DETAILED ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION
Prior to identifying the Locally Preferred Alternative, the South Valley Transit Study team advanced three alternatives for further analysis, input and technical assessment through a detailed alternative evaluation.
The detailed alternative evaluation process built on the previous initial analysis and provided more quantitative information to inform the selection of the Locally Preferred Alternative.
This multi-step evaluation process helped the study team determine which transit mode and route would best meet the needs of transit users in southern Utah County.
​
Three transit alternatives were selected for further study: commuter rail, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), and BRT mixed alignment.
COMMUTER RAIL
The commuter rail alternative would provide commuter rail from Provo to Santaquin with four new stations at Springville, Spanish Fork, Payson, and Santaquin.
The commuter rail trains would operate primarily on a single track with portions of double tracking at the stations and passing locations along the Utah Transit Authority (UTA)-owned right-of-way.
BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT)
This alternative would provide Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) from Provo to Santaquin with four new stations at Springville, Spanish Fork, Payson and Santaquin.
BRT would operate on the same existing rail corridor alignment as the Commuter Rail Alternative, which would be retrofitted to accommodate BRT.
BRT DESIGN ALTERNATIVE
This alternative would provide Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) from Provo to Santaquin with four new stations at Springville, Spanish Fork, Payson and Santaquin.
BRT would operate on the same existing rail corridor alignment as the Commuter Rail Alternative, which would be retrofitted to accommodate BRT.
OPERATIONAL SCENARIOS
Operational scenarios were also performed when evaluating the performance of the alternatives. The operational scenarios provided insight on how ridership would vary with the frequency of service and estimations of annual operating costs.
Two operational scenarios were presented, and each of the alternative’s performance was measured against that scenario. Scenario A included a high-frequency service that included 30-minute peak and 60-minute off-peak frequency to match the FrontRunner’s frequency. Scenario B included peak service only in the morning and evening.
Although scenario B showed that reducing transit frequency also resulted in an overall reduction in operation and maintenance cost, but ridership and return on investment were also decreased. Regardless of operation scenario, transit times, capital costs, land use compatibility, transit-oriented development and construction complexity remained similar.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
