Transit Authority Avoids Hostile Takeover
None by KCPW
(KCPW News) The Utah Transit Authority narrowly escaped a hostile takeover yesterday. It was orchestrated by State Representative Wayne Harper, who wants the Utah Department of Transportation to absorb responsibility for buses, TRAX and commuter rail. But a panel of lawmakers worried the merger would be a set back to public transit in Utah and noted UTA's nationally recognized efficiency.The committee opted instead to study the proposal over the next year. Harper claims the state's transit needs should be managed by a statewide agency, rather than UTA, which operates more like a local district entity with close ties to cities and counties. Further, he says it would eliminate dual overhead expenses and require all rail and road projects to compete for funding based on their ability to eliminate congestion. The Wasatch Front Regional Council of Governments and UTA oppose the proposal.
Email to a friendPosted in KCPW Newsroom, Legislative Coverage, and 2007 Legislative Coverage. Copyright 2008 KCPW
1. Martin A. Soholt said:
Rep Harper's proposal to absorb UTA into UDOT has both merit and problems.
One problem, in my mind, is expressed in Mr. Harper's own claim that UTA "...operates more like a local district entity with close ties to cities and counties." Heaven's sake, that's what the Republican Party platform is all about, to push governmental operations and policy to the most local-level possible. It seems that the good representative is contradicting the essence of the very political party that nominated him. The fact that UTA has "close ties" to the communities it serves is a great strength which gives those communities of citizens (and customers) the ability to participate strongly in the direction of the transit service's operations and strategy.
The merit I see in the proposal is the ability to competitively compare various road and rail projects based upon their ability to eliminate congestion. That has already been addressed with the legislatively-mandated prioritization process that was implemented with the authority given LOCAL ENTITIES to assess a sales tax increase dedicated to transportation development. While such prioritizing should, certainly, rely heavily upon cost comparisons, effectiveness, etc., the preferences of the people who will pay for the project also need to be considered. (For the benefit of those politicians who may have forgotten, it’s called “the market”) The fact that many legislators decried SL and UT Counties' decision-making results in utilizing that process shows that the local communities are more able to utilize the market demand and public preferences of their citizens as part of that prioritization process than the state government.
The elimination of duplicate overhead is likely of relatively insignificant merit, based upon the ability to identify and cut actual duplicate "overhead" which is not needed for the effective operation of both agencies, whether separate or combined.
Given UTA's nationally-recognized efficiency (as noted by the panel of lawmakers considering the proposal), and the pressing issues of far more critical nature to the people of this state, I think it ill-advised to waste time with such a major re-organizational shuffle, which would certainly produce little positive results, and possibly even be detrimental to our transit system and passenger transportation system as a whole.
It might make more sense, and cost a lot less to simply rename UDOT to Utah Dept of Highways. Perhaps, that would cause less confusion for Rep Harper.
Martin A. Soholt149 E 135 SoMantua, UT (Box Elder County)msoholt@soholt.net
Add your comment: