Four Way Stops - continued

Useless Stop Signs  - (and  procrastination by committee)

Just over two years ago, a proposal was made to the Wasatch County Council to consider changing four way stops to two way stops, particularly on 1200 South. The proposal included a study done by the Institute of Traffic Engineers regarding all-way stops which indicated that multi-highway stops do not control speed except under very limited conditions.   (Minutes below)

It was discussed that the stop signs were routinely ignored going east and west as many drivers recognized there was little traffic traveling north and south. Having unnecessary stop signs tends to create a general disregard for NEEDED signs.   A 'committee' was set up to discuss the issue. No one seems to know if it ever met.

Last year, in October, this item was reintroduced to the Council by Councilman Anderton, complete with a petition from local residents favoring the idea of two way stop. (Minutes below)

The Council seemed generally in agreement to consider the issue. This time there was a motion for a traffic study to update the almost ten year old previous study. Nearly a year later , there are rumors that a study was done, but apparently no one has seen it as copies do not seem to be available. 

Recently, a private study was done indicated that 86% of the traffic on 1200 South travel east and west and about 80% of the cars passing through the intersection at 2400 E fail to come to complete stop, many barely slow down.

About two weeks ago the Council clarified once again that traffic plans designate 1200 South as a "major collector," which means basically a through street designed to facilitate the easy flow of traffic through the area. Having four way stops impedes that flow, wastes fuel, spews unnecessary exhaust from the trucks and diesel buses to the LDS Girls' Camp, and creates noise for the poor souls who live at the corners. The recent plan also called for widening 1200 South to three lanes within 10 years or so. Removing the stop signs would provide more efficient movement than widening the road, which would also have a substantial cost.  "Another study (62) found that the average annual road user cost increased by $2,402.92 (1988 cost) per intersection when converting from two to four way stop signs for low volume intersections."

Reasons to Keep 4 way stop (and rebuttal):

• They keep the speed down. "Before-After studies show multi-way stop signs do not reduce speeds on residential streets. Nineteen references found this to be their finding."  Institute of Traffic Engineers; "there is no real evidence to indicate that STOP signs decrease the overall speed of traffic. Impatient drivers view the additional delay caused by unwarranted STOP signs as “lost time” to be made up by driving at higher speeds between STOP signs. ." Institute of Traffic Engineers  If speeds DO increase, there a source of revenue in speeding tickets. ; -)
• They enhance safety. "Unwarranted STOP signs breed disrespect by motorists who tend to ignore them or only slow down without stopping. This can sometimes lead to tragic consequences." Institute of Traffic Engineers 
• My mother-in-law, cousin or . . .  likes them.
• We had/have extra signs
• The Feds made (paid) us to do it.   Show us the report, study and rationale for doing it.

It is long past time for the county to complete the study, stop the procrastination, and work towards creating a traffic plan that facilitates traffic movement rather than hampers it. If the perceived problem is speed, the answer is enforcement NOT stop signs. Heber City made an appropriate decision to raise the speed limit on Mill Road from 25 to 35 mph last year, perhaps they should also do the same on the newly renovated five lane Center Street. Roads are, or should be, for moving traffic.


AUGUST 6, 2008 County Council meeting minutes
DISCUSSION ON STOP SIGNS AT FOUR WAY STOPS
Kent Berg, the Wasatch County Public Works Director, addressed the Wasatch County Council and indicated that the speed limits in 2001 Wasatch County was resurveyed and in 2003 when the roads in the Center Creek area were upgraded Wasatch County did another survey because the roads were made wider and gone from twenty feet to twenty-six feet.

The residential speed limit in the Center Creek area is thirty-five miles per hour with four-way stops at each one of those intersections because of ASTO guidelines. (Ed Note: No organization called ASTO was found by GOOGLE) Kent Berg indicated that having four-way stops almost eliminates accidents at those intersections and are serving a great purpose even though a lot of people don’t like them.

