Representatives from the Utah Department of Transportation informed the Heber City Council on Tuesday that they are considering redesigning the controversial Heber Valley bypass in line with some suggestions given by Wasatch County’s elected officials. 

The new highway will divert through traffic from Heber City Main Street. UDOT’s preferred route, Alternative B, cuts through the North Fields — a freshwater wetland area that has been used as farmland for generations — between Potters Lane and 900 North instead of keeping traffic on U.S. 40 between the two roads as Alternative A does. 

UDOT’s announcement of its preferred route in January sparked division among residents that sprouted into protests during the 60-day public comment period, which ended in March. 

During that period, the Wasatch County Council wrote a letter asking that the bypass be shifted east, as close to U.S. 40 as possible, to protect the North Fields.

The letter said the realignment would prevent bisecting existing farmlands and better align with the county’s goals of preserving open space and establishing conservation easements in the North Fields. 

It also argued that the realignment would better protect groundwater. The entire project area for both route alternatives is in the contributing area to the Heber Valley Aquifer, which is part of the most protected aquifer class in Utah for its pristine water quality. 

UDOT has maintained that significant groundwater contamination will not occur because mitigation measures will be included in the design and approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

The County Council, meanwhile, believed realigning Alternative B closer to U.S. 40 would pose the least risk to the aquifer because U.S. 40 already has mitigation measures in place. 

The County Council’s letter was also signed by the Midway City Council, Charleston Mayor Doug Clements, Sen. Ronald Winterton, Rep. Mike Kohler and all members of the Heber City Council except Mike Johnston and Sid Ostergaard.

UDOT is considering “potentially shifting the North Field alignment a little bit further to the east,” said project manager Craig Hancock. They haven’t yet determined exactly how much further east that would be.

UDOT Senior Environmental Program Manager Naomi Kisen said if the bypass was “shifted all the way to close where (U.S.) 40 is,” it would perform “rather similarly” to Alternative A, which has slower travel times than Alternative B on U.S. 189, U.S. 40 and Main Street.

“Every change we make does affect our travel time. It also affects the traffic volumes that we’re pulling. It’s about trying to find that happy place, where you’re not losing too much of the performance, but you’re also kind of avoiding the impacts that you’re trying to avoid,” Kisen added. 

UDOT is implementing another design change in response to a letter sent by the City Council during the public comment period. That letter focused on local impacts, traffic and safety concerns identified by city engineer Russ Funk.

The proposed bypass design would require pedestrians and cyclists traveling on trails to take a half-mile detour to cross the Midway Lane interchange. Funk was concerned that those unwilling to take the detour would jaywalk, increasing the potential for traffic accidents.

“We’ve added in a sidewalk through that interchange, with ped(estrian) crossings across the ramps that’ll be coming in,” Hancock said. “We’ve also added in a bike lane in the shoulder of the road as well, so anybody who wants to just ride a bike through, they can do that.”

Additionally, UDOT will address the foremost of the City Council’s concerns identified in its letter. 

The raised bypass connection between the western bypass and U.S. 40, leaving the city to the southeast, runs along 1300 South in a developed area surrounded by homes and businesses. The City Council asked that the elevated roadway be shifted south into undeveloped land to minimize impacts to residents.

“We’re just evaluating it right now but just wanted to let you know that we are going to take a look at that,” Hancock said.

Heber City Mayor Heidi Franco called the potential bypass redesigns the “best news (she) could have heard.” City Councilor Yvonne Barney agreed. 

“I know a lot of the citizens are concerned, and I think there were some who felt that it was a lost cause. And they were being told by many sources that, ‘You can’t argue with UDOT. UDOT won’t listen to you, so why even bother?’” Barney told Hancock and Kisen. “I’ve always appreciated the two of you because you’ve always been very respectful and considerate of the fact that we know our citizens here are very … sensitive about the changes that are coming forward.”

UDOT plans to release its final environmental impact statement, including its final route, by the end of the year. That document will also include UDOT’s responses to questions and concerns raised in the over 700 public comments received. 

