DOCSLIB.ORG

Comments from Draft 2015-2040 Scenario – Summer 2013

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Comments from Draft 2015-2040 Scenario – Summer 2013 6/11/2014 Comments from Draft 2015-2040 Scenario – Summer 2013 Comment WFRC Process Category Key: Key - (1)Highway Comment Comment Meeting Name of Commenter Comment Comment Date (2)Transit Was: WFRC Response Number Location (3)Bike (7)Accepted (4)Land Use (8)Not (5)Other Accepted Weber UDOT Region I Planning How do we rectify existing and currently WFRC takes the existing zoning and tries to fit it into the various 1 County Office planned zoning with what we think it will be 5/3/2013 4 7 scenarios. Open House Weber UDOT West Davis Is there any measure of delay for transit WFRC looks for what people can access within 20 minutes using 2 County Highway EIS Team users? How much time is spent waiting on 5/3/2013 2 7 transit. Open House connections? Weber Davis County Planning What are the average minutes of delay per The minutes of delay per person are about the same in each ‘Vision’ 3 County person in the scenarios? That would be a 5/3/2013 5 7 scenario and less so in the current trend scenario. Open House better measure of performance. Weber UTA Planning Office Why did the most dense land use in Scenario Seventy percent of the land use is already set with existing 4 County T only save 4 million miles per day of VMT 5/3/2013 4 7 development. Open House compared to baseline? Weber UDOT West Davis What is the shift in mode share between The mode split for transit rises from 4% to 6%. Most of the decrease 5 County Highway EIS Team Scenarios Q and T? 5/3/2013 5 7 in travel time comes from shorter trips due to more intense land Open House use. Weber Davis County Planning Is there any way to see determine the WFRC is trying to keep costs constant across all four scenarios. County maintenance cost per transit rider vs. cost 6 5/3/2013 5 7 Open House per driver? Showing the cost/benefit analysis for both modes would be helpful. Weber UTA Planning Office State of good repair costs are going to Maintenance costs are part of the financial plan of the RTP. County become a significant burden that will affect 7 5/3/2013 2 7 Open House how many projects UTA can build in the future. Weber UTA Planning Office UTA has been doing some socio-economic This vacant land next to the central business district is most County evaluation of the area. Why do the conducive to intensive land use changes. 8 5/3/2013 4 7 Open House scenarios show such a big change west of the Ogden rail-yard? Weber UTA Planning Office Some other areas in the scenarios are These areas are where the cities have told us they want to grow. 9 County showing growth such as the gravel pit in 5/3/2013 4 7 Open House North Salt Lake City. Why? Weber UDOT Region I Planning How do we separate hopefulness in It is difficult to project development 30 years in advance. That is 10 County Office development from what is actually 5/3/2013 4 7 why WFRC is taking the scenarios out to the cities and the public. Open House happening. Weber UTA Planning Office Is it your intention to settle on a land use It will be done in tandem. 