Because commuter rail gives very little benefit at very great cost, it poses a great hazard to Utah and America. This year, the Deseret Morning News has published articles on more than a dozen staggering problems facing an economically weakened America. The times demand the highest caliber of fiscal stewardship, not the lowest as is the case in transportation planning. This is a dangerous time for wasteful experiments in socialized transportation with outdated trains.

The beginning segment of commuter rail will cost car-driving taxpayers nearly a billion dollars, enough for a major new freeway, a badly needed freeway makeover, like Bangerter, or two Legacy Highways, (at their pre-Sierra-Club-inflated price). It will not begin to reduce congestion till well after 2020. We can get more mobility improvement with many smart, modern, least-cost, and car-user-paid alternatives.

What's the best-data ridership prediction? The Federal Transit Administration's latest "New Riders" estimate is that it would add a minuscule 1/16th of 1 percent to regional trips and 3,232 new 2-way riders by 2025 (about 3,500 by 2030). Compare that to corridor car travel of 320,000 two-way trips daily in 2030.

What's the real cost? $582 million to build it and $310 million for 23-year operating subsidy, (farebox = 30 percent, DeLeuw Cather). That's $0.9 billion just for the north section and it's 1/16th of 1 percent of new trips.

For perspective, compare it to cost-performance data in the Wasatch Front Regional Council 2030 Long-Range Plan. For each 1 percent of travel on highways the cost is $250 million. This is the gold standard in transportation cost-benefit analysis. Car-user-paid highway spending is 58 times more cost-effective than trains.

What is the cost-effectiveness on a per-daily-rider basis? The FTA's cost per new boarding is $25.32 (earning it their lowest "low" ranking). This means that every time a new rider pays a nominal $3 fare to board the train, the car-driving taxpayer will fork over $22.32 subsidy. That's $44.64 per day and $937 monthly subsidy. (See www.publicpurpose.com. Look for the Jaguar photo for similar calculations.)

Will freeway travel times drop? Insignificant. Table 5.1 in the final environmental-impact statement shows no timesaving for most peak car trips in 2030. One in four peak drivers would save, perhaps, one minute. There would be no time saved for the vast majority of car trips in the corridor.

In sharp contrast, FTA statistics in Table 5.6 show two-way train riders getting two hours per day "user benefit."