Full Text
Final 7-15-09 Page 1 of 39 Snyderville Basin Capital Facilities Plan for Transportation 2009 Prepared by: Summit County Engineering Division In conjunction with: Based on the Amendments 7-15-09 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final 7-15-09 Page 2 of 39 TABLE OF CONTENTS: 1.0 FORWARD 3 1.1 General Information 3 1.1.1 Integration of General Plan and Transportation/Transit Plan 3 1.1.2 Capital Costs 5 1.1.3 CFP Implementation 5 1.1.4 Capital Facilities Transportation Service Elements 5 1.1.5 Levels of Service Standards 6 1.1.6 Purpose 6 1.2 Demand 6 1.3 Means 7 1.4 Funding 8 1.5 Conclusions 9 1.6 Future Transportation Documentation 9 2.0 SYSTEM DEMANDS 11 2.1 Socioeconomic Demands 11 2.4 Land Use 12 2.3 Environmental Constraints 13 2.4 County Policy 13 2.4.1 Level of 13 2.4.2 Transportation Corridor Classification 13 2.4.3 Average Annual Conditions – Peak Period Traffic 15 2.5 Existing Transportation System 15 2.5.1 Public Transit 15 2.5.2 Existing Traffic Demand Volumes 16 2.5.3 Signal Inventory 16 2.5.4 Non-motorized 16 2.6 Future Demands 17 3.0 MEANS TO MEET DEMANDS 19 3.1 Projects 19 3.2 Preferred Alternative 19 3.3 Transportation Plan Strategy, Goals, Principles and Actions 23 3.4 Resources required. 24 4.0 FINANCES 25 4.1 Initial projections 25 4.2 External funding mechanisms 25 4.2.1 Federal funding 25 4.2.2 State Funding Sources 27 4.2.3 Park City 27 4.2.4 Private Contributions 28 4.3 County Funding 28 4.4 Local funding summary 33 4.5 Alternatives and Timing of Improvements 34 5.0 Conclusion / Summary 36 5.1 The Need 36 5.2 Recommend a Means to Meet the Needs 37 5.3 Generally Identify Funding For Needs 37 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final 7-15-09 Page 3 of 39 Advance planning is essential to minimizing project costs, optimizing project need and usefulness, and maximizing the public benefits and private sector support. 1.0 FORWARD 1.1 General Information Summit County’s investments in public facilities are designed to respond to the identified needs of both the existing and forecasted population, commercial and institutional development. Failure to project needs may result in a loss of mobility, quality of life and even revenue. The Impact Fees Act, found in Utah Code - 11-36-201(2) requires that a capital facilities plan identify: demands placed upon existing public facilities by new development activity; and (ii) the proposed means by which the local political subdivision will meet those demands.” Also 11-36-201 … shall generally consider all revenue sources, including impact fees, to finance the impacts on system improvements.” These three elements will constitute the subject for the subsequent chapters of this Western Snyderville Basin Capital Facilities Plan for Transportation 2008 (CFP). 1.1.1 Integration of General Plan and Transportation/Transit Plan The Snyderville Basin Transportation and Transit Plan 2007 is guidance document that represents the County’s long-range transportation vision for both roadway and transit improvements. It is also Summit County’s primary tool to plan for all aspects of operating and maintaining public transportation facilities. The Snyderville Basin General Plan is the guiding document to ensure that new development will maintain the character of the community. Applicable consideration is given to the Eastern Summit County General Plan as this area is also covered in part. These documents must be reviewed periodically and updated within the context of all other plan elements and against the broader context of changing economic, social, and political standards of the County. This CFP is an extension of the and General Plan that addresses associated costs of future public facilities that meets the long-range vision of the County. A capital facilities budget is prepared and approved annually. This CFP is intended to provide a longer term perspective of the existing and planned infrastructure of the community which becomes the basis for the calculation of the transportation impact fees. The CFP enables decision makers in the public and private sector to anticipate and prepare for future development and facilities. Future design plans will determine the final timing and details of the facilities. The CFP should be reviewed annually with normal budgeting to remain consistent with changes in costs and funds, and to ensure that the impact fees remain fair and accurate. This CFP will change periodically with either installation of substantial portions of the proposed improvements or significant revisions to the General Plan, or, changes to the social and economical climate of the County. CFP will be effective as written and will require updates to be kept current. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final 7-15-09 Page 4 of 39 The Snyderville Basin (Basin) impact boundary area is based on probable traffic shed. While the Basin, as defined in Figure 1, is the study boundary. As illustrated, the current boundary runs from the Western Summit County Boundary along Wasatch, Salt Lake and Morgan County lines to a point where traffic’s primary access preference is toward the SR-224 and SR-248 corridors and Figure 1: Snyderville Basin Study Boundary ---PAGE BREAK--- Final 7-15-09 Page 5 of 39 along the US-40 Corridor. Traffic inside the area tends to exhibit a pronounced PM peak but minimal AM peak. The light gray represents existing roads and ownership. 1.1.2 Capital Project Costs There is a distinction between capital project costs and annual operating expenditures. Capital projects are generally defined by two criteria: cost and useful service life. Capital project costs typically have a useful life of at least ten years and benefit all users, and add capacity that will benefit new growth. Operating expenditures occur annually or more frequently. Some capital costs may have an annual operation and/or maintenance cost associated with them that is not included in the original capital expenditure but must be budgeted for as useful life is depleted. These maintenance or replacement costs may qualify as capital projects but may not be included in the calculation of capital expenses. 1.1.3 CFP Implementation Capital projects will be more soundly developed and be cheaper to construct than annual reaction to non-planned capital improvements. In order for such planning to take place, appropriate capital improvement policies should be established and adhered to. Summit County Engineering has historically tracked county wide improvements and programmed resources. This CFP is specific to the project study area. Capital improvement policies are intentionally long-range projections. The long-range nature of the policies promotes consistency and continuity in project selection and implementation. A capital facilities plan is a tool required to identify demands of the facilities, identify the associated costs of capital improvements and identify general funding methods and timing. Summit County is working on a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) which identifies when funds are available for projects and establishes a schedule and sequence for project construction. This CFP is intended to supplement the CIP which is compiled by the County Auditor’s office and directed by committee. 1.1.4 Capital Facilities Transportation Service Elements This CFP covers only transportation service elements. Water, parks, sewer, public safety facility needs, and so forth are addressed by the respective provider. Roads and transit infrastructure are the two categories of this transportation capital facilities plan which are directly or indirectly a function of Summit County. Non-motorized facilities, while critical to the overall transportation system success, are primarily the responsibility of Snyderville Basin Recreation District, but related County projects may be considered. Roads: Roadway surface and bridge structures upon which vehicular and directly related pedestrian traffic is conveyed, sub-surface support matrix, ancillary features such as traffic semaphores, storm drainage elements directly related to the roadway facilities, curb, gutter, sidewalk, street lighting and landscaping, including vehicles and equipment used to maintain the same. Transit: Real infrastructure including maintenance and storage facility, central transit hub, park and ride, individual stop facilities including shelter and benches. Currently and in the long range plan, transit is provided co-operatively with Park City Municipal. Should ---PAGE BREAK--- Final 7-15-09 Page 6 of 39 this favorable relationship change, significant adjustments would need to be considered. Eligible facilities are programmed cooperatively herein. Annual operations costs and roll-over bus stock may not be included as a facility cost. 1.1.5 Levels of Service Standards The Section 4.3.4, includes minimum levels of service that will be met for future capital facilities. The levels of service established by the County have tremendous impact on the costs and environmental impact associated with the development of future capital facilities. Substandard levels of service may result in failure of a system, which would require additional expenditures to correct the problem. Levels of service higher than what is required results in excessive spending for unnecessary facilities and the associated environmental impact. The General Plans and weigh these factors and establish a balance between substandard and excessive levels of service with the associated community impacts. 