11 County and then build the transportation network 5/3/2013 4 7 Open House or do it in tandem? Weber UTA Planning Office Are you going to do a new Vision? No. WFRC is trying to better define the existing Vision. All the 12 County 5/3/2013 4 7 scenarios with the exception of the baseline are within the existing Open House Vision. Weber UDOT Region I Planning If we have data that does not fit with current WFRC makes all its data available to all members of the public, 13 County Office thinking of political leaders, how do we 5/3/2013 5 7 especially elected officials. Open House address that? Weber Davis County Planning There will be a large turnover of mayors this This is an ongoing effort at WFRC. County year. Will WFRC be visiting to the new 14 5/3/2013 5 7 Open House mayors to introduce them to the Vision and the RTP? Weber UDOT Pre-Construction Will there need to be an amendment in WFRC hopes that the cities will see the wisdom of the Vision and County Engineering existing city master plans to reflect the make any needed adjustments in their respective master plans. 15 Open House Vision? 5/3/2013 4 7 1 6/11/2014 Comment WFRC Process Category Key: Key - (1)Highway Comment Comment Meeting Name of Commenter Comment Comment Date (2)Transit Was: WFRC Response Number Location (3)Bike (7)Accepted (4)Land Use (8)Not (5)Other Accepted Weber Weber County Planning He is concerned that the Scenario Q highway The comment will be taken into consideration as WFRC settles on a 16 County Office scenario does not show enough east / west 5/3/2013 4 7 final growth scenario as a basis for the draft RTP. Open House highway capacity in western Weber County. Weber UTA Planning Office The State Road 67 extension, the West The road is not slated for construction until after 2040 so there is 17 County Weber Highway, will be sprawl inducing. 5/3/2013 1 8 time to determine whether and how soon it will be needed. Open House Weber Bountiful City Planning Did WFRC test rail and BRT options for south Yes. Both performed adaquately. However, BRT was most cost 18 County Office Davis transit? 5/3/2013 2 7 effective. Open House Weber Commenter Unknown For the non-exclusive lane BRT on 2100 The rail line shown is a drafting error and will be removed. 19 County South, why does it show a rail line as well? 5/3/2013 2 7 Open House Weber Commenter Unknown Why does the section of land west of the This was part of scenario 4 which had very intense land use in certain County Mountain View Corridor between 5300 areas in order to reduce land use levels in outlying areas. 20 5/3/2013 4 7 Open House South and 6200 South show more intense land use than Daybreak? Weber Commenter Unknown Why not determine a preferred land use This will be done prior to the financially unconstrained draft plan 21 County scenario and then test different transit 5/3/2013 4 7 stage. Open House networks? Weber UTA Planning Office Test all transit scenarios on all four land use Testing for transit usage will be done on all four growth scenarios. 22 County scenarios. 5/3/2013 4 7 Open House Weber Bountiful City Planning The high concentration of seniors in The existing FrontRunner stop and suggested light rail / BRT stops County Office Bountiful and South Davis generally will should adequately meet any increased demand for transit service. 23 5/3/2013 2 7 Open House lessen as the population turns over leaving a younger population more apt to use transit. Davis Centerville City Strongly supports the “enhancement of bus WFRC will take this comment into consideration as it develops the 24 County service in Centerville.” 7/22/2013 2 7 draft 2015-2040 RTP update. Open House Davis Centerville City Supports moving up the replacement of the WFRC will take this comment into consideration as it develops the 25 County Parrish Lane / I-15 Interchange due the 7/22/2013 1 7 draft 2015-2040 RTP update. Open House expected increase in congestion. Davis Centerville City There needs to be a safe pedestrian pathway WFRC will take this comment into consideration as it develops the 26 County across I-15 in Centerville. 