Robert Wren, a concerned citizen living in the Center Creek area, addressed the Wasatch County Council and indicated that he is the one that brought the subject up about the four-way stops. Robert indicated that he has watched as he has driven up 1200 South and very few people are stopping at these four-way signs and just running the stop signs at thirty-five miles per hour. Robert then went on to discuss a study done by the Institute of Traffic Engineers regarding all-way stops and the study indicated that multi-highway stops do not control speed except under very limited conditions.

Robert then asked the Wasatch County Council to make the intersections on 1200 South two-way stops instead of four-way stops.

Al Mickelsen, the Wasatch County Planner, addressed the Wasatch County Council and indicated that before Wasatch County puts up four-way stops signs or any stop signs Wasatch County has got to make sure that the roads where the stop signs are being put in don’t impede the function of that  road which means you don’t want to put a stop sign on a major collector road which is made to move the traffic. The only major collector roads Wasatch County has is Lake Creek, 1200 South and 2400 south and Mill Road.

The Wasatch County Council indicated that they would like more study to be done and instructed Al Mickelsen, Kent Bert and Councilman Anderton get together and look at the situation and then bring the matter back before the Wasatch County Council.

10/21/2009  Council Minutes  
CONSIDERATION OF FOUR WAY STOP SIGNS ON 1200 SOUTH AND 2400 SOUTH


Councilman Anderton indicated that people have indicated to me that they would like the Wasatch County Council to reconsider this matter. Councilman Farrell indicated that a  committee was formed to consider this matter which consisted of you and the Wasatch County
Sheriff and Kent Berg, the Wasatch County Public Works Director and you were to come back with a recommendation.


Todd Bonner, the Wasatch County Sheriff, indicated that his  recommendation would be that four-way stops be put in place at these locations according to the study that has been done. (Ed. note- what study. 2001??)   Kent Berg, the Wasatch County Public Works Director, indicated that a traffic study hasn’t been done since the year 2001 and possibly Wasatch County should have an up-to-date traffic study done. Kent Berg indicated that Wasatch County is working with the LDS Church to have them send all their buses that go to the LDS Camp up Center Street to take care of some of the traffic on 1200 South. Councilman Farrell made a motion that we authorize Kent Berg, the Wasatch County Public Work’s Director and Mike Davis, the Wasatch County Manager, to put an RFP out to get a bid to see what a new traffic study for Wasatch County would be. 

Hub Intersection Traffic Part 3

An exchange of Emails with UDOT (They DO listen):

(Here are the Email addresses to UDOT if you would care to contact them: Dave Nazare, Doug Bassett )

Nov 2009:
I would be remiss this Thanksgiving day not to thank UDOT for modifying the left turn signal at the Hub intersection in Heber.

On additional point concerning #4 (s) below, changing the green light in the left turn lane to a yellow caution arrow would further enhance the safety of that left turn. (The sign next to the light is NOT that obvious to the motorist.

I would still offer the suggestions below, in addition to removing/minimizing the center curbs to allow left turn access into the Hub/OneStop - and from Daniel Road (perhaps an auxiliary coordinated light).

Regards and thanks for the change, one down - three to go.

Aug 2009:
Thank you for your prompt response, not to belabor the point, but:

1 & 2 It appears the "one receiving lane on 189" deems to be due to the right turn lane leading into the Boyer Project (which is apparently on hold and will not be open for quite some time. Designing the wide turn lane for trucks is understandable; but having a solid white line separating the lanes indicates, generally, no crossing. Making that a dotted line would allow right turn traffic to avoid the right turn then left onto Daniel. Closing the Daniel Road access (mainly to give priority to the future development) seems a poor decision.

3 It also appears, there is a limited amount of right lane space for a limited distance north on Main. (obviously without a shoulder) Allowing a wider turn should make it easier to semis. I don't understand why that would affect the WB left turn traffic onto 1200 South.

4 I understand your point but respectfully disagree.

These are just some comments and suggestions for consideration in your further studies as you "keep an eye on the intersection." Being an engineer, but not a traffic engineer, I'll yield to your expertise. (I do get a better response from UDOT, than from local officials)

Aug 2009 From UDOT:
to respond to your comments below.

