Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cedar City study recommends 30‑minute local service, phased regional expansion
Summary
A consultant presented a multi‑phase Cedar City transit plan that recommends shifting from a single 75‑minute loop to a near‑term 30‑minute bidirectional coverage route, with midterm north/south splits and long‑term regional connections; consultants said funding avenues include federal transit grants, state TTIF, UTA partnerships and local options.
Daksha Masurkar, the consultant project manager for the Cedar City transit study, told council the city currently has one fixed route that runs roughly 20 miles in a loop with about 75‑minute headways and about 41 stops. "This fixed route is around 20 miles long and goes in a loop with a frequency of around 75 minutes," Masurkar said, noting long wait times and low public awareness of available stops.
The study, which collected more than 800 survey responses and convened a technical working group including UDOT and Southern Utah University representatives, frames a three‑phase plan. Near‑term (target year 2030) recommendations include a shorter, more productive bidirectional coverage route that would run every 30 minutes using the same two vehicles and an estimated annual operating cost roughly in line with current service. Midterm recommendations (through 2035) call for splitting the route into separate north and south lines, requiring additional cutaway buses and higher operating costs. Long‑term options include expanded regional routes to Enoch, Parowan and Brian Head contingent on intergovernmental cost‑sharing.
Masurkar emphasized that routing choices were based on population and employment projections, transit propensity metrics (including low‑income and zero‑car households), and destination demand such as Southern Utah University and medical centers. "We developed several routing options and evaluated which option would give us the most return on investment," Masurkar said.
The presentation outlined capital needs (buses, stops, basic shelters, signage) and technology investments (computerized dispatch and scheduling) to manage multiple routes and improve dial‑a‑ride efficiency. Funding sources discussed included Federal Transit Administration programs (bus and bus facilities, low‑ or no‑emissions programs), state technical and TTIF funding, UTA vanpool options, public–private employer partnerships for park‑and‑ride and potential local revenue mechanisms.
Council questions addressed tradeoffs among alternatives, where commuter hubs should be sited (downtown was preferred in the study), and whether a campus‑focused routing option conflicted with a downtown commuter‑hub preference. Masurkar clarified that stakeholders preferred routes serving the main SUU campus while also preferring a downtown commuter hub location.
Next steps identified by staff are to route the study back to the CATS committee for review, provide detailed cost spreadsheets to the public works director for budgeting, and continue stakeholder coordination. The study’s final report contains the full list of route variants and detailed cost estimates for capital and operations.