7/22/2013 3 7 draft 2015-2040 RTP update. Open House Davis Centerville City “Due to the anticipated growth of multi- The location of FrontRunner stops is determined by UTA. County family housing west of I-15, please examine 27 7/22/2013 2 7 Open House the feasibility of a commuter rail stop at Parrish Lane.” Davis Centerville City “(The) long range plan should also show WFRC will take this comment into consideration as it develops the County future collector connecting Centerville and draft 2015-2040 RTP update. 28 Open House Farmington west of I-15 – either via Sheep 7/22/2013 1 7 Road or (an) extension of 1250 West in Centerville.” Davis Centerville City “Perhaps (there could be) an alternating The location of FrontRunner stops is determined by UTA. County stop with the Woods Cross (FrontRunner) Open House station. I project the ridership demand 29 7/22/2013 2 8 within (the) next 5-10 years will be greater at (the) Centerville location than than the current Woods Cross station.” Davis Davis Chamber of “All data seems to point toward Scenario 4 WFRC will take the comment into account as it develops a preferred 30 County Commerce as the best option. I hope the public and 7/22/2013 4 7 growth scenario on which to base the draft 2015-2040 RTP update. Open House government get on board. 2 6/11/2014 Comment WFRC Process Category Key: Key - (1)Highway Comment Comment Meeting Name of Commenter Comment Comment Date (2)Transit Was: WFRC Response Number Location (3)Bike (7)Accepted (4)Land Use (8)Not (5)Other Accepted Davis Davis Chamber of I don’t believe the West Davis Corridor is WFRC generally defers to findings from more intensive studies such 31 County Commerce even necessary if we can build and plan and 7/22/2013 1 8 as the West Davis EIS which, in this case, has determined that a new Open House grow smart.” road is needed.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Greater Salt Lake Area Multifamily Market
    THE GREATER SALT LAKE AREA MULTIFAMILY MARKET THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE MULTIFAMILY REPORT | 2019 REVIEW + 2020 OUTLOOK PREFACE TABLE OF CBRE is pleased to release the 2020 Greater Salt Lake Area Multifamily Market Report, the most current and comprehensive CONTENTS multifamily data available for the Salt Lake Area/Wasatch Front market. Produced by Eli Mills and Patrick Bodnar of CBRE, this report has been assembled to empower the decision making of multifamily professionals active in the Utah market. This report has been prepared with current data sourced from a survey of over half the multifamily market (60,000+ units) along the Wasatch Front Area inclusive of Salt Lake, Utah, Davis and Weber Counties. Minimum reporting requirements were identified for each city and county by class, type and size. Data contributions and validations to this publication were made by: • CBRE Research • Utah Department of Economics • CBRE Econometric Advisors • University of Utah Bureau of Economics and Business Research • Yardi Matrix • Construction Monitor • Axiometrics • CoStar • Western States Multifamily Whatever your multifamily needs may be, please reach out to us. CBRE has the most comprehensive data on the market and can provide information on a macro or micro level based on class, city, submarket, zip code, location, age, size, proximity to rail stops, and many other variations. CBRE consistently leads the market, with national multifamily investment sales totaling over $33.3 billion in 2019 (Source: Real Capital Analytics). As the leader in multifamily sales every year since 2001, the exposure of CBRE is second-to-none. With 65 locations and over 300 multifamily professionals, including direct lending services, CBRE’s unparalleled multifamily platform has a competitive presence in Utah and an enhanced investment reach into the multifamily space, providing our clients with the greatest market exposure available.