Then, UDOT will submit a record of decision to the Federal Highway Association and begin determining funding sources for the $760.5 million project — a price tag Kisen has acknowledged could increase by the project’s horizon year of 2050.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will not formally weigh in on UDOT’s plan to mitigate groundwater contamination until UDOT applies for a Section 404 permit during the design phase. 

That’s also when UDOT will come up with a plan to protect at least 2 acres of wetlands, canals, ditches and perennial streams for every acre impacted — which is 54 in Alternative B’s current design. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will also approve or deny that plan.

The post UDOT considers redesigning the Heber Valley bypass after elected officials raise concerns appeared first on Park Record.

Horses clip-clop as they approach an equine visitor. A metallic clanging rings out as an employee adjusts horseshoes. A whistle cuts through the air as stable owner Margaret France-Culley reins in her rambunctious dogs. 

These noises break the silence at Northfield Stables, a business about three-quarters of a mile west of the Utah Department of Transportation’s preferred route for the Heber Valley bypass. This new highway would divert traffic from U.S. 40 off Heber City’s bustling Main Street. 

France-Culley purchased her 20 acres of “plain field with barbed wire and cow patties” in the North Fields in 2000. She was 30 at the time, transitioning from a career as a massage therapist after buying her first horse at 20 and studying with horse trainer Pat Parelli every summer since she was 25.

“I loved horses so much, I’d buy every horse magazine and read everything from cover to cover,” she said. 

These days, Northfield Stables is almost always full. Boarders come not just for France-Culley’s teaching, but to enjoy the serenity of nature.

If UDOT sticks with its preferred bypass route through the North Fields, a highway would be visible on the horizon once it’s built.

One of France-Culley’s greatest concerns is the noise. She said the area is usually so silent she can hear the Provo River and occasional traffic from River Road and Midway Lane. 

“For some of the horses, some aren’t going to mind the noise, but others are,” she said. “They’ll just balk and not want to go forward, get scared if you try to push them, and you can kind of push them into being more frightened. … We can train them out of it. But the joy of coming riding out here is enjoying the silence and the sounds of nature and the birds instead of listening to semitrucks.”

UDOT senior communications manager Wyatt Woolley said noise will be minimal at the stable.

“I’ll be frank, (it) is nowhere near Route B in the North Fields,” he said. “You’d be hard-pressed to say you could hear the traffic. I’m sure you could hear, like, cars honking their horns or super loud trucks with engine brakes from a distance, but you probably could in lots of places in the valley.”

Analyzing noise

Although Northfield Stables was not in the area of study, UDOT has analyzed the noise impacts of the Heber Valley bypass.

For a project that builds a new road, such as the bypass, UDOT categorizes land uses in the project area into seven categories created by the Federal Highway Administration to determine whether noise analysis is needed next to the corridor.

Northfield Stables is classified as category B, or residential, as are a few other homes in the North Fields. 

But the majority of the marshland area is classified as category F, which includes agricultural lands. The Federal Highway Administration classifies category F as not sensitive to traffic noise, meaning an analysis of noise is not required for land in that category.

“There’s nothing out there. It’s so far away from most businesses, residences and people that (analysis) just isn’t warranted currently,” Woolley said.

The Federal Highway Administration has determined a noise level for each land use category, measured in A-weighted decibels, or dBA, at which noise abatement must be considered. 

UDOT would have to consider noise abatement for the bypass if the future worst-case noise level is equal to or greater than the noise-abatement criterion for a land use category, or if the bypass would raise the noise level in an area at least 10 dBA over the current noise level.

Using a Larson Davis sound level meter, UDOT measured existing noise levels at 24 locations along the bypass route over four days in July 2022. Each location was monitored for 20 minutes. 

Using the Federal Highway Administration’s Traffic Noise Model, UDOT then projected traffic noise levels for both bypass alternatives: its preferred Alternative B, which would cut through the North Fields between Potters Lane and 900 North; and Alternative A, which would keep traffic on U.S. 40 between those two roads.

