PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION PLAN – comments to UDOT

Many Virgin citizens have expressed their views on the proposed transportation plan.  Below are my email comments to UDOT on the proposed transportation plan. I tried to address matters that would unlikely be covered by comments of others. 

From: “pluwe@virgin.utah.gov” <pluwe@virgin.utah.gov>
Date: Wednesday, July 5, 2023 at 8:30 AM
To: “jeremy.searle@wcg.us” <jeremy.searle@wcg.us>
Cc: Jean Krause <jkrause@virgin.utah.gov>
Subject: Comments on Virgin Transportation Plan

Jeremy,

Thank you for providing the citizens of Virgin an opportunity to comment on the proposed Transportation Master Plan. Below are my comments:

The remainder of my comments will somewhat track chronologically the proposed master plan on-line.

• The plan’s assumptions on future growth are incorrect and therefore invalid. The plan includes a letter to Chris Hall with assumptions and SR9 Traffic Volume Estimates. The letter states that CCS data was collected from sites in Springdale because there are no significant attractions present between Virgin, and the collecting stations. The letter further states that it is assumed that most traffic that passes through Virgin goes to Springdale to visit Zion National Park and concluded that the volumes reported by continuous count stations are considered as a reliable indication of the volumes along SR9 through Virgin.  The assumptions and conclusion are incorrect.  There are several attractions that divert traffic from Zion.  Virgin has direct visits that do not go on to Springdale. Virgin has traffic that travel to the Jem trail along Sheep Bridge Road and traffic to this attraction increases when there are special events. The same is true for the BMX park although on a smaller scare. Traffic also goes through Virgin and diverted prior to Springdale to go to Kolob Reservoir and to the trails located on the west side of Zion National Park. Reliance solely on CCS stations at Springdale is misplaced. There is no way to know if these attractions are significant enough to affect the modeling without collecting data prior to Virgin.  As such, the data used in the plan is likely unreliable. 

• The Scope of Work states that pneumatic tube counts will be collected at two (2) locations. The reasonable assumption is that the 2 locations would be in Virgin and be new counts.  Instead, existing CCS stations were used which is not in compliance with the literal and spirit of the scope of work. 

• Also, there is no discussion on the effect of paving Sheep Bridge road on traffic.  Sheep Bridge road is expected to be paved within the net 3 years. The paving will divert traffic off of SR 59 to SR9 and through Virgin which will likely increase traffic numbers. 

• If I am reading the projects chart and map correctly, the reference number for projects in chart and map do not match. For example, project 10 on map are improvements to SR9 but chart has project 10 as a connectivity road on 50 S, while the map shows the connectivity road on 50 S as project 8 which on the chart is 100 S.  There are likely more disconnects.  I just listed the first one that I tried to match up.  

• The scope of work required evaluation of future growth patterns and potential annexation areas in the analysis.  The town recently changed the zoning of a very large area to HRZ, Hotel Resort Zone.  There was no discussion of future roads for this area. Moreover, there was no future roads set out for other growth areas, except immediately adjacent to town. The plan was devoid of any analysis of zoning and future growth, which is essential to a transportation plan.

• I like the suggestion of active transportation crossing at intersection of 10 East/Mill street and SR-9.  However, this crossing should also have the solar flashing crossing lights that the pedestrian engages prior to crossing. In addition to the suggested safe crossing points along SR-9 at 100 W and Pocketville RD/North street, there should also be active transportation crossings at Sheep Bridge and Mesa Road or 1420 W; and at Kolob Terrace Road. 

• If safety is the vision, goals, and objective why was there no discussion on fixing sight problems at 700 W and SR-9.  

• The plan is devoid of any analysis of what streets need traffic calming measures and what the traffic calming measures should be. The Town requested an addition to the scope of work to include recommendations on traffic calming measures on residential collectors and other streets. Just listing possible traffic calming measures available is not recommending calming measures on the specific streets needing such measures. 

• The scope of work also indicated that the analysis would identify roads that do not meet current Town standards and provide recommendations for how to bring these roadways up to standard. I did not find such an analysis.

• The short-term transportation plan was to include cost estimates and project details.  I did not find cost estimates or project details. 

I hope that there will be further public comment and presentation to the Town Council prior to finalizing the plan. Again, thank you the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions concerning my comments, please contact me.

Paul Luwe

Town Council Member

https://www.paul4virgintowncouncil.com