    [Show full text]
  • Meadow View Phase 2, Farmington, Utah
    Meadow View Phase 2, Farmington, Utah Built for the Way You Want to Live! www.MeadowViewUtah.com Great Farmington Location Meadow View Phase 2 is conveniently located in Farmington within 1 mile of the new Station Park shopping district and the Farmington UTA Frontrunner station. Leave your car at home and enjoy a comfortable trip into downtown Salt Lake City for work or play. Enjoy the open air living of Meadow View with panoramic views on large basement lots with the amenities of Station Park—shopping, restaurants, parks and schools all less than two miles away. For more information, or a personal tour contact: Sarah Mayer 801.218.2885 [email protected] Model Home coming soon! Get news and updates Watch video tours on Facebook on YouTube Information is subject to change without notice. © ClearWater Homes. All rights reserved. Front Porch Lighting Front Porch Get More For Your Dollar Panoramic 2-Tone Paint Window Walls Expansive Low-E Energy Efficient Windows 6 Inch Wooden Base Boards Window Sills Pendant Lighting * Energy Efficient Lighting 6 Inch Trim Shaker Panel Beech Cabinets 8 Foot Doors On Main Floor 42” Upper Cabinets Moen Fixtures With Crown Molding Transom Window * Stainless Steel Sink Kwikset Satin Nickel Hardware Luxury Laminate Wood Floors 3cm Granite Countertops Stainless Steel Appliances Trash Pull Out “*” Optional Upgrade Items 42” Shower with Cultured Marble Surround Oversized Kohler Soaker Bathtub Generous 5-Piece Master Baths 3cm Granite Counters Moen Fixtures Tile Floors Shaker Panel Beech Cabinets Built to Conserve Energy An energy efficient home is a more comfortable home. Insulation is a critical component to an energy efficient home and Clearwater Homes implements several techniques into our building process to ensure maximum insulation.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix B – South Jordan Transportation Master Plan
    SOUTH JORDAN GENERAL PLAN Appendix B Transportation Master Plan ^ŽƵƚŚ:ŽƌĚĂŶ dƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶDĂƐƚĞƌWůĂŶ ĚŽƉƚĞĚ͗^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϭϳ͕ϮϬϭϵ yhd/s^hDDZz ^ŽƵƚŚ:ŽƌĚĂŶŝƚLJĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞƐƚŽƐĞĞƌĂƉŝĚŐƌŽǁƚŚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞĂLJďƌĞĂŬĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚ ŵĂŶLJŽƚŚĞƌƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůĂŶĚĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐ͘^ŽƵƚŚ:ŽƌĚĂŶŝƐůŽĐĂƚĞĚŝŶ^Ăůƚ>ĂŬĞŽƵŶƚLJ͕hƚĂŚ͕ ŽŶƚŚĞǁĞƐƚƐŝĚĞŽĨ/ŶƚĞƌƐƚĂƚĞͲϭϱďĞƚǁĞĞŶϵϰϬϬ^ŽƵƚŚĂŶĚϭϭϴϬϬ^ŽƵƚŚ͘^ŽƵƚŚ:ŽƌĚĂŶŝƐďŽƌĚĞƌĞĚďLJtĞƐƚ :ŽƌĚĂŶƚŽƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚ͕^ĂŶĚLJƚŽƚŚĞĞĂƐƚ͕ƌĂƉĞƌƚŽƚŚĞƐŽƵƚŚĞĂƐƚ͕ZŝǀĞƌƚŽŶƚŽƚŚĞƐŽƵƚŚ͕ĂŶĚ,ĞƌƌŝŵĂŶƚŽ ƚŚĞƐŽƵƚŚǁĞƐƚ͘ŝƌĞĐƚůLJǁĞƐƚŽĨ^ŽƵƚŚ:ŽƌĚĂŶŝƐƵŶŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞĚ^Ăůƚ>ĂŬĞŽƵŶƚLJ͘ dŚĞƉƵƌƉŽƐĞŽĨƚŚŝƐdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶDĂƐƚĞƌWůĂŶ;dDWͿŝƐƚŽƉůĂŶĨŽƌƚŚĞĨƵƚƵƌĞŵƵůƚŝͲŵŽĚĂůƚƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶ ŶĞĞĚƐŽĨ^ŽƵƚŚ:ŽƌĚĂŶŝƚLJŐŝǀĞŶƚŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚĨƵƚƵƌĞůĂŶĚƵƐĞƉůĂŶƐ͘dŚŝƐǀĞƌƐŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞdDWƐĞƌǀĞƐĂƐĂŶ ƵƉĚĂƚĞƚŽƚŚĞƉƌĞǀŝŽƵƐdDWƚŚĂƚǁĂƐĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚŝŶϮϬϭϬ͘dŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐĂƌĞƚŚĞŬĞLJĨŝŶĚŝŶŐƐŽĨƚŚŝƐdDW͗ ^ŽƵƚŚ:ŽƌĚĂŶŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŝƐƚŝĐƐ dŚĞƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶŝŶ^ŽƵƚŚ:ŽƌĚĂŶŚĂƐŐƌŽǁŶĞdžƉŽŶĞŶƚŝĂůůLJŝŶƌĞĐĞŶƚLJĞĂƌƐ͕ŶĞĂƌůLJĚŽƵďůŝŶŐĞǀĞƌLJϭϬLJĞĂƌƐ ĨƌŽŵϭϵϳϬƚŽϮϬϭϬƚŽĂĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƉŽƉƵůĂƚŝŽŶŽĨĂƉƉƌŽdžŝŵĂƚĞůLJϳϬ͕ϵϱϰƉĞŽƉůĞ;ϮϬϭϳͿ͘dŚĞƌĞĂƌĞŽǀĞƌϮϬ͕ϬϬϬ ŚŽƵƐĞŚŽůĚƐŝŶƚŚĞŝƚLJĂŶĚŽǀĞƌϯϮ͕ϬϬϬŽĨƚŚĞƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐĂƌĞĞŵƉůŽLJĞĚ͘dŚĞĂǀĞƌĂŐĞĐŽŵŵƵƚĞƚŝŵĞĨŽƌ ƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐŝƐĂƉƉƌŽdžŝŵĂƚĞůLJϮϱŵŝŶƵƚĞƐ͕ĂŶĚϳϱƉĞƌĐĞŶƚŽĨĐŽŵŵƵƚĞƌƐƚƌĂǀĞůŝŶĂƉĞƌƐŽŶĂůǀĞŚŝĐůĞ͘ ZŽĂĚǁĂLJEĞƚǁŽƌŬ ůů ŝƚLJ ƌŽĂĚǁĂLJƐ ĂƌĞ ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJ ŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐ Ăƚ ĂĐĐĞƉƚĂďůĞ ůĞǀĞůƐ ŽĨ ƐĞƌǀŝĐĞ͘ ^ŽŵĞ ƐĞŐŵĞŶƚƐ ŽĨ hKd ƌŽĂĚǁĂLJƐ;^ZͲϭϱϭĂŶĚ^ZͲϭϳϱͿĂƌĞŽƉĞƌĂƚŝŶŐƉŽŽƌůLJ͘hKdŝƐĂůƌĞĂĚLJƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůǁŝĚĞŶŝŶŐŽŶ^ZͲ ϭϱϭďƵƚǁŝůůŶĞĞĚƚŽĂůƐŽƉůĂŶĨŽƌǁŝĚĞŶŝŶŐŽŶ^ZͲϭϳϱ͘ &ƵƚƵƌĞƚƌĂĨĨŝĐǀŽůƵŵĞƐǁĞƌĞĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞĚƵƐŝŶŐƚƌĂǀĞůĚĞŵĂŶĚŵŽĚĞůŝŶŐ͘/ƚŝƐĂŶƚŝĐŝƉĂƚĞĚƚŚĂƚŝƚLJƌŽĂĚǁĂLJƐ ƐƵĐŚĂƐĂĐĐŚƵƐ,ŝŐŚǁĂLJ͕^ŽƵƚŚ:ŽƌĚĂŶWĂƌŬǁĂLJ͕ϰϬϬϬtĞƐƚ͕ϭϯϬϬtĞƐƚ͕ϭϭϴϬϬ^ŽƵƚŚ͕ϵϴϬϬ^ŽƵƚŚ͕KůĚ
    [Show full text]
  • Utah's 2011-2040 Unified Transportation Plan
    2011 - 2040 udot.utah.gov 131949.indd 1 7/31/13 2:23 PM UTah’S UNifieD PLaN ParTNerS CaChe MPO 179 North Main, Suite 305 Logan, UT 84321 (435) 716-7154 www.cachempo.org Dixie MPO 1070 West 1600 South, Bldg. B St. George, UT 84770 (435) 673-3548 www.dixiempo.org MOUNTaiNLaND aSSOCiaTiON Of GOverNMeNTS 586 east 800 North Orem, UT 84097 (801) 229-3800 www.mountainland.org UTah DeParTMeNT Of TraNSPOrTaTiON Systems Planning and Programming 4501 South 2700 West – Box 143600 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 (801) 965-4129 www.udot.utah.gov UTah TraNSiT aUThOriTy 669 West 200 South Salt Lake City, UT 84101 (801) 262-5626 www.rideuta.com WaSaTCh frONT reGiONaL COUNCiL 295 North Jimmy Doolittle road Salt Lake City, UT 84116 (801) 363-4250 www.wfrc.org 131949.indd 2 7/31/13 2:23 PM TaBLe Of CONTeNTS introduction 2 - Letter from the Chairs of the Utah Transportation Commission and Utah’s Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) - Letter from the Directors of the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and Utah’s MPOs - Purpose of Unified Transportation Planning UDOT’s Long range Plan 8 Utah MPO Long range Plans 12 - Wasatch Choices 2040 (Weber, Davis, Salt Lake and Utah Counties) - envision Cache valley (Cache County) - vision Dixie (Washington County) Utah’s Population Growth Challenge 16 Utah’s Project Planning & funding Process 20 - Project Development Process - Utah’s Transportation Needs and Preferences - financial Plan and assumptions - Continuous, Cooperative and Comprehensive Planning highway Projects by region 34 regionally important Transportation Projects 34 Utah highway Projects Map 35 highway Projects Phase One (2011-2020) 36- 41 highway Projects Phase Two (2021-2030) 42-46 highway Projects Phase Three (2031-2040) 47-50 highway Projects Unfunded 51 -52 Cache valley highway Projects Map 53 Wasatch front Ogden/Layton area highway Projects Map 54 Wasatch front Salt Lake valley highway Projects Map 55 Utah valley area highway Projects Map 56 Dixie area highway Projects Map 57 Transit Projects by region 58 Transit Projects Phase One (2011-2020) 59.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Disclosure Statements for Homebuyers (Garden Park)
