UTA strikes careful balance

Utah Transit Authority has struck a careful balance in its latest route and fare restructuring plan. Instead of altering 80 bus routes, it changed 55. It restored the monthly pass for paratransit riders, albeit under threat of lawsuit. It has implemented staged fare increases over the next two years. Paratransit fares will remain the same for 2007 but will gradually increase 45 cents per one-way trip by 2009.

Fare and service changes can ignite controversy, and for good reason. For people with low incomes or disabilities, public transportation is their sole means of getting to work, medical appointments, stores, church and otherwise connecting with family, friends and their communities. Eliminating routes or drastically increasing fares can seriously impact their quality of life.

But taxpayers expect UTA to provide a service that is efficient and meets the needs of the largest numbers of riders. After receiving more than 3,000 comments on its redesign plan, UTA implemented some of the community's recommendations into its final plan, including restoration of buses that run to the Veterans Administration Hospital. That speaks well of the public process.

Yet, UTA angered some riders and advocates for the low income and disabled when it didn't inform them of the latest revision of bus routes and fares before they addressed the UTA board regarding their concerns. These individuals were made aware of the changes by a reporter covering the meeting. UTA officials blamed scheduling issues.

This may have been the case, but ensuring all were on the same page during public comment would have been a better use of time for all concerned. While UTA officials may have different opinions than advocates as to how the agency should operate, transit is a lifeline to people with disabilities and/or low incomes. They have a vested interest in any changes to the service, whether in routes or fare increases.

Perhaps UTA can make further refinements to its public processes in light of these events. But credit the board of trustees for amending its original proposal, in part, due to issues raised by the public during the comment period.