1 & 2. The free right turn from SB US-40 to WB US-189 is wide so trucks with trailers can make the turn without riding up on the curb on either side of the roadway. There is only one receiving lane on 189, so we can't have two lanes making the right turn. There is not enough room on 189 to have two receiving lanes and a shoulder anyway. We recognize the difficulty some drivers may have when they try to make multiple lane changes in order to turn left on the Daniel airport road, and if capacity or accident problems arise in that area, we have the right to close the left turn onto the airport road to eliminate the problem(s). This would require traffic to access the airport road from a different road south of the HUB intersection.

3. We cannot have three eastbound left turn lanes on 189 for traffic turning onto 40 because there are not three receiving lanes on 40, and there is not enough room for three lanes and a shoulder anyway. We believe it may take a little time, but drivers EB on 189 will figure out which lane to be in as they approach and prepare to turn left onto 40. The new lane striping is the best we can do for now. If three left turn lanes were a possibility, then the WB left turn movement on 1200 South would probably conflict in the intersection, and the split phase operation would have to be implemented again. This was one thing you said was better -- to not have the split phase operation. Because we agree, I doubt we want to do something that requires us to go back to it.

4. We understand you still want us to change the SB left turn phase to a protected/permissive operation, but we reaffirm our position and hope you understand that we don't think it is wise to make the change, even if the intersection is a little less efficient. Our preference is safety more than efficiency for this particular movement. It is safer for the N-S left turn phasing to be the same in this case. Perhaps a future project where the curve through the intersection is flattened so that the visibility issue is resolved is the time when the left turn phasing can be changed.

We will continue to keep an eye on the intersection.

Aug 2009
With the opening of the new Hub intersection in Heber, I would like to offer my thanks for retiming the light controlling the left turn from Main St. to 1200 South eastbound. It has helped with that particular intersection transit. Also, it appears the stop line southbound on Main also seems to have moved back somewhat.

Now that, as you mentioned, "we see how Boyer's reconstructed improvements work and then determine if any modifications are necessary," may I offer some observations/suggestions:

While the intersection may be slightly better in some aspects than it was, it is drastically worse in others.

In no particular order,

1 - The free right turn from Main St. to 189 appears to be wide enough wide enough for two lanes.
2 - For traffic trying to get to Daniel Rd. it becomes a difficult maneuver merging through two lanes of traffic into the left turn lane to Daniel and effectively often blocks the ONE lane of the right turn.
Suggestion: Use the two lanes, one for the Daniel traffic, and one for 189.

3 - Semis, and vehicles with trailers, proceeding North on 189 and turning left onto Main still have difficulty moving into the two left turn lane which come up as quite a surprise to many and with that lift turn. There also seems to be periodic problems with the storage are at the stop light.
Suggestion: With FAR less traffic proceeding through the intersection from 189 to 1200 S, it might be advantageous to have THREE left turn lanes and ONE through. This would afford a wider left turn radius for semis and create 50% more storage area.
Suggestion 2: In the opposite direction, as there is relatively little traffic turning South on US 40 from 1200 S westbound, the left turn light timing should reflect that, thus expediting the eastbound through traffic.

4 - There is still a great deal of (relative) time that left turns from Main to 1200 S could be made if that left turn would be allowed when the northbound through traffic light is green. There is sufficient visibility heading south to permit that. That would also expedite traffic into the Hub and OneStop Station which were adversely affected by the various concrete dividers which are quite detrimental to access to the various businesses on Main St. (It's a shame those dividers were added a year (or more) before they might have been "needed" because of the Boyer development.)
Thank you for your consideration of these suggestions.

Click here for more history

The Continuing Saga of Wasatch City

Once upon a time in a quiet rural village nestled in the mountains of Utah, the villagers live in bucolic peace, comfort and tranquility. It was decided, by some of the outlanders, that the valley would be a lovely place for an international sporting event. Some of the villagers rejoiced and looked forward to an economic boom to be ushered in by the international acclaim. Some said, “there goes the neighborhood.”