    Page 1 of 13 DAYBREAK 2018 Disclosure Statements for Homebuyers (Garden Park) Disclosure Statements for Homebuyers: 1. Ownership of VP Daybreak Operations LLC 16. Power Lines and Natural Gas Transportation Lines 2. Development of Daybreak 17. No Guarantee of View 3. Daybreak Community Organization and 18. Earthquake Faults Associations 19. Garages 4. Environmental Issues 20. Cluster Mailboxes 5. Road System Improvements and Access 21. Parking 6. Stormwater Runoff 22. Accessibility Modifications 7. Private and Public Parks, Trails and Open Space 23. Model Home Park 8. Proposed Lake Feature 24. Alleyways 9. Trail System Proximity to Homes 25. Sewer Depth 10. Aircraft Overflights 26. Restriction on Residential Unit Rental Investors 11. Nearby Agricultural Use 27. Waste Treatment and Other Facilities 12. School Attendance Boundaries 28. City Governance 13. Governmental Assessments and Charges 29. Radon Gas 14. Water, Sewage and Utility Service 15. Telecommunications Services Buyer has read and understands the attached Disclosure Statements as listed above. Buyer acknowledges that Buyer’s decision to purchase a residence in Daybreak is not based on any representation (other than those included in the Disclosure Statements), and Buyer has considered the possible effect of such matters in Buyer’s decision to purchase. Buyer further acknowledges that no salesperson, employee, or agent of VP Daybreak Operations LLC (or any of its affiliates) has the authority to modify any representation included in the Disclosure Statements nor any authority to make any promise, representation, or agreement other than as contained therein. Buyer further acknowledges that it is purchasing a residence from and built by a builder and not from or by VP Daybreak Operations LLC (or any of its affiliates) and that no salesperson, employee, or agent of such builder has the authority to modify any representation included in the Disclosure Statements or to make any promise, representation or agreement other than as contained therein.
    [Show full text]
  • Utah Solar Home Tours Begin This Weekend in Davis County Memorial Day Events Bulk Purchase Makes Solar
    L OCAL N EWS • P EOPLE • B USINESS • S CHOOLS • S PORTS • E VENTS See Inside DavisThe Clipper 75 cents THURSDAY, MAY 28, 2015 ADVERTISMENT Utah Solar Home Tours begin this weekend in Davis County Memorial Day events Bulk purchase makes solar BECKY GINOS LOUISE R. SHAW, A1 affordable for homeowners Last year, over 24 million solar panels were installed in the United States. Still, many Race unites homeowners are still wondering if solar really works, if it makes families fi nancial sense, and how those who’ve put solar panels to work Annual 5K offers in their homes and businesses support for grieving feel about it. Now, Davis County residents families, friends. can fi nd out from their neigh- LOUISE R. SHAW, C1 bors and peers. The Utah Solar Home Tour, featuring locations about Davis, Weber and Cache Counties, runs this Friday and “We can match any home and Saturday. Friday hours are 4 to 8 any budget to make solar work for Tour of p.m., with Saturday tour hours 10 everyone,” Shipley said. a.m. to 4 p.m. The tour is hosted There is a deadline, as bulk by the Intermountain Community purchasing ends on June 30. Utah coming Shipley said solar is an investment The federal incentives for solar is hosting a solar workshop to Solar Initiative. power conversion are currently 30 provide answers to basic ques- “This is a great opportunity for “better than any stock or mutual Cycling event stage fund you could put your money percent, and there are state incen- tions and educate attendees about people to go and see real homes tives as well.