1.1.6 Purpose In accordance with the requirements set forth by law, this CFP was prepared for the purpose of establishing Impact Fees and general finance planning. The Snyderville Basin General Plan and are the basis for which standards and levels of service are determined to meet the demands. Some project costs estimates for roadways were originally prepared as part of the Western Snyderville Basin Transportation/Transit Plan 2005 and the Western Snyderville Basin Capital Facilities Plan 2006. LSC Associates, as consultants for Park City and Summit County, prepared transit estimates. The above estimates are summarized in Exhibit A. Summit County Community Development in association with a committee of Snyderville Basin service providers, prepared the existing unit statistics. From the unit statistics, a forecast of new peak hour trips relative to existing demand was determined. The trip generation is based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation 7th Ed. 1.2 Demand During the last decade, Summit County has experienced above average population and traffic growth. Population is expected to grow from the current 36,417 (2005) persons to 85,660 by the year 2030. Furthermore, commercial development is expected to increase, particularly within the study area. New residential and commercial development generates increased road trips, resulting in the demand for additional capacity on existing roads as well as new roads. This demand would create unacceptable levels of service throughout the transportation system network. The subject Snyderville Basin of Summit County has a resort-based economy with thousands of daily visitors during its peak seasons (winter and now summer). Travel demands on major corridors can increase 20-35% during these peak seasons making the planning and implementation of needed infrastructure challenging. Based on recent experience, it is clear that travel demands within major corridors can be affected by the availability of convenient mass transit opportunities. The County ---PAGE BREAK--- Final 7-15-09 Page 7 of 39 established and has maintained a 5%transit mode share goal for the SR-224 corridor as a part of the The also recognizes that new roadway connections will be required to maintain adequate levels of service within the corridor for transit to be successful. Preferences toward individual mobility preclude all congestion woes being solved exclusively by transit service. Special events and community character make transit an essential service. Also, additional transit service can be added more readily than roadway improvements making it a first consideration for capacity increase. The road network will need to provide support for this service. While transit facilities are not specifically listed in the Impact Fees Act, they are transportation infrastructure and essential for proper functioning and peak event demand of the roadway network. A portion of transit capital facilities, excluding rolling stock, will be included in capital expenses. In 2005 the County’s Community Development Department, with the assistance of other departments and agencies, estimated development entitlements and assisted in projections for the Snyderville Basin. This list has been periodically updated. For continued analysis purposes, this list should be consulted to verify the change in demand with time – see Appendix B for September 2007 data currently studied. System demand is a function of existing and forecasted land-use in balance with transportation opportunities. Transportation includes all modes: transit, non-motorized, roadways and so forth. As facilities are designed and planned, coordination with non- motorized mode of transportation will be critical. In this report, transportation facilities focus on roadways and transit infrastructure. 1.3 Means In the many alternatives were considered to meet the demands for the future. The Table 1 is the list of the capital projects. Table 1: Capital Project List new project Project # years Phase 1 (0-5 years) 2009-2014 1-1 2 Jeremy Ranch Exit - Rassm/Kilby 1-2 1 Transit Operations Center 1-3 constructed Landmark - A 1-4 1 Kimball Transit Hub 1-5 4 Kimballs/SR-224 Park and Ride 1-6 0 Bus Shelters 1-7 3 Canyons Resort Drive Roundabout 1-8 constructed Canyons Transit Hub 1-9 2 Roundabout Silver Creek Dr/Pace/40 front 1-10 1 SR - 248 Park & ride 1-11 0 Landmark to Olympic Park - B 1-12 2 SR -224 Widen / I-80 to Bear Hollow 1-13 4 White Pine to Canyons Resort Drive 1-14 3 Crossing SR 224-Olympic Parkway 1-connect 1 Kimballs Connectivity Phase 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final 7-15-09 Page 8 of 39 Phase 2 - (5-10 years) 2015-2019 2-1 5 Powderwood Drive 2-2 6 Bitner Road extension to Silver Creek Rd 2-3 7 West US-40 Frontage R-O-W preservation 2-4 6 South end US-40 Frontage Atkinson-248 widen 2-5 7 Silver Creek Dr extend to N Pace Frontage Rd 2-6 8 SR -224 Widen to Canyons 2-7 5 Ute / smith-Kmart intersection improvement/ roundabout 2-8 7 Rasmussen Widening 2-9 6 Kilby Rd Widening 2-10 8 Park-n-ride - Silver Creek Junction 2-11 8 Park-n-ride - Silver Summit 2-12 9 Park-n-ride Old Ranch 2-13 7 Crossing SR 224 - Bear Hollow 2-connect 5 Kimballs Connectivity Phase 2 Phase 3 - (10-21 years) 2020-2030 3-1 11 Landmark C, widen to Factory Stores 3-2 15 Ute Grade Separated Intersection 3-3 18 Interchange frontage road 3-4 19 Interchange - At rest area 3-5 13 Landmark D Extend to Bear hollow 3-6 11 Quinns SPUI 3-7 21 Silver Summit Exit Widen 3-8 20 West US 40/Highland Dr to SR 248 3-9 16 Crossing SR 224-Canyons Resort 3-10 12 Roundabout Silver Summit Parkway and Highland 3-11 11 Transit Operations Center-expansion 3-connect 10 Kimballs Connectivity Phase 3 1.4 Funding The $145.0M is not entirely a Summit County obligation and responsibility. Significant assistance will be required from – federal, state, and private contributions. The County, via a variety of methods, will need to fund the remainder. Fifty two million ($52M) or 36% will need to be generated over the next 24 years via a combination of funding methods. This equates to roughly $2.1M/year for the project area in addition to all other County obligations. All fees must be based on justifiable methods of finance, proportionate to estimates of participation and benefit. Figure 2 indicates participation by benefiting entity. The County will need to balance these expenses with all other needs in transportation and other County functions. More details of assumed participation and timing will be provided in Chapter 4. The has been provided to UDOT and others. Continual monitoring of project funding and interest will be necessary. Figure 2: Funding Source ---PAGE BREAK--- Final 7-15-09 Page 9 of 39 While $52M is a significant amount of money to a rural jurisdiction, several local funding methods are available and may be used. Figure 3 summarizes these methods: • Impact fees from new development should justifiably provide 46% of the needed revenue – with 36% direct new growth and 10% remaining system life used. • The County has implemented a vehicle license fee which could provide up to $31M toward eligible project right-of-ways within the area. But only $11.7M or 22% of for the right-of-way costs are considered here based on County wide project priority. • A special service area, proportionate to benefit received, is also considered at 28% while 65% of all traffic is commercial related. The Capital projects appear to be roughly funded by the three sources listed above. Thus the remaining funding possibilities are not fully developed. The buy in portion of the impact fees are also used toward capital projects. Though a deficit may occur in real world project development, unused funding sources could cover the expenses. As illustrated, the current Landmark A project is proposed to be covered in part by a General Obligation (GO) bond and/or General Fund. 1.5 Conclusions While the County has a significant challenge in funding and balancing quality of life associated with transportation, valid options and alternatives exist to achieve the goals. Careful planning and design will be essential. This CFP and the associated documents will be critical to implementing the necessary improvements. As required by state law, this CFP will require: • 14 days public notice • Be made available for public review within the County library • A public hearing be held It is anticipated this will be reviewed annually and updated as required. Changes in social, economic and demand conditions in context of the guiding documents will affect future recommendations. 