Wasatch County (via MAG RPO) gave a good presentation (large file) to the Transportation Commission this morning about Heber Main Street traffic, the West Bypass road, the River Road intersection and "the Hub" US40/189 intersection. Included were resolutions from Wasatch and Heber supporting the bypass.
The reported traffic study (2005) showed 25,000 vehicles per day on Main Street, they estimate it is probably up to 28,000 now, which should be no surprise to those in the valley. That appears to be the third highest traffic numbers in Wasatch and Summit counties; compared to 44,000 on I-15 at Parley's Canyon and 33,000 on the road by the Canyons Resort and about the fourth highest in all of northern Utah outside of the metropolitan areas of Utah and Salt Lake Counties.
Five percent of the Main St. traffic are trucks. 46% of the through traffic uses 189; 32 % US 40; and 22% 189 to 40 East Councilman Mike Kohler mentioned it was important to get this done before the current plan date of 2030.
The first comment after the presentation, from UDOT (Commissioner Glen Brown) was about the Hub intersection: (paraphrased) "Putting a big development at that intersection will really cause a lot more congestion. Why are you permitting it?"
A minor discussion resulted in Heber City Councilman Terry Lange's comment (paraphrased), "There's a referendum on the issue this November." Brown responded, "Oh, it's that controversial."
A UDOT employee (?) said, "We'll be happy to give you traffic information on big developments."
UDOT Commission Chair Adams then asked, "Will there be commercial (Big Box developer) participation in the Hub intersection costs?"
Discussion ensued on the development's frontage, bypass location between 189 to 40, etc.
Kohler: "It's proposed as limited access, there's no plan for access to the development from the Bypass, we haven't decided on the final part of the road to US 40."
Adams: "I think we need to get working on that intersection now, why wait."
On the subject of the interchange at River Road, the UDOT Committee indicated that they thought the plan was already in process and had been delayed by needed funding for Provo Canyon. Corridor preservation funds should be available to the required property.
Committee members were very impressed with the current work being done for the project and seemed quite encouraging about the entire project, but no motion was made for action.
Minutes of the meeting should be available in a month or so.
On the subject of the interchange at River Road, the UDOT Committee indicated that they thought the plan was already in process and had been delayed by needed funding for Provo Canyon. Corridor preservation funds should be available to the required property.
Committee members were very impressed with the current work being done for the project and seemed quite encouraging about the entire project, but no motion was made for action.
Minutes of the meeting should be available in a month or so.
No comments:
Post a Comment