DOCSLIB.ORG

Chapter 2: Alternatives

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chapter 2: Alternatives CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES ▲▲ Chapter 2: Alternatives 2.1 Alternatives Development Process................................................................ 2-1 2.1.1 Identification of Preliminary Alternatives.......................................... 2-4 2.1.2 Screening of Alternatives................................................................. 2-11 2.1.3 Alternatives Screening Report ......................................................... 2-25 2.1.4 Refinement of Alternatives .............................................................. 2-30 2.1.5 Reconsideration of the Utah County Alternatives............................ 2-50 2.1.6 Conclusion of the Alternatives Refinement and Reconsideration Processes ............................................................... 2-56 2.1.7 Evaluation of Alternatives after the Release of the Draft EIS.......... 2-58 2.2 Description of Alternatives Carried Forward for Detailed Study............ 2-69 2.2.1 No-Action Alternative...................................................................... 2-70 2.2.2 Salt Lake County Alternatives ......................................................... 2-72 2.2.3 Utah County Alternatives................................................................. 2-85 2.2.4 Tolling Options for the MVC Alternatives ...................................... 2-93 2.2.5 Implementation of the MVC Alternatives...................................... 2-103 2.3 Land Acquired to Date............................................................................... 2-103 2.4 Summary Comparison of Alternatives ..................................................... 2-107 2.4.1 Daily Delay .................................................................................... 2-107 2.4.2 Travel Time.................................................................................... 2-108 2.4.3 Cost ................................................................................................ 2-113 2.4.4 Environmental Impacts .................................................................. 2-114 2.4.5 Preferred Alternatives .................................................................... 2-116 2.5 References ................................................................................................... 2-126 This chapter describes the alternatives that were considered for meeting the purpose of the Mountain View Corridor (MVC) project as described in Chapter 1, Purpose of and Need for Action. This section reviews the alternatives that were eliminated from detailed study, describes the No-Action Alternative and the alternatives that were carried forward for detailed study, and summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of the No-Action and action alternatives. For this chapter, all discussions of the roadway alternatives refer to the project without tolls, except where the discussion specifically says that the alternative is being considered with tolls. 2.1 Alternatives Development Process The alternatives development process identified and evaluated a full range of alternatives that were brought forward during the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) scoping process, identified in previous studies, developed as part of the Envision Utah Growth Choices process (see Chapter 3, Growth Choices), or brought forward during the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process. The ▼▼ MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 2-1 CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES ▲▲ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), and the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) participated in the screening process that evaluated the alternatives. Each alternative was considered and reviewed against the project’s purpose and against a set of measures to determine if the alternative would be carried forward for detailed study in the EIS. In order to be carried forward for detailed study, an alternative needed to meet the purpose of the project (see Table 2.1-1) and be practical or feasible to construct from a technical and economic standpoint. The alternatives development process is summarized below and is detailed in Technical Memorandum 06, MVC Alternatives Screening Process and Results (MVC Management Team 2004a), Mountain View Alternatives Screening Report Addendum (MVC Management Team 2007a), and Technical Memorandum 06-7, Evaluation of the Lehi 4800 North Alternative (MVC Management Team 2008). Table 2.1-1. Summary of the Project’s Purpose Primary Objectives Secondary Objectives Improve regional mobility by reducing Increase roadway safety roadway congestion Support increased bicycle and pedestrian Improve regional mobility by supporting options increased transit availability Support local growth objectives See Section 1.3.1, Purpose of the Project, in Chapter 1 for more details. Figure 2-1.1, Mountain View Corridor Alternatives Development Process, provides an overview of the MVC alternatives development process. The process took a large number of suggested recommendations and screened and refined them to produce the alternatives that are being studied in detail in this EIS. The alternatives development process described in this chapter consists of the following seven steps: • Identification of preliminary alternatives • Level 1 screening • Level 2 screening • Alternatives Screening Report (with public and agency input) • Refinement of the Salt Lake and Utah County alternatives • Reconsideration of the Utah County alternatives • Evaluation of alternatives after the release of the Draft EIS ▼▼ MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR 2-2 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES ▲▲ Summary of Alternative Development Travel Demand Modeling The Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) and the Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG) are designated metropolitan planning organizations that work in partnership with UDOT, UTA, and other stakeholders to develop long- range transportation plans for the communities in their jurisdictions. WFRC and MAG maintain a travel demand model, which is a state-of-the-practice tool that allows transportation analysts to input various land-use and growth scenarios to test road and transit networks with the expected traffic for each scenario. The WFRC/MAG regional travel demand forecasting model was used to evaluate the transportation effectiveness of the various alternatives. The travel model predicts future travel demand based on land-use, socioeconomic, and transportation system characteristics. The goal of the modeling analysis is to infer from the spatial distribution of population and employment and available transportation facilities the amount, type, and location of travel that residents will undertake. A single model is maintained for the four-county region covered by WFRC and MAG, with each metropolitan planning organization being responsible for inputs associated with their area. The travel model consists of three elements: the model itself (the scripts, equations, constants, and so on), the input networks (both highway and transit), and the input socioeconomic data. WFRC and MAG are continually updating and refining the travel model to incorporate new observed data and increased capabilities. For this reason, during the MVC alternatives development process, several versions of the travel demand model were released and used by the MVC project team. Figure 2-1.2, Mountain View Corridor Travel Demand Forecasting Methodology, provides an overview of the travel demand model versions that were used to develop the MVC alternatives and determine whether the alternatives would meet the purpose of the project. After the release of a new travel demand model version, sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine if the results from the new model version changed the screening results from the previous model version (MVC Management Team 2007b). The sensitivity analysis looked at changes to expected volumes of traffic on the MVC and within the study area. As shown in Figure 2-1.2, the model sensitivity testing was performed for each step in the alternatives development process as a new model version was released. ▼▼ MOUNTAIN VIEW CORRIDOR FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 2-3 CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES ▲▲ 2.1.1 Identification of Preliminary Alternatives This section provides an overview of the processes used to identify the following preliminary alternatives: • Preliminary alternatives identified from previous studies • Preliminary alternatives identified through public and agency input • Preliminary alternative identified from development of the Growth Choices “Vision” Scenario (see Chapter 3, Growth Choices) • Preliminary transit alternatives 2.1.1.1 Preliminary Alternatives Identified from Previous Studies Early in the alternatives identification process, four recent transportation studies conducted in Salt Lake and Utah Counties within the MVC study area were examined to determine how their conclusions, including recommended and eliminated corridors and alternatives, applied to the MVC project. Table 2.1-2 lists the studies along with the specific recommendations and/or outcomes of each study. The recommendations of these studies were considered in developing the alternatives considered in this EIS. Table 2.1-2. Recent Transportation Studies Study Recommendations and/or Outcomes Related to MVC Western Transportation New freeway from the Utah County line to State Route Corridor Study, I-80 to Salt (SR) 201 running roughly adjacent to the existing utility Lake/Utah County Line
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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%.
    [Show full text]
  • 7200 West Needs Assessment TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
    7200 West Needs Assessment TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM To: Jason Green, HW Lochner Date: May 2018 From: Fehr & Peers Subject: 7200 West Needs Assessment UT17-2090 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This study provides a needs assessment of the proposed 7200 West corridor in Salt Lake City’s fast-growing Northwest Quadrant area. The area surrounding 7200 West is poised for tremendous growth as development opportunities such as the Northwest Quadrant Community Reinvestment Area, which includes the proposed Inland Port and the former Salt Lake City Landfill site, are explored and advanced. Connecting the existing gap in 7200 West from SR-201 to I-80 would provide additional capacity to connect these future job centers to residential areas. Additionally, the current at-grade intersection at 7200 West and SR-201 has an unusual configuration and experiences both a high number of collisions and high levels of delay and congestion in morning and afternoon peak hours. These conditions are expected to worsen in the future as high volumes (25-30%) of heavy truck traffic travels through this intersection; therefore, addressing these safety and congestion concerns is an immediate need on this corridor. The proposed improvements for the 7200 West corridor would initially provide a three-lane roadway with right-of-way preserved for an ultimate five-lane roadway; a new grade separation at SR-201 and the UPRR crossing; improvements to the I-80 and 7200 West interchange to address anticipated increased volumes; and traditional at-grade intersections at California Avenue, 700 South, 300 South, and 700 North. Additional freeway access to the Inland Port Area (potentially at the Mountain View Corridor interchange) would provide additional capacity between the Inland Port Area and the Salt Lake City urban area.