Soon the local alfalfa growers learned that their land was more valuable than the crop – and could be made even more valuable by installing pipes in the ground to route various grades of polluted water and by gaining access to the reins of community power. They were soon followed by the outlander merchants desirous of peddling the wares to the new and old alike.

The economic boom was on, again some rejoiced, some regretted, some repented (although only a few.) "Bigger boxes, more sales, more revenue," cried the promoters. "Save open space, don't raise my taxes," murmured those concerned with providing the new schools and services and losing their beloved rural atmosphere. "Buy, buy, buy, sell, sell, sell, borrow, borrow, borrow, tax, tax, tax, spend, spend, spend" came the cry from national and local leaders (?).

Alas, the time came for the bubble to burst; half completed projects fell to the mortgage repo man. The bigger box promoter, after modifying the ribbons of travel lanes, to accommodate access to HIS project, wiped his dusty brow and moved his emphasis to the neighboring, and richer, village. The rural peasants, now subdued in their talk on saving the beloved rural community, were left with the single plea to try to help their fellow hometown merchants “Mayor Anderson, tear down that curb.”

Hub Intersection Traffic part 2

December 2008
Dear UDOT:

As it appears the Hub intersection is nearing completion for the new right turn from Main St. down the Canyon, I humbly suggest a reevaluation of the LEFT turn from Main St. onto 1200 S. I just drove home via the Hub intersection, as I regrettably often must do.

There were six cars waiting to make that left turn, four of them were able to turn on the green. one snuck through on the yellow (/red). I was required to sit at the intersection an additional 80 sec. (after a minute or so waiting on the original red left turn signal).

Most of this time waiting while the through green lights were on, most of the cars could have made it through a yellow left turn signal as there was very little Northbound traffic on US 40.With the current timing of the light, there is less than one chance (10 sec. of turn light) in eight (80 sec.for full cycle) of making a left turn without stopping. I wish a reconsideration of these to two suggestions below could be made.
Reiterating:

1. Allow left turn on Green light for the southbound traffic. We arewaiting through an entire traffic light cycle now even at 2 AM
2. Move the left turn stop line back 20 ft or so to make the left turn from 189 to Main St. a little 'rounder' - This would especially speed upthe semis which now have to be careful in the turn to avoid those cars waiting to make the left to 1200 So.

Jun 2008 From UDOT

Regarding your number 1 recommendation, as the Region Director, I'm very uncomfortable overriding a decision by the Traffic and Safety Engineer and don't want to do that. However, when reconstructed by Boyer there will be dual left turns, which must be protected (no permissive allowed).

The dual lefts, combined with a change in signal timing should correct the problem.Regarding number 2, I think we see how Boyer's reconstructed improvements work and then determine if any modifications are necessary.

Thanks again for meeting with us.

To UDOT June 2008

It was a pleasure to meet you today in Heber, thanks for listening to ourconcerns about the intersection traffic and the drastic increase which is forthcoming.

We didn't get to discuss this relatively minor suggestion, so I'd just liketo reiterate a potential short term (and inexpensive, IMHO) solution to makethe intersection a little better NOW. I frequently drive through theintersection making a left turn from Main St. onto 1200 South.

It frequently takes two signals to do so already. With the increase insemi-truck traffic coming up Provo Canyon, it is even a bigger problem nowthan last year and is not safe to be parked in the first position in that left turn lane.

1 Allow left turn on Green light for the southbound traffic. We arewaiting through an entire traffic light cycle now even at 2 AM

2 Move the left turn stop line back 20 ft or so to make the left turnfrom 189 to Main St. a little 'rounder' - This would especially speed upthe semis which now have to be careful in the turn to avoid those carswaiting to make the left to 1200 So.

Click here for more history

Removing Four Way Stops

Open Letter to Wasatch County Council:

I would like to strongly urge the removal of the Stop Signs on 1200 South at 2400 E, 3600 E, 4800 E and, possibly, 1200 E.

These intersections are currently all 4 way stops.

