florida Department of Transportation Miami-Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization Palm Beach Metropolitan Planning Organization Southeast Florida Transportation Council South Florida Regional Planning Council South Florida Regional Transportation Authority Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Preliminary Project Development Report April 2014 Appendix 5: Operations and Maintenance Cost Methodology and Results FINAL FM No. 41703132201 Note to Reader: In December 2013, the alternatives naming convention for the Tri-Rail Coastal Link study was revised to standardize how the various alternatives that were tested during Phase 3 are referenced. The Preliminary Project Development Report reflects the latest alternative names, as do those appendices to the report that were updated on or after December 2013. In Appendix 5, the O&M Technical Memorandum and Addendum 1 reflect the previous naming convention, while Addendums 2 and 3 were updated to reflect the names in the main Preliminary Project Development Report. The table below shows the old names noted in the Technical Memorandum and Appendix 1 along with their counterparts under the new naming convention. Old Alternative Name New Alternative Name (Preliminary ProjeProjectct Development Report, Addendum 222 and Addendum 33)))) Build (Technical Memorandum) Interim Build Alternative
    [Show full text]
  • Public Transit Office Department of Transportation State of Florida
    7/28/2017 5:19:20 PM TRANSIT FACILITIES GUIDELINES Department ofTransportation Public TransitOffice State ofFlorida STREETSIDE BUSSTOP LOCATIONS TRANSIT FACILITIESGUIDELINES & DESIGN TYPES SHEET CS NO. TABLE OF CONTENTS STREETSIDE BUS STOP LOCATIONS & DESIGN TYPES 1 of 41 STREETSIDE COMBINATION BUS STOP LOCATIONS 2 of 41 BUS STOP LOCATION RELATIVE TO ACCESS POINTS 3 of 41 BUS STOP LOCATION RELATIVE TO RAILROAD CROSSING 4 of 41 BUS STOP LANDING PADS AND SIGNAGE 5 of 41 BUS SHELTER DETAILS 6 of 41 CLOSED BUS BAY LAYOUT URBAN/CURB & GUTTER 7 of 41 CLOSED BUS BAY LAYOUT RURAL/SHOULDER 8 of 41 NEAR SIDE BUS FACILITY DECISION TREE 9 of 41 NEAR SIDE BUS STOPS 10 of 41 NEAR SIDE BUS BAYS WITH ON STREET PARKING 11 of 41 NEAR SIDE BUS BAYS WITH RIGHT TURN LANE 12 of 41 NEAR SIDE BUS BAYS/STOPS 13 of 41 NEAR SIDE BUS BAYS/STOPS 14 of 41 FAR SIDE BUS FACILITY DECISION TREE 15 of 41 FAR SIDE BUS BAYS WITH RIGHT TURN LANE 16 of 41 FAR SIDE CLOSED BUS BAYS WITH RIGHT TURN LANE 17 of 41 FAR SIDE NUB/BULB WITH ON STREET PARKING 18 of 41 FAR SIDE BUS BAYS 19 of 41 FAR SIDE BUS BAYS/STOPS 20 of 41 MID-BLOCK BUS FACILITY DECISION TREE 21 of 41 MID-BLOCK DETAILS 22 of 41 MID-BLOCK BUS STOPS WITH ON STREET PARKING 23 of 41 MID-BLOCK BUS BAYS/STOPS 24 of 41 MID-BLOCK BUS BAYS/STOPS 25 of 41 MID-BLOCK BUS STOPS 26 of 41 MID-BLOCK BUS BAYS/STOPS 27 of 41 NEAR SIDE BUS STOP LOCATION ADJACENT TO CANAL 28 of 41 FAR SIDE BUS STOP LOCATION ADJACENT TO CANAL 29 of 41 MID-BLOCK BUS STOP LOCATION ADJACENT TO CANAL 30 of 41 NEAR SIDE ISOLATED BUS STOP LOCATION ADJACENT TO CANAL 31 of 41 FAR SIDE ISOLATED BUS STOP LOCATION ADJACENT TO CANAL 32 of 41 MID-BLOCK ISOLATED BUS STOP LOCATION ADJACENT TO CANAL 33 of 41 BOARDING AND ALIGHTING AREA DETAIL 34 of 41 BOARDING AND ALIGHTING AREA DETAIL 35 of 41 OFF STREET HALF SAW TOOTH BUS BAY 36 of 41 CONCURRENT FLOW BUS LANES MID-BLOCK 37 of 41 CONTRA-FLOW BUS LANES MID-BLOCK 38 of 41 BUSWAY MID-BLOCK 39 of 41 EXCLUSIVE BUSWAY 40 of 41 BUS-ON-SHOULDER OPERATIONS UNIT ERUPTED FLOW HIGHWAY 41 of 41 M P 8 4 : 9 1 : 5 7 1 0 2 / 8 2 / 7 SHEET NO.
