I think the FrontRunner is great in every aspect (less polution, yeah!), except one. Please let me know if I am correct in my thinking. Because of Utahns' thrify nature, I would be suprised if many people are willing to pay $145/month or $11.00/day to travel to work and back home each day on FrontRunner, regardless of the alternatives (paying $3.00/gallon of gas and driving a car). Especially considering that FrontRunner only saves a person significant amounts of time when I-15 has extremely bad traffic. My friend drives into SLC each day from Kaysville and rarely gets stuck for long periods of time in traffic. For him and others who don't make a lot of $$$ and who are more price sensitive, the FrontRunner is just too expensive considering they probably drive smaller cars that don't use as much fuel during the commute from Davis County to SLC and are relatively cheap to drive. I would also think that those who drive SUV's into work have enough money that they don't have much motivation to take the FrontRunner.

But that's just one thought I had while reading the article. Watch me eat my words in a year.

There is one omission in this article which, to me, is one of the most important aspects of this venture. That is, what is the expected number of commuters who will use this on a regular basis? Perhaps this is because, as another commentator has previously mentioned, relative to driving one's self, it appears Front Runner will be hard pressed to offer a reasonable alternative.

The travel time appears to be roughly the same or slightly longer. The expense, when added to those of paying for a vehicle parked in one's garage, make this hard to justify. Other than the being relieved of the actual responsibilty of driving, the whole process is much less convenient.

Unless the price of gas doubles, I have a hard time imagining this is going to make it in the real world.

I agree. Right now, it doesn't seem very economical to take the Front Runner over driving to work, but I think several years down the road (maybe sooner than that) when gas is $5 a gallon and the freeways look like LA's freeway system, then it will be more economical in both money and time-savings. And no one can put a value on someone's time.

WiFi would be awesome. Oh wait, you just told me this the other day (because I live in Syracuse and would ride the train):

"Davis and Weber counties will lose at least $800,000 in transit service next year because elected officials failed to pass a sales tax hike to offset a revenue shortfall, the Utah Transit Authority said Wednesday."

"As much as $3.8 million in service reductions � including cuts to FrontRunner commuter rail service � could occur if the two counties fail to pass the tax hike before the third quarter of next year, according to UTA."

Never mind. Hosed by UTA again.

The comments are right: Utahns tend to be either overly thrifty or the exact opposite. The thrifty crowd will add up the cost of gas and think the train isn't worth it. The ostentatious spenders don't care and will continue commuting in their big vehicles.

However, there's something people don't generally consider when comparing costs: the cost of gas is only a small part of the cost of owning a vehicle. Brakes, shocks, tires, fluid changes, tune ups, repairs -- all this adds up but most people ignore it because it's "occasional expenses". And even if the vehicle is parked in the garage, you're still paying for insurance, registration and probably loan interest.

I have a 35 mpg commuter car, but I leave it parked mostly and now ride a scooter (even when it's 25 degrees) because the bus in my area isn't convenient. If I just considered the gas cost difference (35 mpg vs 75 mpg), it wouldn't seem worth it. But factoring in all the other costs make it worthwhile.

So I think for the people that factor in all of this, they'll find the train a good alternative, plus they can sleep on it!

You also forget that a lot of people driving to SLC are not only paying $100 gas/mo., but $80/mo for parking passes at downtown garages. $145 quickly becomes affordable then.

I would think that those who pay $145/month for a pass would still own a car for other types of travel, right? For example, you still have to drive a car to the station where FrontRunner picks you up; you still have to drive to church on the weekends; you still have to drive to the store for groceries. So for those who are arguing that an automobile's expenses are much higher than most estimate (and that consequently riding FrontRunner would be more financially beneficial), those expenses are incured regardless of whether you pay $145/month for a FrontRunner pass or not.

In other words, just because you ride FrontRunner does not mean you will be able to eliminate the expenses (insurance, brakes, oil changes, repairs, registration, etc) of owning a car. Because you will still need a car for other things.

Of course people said no one would ride TRAX before it opened and it is packed. The train is comfortable and you can actually relax, talk, get work done or other things on the train.

boy george,

Most families have 2 or more cars. All those other short trips, weekend stuff, etc. can be done with the one car, and you can eliminate one. Even if you keep both vehicles, your brakes, oil changes, etc. will go down, and you can also get a lower insurance rate if you don't drive it as much.

Yeah, but don't you still have to drive one car to a Park & Ride lot or to the FrontRunner station if you're going to ride the thing?

As someone who owned a car in the Bay Area, believe me, this is going to get used! It took 10-20 minutes longer to take the train than it did to drive the 30 miles between work and home, however traffic stress was gone with the riding vs. driving. As people try it they are going to embrace it, mark my words. Also, the pressure to be green is building and there is a tax write off for transit passes that there isn't for a commuter car.