Of the noise-sensitive areas next to the bypass, referred to as receptors, UDOT predicted that 277 of 1,417 receptors would experience noise impacts if Alternative B was built. Alternative A would have about 5% fewer noise impacts, impacting 230 of 1,480 receptors. 

For both alternatives, nearly all noise impacts are to residential areas. 

Noise walls

Noise abatement must be feasible and reasonable for UDOT to consider implementing a noise barrier. 

UDOT defines feasibility and reasonability through a variety of factors, including cost-effectiveness and effectiveness at noise reduction. UDOT outlines how it measures those factors in the Heber Valley bypass draft environmental impact statement.

For both routes, UDOT considered 24 noise barriers. Of those barriers, UDOT classified three as feasible and reasonable for both routes. 

The first could be 383 feet long and 11 feet tall, located on the east side of the U.S. 40 frontage road near 3390 North. It could cost $84,260 and benefit eight receptors.

The second could be 1,499 feet long and 13 feet tall, located between 1000 West and Industrial Parkway. It could cost $389,740 and benefit 14 receptors.

The third could be 853 feet long and 9 feet tall, located between Industrial Parkway and 300 West. It could cost $153,540 and benefit 13 receptors.

UDOT recommends a fourth noise barrier if Alternative A is built. It could be 1,600 feet long and 17 feet tall, located between 250 and U.S. 40. It could cost $544,000 and benefit 26 receptors.

In other words, if Alternative B is built, 35 of 277 receptors that have anticipated noise impacts could receive noise mitigation. That’s 12.6%. 

If Alternative A is built, 61 of 230 receptors that have anticipated noise impacts could receive noise mitigation. That’s 26.5%.

While UDOT recommends these noise walls, it does not guarantee they will be built.

Woolley explained that in considering the barriers, UDOT would mail ballots to existing and planned property owners and residents who would benefit from the noise wall to ask whether they want to see it built.

He said that 70% of those ballots must be mailed back to UDOT, and of those ballots, another 70% must be in favor of the noise wall for it to be built.

“We’ve got to take into account that not everyone likes noise walls, because they can be quite high, … and depending on where they’re put, it kind of blocks your view. And some people don’t want their view blocked,” he said. “If enough people say no, or if not enough people respond, then we simply won’t do it.”

Woolley said the noise impact study in the draft environmental impact statement is preliminary, and another study would be performed as the bypass becomes an “actual project,” which Woolley doesn’t see happening until 2032 at the earliest.

Northfield Stables looks forward

Although UDOT does not classify Northfield Stables as experiencing noise impacts, Frances-Culley and her patrons still think the sights and sounds of the bypass will change the character of the area.

Diana Guay, who has boarded at the stable for five years, lives in Park City and calls Northfield Stables her happy place.

“I get out here, and I can look and not see traffic. I can look and not see apartments or housing developments. In Park City, everywhere, ‘Look, there’s somebody digging up something to put something in,’” she said. 

But, Guay noted, she would never board anywhere else — not only because she’s “fallen in love” with Frances-Culley, but also because many other horse stables are surrounded by development.

“We’ll always have a clientele. I’m not worried about that,” Frances-Culley said. “It’s such a slice of heaven out here.”

The post Northfield Stables raises concerns about noise of Heber Valley bypass appeared first on Park Record.

According to some members of Heber City Council, the Utah Department of Transportation has confirmed that a development under consideration near a prominent valley intersection will not interfere with the organization’s efforts to put a bypass corridor through Heber Valley.

Other council members were frustrated to hear this news second hand during a discussion this week on a potential annexation for Ångstrom Development Group’s planned Harvest Village Community at the intersection of U.S. 40 and River Road.

Heber City Councilors Sid Ostergaard and Scott Phillips told their peers that they’d met with UDOT Project Manager Craig Hancock, the project’s developers and city staff to discuss concerns the development could throw a wrench in UDOT’s process of finding a bypass route.