    [Show full text]
  • Th E V O Lvo G Ro U P 2 0
    THE VOLVO GROUP ANNUAL REPORT 2012 The V olvo olvo G roup 2012 TOGETHER WE MOVE THE WORLD www.volvogroup.com A Global Group 2 CEO comment TOGETHER WE MOVE THE OperatiNG coNteXT 4 Future transport needs StrategY 8 Strategic approach BUsiNess model 22 Product offering WORLD 28 World-class services 30 A high-performing organization Without the products and services of the Volvo 32 Industrial structure Group the societies where many of us live 34 Production 35 Responsible sourcing would not function. Like lifeblood, our trucks, GroUP PerformaNce buses, engines and construction equipment are 36 Global strength involved in many of the functions that most of 38 Development by continent − Europe us rely on every day. 40 Focus new Volvo FH 42 Development by continent − North America For instance, one in seven meals eaten in 44 Development by continent − South America Europe reaches the consumers thanks to trucks 46 Focus Peru 48 Development by continent − Asia from the Volvo Group rolling on the roads of the 50 Focus Dongfeng continent. Buses are the most common type of 52 Focus Africa public transportation in the world, helping many Board of Directors’ report people to reach work, school, vacations, friends 56 Significant events and family. If all the Volvo buses in the world were 58 Trucks to start at the same time, they would transport 60 Buses more than 10 million people. Our construction 62 Construction equipment 64 Volvo Penta machines are used when building roads, houses, 66 Volvo Financial Services hospitals, airports, railroads, factories, offices, 68 Financial management shopping centers and recreational facilities.
    [Show full text]
  • First/Last Mile Strategies Study
    FIRST/LAST MILE STRATEGIES STUDY APRIL 2015 Acknowledgments The First/Last Mile Strategies Study was sponsored by the Utah Transit Authority, the Utah Department of Transportation, Wasatch Front Regional Council, and the Mountainland Association of Governments. This study owes much to the participation and dedication of its Steering Committee and Stakeholder Group members, as identified below. Thanks to everyone who contributed time and energy, and to those that share the vision of a connected Wasatch Front. STEERING COMMITTEE ▪ Utah Transit Authority: Jennifer McGrath and Hal Johnson ▪ Utah Department of Transportation : Angelo Papastamos and Jeff Harris ▪ Mountainland Association of Governments: Jim Price and Shawn Seager ▪ Wasatch Front Regional Council: Ted Knowlton and Ned Hacker ▪ University of Utah Traffic Lab: Cathy Liu, Richard J. Porter, Milan Zlatkovic, Jem Locquiao, and Jeffery Taylor STAKEHOLDER GROUP ▪ The First/Last Mile Strategies Study Steering Committee ▪ Utah Transit Authority: G.J. LaBonty, Richard Brockmyer, Jan Maynard, and Matt Sibul (staff team); and Keith Bartholomew and Necia Christensen (Board of Trustees) ▪ Bike Utah: Phil Sarnoff ▪ Davis County Health Department: Isa Perry ▪ Enterprise Car Share: Jamie Clark and James Crowder ▪ GREENbike: Ben Bolte and Will Becker ▪ Salt Lake City Mayor’s Accessibility Council: Todd Claflin ▪ Salt Lake County: Wilf Sommerkorn ▪ University of Utah Commuter Services: Alma Allred ▪ Utah Department of Health: Brett McIff CONSULTANT TEAM ▪ Fehr & Peers: Bob Grandy, Maria Vyas, Kyle Cook, Julie Bjornstad, Alex Roy, and Summer Dong ▪ Nelson\Nygaard: Linda Rhine, Terra Curtis, and Adina Ringler C Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . ES-1 1 INTRODUCTION . 1-1 Bridging the First/Last Mile Gap . 1-1 Purpose of Study .