1.6 Future Transportation Documentation - The Snyderville Basin General Plan and the complement of the Eastern Summit County General Plan contain the overall community vision for the future. It contains: General transportation guidance and goals Community context Figure 3: County Funding ---PAGE BREAK--- Final 7-15-09 Page 10 of 39 - The transportation master plan is a more pragmatic implementation of the community vision in light of real world transportation modeling. Public Works is the lead department in this document with input from all departments with interpretation of community vision from the Community Development Department. The transportation master plan contains: Goals polices actions Regional transportation condition and projects Macro system modeling General project list and methods to complete those projects. - The Capital Facilities Plan needs to meet the Impact Fees Act’s requirements for quantifying future demands, providing means to offset impacts created by new development, and identify financing opportunities. The current will be directly quoted in portions. Future updates of the will focus more specifically on items listed above and may be simplified. Transportation monitoring, system priorities, and general non-binding means to meet those needs are to support the current version of the CFP. The CFP will provide more specific project information and reasonable estimations of cost as well as means / capabilities to fund the projects. The intent is to give concrete guidance to the County’s Capital Improvement Plan. Guidance may be on a on a regional or sub-regional basis as conditions may require. Subsequent Documents - Capital Improvement Plan: written fiscal planning / programming for the County. - Impact fee ordinance and written analysis imposing impact fees as updated. - Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) – as updated will need to be integrated into this document. Park City and Summit County will work jointly on SRTP - The CFP is written for the specific traffic shed of the Snyderville Basin area. Additional regions will be added or provided under a separate cover as resources will allow. Engineering has historically tracked and assisted in the prioritization of County- wide projects. As demand continues to increase and resources are limited, programming and optimization is increasing in importance. Though the CFP is structured to meet all requirements of the Impact Fees Act found in Utah State Code §11-36-201 pursuant to the implementation of Impact fees. Chapter 5 herein constitutes a summary required. The implementation of the fees is by a separate ordinance to be enacted by the County Commission. The CFP must be reviewed and updated periodically based on changes in socioeconomic conditions or other factors affecting the accuracy of the CFP. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final 7-15-09 Page 11 of 39 2.0 SYSTEM DEMANDS Demand includes all forms of transportation: transit, non-motorized, roadways and so forth. Non-motorized, while critical to the overall transportation system success, is primarily responsibility of the Recreation District as guided by its master planning. As transportation facilities are designed and planed, coordination with this mode of transportation will be critical. This transportation CFP focuses on roadways and transit facilities. Transit goals include a 5% mode share. Preferences toward individual mobility preclude all congestion woes being solved by Transit for the immediate planning horizon. Special events and community structure make transit an essential service. The road network will need to provide support of this service. The roadway network provides mobility and access to the Community. Based on the use of the roadway function, as illustrate in Figure 4, mobility and access are inversely related. Intuitively, homes are not directly placed along major thoroughfares providing high-speed-inter regional access. All modes of transportation are to be carefully considered with roadway design based on functions of: - Access - Connectivity - Non Motorized circulation - Transit - Livability 2.1 Socioeconomic Demands During the last decade, Summit County has experienced rapid growth, which is expected to continue. New residential and commercial developments generate increased road trips, resulting in the demand for additional capacity on existing roads as well as for new roads. Population is expected to grow from the current 38,000 persons to 85,660 by the year 2030. Furthermore, commercial development is expected to increase particularly within the study area. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget further illustrate the growth demand as shown in Table 2. System demand is a function of land-use in balance with transportation opportunities. Figure 4: Access vs. Mobility ---PAGE BREAK--- Final 7-15-09 Page 12 of 39 SR-224 Average Daily Traffic (2003-2007) 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 Jan. Feb Mar. April May June July Aug Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec 2005 2004 2003 2006 2007 Table 2: Growth demands Part of what separates the Snyderville Basin (study area) transportation efforts from a standard traffic pattern is the seasonal variation of traffic volumes on SR-224. As a resort economy, the Snyderville Basin experiences a strong increase in average daily traffic volumes during the winter ski season. Typically, daily winter travel volumes averaged about 19% higher than the rest of the year. Figure 5 illustrates the problems and opportunities of a winter seasonal resort peak. Resort economies depend on large numbers of visitors, which typically generate high traffic volumes. Correspondingly, congestion and delay are more pronounced during these winter peak periods. As the County continues to develop into a year round destination resort based on mild summers, summer conditions need to also be considered. 2.4 Land Use Traffic volumes and patterns are directly related to land use and development density. Appendix B contains the most recent statistic generated by the Community Development Department. This includes identifying and quantifying the locations and amounts of the various land uses throughout the study area, such as commercial, retail, residential, industrial, etc. Appendix B encompasses the whole study area. The land use is reasonably consistent with Community Development projections. Additional traffic modeling is in process and may provide additional insight into future conditions. As conditions and understandings change, they may be incorporated into the documents. Depending on assumptions of occupancy, units’ size per square foot of entitlements, differences are reasonably negligible. Future traffic Population Annual Growth 1980 2005 2030 1980 – 2005 2005 – 2030 1980 - 2030 Summit 10,198 36,417 85,660 5.22% 3.48% 4.35% Households Annual Growth 1980 2005 2030 1980 – 2005 2005 – 2030 1980 - 2030 Summit 3,381 12,948 33,620 5.52% 3.89% 4.70% Employment Annual Growth 1980 2005 2030 1980 – 2005 2005 – 2030 1980 - 2030 Summit 5,528 26,558 45,318 6.48% 2.16% 4.30% Source: Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget Figure 5: SR - 224 Seasonal variations – January is the highest month which is not typical of an urban setting. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final 7-15-09 Page 13 of 39 estimations will be based on the more comprehensive list set forth by the Community Development Department and other modeling as available. 2.3 Environmental Constraints As a mountain valley, three major constraints exist for the development of new transportation corridors: • Steep slopes • Hydrologic features • Conservation easements While these constraints create the character of the study area, mobility and project costs are affected. Refer to the regulating County documents for more specific information. 2.4 County Policy 2.4.1 Level of Service A key component in any transportation planning study is to understand the influence and ramifications of Level of Service (LOS) policy. The County has adopted a roadway congestion standard of C for County roads and D for state roads. D through F may be considered based on compliance with the and the Snyderville Basin General Plan. Sizing of improvements will be addressed at the design level based on constraints listed above. Decision makers need to recognize how LOS is derived so that they can apply it appropriately or recommend alternative approaches that are more inclusive of different user groups. The recommends new policies. These policies should be adopted into the Snyderville Basin Development Code to better manage LOS used. Existing and approved projects are considered in current transportation master planning, are governed by the regulations in place at the time of their original approvals. 2.4.2 Transportation Corridor Classification Transportation planners strive for a balance between encouraging regional connectivity and limiting a road’s impact on the local quality of life. To achieve this balance, the region must accommodate transportation corridors and maintain traffic flow while simultaneously minimizing its effect on neighborhood streets. Defining a hierarchy of roadways helps organize regional movements and separate them from local traffic. This hierarchy of roadways is called the Functional Classification of Roadways, shown in Figure 6. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final 7-15-09 Page 14 of 39 There are five basic roadway classifications in Summit County: freeways, arterials, major collectors, residential collectors, and local streets. Within the study area, Table 3 lists the general characteristics of each. Based on environmental and specific use of each classification, a project specific design will be adopted at the time of improvement. Each design will be based on sound engineering standards such as AASHTO. Whereas a typical street section is not arbitrarily applied to each corridor classification, cost estimation will need to be less precise until preliminary design is complete. Figure 6: Transportation Corridor Classification ---PAGE BREAK--- Final 7-15-09 Page 15 of 39 vehicles / day Speed Right of way Study roads Freeways 60,000 + 55mph + 100 feet I-80, US 40* Arterial Streets 24,000 – 60,000 45 - 55 mph 100+ State Route (SR-224 – SR-248)* Major Collector Streets 3,000 – 24,000 35 - 45 mph 80+ Landmark Drive, Ute Blvd, Newpark Blvd, Kilby Rd, Rasmussen Rd Olympic Park Dr, Homestead Rd, Pinebrook Blvd, Highland Dr, Bear Hollow Dr, Canyons Resort Dr., Old Ranch Rd, Silver Springs Rd. Bitner Rd., Silver Creek Rd, East Side Hwy 40 Frontage, Residential Collector Streets >3000 25 - 35 mph 60+ Jeremy Ranch Rd, Homestead Rd Pinebrook Blvd /Rd Powderwood Rd, Olympic Parkway, Bobsled Blvd, Bear Hollow Dr, White Pine Cny Rd, Old Ranch Rd, Silver Springs Rd, Bitner Rd, Highland, Silver Summit Parkway, Silver Creek Road, Promontory Ranch Road Local Streets 25 mph 60’ All remaining – public or private Table 3: Transportation Corridor Classifications – 12,000 listed in – see current ADT * - State Route: not eligible for County impact fee. 2.4.3 Average Annual Conditions – Peak Period Traffic As discussed above – system demands vary per time of the year. The contemplates designing the system to accommodate the average annual condition rather than “worst case.” Figure 7 illustrates that the weekday evening (PM) peak period generates the highest number of traffic volumes. UDOT provided hourly data which shows a clear peak condition between 5 and 7 PM, but with significant hourly volumes from 1 until 7 PM. 2.5 Existing Transportation System 2.5.1 Public Transit In 2007, the Park City Council and the Summit County Commission adopted an update of the Short Range Transit Plan to prepare for a major expansion of regional transit. The plan examined service demands and proposed transit services for a seven-year period. The prior plans progress on implementation was dramatic and swift such that the update needed to be done half way through the scheduled plan. SR 224 - AUGUST 2005 HOURLY AVERAGE 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 HOUR OF THE DAY TOTAL VEHICALS (1,367 AVERAGE) Figure 7: Hourly average daily volume ---PAGE BREAK--- Final 7-15-09 Page 16 of 39 2.5.2 Existing Traffic Demand Volumes The County monitors traffic annually and as needed. The provides traffic counts within the study area. The intersection of Landmark Drive/SR-224 operates at an overall LOS E and the eastbound left and northbound thru movements fail during the PM peak period. All other intersections within the study area operate at acceptable levels of service during the critical PM peak period. 2.5.3 Signal Inventory All signalized intersections within the Summit County jurisdiction are owned and operated by UDOT. Summit County and the Utah Department of Transportation entered into a Cooperative Corridor Preservation Agreement establishing access management standards, and identifying signalized and non-signalized intersections and proposed improvements within the SR-224 and SR-248 corridors. Whereas no signals are owned and operated by Summit County, equipment and servicing would be a new expense to be borne by the County. Should a County owned traffic signal be considered, an intersection justification report will be required consistent with FHWA Publication RD-00-067 on roundabouts or other known intersection justification methodology. All intersections must comply with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices standards. 2.5.4 Non-motorized Individual subdivisions and commercial developments are typically equipped with sidewalk infrastructure. The Snyderville Basin Development Code does not require sidewalks in rural or low density areas (1 unit/2.5 acres to 1 unit / 5 or more acres, respectively). However, the Code does require sidewalks on commercial and residential streets in its Town and Resort Centers, but not on arterials, collectors, or other road levels in those areas. Other means of pedestrian transportation, such as asphalt paths should be considered where sidewalks are not required. Approximately 7 miles of non-continuous sidewalk has been constructed over the years. These walks are not continuous and are not planned for regional circulation. Close attention should be given to the Snyderville Basin Recreation District’s Trails Master Plan to ensure future pedestrian connectivity. Sidewalks should be required in neighborhoods in new developments so that children can walk to a school or bus stop. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are an important element of the study area transportation system. The Snyderville Basin Recreation District is responsible for oversight and maintenance of the Basin’s trail networks. A wide range of bicycle and pedestrian facilities exists in the area, from neighborhood sidewalks to strenuous hiking and biking trails. The facility categories can generally be described as sidewalks, paved or soft-surface trails, and hiking or mountain biking trails. Recently the County considered requiring commercial areas to maintain winter access for pedestrian facilities adjacent to their businesses. Additional study is needed before a ---PAGE BREAK--- Final 7-15-09 Page 17 of 39 blanket requirement will be issued of sidewalk maintenance. The County also will be working with the Recreation District to provide winter maintenance of key regional routes. 2.6 Future Demands Travel Demand forecast by Fehr & Peers is part of the original Western Snyderville Basin Transportation Plan and now extends to the While conditions continue to change, demands remain a reasonable approximation of anticipated conditions. Figure 8 shows the resulting new trips projected to 2030 all intersections as illustrated are in a failed condition if no roadway improvements are provided. Also illustrated is the determined average daily traffic for each street. Significant expansion of transit service is difficult to achieve due to social preferences for individual mobility. Unbalanced efforts to mandate transit use would not be prudent. However, transit is a major component of future community mobility, and its role will increase in importance based on needs and community vision. Future transit networks should emphasize: • Provision of an effective alternative mode of transportation • Opportunities to reduce trips at special events, thereby minimizing impacts on road networks and the need for additional expansion Figure 8: Future volume / Service levels ---PAGE BREAK--- Final 7-15-09 Page 18 of 39 • Public-private partnerships to manage trip generation The future traffic volumes forecast for the year 2030 were evaluated on the existing transportation network. The figure illustrates the future traffic conditions if no action is taken to improve the existing transportation network. The figure shows that SR-224 and its signalized intersections will have LOS F conditions in 2030 from Bear Hollow to the I- 80 interchange. This failing condition will even extend south of the project limits, under future No-Build conditions. The figure also indicates that the Jeremy Ranch interchange will experience failing conditions under 2030 no-build conditions as will the Silver Summit interchange. The intersections with Pinebrook Boulevard will experience failing conditions. Also under No- Build conditions, Kilby Road and Rasmussen / Bitner Road will experience LOS E or even worse conditions. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final 7-15-09 Page 19 of 39 3.0 MEANS TO MEET DEMANDS 3.1 Projects The means are outlined in the as amended. The considered many alternatives. The preferred means or project list was identified and associated costs were included. Table 4 lists the construction, right-of-way and time inflationary estimates. More detailed estimates are available in the appendixes. Timing for the needed improvements is generally developed in three Phases: 1) within 5 years, 2) 5 to 10 years and 3) 10 to 25 years. Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultants and Lochner Engineering, prepared the costs for roadways and the vehicle trip distribution within the Western Snyderville Basin. LSC Associates, as consultants for Park City and Summit County, prepared all transit estimates. These where reviewed and updated with the update of the Specific policies of the are an essential element in achieving the transportation goals. As projects are brought to final design, goals, policies, and objectives should be reviewed to provide project context sensitive solution. 3.2 Preferred Alternative The following paragraphs describe the preferred roadway alternatives and the associated phases for implementation. The recommended Phase I improvements focus on a transit first policy since it is clear that transit service can be expanded much more quickly than new roads can be programmed and built. In that regard the following transit improvements are to be programmed as an update to the joint City-County Short Range Transit Plan for the period of 2008-2011. Phase I (-2012) The recommended Phase I improvements focus on the Kimball Junction area and should be accomplished by 2012. • Purchase and funding of a new transit maintenance and storage facility in Summit County to replace the current inadequate facility at the Park City Public Works facility. Per the current study, replacement on site may be the preferred alternative. 