Why, Councilor Yvonne Barney questioned, would UDOT be so straightforward in a private meeting but not show up to council meetings with the same message? And why would they be fine with this development but raise a stink a few months ago when county officials voted to levy funds with federal finances to preserve portions of the North Fields that might have been considered for a bypass?

“I was in the meeting yesterday with UDOT and the petitioners, and all of my fears were put at ease finally through UDOT,” Phillips said. “They’re in the middle of their studies right now, and they don’t really say much, but they did say that approving this project would not hinder or impede their current studies at all.”

Ostergaard agreed with him.

Phillips said UDOT informed them the intersection of U.S. 40 and River Road “has been master planned as a major intersection, which would mean some sort of a bridge at some point in time.”

He also said UDOT acknowledged that three of their five previously released plans for the bypass are no longer feasible to handle the valley’s traffic demands in coming decades.

“When they are done with the study, they may have brand new routes that they propose,” Phillips said. “The five routes we currently have, it may not be any of those.”

“I was wondering when they were going to admit that,” Mayor Heidi Franco said. 

Phillips said UDOT said they’d work with the developer directly about space they’d like them to keep open, and he said the project was different from the county’s preservation easements, “which stopped, completely, the study.”

He said he checked with UDOT to make sure the development would not present issues.

Franco, who chairs the Wasatch County Open Lands Board, clarified that the easements didn’t necessarily stop the study, but just required UDOT to consider the land’s new designation.

“I’m really hesitant and cautious about this language of stopping a study,” she said.

Ostergaard said his interaction with UDOT had left him thinking the organization is willing to work with the community on the much-needed bypass. After the meeting, he said he wasn’t worried Harvest Village’s annexation request would get in their way.

“Why aren’t they at the meeting right now saying this publicly in a way we can reference with the public?” Councilor Aaron Cheatwood asked.

Barney agreed.

“Whenever there’s a meeting with Utah or UDOT recently, it seems to be that it’s either a letter being sent to individuals who are trying to protect their fields and being able to farm their fields, and they’re sending letters to them and speaking through other individuals. But when it comes time to come forward and say and address this directly, I just wonder why we don’t have that dialogue with them,” she said. “It frustrates me, I’ll be honest.” 

She told the Harvest Village developers her issue wasn’t with them, but with UDOT saying it was OK for one development to happen when other petitions for developments within the North Fields were huge issues with the department.

“People who are just saying this is my land, I would like to continue farming it, my family wants to farm it, yet that suddenly is the biggest, ‘Oh my gosh! UDOT can’t do anything.’ And that really bothers me,” Barney said.

After trying so hard to work with UDOT toward other projects and goals in the North Fields area, she said it’s not easy to see that in this case they decided there was no issue.

She wanted to know why UDOT treated conservation easements protecting property as a roadblock while Harvest Village was so easy to agree on.

Phillips said the answer lies in federal funding and the strings attached.

“They went with concerns to the federal funding organization, and federal funding is being pulled because of the concerns,” he said.

The conversation broke down into a somewhat contentious exchange between Phillips and Barney as she expressed her frustrations that UDOT knew of the federal funding.

Justin Keys, an attorney and member of the Open Lands Board — jumped into the conversation.

“I agree with you on that Yvonne, but I think there are two different issues,” he said. 

He said he agreed with Ostergaard and Phillips in that Heber City needs to pull its seat up to UDOT’s table and become a part of its conversation.

“The letter campaigns are not working,” he said. “I don’t know where UDOT files them, but it’s not somewhere highly persuasive is what I have found. What does work is face-to-face conversations.”

The city, he said, should continue to advocate for itself with UDOT.

“Yvonne, I’m sensitive to what you’re saying,” he said. “Ironically, I think you’re making the same argument. What you’re saying is those landowners should have a right to pull their seat up to the table and say this is what I’m looking to do, just like Heber City should have a right to pull their seat up the table and say this is what we’re looking to do. And what I heard from UDOT yesterday, including from the Region 3 head, was, ‘Yeah, we want to hear from you.’” 