    [Show full text]
  • Weber County to Salt Lake Commuter Rail Project; Salt Lake City, Utah
    FrontRunner North Rail Project Before-and-After Study (2013) Salt Lake City, Utah Learn more: www.transit.dot.gov/before-and-after-studies Weber County to Salt Lake Commuter Rail Project; Salt Lake City, Utah The Weber County to Salt Lake Commuter Rail Project, known as FrontRunner North, is a 44- mile commuter rail line extending north from downtown Salt Lake City through Ogden to the northern end of Weber County at Pleasant View, Utah. The project was planned, developed, and built by the Utah Transit Authority (UTA). FrontRunner North is the first commuter rail service in the Salt Lake City metropolitan area. UTA operates the commuter rail line as part of a region- wide transit system that includes local and express buses, bus rapid transit, and light rail. In early 2013, UTA opened FrontRunner South, a 40-mile extension of the commuter rail line extending south from downtown Salt Lake City to Orem, Utah. In September 2001, an alternatives analysis identified commuter rail in the north-south corridor as the preferred alternative for transit improvements in the corridor. The project entered preliminary engineering (PE) in December 2003, and advanced into final design (FD) in June 2005. UTA and FTA executed a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) for the project in June 2006. The project opened to service in May 2008. The accompanying figure is a map of FrontRunner North and the corridor it serves. Physical scope of the project The project extends over 44 miles from the Salt Lake Intermodal Center just west of downtown Salt Lake City to the northern terminus at the Pleasant View Station.
    [Show full text]
  • 20 Aug Combined TRAX Schedule
    WEEKDAY TRAX Green Line to Airport via Downtown Ogden Ogden Roy TRAX Blue Line 701 Multi-Day Parking e TRAX Red Line 703 Day Parking Clearfield TRAX Green Line 704 Free Fare Zone Temple Squar Temple Arena Gallivan Plaza Gallivan Center City 900 South Courthouse Central Pointe Central Ballpark North Temple W. 1940 Airport River Trail River North Temple Fairpark Station Power West Valley Central Valley West Lake Decker Junction Redwood Jackson/Euclid 7S-Line Streetcar 720 Bridge/Guadalupe FrontRunner 750 First train departs WEST VALLEY CENTRAL to AIRPORT at 5:17 am First train departs CENTRAL POINTE to AIRPORT at 5:02 am Layton 5:02 5:04 5:06 5:11 5:13 5:15 5:17 5:19 5:22 5:24 5:26 5:27 5:30 5:36 5:17 5:19 5:21 5:26 5:28 5:30 5:32 5:34 5:37 5:39 5:41 5:42 5:45 5:51 801-743-3882 (RIDE-UTA) rideuta.com rideuta 5:17 5:21 5:24 5:27 5:32 5:34 5:36 5:41 5:43 5:45 5:47 5:49 5:52 5:54 5:56 5:57 6:00 6:06 Farmington map not to scale Trains run every 15 minutes UNTIL 6:17 PM :02 :06 :09 :12 :17 :19 :21 :26 :28 :30 :32 :34 :37 :39 :41 :42 :45 :51 Woods Cross :17 :21 :24 :27 :32 :34 :36 :41 :43 :45 :47 :49 :52 :54 :56 :57 :00 :06 :32 :36 :39 :42 :47 :49 :51 :56 :58 :00 :02 :04 :07 :09 :11 :12 :15 :21 Arena Temple Square :47 :51 :54 :57 :02 :04 :06 :11 :13 :15 :17 :19 :22 :24 :26 :27 :30 :36 Trains run every 30 minutes AFTER 6:17 PM Airport :17 :21 :24 :27 :32 :34 :36 :41 :43 :45 :47 :49 :52 :54 :56 :57 :00 :06 :47 :51 :54 :57 :02 :04 :06 :11 :13 :15 :17 :19 :22 :24 :26 :27 :30 :36 Power Fairpark Planetarium City Center Salt Lake City University Last train departs WEST VALLEY CENTRAL to AIRPORT at 10:17 pm Jackson/Euclid 10:17 10:21 10:24 10:27 10:32 10:34 10:36 10:41 10:43 10:45 10:47 10:49 10:52 10:54 10:56 10:57 11:00 11:06 Medical Center North Temple Bridge 1940 W.
    [Show full text]