    [Show full text]
  • November 7, 2019
    THE DAVIS THURSDAY, NOV. 7, 2019 DAVISCLIPPER.COMCLIPPERVOL. 128 NO. 11 Thanks for your Service See special Veterans section inside today’s Clipper 2 Thursday, Nov. 7, 2019 NEWS DAVIS CLIPPER UTA seeks public input Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is an enhanced system which provides fast, convenient, and comfortable transportation. BRT includes features such as: on Bus Rapid Transit Frequent Service Limited Stops More service means less time Stops will only be located at key waiting for your bus locations to provide faster service by Becky GINOS [email protected] NORTH SALT LAKE—As the state grows more cars are on the road. To help relieve that congestion, the Wasatch Front Regional Council has identified a need to improve transit service between southern Davis County and Salt Lake City. Utah Transit Authority (UTA) hosted two open houses last week to garner public input on a proposed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system. “A study done in 2014 recommended a route from the Woods Cross FrontRunner BECKY GINOS Station to downtown Salt Lake,” said UTA JAIME WHITE with UTA explains the Transit Signal Priority Specialized Buses Project Manager Hal Johnson. “That could BRT plans to Stan and Mary Kay Porter. Buses will have special technology Unique designs make buses visible be exclusive lanes from 2600 South to 700 which gives buses earlier and/or in the community and often include longer green lights more doors for faster boarding North in Salt Lake City. Right now if some- able options for transit here and one lives on 1500 South and they go to Salt potential access to the U of U or Lake they would have to go out of their way to the airport.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 HSO Annual Report
    Table of Contents Table of Contents 1 Acknowledgments 2 Execuve Summary 3 Planning and Administraon 5 Occupant Protecon Program 7 Impaired Driving Program 17 Community Traffic Safety Program 21 Vulnerable Roadway Users 25 Motorcycle Safety Program 25 Pedestrian & Bicycle Safety Program 27 Police Traffic Services 30 Traffic Records Program 35 Evidence-Based Enforcement Plan (E-BE) 38 Core Performance Measures 47 Utah Performance Measures 48 Table of Performance Measures 50 Funds Expended in FFY2019 51 Annual Report - FFY2019 | Utah Highway Safety Office 1 Acknowledgments The Utah Highway Safety Office would like to thank our team for their dedicated efforts to help reduce traffic fatalies on Utah roadways during the past year. Their valuable contribuons to the programs referenced in this report are geng us closer to our goal of Zero Fatalies every day. Carrie Silcox | Division Director Robyn LaLumia | Deputy Director Kerilee Burton | CPS/Teens/Seat Belt Programs Manager Stacy Debban | Programs Specialist Carolyn Fronce | Financial Analyst Heather Fuhr | Law Enforcement Liaison Keri Gibson | Occupant Protecon Manager Marissa Hesterman | Vulnerable Roadway Users Program Manager Rocio Huizar | Support Services Coordinator Melissa Lawrence | FARS Analyst Jason Memann | Communicaons Manager Lynda Reinstein | Impaired/Drowsy Program Manager Terry Smith | Rural Traffic Safety Coordinator Jill Sorensen | Underage Drinking/EASY/Older Drivers Trp Chad Valdez, UHP | Public Informaon & Educaon Sgt Brady Zaugg, UHP | Public Informaon & Educaon The Utah Highway Safety Office tracks traffic-related trends on a weekly basis. Traffic-related fatalies and other data trends are constantly changing; we suggest contacng our office directly for the most up to date informaon regarding data collected within any of our programs.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Fast Facts
    SERVICE AREA OPERATIONS & PERFORMANCE FUNDING RIDERSHIP RIDESHARE & PASS PROGRAMS Seven counties: Box Elder, Davis, Salt Established March 3, 1970 Contributed local-option sales tax Ridership systemwide (2015): 63 schools with annual student Lake, Tooele, Utah, Weber, and limited dedicated to public transit as of 46,577,166 trips transit passes Governed by 16-member board of trustees service in Summit County December 31, 2015: appointed by local and state elected officials Total average weekday boardings 93 businesses with annual employee 77 municipalities » Salt Lake County—0.6875% (Dec. 2015): 153,997 transit passes Employs 2,323 1,400 square miles » Administration—533 » Davis County—0.55% » TRAX—64,219 407 vanpool vehicles operated at year-end with 3,790 participants Serves more than 80 percent of state’s » Operations Support—247 » Weber County—0.55% » FrontRunner—17,092 population » TRAX—226 51,997,859 vanpool passenger miles » Box Elder County—0.55% » S-Line—1,229 » Commuter Rail—93 traveled 11 office/operations facilities and more (select cities) » Maintenance of Way—66 » Salt Lake County bus—45,783 than 2,400 acres of property » Utah County— 0.526% » Mt. Ogden (Weber & Davis counties)—167 » Utah County bus—8,029 124 shared park-and-ride lots » Salt Lake (Salt Lake County)—867 » Tooele County—0.3% » Weber & Davis counties bus—11,001 » Timpanogos (Utah County)—124 (select cities) » Vanpools—5,088 Maintains ISO 9001 certification for quality management, ISO 14001 certification for » Paratransit—1,556 environmental
    [Show full text]
  • Utah Transit Authority Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Local Advisory Council REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