    [Show full text]
  • July 14, 2021
    REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES JULY 14, 2021 January 13, 2021 July 14, 2021 February 10, 2021 August 11, 2021 March 10, 2021 September 15, 2021 April 14, 2021 October 13, 2021 May 12, 2021 November 10, 2021 June 9, 2021 December 8, 2021 2021 January '21 February '21 March '21 April '21 Su M Tu W Th F Sa Su M Tu W Th F Sa Su M Tu W Th F Sa Su M Tu W Th F Sa 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 28 28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 May '21 June '21 July '21 August '21 Su M Tu W Th F Sa Su M Tu W Th F Sa Su M Tu W Th F Sa Su M Tu W Th F Sa 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 AWWA 17 18 19 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 16 UWUW 20 21 22 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 27 28 29 30 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 29 30 31 30 31 September '21 October '21 November '21 December '21 Su M Tu W Th F Sa Su M Tu W Th F Sa Su M Tu W Th F Sa Su M Tu W Th F Sa 1 2 3 4 1 2 1 2 UASD 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3 4 5 AWWAIMS 9 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 12 CRWUA 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 28 29 30 26 27
    [Show full text]
  • Bluffdale City – Porter Rockwell Boulevard – Fourth Segment
    Bluffdale City – Porter Rockwell Boulevard – Fourth Segment Project Type – New Construction East Jordan Canal and 15800 South- .5 miles North-East on new road alignment Porter Rockwell Boulevard(PRB) will connect I-15 to Mountain View Corridor(MVC), to major freeways. MVC ends at PRB. The fourth Project Cost – segment is the last segment without the bridge. Once the bridge $ 6,474,700 across the Jordan River is built, PRB will connect communities on the west side of south Salt Lake County and north Utah County to I-15 Funds Request – and the east side, easing the commute and relieving congestion on $ 6,036,363 Bangerter HWY and I-15. PRB will also have pedestrian trails, bike and transit facilities for a multimodal transportation. Cottonwood Heights – Little Cottonwood Canyon Rd and Wasatch Blvd Int. Project Type – Intersections & Signals 8600 South to 9000 South Project Cost – $ 826,300 Funds Request – $ 770,359 The Little Cottonwood Canyon (LCC) Road & Wasatch Blvd intersection project consists of improving traffic patterns by re-striping, adding traffic signals, and adding raised concrete medians to divide traffic. Wasatch Blvd NB lanes will be split for LT onto NB LCC Road and RT onto SB LCC Road approximately 50-ft south of the intersection by a raised concrete median. Traffic on SB LCC Road will be able to turn right onto SB Wasatch Blvd or continue on SB LCC road. Construction of an additional raised concrete median will not allow traffic on NB LCC Road to turn left onto SB Wasatch Blvd. Accel/decel & turn lanes will be constructed to accommodate these improvements along with providing a LT lane to Golden Hills Ave.
    [Show full text]
  • South Jordan General Plan At-A-Glance
    South Jordan GeneralPLAN TOGETHER, GROW Plan TOGETHER Special Thanks To... SOUTH JORDAN MAYOR STEERING COMMITTEE Mayor Dawn Ramsey Brad Klavano CITY COUNCIL Cecily Buell David Jenkins Councilman Patrick Harris (District 1) Dawn Ramsey Councilman Brad Marlor (District 2) Earl Jolley Councilman Donald J. Shelton (District 3) Jason McGuire Councilwoman Tamara Zander (District 4) Lars Erickson Councilman Jason T. McGuire (District 5) Mark T. Wooley PLANNING COMMISSION Patrick Harris T. Earl Jolley Steven Schaefermeyer Julie Holbrook CONSULTANTS Sean D. Morrissey Logan Simpson Design Michele Hollist John N. Ellis Mike Peirce Mark T. Wooley THANK YOU TO THE RESIDENTS AND STAKEHOLDERS THAT PARTICIPATED IN THIS PLANNING PROCESS. YOUR INPUT AND DIRECTION WAS INVALUABLE TO THE CREATION OF THIS PLAN. WHAT’S INSIDE? SOUTH JORDAN GENERAL PLAN AT-A-GLANCE ..................VI-VII CHAPTER 4 WHERE WE WORK ........................................................36 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................... 1 OUR VISION .......................................................................................................36 OUR COMMUNITY PROFILE .......................................................................... 2 EMPLOYMENT IN SOUTH JORDAN .........................................................38 WHY WE ARE PLANNING ............................................................................... 4 THE FUTURE OF EMPLOYMENT IN SOUTH JORDAN ........................40 HOW TO USE THIS PLAN ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • TAYLORSVILLE COMMUNITY COUNCIL CELEBRATES ONE-YEAR ANNIVERSARY of VISTA PARK PLAYGROUND RENOVATION by Carl Fauver | [email protected]
    November 2017 | Vol. 4 Iss. 11 FREE TAYLORSVILLE COMMUNITY COUNCIL CELEBRATES ONE-YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF VISTA PARK PLAYGROUND RENOVATION By Carl Fauver | [email protected] Taylorsville commu- lenge, rather than simply ap- A nity council has taken pearing before Taylorsville the adage “you can’t fight elected officials to demand city hall” and stood it on the city do something, com- its head. Rather than “fight- munity council members in- ing,” Community Council stead began doing the city’s 2A (based around 5000 homework for them. South and Redwood Road) “When (community has worked with city elected council members) came be- officials in recent years to fore us, they had their ducks complete a couple of major in a row,” said City Coun- improvement projects. cilwoman Kristie Overson. And now they’re look- “They were well-organized ing for more. and came to us with a very “People need to know strong case for improving they can get big things done, the Vista playground.” if they work for them,” By the time they were said Retta McIff, a former done, the community coun- Taylorsville Community cil had secured quarter-mil- Development Department lion dollars in funding. employee. “I was one of the “We about fell off our A Taylorsville community council is celebrating the one year anniversary of its $250,000 Vista Park facelift. (Carl Fauver/City Journals) people who worked to create chairs when the city council community councils, and approved our $250,000 bud- this one is making the most get for the park improve- usual to see 50 or more.
    [Show full text]