Summit County has partnered with the Utah Department of Transportation to improve traffic near the Kimball Junction exit, and officials anticipate a decision on the alternative design by late next year.
If it all goes according to plan, the selected solution could be in place by the expected return of the Winter Olympics in 2034.
Carl Miller, the county’s regional transportation planning director, and Brandon Brady, his deputy director, produced updates about the proposals to the Summit County Council last week. No action was taken, as UDOT staff are scheduled to present their findings at the Feb. 14 meeting, just a few days after the public comment period opens.
More than 30 designs were narrowed down to three as part of a draft Environmental Impact Statement to evaluate each project and determine how it would address issues such as congestion, safety, access, travel time and other impacts at the Interstate 80 and S.R. 224 interchange as well as from Kimball Junction through Olympic Parkway.
The proposed designs:
- Alternative A is a split-diamond interchange with intersection improvements.
- Alternative B has grade-separated intersections with one-way frontage roads.
- Alternative C makes intersection improvements and pedestrian enhancements.
Miller and some members of the County Council appeared to favor Alternative B because it would have the greatest impact on traffic mobility. It would create an enhanced exit with better vehicular flow.
Alternative B works to separate local and through traffic by constructing a fly-under, or depressed roadway, as well as a new interchange and one-way frontage roads. There would also be a new lane on eastbound I-80 for transit or carpoolers. There would be fewer intersections, allowing cars to avoid stopping at lights and preventing backups on the highway.
While UDOT says the plan will increase comfort by decreasing the traffic volume near walking or bicycle routes, county staffers said they think it’s the worst design for pedestrian travel because it could limit access for active transportation users. It also has the greatest environmental impacts.
It has the highest price tag at an estimated $162 million.
“B provides a lot of the solutions that we want. Obviously, cost is a major prohibitive factor,” Miller said.
Alternative C would be the next best option because it doesn’t rely on local roads, according to Miller.
He characterized the project as a simple widening of S.R. 224 with upgrades at the intersections. It would remove pedestrian access to the east and west. The crossings would be replaced with a tunnel, which helps speed up signal time and improve efficiency for motorists.
The project would be the best at preventing a queue from building on I-80 at a lower cost than Alternative B, but it has the worst travel time for transit despite creating bus rapid transit lanes. It comes with a cost of around $35 million.
County officials showed the least interest in Alternative A.
The design would split the interchange between the existing location at S.R. 224 and a new intersection with a bridge crossing I-80 to the west of the highway, according to UDOT. Miller explained a new exit would be created about a half-mile east of the existing one at Kimball Junction, helping to redirect local traffic earlier. It’s likely Landmark Drive would have to be widened to accommodate the traffic.
Alternative A would also create a pedestrian tunnel at Ute. Boulevard. It’s expected to cost about $90 million.
No matter the design the County Courthouse chooses, it would be a significant improvement to existing travel times.
Miller said the current speed limits from Bobsled Boulevard and Cutter Lane to I-80 average around 17 mph southbound and 13 mph northbound. Alternative B would improve that to 33 mph southbound and 37 northbound. Alternative C is in the same range, around 33 mph southbound and 26 mph northbound. The average is 25 mph southbound and 22 mph northbound under Alternative A.
Speed limits are projected to average around 9 mph southbound and 11 mph northbound by 2050 if Summit County does nothing.
County Councilor Chris Robinson favored Alternative B, though they recognized the design had several faults. Robinson said the proposal would help both sides of the roadway adjust to future development. He wants to see congestion and travel times improve as well as community connections.
The study only accounts for the build-out of entitlements that have already been approved. It also takes into consideration options such as park-and-rides or transit centers, but Miller said those only capture a fraction of the traffic.
Vice Chair Malena Stevens raised concerns about pedestrian safety throughout Kimball Junction, particularly in areas where there are apartments as well as amenities such as grocery stores. County staffers and UDOT have disagreed about how the topic has been assessed.
Chair Roger Armstrong said the county needs to consider what the most important factors, such as cost and travel time, are. Miller said officials can’t discuss funding options until an alternative design is chosen, which is expected by the end of next year.
The project is not currently included in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. Miller said it may be difficult for Alternative B to move forward quickly based on UDOT scoring.
However, the area could also be prioritized because of the region’s expected role in a future Winter Games.
“This is pretty complicated construction as far as just getting it programmed and funded, that could be done fairly quickly. UDOT updates their STIP on a regular basis, usually, they do it annually but they can do it more often than that. The construction … depending on which alternative, they’re definitely going to be years in the making. If decisions were made soon, this could definitely be built and operational by the 2034 Olympics,” Miller said.
The last feedback period was from April 28 to May 28. Public comment will open again on Feb. 12. The community is encouraged to share their opinions about the proposed alternatives during that time. A revised draft of the Kimball Junction Environmental Impact Statement could be presented in the summer of 2024 with a final decision in the fall or winter.