The side-by-side display of current projects, however, spotlighted a striking contradiction. Several projects address the question, “How to we fit more cars into Old Town?” For example, Main Street needs more parking for shoppers, special events demand additional parking for guests, and a planned high-density housing project needs more parking for more residents. Quietly tucked in among the pro-parking efforts, however, was a project tackling a question fundamental to all others: “How do we mitigate traffic along our entry corridors?”

It’s an ugly fact. In order to get to all these in-town parking spots, as well as the additional hundreds imminent with PCMR and Treasure build-outs, cars must travel 224/Park or 248/Kearns. These entry corridor roads are already burdened beyond capacity, rife with accidents, and clogged with idling cars. Why continue to pursue parking projects that exacerbate already severe traffic issues along these roads?

I believe two fallacious assumptions misguide our efforts: (1) Old Town is Park City, and (2) welcoming more people necessarily means tolerating more cars.

First, while Old Town is a much-loved and integral part of Park City, by all of us and for all of us, it is not all of Park City. Current traffic management initiatives to some degree shift Old Town problems onto the doorsteps of its neighbors. For example, accommodating more cars in Old Town absolutely equates to more traffic, accidents, and pollution along entry corridors and the neighborhoods through which they pass. These neighborhoods are home to the vast majority of our town’s full-time residents, families, and schools. Certainly, they merit protection, too.

Second, we’ve built a hospitality-driven economy and rightfully want to accommodate more visitors. That said, one point is key: Accommodating more visitors does not necessarily mean accommodating their cars. For planners, the trick is to fortify a traffic perimeter, a sieve that allows people- and bike-sized things easily through but halts cars before they further clog entry-corridor jams. European resorts have been doing this for decades, and it’s time to shift the paradigm here, too.

In local terms, this means a focus on public transit rather than in-town parking. It means building a transit hub, rather than a corridor-clogging parking garage, on our newly acquired Bonanza lot. It means rewarding employers and workers who utilize off-site shuttle parking. It means subsidizing affordable housing for beneficiaries who commit to public transit, and it requires collaboration with county and state to cohesively develop that system.

The nearest main roadways that can accommodate local demand are I-80 and US-40. Our traffic perimeter starts there, at Kimball and Quinn’s, where incidentally, we have a derelict parking lot with Rail Trail access but no bus service. For drivers, the social-psychology is simple, albeit a bit painful: Given sufficient information, incentive (e.g., easy/fast/free transit), and disincentive (e.g., scarce/expensive in-town parking), behavior will change.

Our family lives in Thaynes Canyon, fifty yards or so from the S.R.224/Park Avenue intersection, and we love the convenience of the free bus route nearby. However, more and more often the noise and exhaust of traffic-jammed, idling cars forces us to close our home’s windows. When residents can’t breathe fresh air, and kids can’t safely cross our roads, Park City is no longer Park City.

Let’s champion superlative public transit over supplemental in-town parking:
Welcome people. Thwart cars.

The post Guest editorial: Resident makes impassioned plea for fewer cars appeared first on Park Record.

Editor:

We had a close call with carbon monoxide (CO) at our Park City home this week, and my sense of social responsibility compels me to share some lessons learned. Before you tune out and move on to an article more interesting, please read on – particularly if you, like me, have presumed CO a threat limited largely to cabins with gas stoves or old homes with neglected systems. Our boiler heat system is a well-maintained 1997 model, professionally serviced just a few weeks ago.

In our case, my seven-year-old son was the first to notice an odor in our laundry room. It was a scent similar to natural gas, but different enough that my initial reaction was to search for whatever had presumably died behind the washer/dryer. Finding nothing, I checked our CO alarm’s digital meter, which read 120 ppm (instead of its normal 0).

Because the alarm was silent, I hesitated to act until 15 minutes later, when the CO meter jumped to 330 ppm. The alarm, however, did not sound for another 30 minutes a lapse within accepted safety standards but carrying some potentially dire consequences. Some lessons learned. . .

Even if you have a CO detector installed, know that the effectiveness of these devices is limited by an intentional delay. In order to avoid the annoyance of false/frequent alarms, devices are intentionally programmed to sound only if the levels are dangerous over a set period of time.

UL Standard 2034 sets alarm delay criteria as follows: CO concentrations up to 50 ppm do not sound the alarm at all, yet these lower levels of exposure are associated with physiological effects often mistaken for the flu. At 70 ppm, the unit must alarm within 60-240 minutes, yet at this level, the EPA warns of health effects including headache, fatigue, and nausea. At 150 ppm, the unit must alarm within 10-50 minutes, and at 400ppm, within 4-15 minutes. At sustained CO concentrations above 150 to 200 ppm, however, disorientation, unconsciousness, and death are possible as well as long-term neurological effects.

Carbon monoxide itself is odorless, tasteless, and invisible thus its nickname, the "silent killer." However, because CO is a byproduct of incomplete combustion, its presence may in some cases be sensed as an odor similar to the "rotten-egg" smell of gas. Odor is absolutely not a reliable detection method on its own, but if you smell gas or something stinkily similar, act immediately. Move outside and call 911 for fire department response.

Most CO detectors are simple alarms vented units similar in appearance to a smoke detector. However, for the reasons above, I want to advocate specifically those CO detectors with a digitally displayed meter i.e., a numerical reading of current ppm concentration. The difference in cost is about $15. (Units with display run about $40; those without around $25.) If it lacks a digital display, a detector cannot offer nuanced information: It will not alert of long-term, low-level CO concentrations, and it cannot provide early indication of acute danger.

We moved to Park City in June and began this holiday season giving thanks for many things about our new hometown. We add to that list, now, kind neighbors, a responsive gas company, Airworx HVAC, a proactive poison control unit, and PC Hospital’s ER crew. Carbon monoxide is the leading cause of accidental poisoning death in the U.S., but victims are often unaware they are in danger until it’s too late. Please protect yourself and those you love and spend that extra fifteen bucks.

The post Guest Editorial: Protect your family against carbon monoxide poisoning appeared first on Park Record.