Reasons for removal:

1. 1200 S is designated a major collector and the recent General Plan called for upgrading and less access.
2. I'd guess 90% of the traffic at the intersections is on 1200 S vs. crossroads. Four way stops are generally used for "equal" traffic for intersection scheduled for traffic lights.
   "Total vehicular volume entering the intersection from all approaches must average 500 vehicles per hour for any eight hours of an average day and the combined vehicular and pedestrian volume from the minor street or highway must average at least 200 units per hour for the same eight hours, with an average delay to minor street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per vehicle during the maximum hour."

Institute of Transportation Engineers.

The traffic is getting much more worse.

Many are already using 'cowboy' stops. I've witnessed a few totally full speed running the 1200 S stop signs now.

1200 S is the main road for access to the LDS girls' camp with lots of buses Mondays and Fridays.

Removal of the signs would decrease the pollution and noise of requiring the buses to make 3 extra stops.

No stops would create a better flow of traffic and would be much more fuel efficient.
"Multi-way stop signs have high operating costs based on vehicle operating costs, vehicular travel times, fuel consumption and increased vehicle emissions. " . . . "The cost to install two stops signs is $280. The cost to the traveling public is $210,061 (1990) per year in operating costs. This cost is based on about 8,000 vehicles entering the intersection per day. " Institute of Traffic Engineers

Reasons to Keep 4 way stop (and rebuttal):

• They keep the speed down. "Before-After studies show multi-way stop signs do not reduce speeds on residential streets. Nineteen references found this to be their finding."

Institute of Traffic Engineers "there is no real evidence to indicate that STOP signs decrease the overall speed of traffic. Impatient drivers view the additional delay caused by unwarranted STOP signs as “lost time” to be made up by driving at higher speeds between STOP signs. ." Institute of Traffic Engineers

If speeds DO increase, there a source of revenue in speeding tickets. ; -)

They enhance safety. "Unwarranted STOP signs breed disrespect by motorists who tend to ignore them or only slow down without stopping. This can sometimes lead to tragic consequences." Institute of Traffic Engineers

Hub Intersection Traffic

Email to UDOT 3/15/2007 10:23 PM Suggestion for the intersection of 189 and 40 ( or 1200 S and Main St. in Heber. This is one of the busiest intersections in Heber City (Soon to be made worse by the proposed Big Box/Boyer development to be located there.)

An improvement to the flow of traffic could be made by allowing South bound traffic on Main St. to make the left turn onto 1200 S (heading East) at any time traffic is allowed to continue straight through. Currently the green left turn signal turns to red while the continuing through traffic continues to flow - often with little or no northbound traffic to impede the left turn.

Many drivers avoid the left turn signal by cutting through the commercial property (Hub or Arby) parking lots to avoid the lengthy light change. Secondly, when the left turn lane is repainted, the stop line should be moved back several(20) feet as the left turns from Hwy 189 onto Main frequently cut the (135 deg) corner creating an unsafe condition.

This intersection needs a lot of redesign, a plan is being formulated by the County and the City for a bypass around the West side of Heber City and cutting East to regain US 40 somewhere around the intersection. The large commercial development will hinder that plan.

Response: March 21, 2007 6:58 AM As you are aware, UDOT recently upgraded the traffic signal at the subject intersection by installing protected left turn phasing for traffic on US-40. This was done as a safety improvement because of the horizontal curve through the intersection.
We understand that it may reduce the capacity and level of service of the intersection, but we believe the safety benefits outweigh those other factors. We have heard about potential development east of the intersection, as well as the big box development northwest of the intersection, and as that area grows the protected left turn phasing will be even more justified, so we plan to keep it the way it is for now.
It is unfortunate that some drivers are resorting to making either illegal or improper movements through adjacent business property to avoid the signal. Perhaps you could speak with the Heber City Police and ask them to monitor the issue and enforce the necessary laws to reduce or eliminated the problem.

We are also aware of a request to completely overhaul the intersection,including straightening out the curve, which would be a dramatic impact on local businesses. We have not made any plans to do so at this time, but may consider it if discussions with the City and County continue to include this matter. If it ever is reconstructed, the location of all the stop bars would be included in the design.