4,225,000–federal assistance is anticipated, in partnership with Park City) • Acquisition, design and construction of one of two-5 acre park and ride lots within the region to serve both daily commuters and regional visitors that could provide 3000 parking spaces ($5,530,000– federal assistance is anticipated, in partnership with Park City and their efforts on the proposed 248 park-n-ride) • Design and development of 20 new bus shelters within the region to serve riders ($325,000– may receive some federal assistance but private business sponsorships may be a preferred financing method) The means (“methods or projects”) proposed herein are to meet the demands identified in Chapter 2. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final 7-15-09 Page 20 of 39 Table 4: Cost Category # years Construc. ROW/ land Inflation total Phase 1 (0-5 years) 2009-2014 4.00% $ 35,848,475 1-1 2 Jeremy Ranch Exit - Rassm / Kilby $ 2,522,161 $ - $ 205,808 $ 2,727,969 1-2 1 Transit Operations Center $ 4,907,263 $ - $ 196,291 $ 5,103,554 1-3 0 Landmark - A $ 3,449,994 $2,846,250 $ 251,850 $ 6,548,094 1-4 1 Kimball Transit Hub $ 2,068,614 $ 695,750 $ 110,575 $ 2,874,938 1-5 4 Kimballs/SR-224 Park and Ride $ 1,180,805 $2,858,665 $ 686,138 $ 4,725,608 1-6 0 Bus Shelters $ 159,500 $ - $ - $ 159,500 1-7 3 Canyons Resort Drive Roundabout $ 376,414 $ - $ 47,001 $ 423,415 1-8 0 Canyons Transit Hub $ 103,506 $ 363,005 $ 18,660 $ 485,171 1-9 2 Roundabout Silver Creek Dr/Pace/40 $1,063,525 $ 341,550 $ 114,654 $ 1,519,729 1-10 1 SR - 248 Park & ride $ - $ - $ - $ - 1-11 0 Landmark to Olympic Park - B $ 1,114,970 $ 1,293,750 $ - $ 2,408,720 1-12 2 SR -224 Widen / I-80 to Bear Hollow $ 2,512,944 $ 2,648,485 $ 421,173 $ 5,582,601 1-13 4 White Pine to Canyons Resort Drive $ 918,456 $ - $ 156,008 $ 1,074,463 1-14 3 Crossing SR 224-Olympic Parkway $ 1,463,618 $ 58,081 $ 190,005 $ 1,711,705 1-con 1 Kimballs Connectivity Phase 1 $ 483,660 $ - $ 19,346 $ 503,006 Phase 2 - (5-10 years) 2015-2019 $ 31,808,528 2-1 5 Powderwood Drive $ 1,745,123 $ 784,091 $ 547,961 $ 3,077,175 2-2 6 Bitner Road extension to Silver Creek Rd $ 1,056,334 $ 1,393,939 $ 650,104 $ 3,100,377 2-3 7 West US-40 Frontage R-O-W preservation 2-4 6 South end US-40 Frontage Atkinson-248 widen $ 1,680,800 $ 616,237 $ 609,448 $ 2,906,484 2-5 7 Silver Creek Dr extend to N Pace Frontage Rd $ 1,220,733 $1,972,633 $1,008,886 $ 4,202,252 2-6 8 SR -224 Widen to Canyons $ 3,916,262 $1,794,697 $2,104,883 $ 7,815,842 2-7 5 Ute / smith-Kmart intersection improvement/ roundabout $ 633,826 $ 147,684 $ 169,316 $ 950,827 2-8 7 Rasmussen Widening $ 1,800,914 $ 566,288 $ 747,874 $ 3,115,076 2-9 6 Kilby Rd Widening $ 1,566,392 $ 906,061 $ 655,989 $ 3,128,441 2-10 8 Park-n-ride - Silver Creek Junction $ 97,925 $ 214,400 $ 115,113 $ 427,439 2-11 8 Park-n-ride - Silver Summit $ 97,662 $ - $ 35,995 $ 133,657 2-12 9 Park-n-ride Old Ranch $ 150,957 $ 214,400 $ 134,659 $ 500,016 2-13 7 Crossing SR 224 - Bear Hollow $ 1,463,618 $ 58,081 $ 480,753 $ 2,002,452 2-con 5 Kimballs Connectivity Phase 2 $ 368,624 $ - $ 79,863 $ 448,487 Phase 3 - (10-21 years) 2020-2030 $ 84,499,176 3-1 11 Landmark C, widen to Factory Store $ 827,700 $ 348,485 $ 634,497 $ 1,810,682 3-2 15 Ute Grade Separated Intersection $ 8,363,993 $1,608,781 $7,987,629 $ 17,960,403 3-3 18 Interchange frontage road $ 3,225,414 $2,400,000 $5,770,642 $ 11,396,056 3-4 19 Interchange - At rest area $ 11,377,150 $ - $12,592,789 $ 23,969,939 3-5 13 Landmark D Extend to Bear hollow $ 1,521,232 $2,203,400 $ 2,477,154 $ 6,201,785 3-6 11 Quinns SPUI $ 2,400,615 $ 1,295,022 $ 3,695,637 3-7 21 Silver Summit Exit Widen $ 4,732,316 $ 6,051,534 $ 10,783,850 3-8 20 West US 40/Highland Dr to SR 248 3-9 16 Crossing SR 224-Canyons Resort $ 1,483,147 $ 58,081 $ 1,345,463 $ 2,886,691 3-10 12 Roundabout Silver Summit Parkway and Highland $ 198,891 $ 56,418 $ 153,449 $ 408,757 3-11 11 Transit Operations Center-expansion $ 3,426,171 $ - $ 1,848,262 $ 5,274,433 3-con 10 Kimballs Connectivity Phase 3 $ 74,948 $ - $ 35,993 $ 110,941 Total $75,756,177 $26,449,211 $49,950,789 $152,156,178 ---PAGE BREAK--- Final 7-15-09 Page 21 of 39 • The adopted plan calls for the realignment and widening of Landmark Drive to create a five lane collector road to serve one of the core business districts of the Snyderville Basin. It is assumed that this project will be developed in phases, although the project could be built as a single improvement if adequate funding is available. The current Landmark Drive intersection with SR-224 would be relieved with some geometric changes. This would create a major intersection on SR-224 at Newpark Boulevard. ($10,269,794 - see break down below) Segment Cost Scope Timing Traffic Benefits Schedule A $5,242,242 224-WalMart 2008 High Significance Schedule B $2,293,873 Wal-Mart-Olympic 2008-10 High Significance Schedule C $3,041.776 Outlet-Wal-Mart 2008-15 Moderate Significance Total $10,577,891 Schedule A The first phase or schedule would extend Landmark Drive from its intersection with SR-224 through the Wal-Mart site. The environmental document has been completed. Construction is expected 2008. The eastern portions of the road network (SR-224 to Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart to Olympic Park) are the most critical for traffic congestion relief. ($5,242,242 – currently $1,000,000 has been provided via a Small Urban Grant from the Federal Government, new impact fees is a significant contribution to the project) Schedule B would extend Landmark Drive to Olympic Parkway. The PRI segment of this road project could develop under two scenarios: 1) It could be pursued in conjunction with the County’s processing of a development proposal for that project site, likely a 5 lane roadway. The developer would construct that section of roadway as a requirement of the development’s approval. 2) As a necessary connection, the project would need to proceed even without a PRI development proposal. Without development a 3 lane road would be constructed. ($2,293,873, primarily local funds with possible private participation—this scenario is assumed in the cost estimates.) Schedule C would upgrade the remainder of Landmark to a four lane road. This would run from Landmark Inn to the Tanger Outlet Mall entrance. This portion may be built later if funding is limited. ($3,041.776, primarily local funds, growth induced) • SR-224 should be widened to six lanes from I-80 to Bear Hollow. Summit County would like to consider a “preferential lane” with use limited to transit and/or high occupancy vehicles (HOV). ($2,205,000 UDOT) • An existing privately owned drive between Ute and New Park Boulevards has been upgraded and repaved as part of the remodeled old K-Mart site. This roadway provides a critical internal connection for commercial traffic between the ---PAGE BREAK--- Final 7-15-09 Page 22 of 39 Redstone and Kimball Plaza properties on the east side of SR-224. This connection could be dedicated as a public County road. (estimated cost to reconstruct $250,000) • The Canyons Resort is a major traffic contributor. A transit hub and some enhancement of Canyons Resort Drive are recommended. The initial segment of the transit hub facility is being installed by the Canyons currently but will likely need to be improved and expanded as the area develops. • The US-40, West bound off ramp is only 350’ from the frontage road. Realignment and further separation is required. (estimated cost $2,122,000) Phase II (2012-2018) Phase II improvements build on the Phase I improvements. The County’s Short Range Transit plan is assumed to have negligible capital expense. • Powderwood Drive, which serves the Powderwood and Crestview Condominiums and provides secondary access to the Tanger Factory Stores, should be extended into the proposed Property Reserve Inc (PRI) development. ($1,361,000 – significant private contribution – there is a public interest in general traffic circulation in the Powderwood area, providing an addition route of access) • Kilby Road should be widened from Landmark to Pinebrook Boulevard. The need to signalize the intersection at the Factory Stores entrance will require further analysis. ($1,176,000 County, preservation of the corridor, Special Improvement Area (SIA), ) • Rasmussen Road should be widened from the Jeremy Ranch interchange to the Kimball Junction interchange. Two free right turn lanes will be added to the I-80 southbound off-ramp to SR-224. ($1,683,000 County, preservation of the corridor, SIA) • Jeremy Ranch intersections will need to be upgraded. Per Horrocks Engineers study of the intersections, the preferred alternative is a series of round-a-bouts ($2,447,000 - 1/2 UDOT for the ramps and respective intersections and local funds) • Landmark Drive, which was extended to Newpark Boulevard in Phase I, will be extended to Bear Hollow in Phase II. ($4,012,000 private with some County) • SR-224 should be widened to six lanes from Bear Hollow to Canyons Resort Drive (and possibly further south). As discussed in the previous section, the County would like the outside lane marked as a preferential lane or HOV. However, this may not sufficiently improve traffic conditions on SR-224 and in the future, the preferential lane may eventually need to be converted to a third general purpose lane in each direction. ($3,316,000 UDOT) • Preservation of a roadway corridor is needed for the extension of Highland Drive to SR-248. This would be a West US-40 frontage. This would provide a critical ---PAGE BREAK--- Final 7-15-09 Page 23 of 39 alternative link for the IHC Hospital and other facilities in the event of intersection failure on SR-248. (estimated cost $2,600,000–inter jurisdictional, corridor preservation ) • Bitner to Silver Creek Road