    669 West 200 South Utah Transit Authority Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Local Advisory Council REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, June 2, 2021 1:00 PM Frontlines Headquarters NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING CIRCUMSTANCES DUE TO COVID-19 PANDEMIC: In accordance with the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act, (Utah Code § 52-4-207.4), the UTA Local Advisory Council will make the following adjustments to our normal meeting procedures. • All members of the Local Advisory Council and meeting presenters will participate electronically. • Meeting proceedings may be viewed remotely through the WebEx meeting platform (see below) or by following the instructions and link on the UTA Board Meetings page - https://www.rideuta.com/Board-of-Trustees/Meetings • Public Comment may be given live during the meeting. See instructions below. o Use this WebEx link and follow the instructions to register for the meeting (you will need to provide your name and email address) https://rideuta.webex.com/rideuta/onstage/g.php?MTID=ed2f6fab6a382e44c85991cd71728f914 o Sign on to the WebEx meeting portal through the “join event” link provided in your email following approval of your registration. o Sign on 5 minutes prior to the meeting start time o Comments are limited to 3 minutes per commenter. • Public Comment may also be given through alternate means. See instructions below. o Comment via email at [email protected] o Comment by telephone at 801-743-3882 option 5 (801-RideUTA option 5) – specify that your comment is for the Local Advisory Council meeting. o Comments submitted before 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 1st will be distributed to council members prior to the meeting.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 11: Considerations Relating to Pedestrians and Bicyclists
    CHAPTER 11: CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS ▲▲ Chapter 11: Considerations Relating to Pedestrians and Bicyclists 11.1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 11-1 11.2 Regulatory Setting........................................................................................ 11-3 11.3 Resource Identification Methods ................................................................ 11-3 11.4 Resources in Salt Lake County.................................................................... 11-4 11.4.1 Existing Facilities............................................................................. 11-4 11.4.2 Proposed Facilities ........................................................................... 11-4 11.5 Resources in Utah County ........................................................................... 11-8 11.5.1 Existing Facilities............................................................................. 11-8 11.5.2 Proposed Facilities ........................................................................... 11-9 11.5.3 Regional Trail Systems .................................................................... 11-9 11.6 Environmental Consequences ................................................................... 11-11 11.6.1 Methodology .................................................................................. 11-11 11.6.2 No-Action Alternative.................................................................... 11-11 11.6.3
    [Show full text]
  • ECONOMY Utahrs
    UTAH’S ECONOMY ISSUE 37 • DeceMBER 2007 A monthly report Produced for COMMERCE CRG by Jim Wood, Bureau of Economic and Business Research University of Utah NONRESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION NEAR RECORD LEVEL n 2007, nonresidential construction had its best year since 1997. The value of nonresidential construction reached $2.1 billion, just shy of the all-time high of $2.2 billion, (all construction values are in constant 2007 dollars). Last year, nonresidential construction was dominated by a number of mid-sized projects. The Ihighest value permit was $80 million for the IHC Riverton Hospital, followed by the Hamilton Partners’ office building in Salt Lake City at $79 million and the RSL soccer stadium at $60 million. Nonresidential construction has increased steadily over the past six years, growing Nonresidential from $1.2 billion to $2.1 billion, and registering the biggest single-year increase in construction has 2007, with a jump of $400 million, or 23 percent. At this point in the construction increased steadily cycle nonresidential over the past six years, activity always exhibits Chart 1 growing from $1.2 Permit Value of Residential and Nonresidential Construction in Utah greater strength (Constant 2007 Dollars) billion to $2.1 billion, than the residential and registering the $6.0 biggest single-year sector. Nonresidential increase in 2007, with construction generally $5.0 a jump of $400 million, peaks one to three years $4.0 or 23 percent. after the residential $3.0 peak, which was in 2005 in the current $2.0 cycle. Since its peak $1.0 in 2005 the value of $0.0 COMMERCE CRG 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 residential construction 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 175 East 400 South, Suite 700 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 has declined by 25 Residential Nonresidential Tel (801) 322-2000 Chart 1 www.commercecrg.com percent, .
    [Show full text]