Utah Transportation Commission
June 17, 1994
Salt Lake City, Utah

The regular meeting of the Utah Transportation Commission was called to order at 9:10 a.m. by Commission Chairman Glen E. Brown. He welcomed all those in attendance.

Approval of Minutes
Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the minutes of the Commission Meeting held in Salt Lake City on June 3, 1994. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Larkin and it passed unanimously.

UDOT Engineer in Training (EIT) Rotational Program
Ed Klarich explained the department is about to embark on an extended Rotational Program for our engineers in training (EIT). The program basically started in the late '60s as a two-year program. Ed noted three of the engineers who began in the program then are UDOT's current Deputy Director Clint Topham, Program Development Engineer Dave Miles, and Project Development Engineer Kim Schvaneveldt.

The engineers coming into the program represent the future of UDOT. The new program will be extended to 36 months; 18 months will be served in a Construction assignment, 18 months in an Operations assignment, with, hopefully, a six-month optional area they can select at their own discretion.

Chairman Brown congratulated and warmly welcomed the 13 new engineers in the program who were in attendance. Each of them introduced themselves, the university they attended, and their assignment in the department:

Bryan Chamberlain, U of U, Region 2 Construction
Greg Searle, BYU, Region 2 Materials
Brett Dawson, U of U, Headquarters Maintenance
Brett Hadley, USU and U of U, Headquarters Environmental
Tim Buntrock, Florida State U, Region 1 Field Engineer
Daryl Friant, USU, Region 1 Construction
Xue Dong Liu, U of U, Headquarters Construction
David Holmgren, U of U, Research
Shelly Vidmar, BYU, Traffic & Safety
Brooke Struve, BYU, Region 4 Construction
Kelly Barrett, USU, Region 1 Construction
Kevin Griffin, USU, Headquarters Preconstruction
David Alvarez, BYU, Region 3 Construction

Planning and Programming - Airport Improvement Projects
Sheldon McConkie explained there were two aeronautical projects for the Commission's consideration. The first project is for runway extension at the Provo Airport, and has federal/state/local participation in the $1.1 million total cost.

The second project is for planning, feasibility study, site selection, and environmental assessment at the Vernal Airport. This also is a federal/state/local project for a total cost of $158,429. Both projects have been approved by the Aeronautical Committee and are recommended to the Commission for approval.

Commissioner Lewis made a motion to approve both projects as recommended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clyde and it passed unanimously that:

Provo Municipal Airport project approved for Runway 13-31 extension, for a total project cost of $1,099,626 - Federal $1,000,000, State and local $49,813 each; and

Vernal/Uintah County Airport project approved for Feasibility Study, site selection, Master Plan and Environmental Assessment, for a total project cost of $158,429 - Federal $144,075, State and local $7,177 each.

There was some discussion about the airport Master Plans, and Sheldon explained there is a continuing program to update the Master Plans for all the airports in the state. Much of the work is handled through our Planning and Programming office, coordinated by Monte Yeager. Commissioner Weston commented that sometime in the future, for his own information, he would like to discuss exactly what goes into the Master Plan.

Planning and Programming - Increase in Funding
BRF-0089(14)192, Sevier River Bridge Replacement South of Sevier Jct.
Dave Miles explained the Sevier River bridge replacement project has an increased cost of $600,000 which doubled the total project cost since the original estimate of $600,000. Staff's proposal is to utilize Bridge Replacement funds to cover that increased cost. He noted staff has determined it would be appropriate on this project to use the Bridge Replacement funds even though the increased cost is a significant amount and is for the area of approaches to the bridge. The only other alternative funding for this work would be STP funds and there are no funds available in that program to cover it. Because the Bridge Replacement Program funds were increased by about $3 million under this year's ISTEA allocation, which all came out of the STP funds, they felt it would be appropriate.

Chairman Brown asked if we spend $600,000 from the Bridge Replacement funds what would the balance be in that program for other bridge replacement projects. Dave replied we would be alright in this year's program because some of the other projects are running a bit behind, and next year we can catch up with the STP funds and offset what we've done with Bridge Replacement funds this year.

Chairman Brown asked if the original estimate was strictly for the structure and modest approach work, and the expanded approach work accounted for the majority of the increased cost, and Bob Hulick affirmed that was correct. Dave Miles indicated there was a change in the actual structure concept which necessitated the change in the approaches.

