This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2010, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

In a recent op-ed ("Why UTA needs a new system of governance," Opinion, May 22), Michael Ransom described the Utah Transit Authority as he sees it, not as it is. Unfortunately, what he shares is little more than opinion, a few facts and misleading information.

He begins with the salary of UTA CEO John Inglish. He doesn't mention there are about 150 public employees in Utah who receive higher compensation than Inglish, or that UTA has been lauded by many national industry organizations for its outstanding performance.

UTA has been named Outstanding Public Transportation System of the Year by the American Public Transportation Association three times, more than any other transit agency, and also received APTA's Innovation Award in 2007 and 2009. In addition, UTA has received numerous awards from national engineering organizations for its excellent record in building projects on time and under budget, saving taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.

To back up his criticism, Ransom cites a nearly three-year-old legislative audit that expressed concerns about the board's oversight. However, Ransom fails to acknowledge that on May 18 both the Utah legislative auditor general and the legislative audit committee expressed satisfaction with the steps the UTA board has taken to strengthen its independence and oversight since the 2008 audit.

Ransom also repeats the claim he made last year that the annual subsidy per passenger on FrontRunner is $20,000, a figure that includes operating and capital costs. This is extremely misleading, as the industry standard for measuring transit subsidy includes operating costs only. No transit system in the world pays its capital costs from fare revenues -- not even Beijing, Hong Kong, Singapore, Paris, London or New York City.

Ransom disparages UTA's performance compared to other transit agencies but does so without sharing any data. If he had actually looked at peer Western transit agencies, Ransom would have found that UTA is significantly better in several key areas of performance.

Among seven Western transit agencies operating both bus and rail, UTA has consistently had the lowest operating cost per revenue mile for many years. The Transportation Research Board recently released a report on transit capital project "soft costs" (engineering, administration and overhead). The report showcased UTA and Sacramento as the lowest among all transit agencies, with soft costs for their large capital projects at less than half the percentage level of many other agencies.

Ransom concludes by asserting that if the UTA board were elected, it would be more responsive to taxpayers and customers. Of more than 200 major transit agencies in the U.S., only three have directly elected boards. Analysis by public-administration researchers has shown that those three agencies are no more responsive than those with appointed boards.

UTA's board members are appointed by publicly elected officials and the Utah Transportation Commission and are accountable directly to them. Most are business people with strong community ties and public service experience, and about half are elected officials themselves. Collectively, the UTA board is outstanding in quality and caliber, and its members are responsive and accountable to the officials who appointed them and the citizens they represent.

Unfortunately, Ransom has little or no background in transportation or transit operations, and his conclusions on the topic are questionable at best and not based on fact. His op-ed was less about how UTA is actually run as an organization and more about his personal anti-transit philosophies.

Larry Ellertson

is chairman of the Utah Transit Authority Board of Trustees.