Frontage Road: several alternative alignments need to be considered including selection based on all factors. This connection will enhance general community circulation and emergency services. (total cost estimate $2,780,362) • Similar to the realignment of the US-40 Frontage Road in Phase 1 near Home Depot, the North pace frontage road in front of Burt Brothers Tire is expected to exceed capacity. By extending Silver Creek Drive back to North Pace Frontage Road, capacity can be achieved. ($3,974,520 some project driven) Phase III (2018-33) The Phase III improvements involve significant construction, but could have the greatest potential impact on the area. • The existing intersection of SR-224 and Landmark Drive could be closed, and Landmark Drive could instead pass over SR-224. Alternative solutions will continue to be studied to provide access and circulation in the Kimball junction area while preserving the traffic flow from I-80 onto SR-224. ($8,721,000, County: SIA, growth, etc.) • Right-of-way for a new freeway interchange and frontage roads at the existing view area should be preserved. The proposed interchange at High Ute would provide travelers the option to bypass Kimball Junction completely. ($30,145,000, UDOT with some County preparation work) • The Quinns Junction Interchange signals are expected to require addition capacity. A Single Point Urban Interchange under the existing structure appears to be the most feasible; however the existing US-40 frontage road is too close and would be relocated near the rail trail providing a signalized intersection and pedestrian crossing. ($4,803,738 and $2,609,529 respectively) Multimodal Recommendations In conjunction with the improvements called for in Phase I – III, multimodal improvements are to be included as projects proceed to design. Some County sponsored projects may be listed in the future, in coordination with the Snyderville Basin Recreation District. 3.3 Transportation Plan Strategy, Goals, Principles and Actions Goals, principles and actions are set forth in the Summit County intends to meet the transportation needs by means of: • Traffic Demand Management, • Maximizing efficient use of the existing system, ---PAGE BREAK--- Final 7-15-09 Page 24 of 39 • Expanding the roadway network where it is necessary to meet system goals, • Work with planning on impact minimization and use of alternative transportation to the extent implementation is realistic, • Work with other jurisdictions and entities to foster regional solutions as transportation needs are not uniquely solved only within the Snyderville Basin, and • Continual monitoring of conditions to insure quality of life impacts are understood. Plan’s Goals / Principles / Actions are further categorized in the by Transit / Multi Modal, Accident Reduction, Enhancement polices, Level of Service standards, and Interagency Co-operation. The CFP success relies on achieving goals as generally stated above. The contains additional details. 3.4 Resources required. From the costs estimates, the total cost is roughly $145 million in improvements. Figure 9 illustrates the respective general categories of the expenses. As expected, construction is the largest single component at 41% or $60.3 million. Right-of-way is approximately 22% or $31.2 million. As a 25 year plan, inflation comprised a significant percentage at 37%. Some adjustments have been made to reflect current conditions: o Paying for the Ute / Newpark Boulevard connection for the sake of making it a public roadway is not fiscally responsible. Should it be donated - acceptance is recommended though the pavement condition needs to be considered. o The plan did not adequately address costs for the improvements of the Jeremy Ranch interchange. Figure 9: Cost Categories Summary ---PAGE BREAK--- Final 7-15-09 Page 25 of 39 4.0 FINANCES Interstate 80, US-40 and State Road 224 and 248 (SR-224 – SR-248) are Federal and State facilities. Likewise, transit service is typically federally funded and jointly maintained with Park City. Private interest in the facilities also exists and should be relied upon as a resource for providing the necessary means of providing the services. 4.1 Initial projections Staff has projected an initial estimation of the external resources toward the needed improvements. These are estimates only and will need to be verified with possible contingency actions. Figure 10 illustrates the percentages and totals of all sources. Table 5 provides the details of assumptions based on a project specific consideration. The external resources will be discussed first followed by more specific funding mechanisms applied to the County requirement. 4.2 External funding mechanisms The SR-224, SR-248, US-40 and I-80 corridors are UDOT jurisdiction but are also the primary access to the Snyderville Basin and Park City. Many private interests are within the study area. Each should bear their responsibility and proportionate share of improvements. Other grant funding opportunities are eligible toward improvements and should be relied upon prior to assuming local burden. 4.2.1 Federal funding Surface Street Funds Federal funds are a major source of funding available to the local entities. This money is in high demand and has limited availability for local road construction or reconstruction projects. Summit County has been successful in obtaining these funds but will not rely upon these funds until they can be verified. This conservative approach is based on current acquisitions of the funds. Another consideration in seeking federal funds is that projects receiving this money have stricter guidelines and higher wage rates than locally funded projects. While the need to fund projects is a high priority, partial federal funding of a roadway project may in actuality increase local funding required to complete a project. Several of the facilities are not the operational jurisdiction of Summit County, nor can we directly modify the State / Federal facilities if the funds were available. Figure 10: General Funding Sources ---PAGE BREAK--- Final 7-15-09 Page 26 of 39 Table 5: Others finance Transportation Enhancements Funds Transportation Enhancement funding is available for activities that are designed to “strengthen the cultural, aesthetic, and environmental aspects of the Nation’s intermodal transportation system.” Funds from this program go to local governments to implement projects such as restoring historic transportation facilities, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, landscaping and scenic beautification, and mitigating water pollution from highway runoff. Transportation Enhancements are funded through the Enhancements Committee of the Utah Department of Transportation. Though not considered here, they may be used to enhance specific projects and ease some local funding burden. Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Funds FTA has been a major source of funding for Transit related infrastructure and on-going maintenance. For most eligible projects, grants are an 80% federal and 20% local. Most of the major projects, such as Transit hub and maintenance facilities, will use this ratio. A higher local match will be applied where eligibility criteria may be less defined ---PAGE BREAK--- Final 7-15-09 Page 27 of 39 such as park-n-ride or bus stop shelters. Whereas transit is provided in partnership with Park City, FTA funds will be applied for, then County and City funding will be proportioned based on a ratio approximated by use / need of each jurisdiction. 4.2.2 State Funding Sources The State has been notified of the County’s intents. When the original area transportation plan was adopted, a letter and a copy were sent to the State requesting addition to the State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP). Extensive follow-up will be required to ensure the funding is realized in a timely manner. County planning and preparation will make the realization of State needed improvements more probable. The County should prepare in appropriate methods such as: corridor preservation agreements, right-of-way acquisition, inter-local agreements, and so forth. Though listed under State funding, the State may petition for Federal Highway Administration Assistance on major improvements such as the new interchange. Several sources of transportation funds are programmed at the State level. Some of these sources are eligible for use on roads other than State Highways, while others must be used only on State Highways. These funds will need to be petitioned for in matching amounts for mutually beneficial projects such as the 224-Landmark grade separation. High Hazard Elimination Projects This funding source applies to State Highways only and includes a variable amount of money that is competitive on a statewide basis. Requests should be submitted to the UDOT Transportation Improvement Plan Spot Improvement Funds Similar to High Hazard Elimination projects, spot improvements are funded statewide and are only eligible for State Highways. These projects are generally smaller in scale than High Hazard Elimination Projects and are also requested, evaluated, and coordinated at the UDOT Headquarters Traffic and Safety Division. For a smaller project, these funds may be requested such as the free rights on SR-224. Signing and Striping Improvements Direct requests for speed limit signs, animal crossing signs, and related small scale striping and signing changes on State Highways can be made to UDOT Region 2. These projects can generally be absorbed within short term programming at the Region and can be requested via phone, email, or regular mail. Specific requests that include schematic design drawings, quantity estimates, and other justification data might be more readily funded. Drainage and Maintenance Requests Similar to signing and striping, requests to address drainage and other maintenance issues on State Highways should be made directly to the Maintenance Area at the Region. 