The land easements, he reminded Barney and Franco, were a different conversation for a different group.

The post Heber gets green light from UDOT for development; some leaders want UDOT to be more direct appeared first on Park Record.

Dave Stewart did not go into depth about the controversies and disagreements that have followed local discussions about possible routes in a transportation corridor that would cut through the west side of the Heber Valley, but he did warn the Heber City Council on Tuesday that local governments need to find their way to agreement on corridor plans.

The state’s legislative session will begin Jan. 16. Stewart — a lobbyist for a group of governments including Heber City — said that while federal funding has resulted in a large surplus of state funds over the past two years, this year likely will be different.

“There’s certainly a slowdown now,” he said. “The good news is it’s not nearly as severe as was anticipated.”

Still, budgets will be tighter and that tightness could translate to an even longer wait for those worried about heavy traffic congestion through Heber City.

“Inflation’s gone crazy. Transportation infrastructure projects are all 20%, 30% and 40% overruns,” he said. “Every project at UDOT is seeing that.”

Though Department of Transportation’s draft environmental impact statement regarding the project and four route possibilities is supposed to be released early this year, it has already been pushed from its initial expected release in fall 2023, and Stewart predicted it will again be delayed until this summer.

Stewart said he believes the less state funding available this legislative session and a stretched project time frame for the corridor might be a good thing, as it provides more time for UDOT and the community to finalize bypass plans before trying to fund them. 

Still, he noted UDOT has a lot more projects than resources, and if the department sees local governments are unable to agree on projects or their details, that could make those less likely to win state funding.

“One of the key things will be that the local governments, local entities are all on the same page. Obviously, there’s different alignments and I know people are nervous about some of those and where it’s going to go,” Stewart said. “If the city or the county or others are pushing back, then that just gives UDOT a very easy excuse to shelve it and just leave it there for until people get on the same page.”

Stewart said if there are other communities in need of UDOT’s resources and the department doesn’t need to sit in the middle of disagreements over road placements, it will likely prioritize those.

“They’re not here to steamroll local governments. They largely want to see those as partners,” he said.

Pedestrian accidents with automobiles, growing traffic times on Heber City’s Main Street and concerns over semis traveling through the center of the city as they lack other options have resulted in public consensus that some type of corridor is needed, but that consensus has not extended into conversations about where exactly the corridor should go.

After developing possible alternatives to address the situations, UDOT discarded about 20 of them “because they were not reasonable and practicable, they did not support local or regional traffic mobility, they did not support Heber City’s vision for its historic town center, or the impacts were too great.”

Some of these disqualified alternatives involved widening or otherwise altering U.S. 40 or creating an eastern bypass.

Three of the five remaining alternative routes plan to build local roads along U.S. 40 until it intersects with 800 North, where an intersection would allow traffic to take a road around the west side of Heber City. The other two have through routes that begin diverting traffic from the north much earlier at U.S. 40’s intersection with River Road.

Though some argue the quicker diversion of southbound traffic will lead to a longer-lasting solution, others worry about the paths’ impacts to the fields north of Heber City and areas that have been beautified by the Provo River Restoration Project, an effort that began in 1999 to take the diked and channeled river and make it resemble what it was before it was altered.

While Heber City has not officially endorsed any of the five routes over others. According to City Manager Matt Brower, the city has taken the position “to support UDOT and the EIS process while not taking any official position the proposed alternatives.” But invdividual city councilors have sent their opinions to UDOT.

Mayor Heidi Franco has used her “The Mayor’s Report” blog to speak against councilors who determined the routes that would cut into the north fields would be better, and Wasatch County as an entity submitted a comment to UDOT stating it didn’t believe the department had adequately considered the value the community places in the north fields.

“Not everybody may love every part of it, but hopefully there’ll be a broad support and consensus,” Stewart said.

The post Lobbyist warns Heber City Council that without alignment, state could pass them over with transportation corridor appeared first on Park Record.