3/23/2007 Thank you for the prompt response. I again drove through the intersection today - as I frequently do. I fail to see any "safety" benefit to restricting the left turn to only being allowable on the green turn signal. It seems to me quite rare to restrict a left turn in this manner. The road curve on US 40 does not hamper any sight restriction involving that left turn or hamper it in any way that I can see.

The North bound traffic into Heber City nearly always leaves adequate space to turn AFTER the red (no left turn) light appears while South bound traffic continues through the intersection. By stopping the left turn traffic prematurely, it creates a more dangerous situation because there is a greater chance a car will be present in the left turn lane on US 40 which IS a potential danger from cars making left turns from 189 onto Main St.

This two lane left turn is a far bigger safety problem than from Main St. to 1200 S. I think someone needs to analyze that flow again!! NO RESPONSE

It was a pleasure to meet you today in Heber, thanks for listening to our concerns about the intersection traffic and the drastic increase which is forthcoming.

A SECOND ATTEMPT 6/23/2008 : We didn't get to discuss this relatively minor suggestion, so I'd just like to reiterate a potential short term (and inexpensive, IMHO) solution to make the intersection a little better NOW. I frequently drive through the intersection making a left turn from Main St. onto 1200 South.

It frequently takes two signals to do so already. With the increase in semi-truck traffic coming up Provo Canyon, it is even a bigger problem now than last year and is not safe to be parked in the first position in that left turn lane.

• Allow left turn on Green light for the southbound traffic. We are waiting through an entire traffic light cycle now even at 2 AM
• Move the left turn stop line back 20 ft or so to make the left turn from 189 to Main St. a little 'rounder' - This would especially speed up the semis which now have to be careful in the turn to avoid those cars waiting to make the left to 1200 So.

The UDOT response 6/27/2008 :

Regarding your number 1 recommendation, as the Region Director, I'm very uncomfortable overriding a decision by the Traffic and Safety Engineer and don't want to do that.

However, when reconstructed by Boyer there will be dual left turns, which must be protected (no permissive allowed). The dual lefts, combined with a change in signal timing should correct the problem.

Regarding number 2, I think we see how Boyer's reconstructed improvements work and then determine if any modifications are necessary. Thanks again for meeting with us.

Dave Nazare, UDOT Region Three Director 801-227-8001

I guess one can admire consistency, but anyone wanting to try further might Email David Nazare

Provo Canyon Road et al

The cost of Provo Canyon Road appears to have been $108,020,325 See page 69 of UDOT STIP

That seems to be a little higher than I remember.

DNews 3/4/2005 "The five major projects in UDOT's Region 3, covering the north-central part of the state, will cost a combined total of more than $83 million.

The most significant of those projects, by far, is in Utah County. It involves reconstruction of U.S. 189 in Provo Canyon. UDOT will widen a five-mile segment of the road between the dam and the Sundance Resort turn-off from two lanes to five.

"This is a fairly big program for the county down here," said Region 3 director Tracy Conti.

"Provo Canyon is definitely the glamour project, to say the least. I don't know if it's the biggest one going on in Utah now, probably U-201 (in Salt Lake County) is bigger as far as dollars are concerned, but as far as the technical work, on Provo Canyon — we've got a structure that's going to span 500 feet and a couple hundred feet above the ground right where the road will tie into the dam. It's going to be an engineering marvel."

Several people have indicated the need for an pedestrian underpass at the HUB intersection. Interestingly, on that same page of the STIP report is listed: US 40 pedestrian underpass $10,000,000 in 2009 (probably at Mayflower for the new $2 Billion hotel 'mixed use' project across from the Deer Valley gondola)

Another item shown is $30 million for "Midway Interchange" (presumably US-40 and River Road) no date indicated. AND $872,616 for Center St. to 1400 E in Heber for 2009 (Four lanes ???)

The 'benefits' of growth move inexorably forward.

HUB Intersection - Gridlock Coming Soon???

Let's talk TRAFFIC - Most Wasatch County residents have, I'm sure, noticed a massive increase in traffic in recent years to the residential growth. A new study has been released showing the effect of the Boyer Development (Valley Station, formerly Crossings at Heber, aka Walmart, Big Box, etc.) on the most crowded intersection in the Valley. US 40 and SR 189 or the Hub Intersection.