Ken Adair further explained that most of the bridges on the Sevier River were built too low; they are okay for normal flows, but based on today's requirements and new criteria from the Corps of Engineers there isn't enough clearance for high water flows. That requirement made it necessary to raise this bridge approximately 2-1/2 feet, which necessitated extending the tapers which in turn lengthened the approaches and also lengthened the detour road. The bridge length stayed the same. The project involves constructing a detour on the west side of the existing bridge, tearing out the old bridge and constructing a new structure in its place.

Ken indicated there were several other old bridges in this same condition along the Sevier River. The Kingston bridge over the Sevier River will be advertised later this summer. It also had to be raised a few feet, but he indicated there was adequate funding for that project.

The Commission strongly expressed their concerns about the way our project costs are being estimated. There was a very lengthy discussion about that, including design time of the bridge projects, the delays caused by wetlands and getting environmental clearances. Kim Schvaneveldt said the actual design of the bridge doesn't take long, it's the other work which is very time consuming. Also once you start in the design process, if you are using federal money you only have a certain amount of time to get it to contract. You can't start the design until you feel quite confident everything is cleared. Federal regulations also say you cannot do detailed design until you have completed the preliminary design and the environmental work; if you do that's an indication you've made up your mind and you are prejudiced about a specific alternative.

Commissioner Larkin moved to approve the increased funding as requested. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clyde and it passed unanimously that:

Approval of $600,000 in Bridge Replacement Funds on Project BRF-0089(14)192, US-89 Sevier River Bridge Replacement, 0.5 miles south of Sevier Junction, added to the $600,000 already programmed for a total project cost of $1.2 million.

Discussion on Cost Increases/Commission and Legislative Concern
The Commission stressed they are greatly concerned about the grossly inadequate cost estimates being done on projects which necessitates staff coming back requesting large increases in funding. They stated the Legislature has proposed that any request for increased funding of $1 million or more on a project must go back to them for approval; that could have a profound impact on meeting our obligation authority and getting projects done. If our current system doesn't allow us to program closer than $1 million on projects then something must be changed. The Legislature is not going to allow us to continue doing business as we have done in the past.

Commissioner Clyde referred to the 08-1 Procedure and how it was supposed to improve the process. He said he would like an evaluation of how staff feels the 08-1 process is working. He feels it should be designed to better handle the problems of estimating project costs. He was very distressed that a project could be underestimated by 100%. Bob Hulick said he feels the new process is beginning to help, but some projects--like this bridge project--did not have a concept report done on them and, unfortunately, some of those projects are still in the program. Staff is making an effort to get caught up on the concept reports for five years of projects. Also, an inflation factor hasn't been put in, which should probably be done. Chairman Brown said we should do our best to identify those projects and get a more accurate cost estimate for them.

Chairman Brown explained when the Legislature sees a program with a specific amount of projects and funding they expect that work to be accomplished. If they give us some additional resources and it just melts into the system funding project increases and we just end up paying for what was on the program to begin with that causes them great concern. They want to see increased projects if they give us increased funding. We need to make our program as accurate and credible as possible.

Staff agreed there were problems. The Commission strongly admonished staff they would have to do something to make better estimates on the projects. They would like a report at a future Commission Meeting on what changes staff would propose to ameliorate these kinds of problems; to minimize the amount of the increases and to deal with the projects already in the system which are grossly underestimated and which will be surfacing. Chairman Brown said staff should be on notice that when they present the program for approval this fall they will be scrutinizing it very closely.

Staff directed to make future report to Commission on effectiveness of 08-1 Procedure and changes they propose to incorporate to make more accurate cost estimates and minimize requests for increased funding; also how they propose to deal with underestimated projects already in the program.

Chairman Brown said the thing he and Director Zwick both feel is that the Legislature is frustrated we don't have better numbers for our projects, and we don't have projects which are ready to go; ready to go in their minds is six months. He knows the legislators don't understand the process, but they are under pressure from the public, so they are going to keep the pressure on UDOT. If they supply resources they want to see action now on a project, not in three years.

Director Zwick affirmed that was clearly the message which came from the legislators. He thinks the department needs to do a better job of communicating with them to educate and make sure they understand our processes. It is not an issue of blame, but there are certain things we can do better. In the prioritization of projects, the process which is in place now with the Commission doing the programming is what works, but some improvements need to be made in communicating with the Legislalture. The legislators need to be able to believe us when we say a project is going to be bid and how much it is going to cost; it actually has to happen then and for that amount of money.

