Demand for public transit in Wasatch County has only grown since the county began partnering with High Valley Transit in November 2022, and, as officials are considering the best way to further grow the services, costs are growing with it.“Just a reminder that since you started funding services, you’ve provided almost 300,000 rides in Wasatch County,” Caroline Rodriguez, High Valley Transit’s executive director, told the County Council last week. “You have very, very high demand in winter on both fixed and micro.”Use of the public transportation options increased between the first and second winters they were offered. January 2024 saw 27.3% more micro transit rides, while passenger use of the Route 106 Wasatch Back Connector between Wasatch and Summit counties rose 3.4%.Despite the community’s growing interest and use of the public transportation services, councilors still questioned how they could best expand the services, and if they are being used appropriately. They asked Rodriguez about several inquiries they’ve heard from community members about age limits, accident liability, possible fares and ways they can prioritize providing some kinds of trips over others.She suggested some options to more tightly regulate who rides where and pays what, but she strongly emphasized the role of a public transportation service open to all — to provide transportation to everyone regardless of where they’re going, why or what their circumstances are.“I’ve heard loud and clear that I think that the council is very interested in paratransit service, those advanced ride bookings for some of your most vulnerable populations, increasing the availability of micro so that your wait times go down,” Rodriguez said. “Some of the other things that we think are necessary in Wasatch County are full day services on your fixed Route 106, and then of course we as a team continue to look at what other services you may need.”One expanding service she and County Executive Dustin Grabau discussed is additional stops along 106 for travelers headed to Deer Valley East Village, which Grabau said Deer Valley plans to fund this year.Rodriguez presented councilors with costs the county would face to implement service expansions. Starting a paratransit service would cost an annual $199,020, increasing the micro transit service would be an annual $627,297, and running Route 106 daily through Dec. 9 to April 30 next year would cost $830,381. To do all would set the county back just under $1.7 million.The councilors decided to form a subcommittee to determine what they should do. But before they did, they asked Rodriguez about what they can do to prioritize what they see as the most important rides, ensure that kids aren’t boarding without their parents’ knowledge, and potentially charge fares.“As a public transit entity, we cannot make the judgment call. This is a policy call,” Rodriguez said when asked if the county could start prioritizing micro transit rides to people with certain needs. “Because you are funding it with local funds, you could potentially say, we as the Wasatch County Council, it is our policy that we will fund, for example, senior services as a priority. We want our money to go to seniors riding first or persons with disabilities first.”The specifics of how they could do that, however, get more complicated.“Let me just say that my opinion is that is a really bad idea and a very slippery slope and, outside of senior service, not something that is done really anywhere,” Rodriguez said. “That puts the burden on Wasatch County to say your trip is more important than your trip.”The price would rise with the increase of administrative work in determining why people are going where they are going, she warned.Why doesn’t the micro transit take riders to fixed routes instead of to their destinations? Councilor Erik Rowland asked. Because there is only one fixed route in Heber Valley, and micro transit does take people to that route when it leads to riders’ destinations, Rodriguez answered.What if someone doesn’t want their kid using micro transit services? Councilor Kendall Crittenden asked.“Then they should probably tell their kids not to get on a public transit bus,” Rodriguez answered.Has transit ever decided to allow kids on only with a token of approval from their parents? Crittenden followed up.“No,” Rodriguez answered. “We would be sued in a heartbeat.”Can some micro transit rides be prioritized over others? Council Chair Spencer Park asked.How would the district know which rides are going where, Rodriguez responded.She also explained that if the county started charging fares, it’s likely they would lose money due to federal funding logistics while also driving riders away. Rowland clarified the council was just trying to figure out how to answer constituents who have taken issue with the transit system.Rowland asked if reducing ridership isn’t the point of a possible nominal fee, as it would make people question their trips.“No,” Rodriguez said emphatically. “That, for a public transit agency, is the antithesis of why we exist. We exist to serve the community and give access to anywhere in the community for any reason that people want. We as a public transit entity don’t make the policy or the judgments based on why you’re traveling.” “I think there is a very vocal minority that are very vocal about this issue,” Grabau said. “I think it might be worthwhile to seek broader input on this subject.”The post Wasatch County Council grapples with growing demand for public transit appeared first on Park Record.