4.2.3 Park City As a jurisdiction within the County, Park City funding should be acknowledged in discussions as local funding. Park City’s funding is at the discretion of the City Council. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final 7-15-09 Page 28 of 39 Our understanding is that Park City Council generally finds transit enhancements as mutually beneficial. Thus Park City’s participation is assumed only in transit related projects roughly proportionate to their needs / uses of the respective facilities. The Park City percentages in the table are a percent of the match required after FTA dollars discussed above. 4.2.4 Private Contributions Summit County has in the past relied heavily on developers for the creation and improvement of transportation infrastructure in exchange for increased density development and intensity of uses. While this process has merit in isolated areas, the nature of transportation has far reaching impacts that extend beyond single project limits. While small segments of roadways may be improved with a development project, the overall impact to roadway facilities as a result of new development extends to the entire transportation network. The current road improvement methods have provided some relief to the increasing travel demands of the County. However, the current methods have not and will not be sufficient to maintain suitable levels of service over the planned years. In order for system improvements to be effective, a comprehensive system of monitoring and improvements are needed. All sources of funding will be important including impact fees. The road impact fee needs to be imposed in a justifiable and reasonable fashion with regard to commercial development. Private contribution may be mutually beneficial in many cases. As projects are constructed, written agreement may need to verify just compensation for construction of eligible facilities for community or system benefit. While other funding sources for roadway improvements are scarce, the County can negotiate with developers for roadway improvements that enhance system performance as well as service the project. These types of roadway improvements may include off-site work, right-of-way or asphalt sections wider than what is needed to service the project and bridge construction along creeks and canals. The County can negotiate these types of improvements with density credits for residential projects, alternative design standards that provide cost savings to developers and/or tax credits for commercial development. The CFP and the impact fees should be adjusted accordingly during the annual review to compensate for any of these types of projects. 4.3 County Funding The immediate concern is the $52.0 million needed by the County at various amounts during the 25-year plan. The provides some direction, but little detail as to application. The following is an overview of the probable funding categories. Vehicle Registration Fee This is a new fee that is based upon Utah State Code (41-1a-1222). Charged in whole dollar increments with a maximum of $10, a significant amount of revenue may be generated. Limitations are established in the State Law for use toward right-of-way preservation and acquisitions. As a local and internal County fund, working with the individual communities via a Council of Governments (COG) for prioritization of right-of- way acquisition will be necessary. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final 7-15-09 Page 29 of 39 A point of interest in Summit County is that, there are more vehicles registered in the county than people (ratio of 1.1/1 and trending upward). Currently (2004) there are 34,000 vehicles registered or annual revenue of $340,000 that increases annually. Based on Table 4, $31M is eligible to be funded by this source. With time, the fund has the capability to produce more than the required revenue needed for the This fund is used County wide. All projects will require analysis and justification before the COG. Approximately $11.7M is an estimate of this funding toward the subject area. The following cash flow Table 8 is an estimation of funding potential based on: assumed population growth consistent with the Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, application of a bond, assumed project timing and lump sum project for the various jurisdictions also included in the COG. The table assumes no State fund matching for local funds collected, which is currently available from the State. Impact Fees Approximately 46% of all future trips will be generated by new growth, relying on the existing and new roadway network. Initial estimates are that a $1,459 impact fee is justified. An additional “system buy-in fee” of $308 is also justified for each peak hour trip. Impact fees are a means by which new “growth pays its fair share.” Of the $52M of local reasonability 37% or $23.4M could be generated by impact fees to provide the necessary improvements. The buy-in fee is eligible for a wider range of uses and could generate an additional $3.5M. The buy-in fee, though use to recover previous system costs is possible, should be used to provide the needed future infrastructure. Though ideally implemented in years previous, it is difficult to reserve sufficient funds to complete projects during the six year period of time the law allows cities to accumulate impact fees. Unless alternative sources of funding other than impact fees are retained, many projects cannot be completed. Thus the County may opt to bond for such improvements and use impact fees as a means for new development to buy into the system. The cash flow Table 7 on the following sheet illustrates an estimation of Impact fee funding potential based on: assumed number of building permits, application of bond to accelerate needed projects and assumed project timing. Buy-in fee revenue generation is also illustrated. County General Fund The CFP does not assume that the County General Fund would contribute to needed infrastructure as inter-departmental impacts could occur. Some contributions from the County General Fund may be considered in the future as the western basin area is a boisterous part of the local economy. Care needs to be taken to verify that over time the tax burden would not need to be increased unless found to be in the public interest. Some of the funding of Landmark A is expected to be funded by a GO Bond or the County General Fund. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final 7-15-09 Page 30 of 39 Table 7: Impact Fee, Estimated Cash Flow ---PAGE BREAK--- Final 7-15-09 Page 31 of 39 Table 8: Corridor Preservation, Estimated Cash Flow ---PAGE BREAK--- Final 7-15-09 Page 32 of 39 General Obligation Bonding (GO bond) Government general obligation bonding (GO bond) is a temporary tax increase measure which would require public approval. The GO bond was also assumed not to contribute except as proposed on a project by project basis as illustrated on Landmark Drive. The GO bond may be considered when the timing of Improvements needs to be accelerated. Some additional consideration could be provided for GO bonds in the future. Impact Fee revenue may be used to repay bond services. Class B Road Funds Class B&C Road Funds are distributed by the State to cities and counties for the construction and maintenance of public highways, roads or streets that are maintained to certain minimum standards and over which a normal two-wheel drive vehicle would be able to travel. Included in the list of permissible uses of these funds are equipment purchase, sidewalks, curb, gutter, and federal matching grants, among many others. The State Class B&C Road Funds is a source of revenue that can be used for improvements on existing roadways. These funds are a proportionate share of the gas tax that is distributed through the various entities in the State based on road miles. The County currently receives approximately $1.2M annually from B&C Road Funds. Most of the revenue is fully committed toward repayment of the Browns Canyon Road Bond and typical road maintenance. While the County could contribute some of these funds toward capital improvements, funds necessary for road maintenance would have to be redirected from another general fund account. Revenue Bonds As another form of bonding, revenue bonds can be considered. Caution needs to be used as these existing funds may be needed in funding current County operations. However revenue bonds may be a necessary tool used in combination with the other forms of revenue to enable timely project completion. Here again, as debt finance, this is not assumed to contribute to the overall finance of the plan other than on-going maintenance of the roadway system. Special Improvement Area Based on trip generation roughly 66% of all trips are commercial related. While the Special Improvement Area (SIA) concept is a tax burden, the goal is to, 1) impose taxes to the extent the return on investment is acceptable and 2) provide a just proportionality (those who benefit–pay). Further, this area could also suffer financial loss should the improvements not be set in place. Ideally, a business owner could see that though paying a tax, the improvements enable them to recover the complete expense. Based on a rough estimate of values and 0.0002 tax per land value (mill levy), $6.8M of the required amount could be generated. Via a SIA, other benefits would hopefully accrue such as: a transportation authority as defined in the better coordination of events, better programming of future area improvements and so forth. Table 8 illustrates the revenue based on a 0.0002 mill levy with a further assumption of 10% of the tax base of the County within the subject area. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final 7-15-09 Page 33 of 39 Existing Public Transit Funding In order to fund the current (2005) transit services, the County relies on three main sources of revenue along with a number of supplemental sources. The three sources of the current funding system are: 1. ¼-cent transit sales tax (projected to raise about $1,476,000) in 2008. The funding from the adopted transit sales tax is expected to maintain an annual growth rate of 3-5%. This would provide an average additional funding of about $45,000/year over the next five years. 2. A special service district assessment to businesses ($330,000/year) Businesses now pay about 1/3 of the cost to operate the Kimball Shuttle. A more equitable allocation may provide an additional $50,000 - $80,000 a year from this source. 3. General fund contributions of about $50,000 per year. The County accepts developer dedications and in-kind contributions to add and improve transit amenities, such as benches, shelters, and bus turnouts. In 2007, the system will make improvements worth over $100,000, some of which will be paid for by developer contributions. A re-evaluation of the Transient Room Tax (TRT) allocation should also be conducted. In 2004, the County lodging facilities generated over $600,000 in TRT. A portion of this County-generated tax could be used to support the transit routes that serve visitors. The County also receives a portion of its funding from pass through Park City sources. In 2005, the transit budget projects $16,800 from the County’s share of donation and advertising revenues. The County has also received a proportional share of the Federal Transit operating fund. In 2007, this amounted to about $380,000 and is projected at $500,000 in 2008. 4.4 Local funding summary The remaining balance with the system buy-in fee used would be roughly zero to $5.3 million. Based on, unused funding mechanisms, possible interest income and contingences within the cost estimates, the remaining will need to be provided by other methods. A caution needs to be expressed as to the feasibility and timing of the respective funding methods. Continuous follow-up of the alternatives will be required, both local and other sources. Table 8: Special Improvement Area Revenue ---PAGE BREAK--- Final 7-15-09 Page 34 of 39 4.5 Alternatives and Timing of Improvements In the plan, many of the improvements need to be constructed well in advance of the availability of funding. Bonding is one tool used to bridge a need but also comes at a price. Further we are committed to monitor the current levels of service to preserve the quality of life. Thus the two must be carefully balanced: need and funding both with respect to time. As illustrated in the respective tables above for Corridor Preservation and Impact Fee cash flows, a limited number of bonds may be used to generate the revenues needed to affect the projects in a timely manner. While the “pay as you go” method is preferred, two concerns exist: Limited time allowed in expense of impact fee funds and providing the services in a timely manner. Failure of either may result in a negative revenue stream including loses of sales tax revenue associated with poor access. Table 9: Local Funding Summary ---PAGE BREAK--- Final 7-15-09 Page 35 of 39 Timing of projects as illustrated are a first estimate based on fund balance and approximate need of improvement. Details will be developed as the project approaches including: assumptions of timing, exact needs, cost, and so forth. Continual monitoring is now in progress to assist in the processes. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final 7-15-09 Page 36 of 39 5.0 Conclusion / Summary State Law requires a Capital Facilities Plan (CFP): 1. Identify the need, 2. Recommend a means to meet the needs, and 3. Generally identify funding for needs. Further, the CFP must have a summary to be “understood by a lay person.” The CFP must be adopted by ordinance after being placed in the public libraries for review 14 day prior to adoption. This Snyderville Basin Capital Facilities Plan 2008 (CFP) shall be placed as required and this chapter is intended to constitute the summary as required. The Snyderville Basin Transportation and Transit Plan 2007 studied the area as indicated in Figure 11 and is a guidance document that represents the County’s transportation vision for both roadways and transit. The Snyderville Basin General Plan is the guiding document to ensure that new development will maintain the character of the community. This CFP is an implementation of the and General Plans that addresses associated costs of future public facilities that meets the long-range transportation vision of the County for the Western Snyderville Basin. 5.1 The Need Summit County’s population is increasing and proportionally, transportation demand is also. Of future Snyderville Basin traffic, 46% will be new growth related. Existing and future commercial / accommodations constitute roughly 65% of all traffic. The existing roadway network cannot support the additional traffic without additional capacity being added. Capital Facilities Plan: make a copy of the plan, together with a summary designed to be understood by a lay person, available to the public. Figure 11: Western Basin Study Area ---PAGE BREAK--- Final 7-15-09 Page 37 of 39 5.2 Recommend a Means to Meet the Needs In the a list of projects was created to provide the necessary transportation services. Table 10 is the resulting list with some minor amendments. The cost over the next 24 years will be $145.0M. years total Phase 1 (0-5 years) $ 33,752,308 3 Jeremy Ranch Exit - Rassm / Kilby $ 2,446,799 1 Transit Operations Center $ 5,658,654 1 Landmark - A $ 5,229,774 2 Kimball Transit Hub $ 2,854,681 4 Kimballs/SR-224 Park and Ride $ 4,073,159 1 Bus Shelters $ 165,880 3 Canyons Resort Drive Roundabout $ 386,463 5 Canyons Transit Hub $ 513,942 4 East US-40 Frontage Home Dp-Sl Sp Rd $ 2,122,524 1 SR - 248 Park & ride $ 2,913,364 3 Landmark to Olympic Park - B $ 2,315,696 2 SR -224/ I-80 to Bear Hollow Widen $ 5,071,371 Phase 2 - (5-10 years) $ 27,737,333 5 Powderwood Drive $ 2,620,230 7 Bitner Road extension to Silver Creek Rd $ 2,780,362 6 West US-40 Frontage R-O-W preservation $ 4,305,372 6 East US-40 Frontage Atkinson-248 $ 2,609,529 7 North Pace Frontage to Silver Sp. Rd $ 3,974,520 9 SR -224 / to Canyons Widen $ 5,995,898 5 Ute / Newpark Public $ 271,639 6 Rasmussen Widening $ 2,529,740 6 Kilby Rd Widening $ 2,650,044 Phase 3 - (10-25 years) $ 83,579,318 11 Landmark C, widen to Factory Stores $ 2,093,653 18 Landmark Grade Separation $ 18,547,944 20 Interchange frontage road – Rasmussen/Kilby $ 12,812,380 21 High Ute Interchange at view area $ 24,900,198 13 Landmark D Extend to Bear hollow $ 5,371,738 15 Quinns SPUI $ 4,803,738 25 Silver Summit Exit Widening $ 9,858,297 20 West US 40 Frontage Rd /Highland Dr to SR 248 $ 5,191,368 $ 145,068,959 Table 10: Projects to meet the needs 5.3 Generally Identify Funding For Needs This CFP exceeds state requirements in identifying project funding, funding proportioning and preliminary cash flows. Figure 12 illustrates that funding is provided by Federal, State and Local resources. The County still needs to generate $52.0M over the life of the plan. This burden should be provided in a number of different local sources. Corridor Preservation Fee: a vehicle license fee for the purchase of long term road right- of-way. ---PAGE BREAK--- Final 7-15-09 Page 38 of 39 Impact Fees: Fees tied to new construction used to mitigate new growth impact on the roadway system. Approximately 46% of the $33M in future capital projects can be attributed to support new growth and therefore may reasonably be funded through impact fees including a system buy-in fee. Special Improvement Area: a value added taxes on an area of the County that benefits from the improvements and may be damaged if improvements are not made. Existing Transit District: An area currently funding transit service in the Snyderville Basin. Other: Several other sources may be considered, such as General Fund, General Obligation Bond or other non secured State and Federal funds. The latter may be pursued as merited. Figure 13 summarizes the resources listed above. These Federal, State, and Private funds will need to be verified with contingency funding plans. With the system buy-in fee and other resources as additional support, Summit County should proceed with the CFP as adopted by ordinance. Figure 13: County Funding Figure 12: Other Funding Sources ---PAGE BREAK--- Final 7-15-09 Page 39 of 39 Appendix Appendix A: Costs Appendix B: Unit Statistics