Chairman Brown added the issue on the programming with the legislators has not been decided. The matter has been put on hold for a couple of months and they will revisit the issue in October. We've got to demonstrate we can do a better job and we've got to help them better understand the process.

Dave Miles said staff understands we need to have better preliminary estimates, and 08-1 really calls for us to do that. What we really have to do is better implement our process; more time has to be spent on the preliminary estimates.

Planning and Programming - Increase in Funding
*IM-84-6(70)102, I-84, Morgan to Summit County Line
Dyke LeFevre said they were requesting approval for a $7 million increase on the I-84, Morgan to Summit County Line project, which included modification of the Morgan Interchange. There is $18 million programmed for the project, but the current estimate is $25 million.

He explained when the original estimate was made they were considering a nine-inch concrete overlay over the existing bituminous pavement. A few weeks ago they received the final pavement design for the project and it was for an 11-inch concrete overlay plus a four-inch lean base. The existing bituminous pavement, which originally was planned to serve as the lean base, is stripping (the bituminous material is separating from the aggregate) leaving basically just a gravel base which is felt will not support the 11-inch overlay adequately, so the lean base is necessary.

Dyke said the newer concrete pavements we've been doing for the last 15 years are showing stress in specific areas. To alleviate that stress problem at the joints it has been recommended that a dowel be placed everywhere a joint is sawed across the pavement, and we will reduce the number of joints (every 15 feet).

The increased pavement depth from nine inches to 11 inches, the four inches of lean base, and the dowels along the nine-mile project accounts for $5.25 million of the increase. Repair of the structures was totally left out of the original estimate; that cost plus inflation accounts for the remaining $1.75 million increase.

There was considerable discussion about the project. Chairman Brown asked about the Morgan Interchange modification and how much of the project cost was for that. Dyke thought each ramp was around $200,000.

Commissioner Weston asked if we had considered if any change had to be made in the width of the structures at the Morgan Interchange. Dyke said that had been considered and the structure width did not have to be changed. Lynn Zollinger affirmed that was correct. Sheldon McConkie asked if we needed to widen the cross road which runs beneath the structure. Dyke said our twenty year traffic projections indicate it is not necessary to widen the cross road; possibly twenty years in the future it may need to be widened. Lynn Zollinger commented there could be some width problems if the traffic on SR-66 increases; we would need a left turn lane and possibly some sidewalks. Right now we are at about 50% of the required volume.

Commissioner Clyde had questions about the pavement design and the concept of doweling, and a lengthy discussion continued. Walt Running said FHWA has been pushing the Department to go with some dowels in transverse joints because of problems that have developed in our newer concrete pavements; longitudinal dowels have been used for some time. Commissioner Clyde again expressed serious concern about the problem with underestimating project costs and coming back for major increases.

Commissioner Larkin commented that a project is going to cost a certain amount of money no matter how it is estimated. Staff looks at a last job, similar to the one they are estimating, and base their estimate on that. He doesn't see how they can do any better job with the very preliminary information they have at the time. Commissioner Clyde disagreed and said he felt they can come closer if they scope the project better.

Commissioner Weston asked which projects would slip in the program if they approve the $7 million increase. Bob Hulick indicated the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), which would be discussed later in the meeting, does not take into account this $7 million increase, nor any other concrete projects which will require doweling and, therefore, an increase. He said he could not readily answer which projects would slip, but there would have to be some adjustment in the program. At present the program is fairly well balanced; it is about $3 million overprogrammed for the three years, which is fairly close.

Commissioner Weston said they would have to know which projects could slip so they could make their decision. Dave Miles said they would have to go through the program to determine which projects we can best afford to let slip; which ones will have some difficulty getting advertised by the end of September.

Lynn Zollinger added that as an alternative to approving the increased funding the Commission could consider shortening the length of the project by approximately two miles to stay within the programmed funding of $18 million. The project would be shortened on the Summit County end and that work would have to be completed in a later program.

John Monson added besides just considering the actual dollar amounts on the program, there is also the concern for the balance of this federal fiscal year of using our Obligation Authority. If any major changes are made to this project, such as shortening it which could necessitate some redesign work, and the project isn't ready to go to advertising, we will be in jeopardy of losing obligation authority. He said, in that case, there are two other projects which could come into the program in place of this I-84 project, which we may advertise using advance construction procedures anyway; that's an I-70 project, and one on I-80 around Knolls. Lynn Zollinger said shortening the job would not cause any additional problem with getting the project advertised.