The DMJM Harris summarized results of the study can be downloaded here. This summary is based on the Boyer traffic analysis on the Heber City website. While that analysis contained a lot of numbers, it was short on conclusions. A private citizen hired a firm for an interpretation of the numbers.

The Conclusion: "The addition of project (Boyer development) traffic significantly increases the delay at the two intersections that operate poorly, and also cause the 910 South/100 West and US-40 and/1000 South intersection to change from an acceptable LOS (level of service) to LOS F."

Here's UDOT's definition of LOS F: "LOS F represents the breakdown of traffic flow – “failure” of the system.The condition exists wherever the amount of traffic approaching a point exceeds its capacity. Queues form behind such locations and vehicles may progress in a stop-and-go fashion. It can take two or more cycles to wait through a signal operating at LOS F."

The Harris study also reports that "Based on the Heber City criteria all intersection should be improved to LOS C or better." (Does this mean Heber City did not understand the numbers - or were ignoring them?)

As a result of this report another enterprising citizen has started a Petition to "request that the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) WITHHOLD APPROVAL of the Boyer/Heber City access agreement for the US-40/US-189 intersection in Heber City, UT until a safer plan is in place."

The petition is available at various local businesses and online for signatures.

UDOT held a meeting in Heber in 2007 where the intersection was discussed a report of the meeting is available here. The complete official minutes are here.

Big Box Advertisement response

ADD your name to the No Big Box for Heber Valley Petition

In response to the full page 10/10/07 ad in the Wasatch Wave (one of a $$$ series), I offer this response:

MIXED UP Chaos Zone

So why would someone like me vote AGAINST the proposed Mixed Use Big Box ordinance?

10 Shopping Convenience: Many Heber Valley residents enjoy an occasional shopping trip to the "big city" only to return to the rural, small town in which they enjoy living.

9 More Time With the Family: If you are spending two trips a week solely to shop in Provo, you may need to either plan better, shop locally or take the family with you.

8 A Stronger Local Economy: Generating a large customer base to support Big Boxes will only cause MORE Growth to feed the incipient beast sending revenues out of the valley.

7 Improved Roads: How in the world does drastically increasing traffic into the most congestion intersection in the Valley improve roads? That congestion may even eat up the suggested saved "time with the family" with local traffic delays.

6 More Money for Education: Sure, there may be some increase in property tax - which will be OFFSET by the education costs of the NEW High Density development allow in the new zone - 20 units per acre or 200 to 300 units stacked 55 ft high, (or 300 new children at $4,000 education cost each or $1.2 Million - for starters.) How much DID your taxes increase this year?

5 A Better Environment?: MORE traffic, MORE emissions, MORE pollution and LESS rural and small town, which the community has said for years is our desire.

4 Additional Restaurants: Will this offset the "Family Dinner Day"? (Eat with your children and save the family resolution) Are more Fast Foods NEEDED?

3 It's the Wrong Time: Why fuel even more explosive growth? Is there never an end to expansion, if Heber City can't grow OUT must it grow UP? Or should it just 'grow up' and respect the community wishes.

2 More Money in your Wallet: The overestimated gas saving predicted will be offset by in INCREASED taxes to cover the extra costs of the proposed development. An annexation study (potential tax income) is NOT a fiscal IMPACT study (costs to the Heber/Wasatch County residents - Heber residents are also county taxpayers)

1 Voting AGAINST the Mixed Up Residential Chaos Zone will help maintain the small town desire clearly expressed by the community.

As always, call their comment line to listen to the circular recording and to have your telephone number collected.

It's a matter of choice - Big city vs. Small town We may already be too late for the "small" town can we at least try to avoid the CITY.

Regrettably, as a non Heber City resident I'm unable to vote on the issue in the upcoming election; hopefully my fellow County residents living inside Heber will not be swayed by thousands of dollars for a series of full page ads to promote a narrow self interest ($$$) but will speak for the community as a whole and reject this proposal!

Bypass, Big Box

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.