Commissioner Weston said they also need to look at other projects to see if there are any more worthy of the $7 million than this I-84 project. There was discussion about that and staff determined approving the increase would not cause a problem with our program for the current year.

Bob Hulick said one other consideration is that the program is developed based on our apportionment. We don't have obligation authority to go with all the projects anyway; we have about $80 million less in obligation authority than we have apportionment.

Commissioner Weston moved to approve the $7 million increase as requested since no other project is any more important right now. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Larkin and it passed unanimously that:

Approval of $7 million in Interstate Maintenance Funds on Project *IM-84-6(70)102, I-84, Morgan to Summit County Line, and Morgan Interchange Modifications, added to the $18 million already programmed, for a total project cost of $25 million.

Lynn Zollinger commented that it would have been less expensive to actually remove the existing bituminous surface which was deteriorating, rather than having the additional depth it created with the four-inch lean base and the extra expense of fill material to finish the slopes, but we would have had a 4-1/2 acre site 25 feet deep with the rejected asphalt pavement. There was some discussion about the local governments utilizing that removed asphalt, but the material is already stripping and is not good to start with. Also, that's an enormous amount and Summit County could never utilize it all. It's too expensive to transport to other locations because it's cheaper to obtain material sources elsewhere. It was just best to leave it in place. Staff did note that in other areas of the state, particularly in Region 4, the counties readily utilize wasted asphalt which we have stockpiled.

Landscaping/Removal of Dead Trees in Wellsville Canyon
Commissioner Weston said he is getting numerous calls that the trees planted on the Wellsville Canyon project have all died. It is a poor reflection on the department when the public sees those big dead trees on those side hills. Even though the contract says the contractor has to replace them, there is something wrong with the system if we make requirements which are not practical; when we plant trees in those impossible areas, then not water them and they die. We need to use better judgement in what we require on our slopes.

Commissioner Weston asked Lynn Zollinger to have the contractor remove the dead trees.

A short break was called by Chairman Brown.

I-80, Lambs Canyon to Kimballs Junction
Chairman Brown indicated the item for discussion of the project concept change on the I-80, Lamb's Canyon to Kimballs Junction project would be deleted from the agenda.

1995 Safety Sidewalk Program
John Monsen explained some history of the Safety Sidewalk Program. The Legislature initiated it in 1977 and each year they set aside a specific amount of money for pedestrian safety facilities on the State Highway System. This year they have provided $500,000. The program John was presenting included the recommendations which came in from our Sidewalk Coordinators and was sorted by regions and districts.

He noted the Price District had not completed their recommendations for their $10,000 program because they had not completed receiving the information from the cities and counties. He has talked with Archie Hamilton and has included in the list the one project Archie had a verbal request on. John said he would like to leave the funds in the Price District open to give them the latitude to adjust the funds to some other locations if necessary. However, If the Commission would like John to come back with any changes Price may make, he will do so.

Commissioner Weston asked about splitting Davis County between Region 1 and Region 2, and how that division was determined. John said when the program originally started there was a Sidewalk Committee which consisted of some members of the legislature and others. That committee set up the guidelines, including how Davis County was divided. Commissioner Weston suggested that division should be looked at again; he didn't think there was 50% of the potential sidewalks in Region 2. He asked Dyke to follow up on that to determine if he feels it is a valid distribution. John commented the three criteria on which the distribution of funds is based are population, school enrollment, and pedestrian accidents.

John said he had a summary of the Sidewalk Program since it began in 1977 listing every project ever approved, listed by county. It also summarizes the allocation by county. Commissioner Weston received a copy.

Commissioner Weston also commented that the only problem with the program is that we do not supervise the construction of the sidewalk projects and we sometimes get an inferior project which reflects badly on the department because they are on state highways. He particularly mentioned the project between River Heights and Providence. The problem has been discussed before. John Monsen said construction guidelines and provisions for construction are addressed in the cooperative agreement the city signs. It states the sidewalks must be constructed in accordance with approved state standards or their own standards, which would have to be equal to or greater than the state standards.

John said with the small amount of money in the Sidewalk Program if we started bringing our engineers in to do all the survey work it would use up a great deal of the funds. We do take 2% of the funds off the top, but the amount of funds used for administration is kept to a very minimum. The recipient is also required to send in a final accounting of their expenditures and certify they have spent the appropriate amount of funds. Commissioner Clyde asked if that certification couldn't included a statement that they did construct the project according to state standards so there would be some recourse if the project failed miserably.

There was additional discussion about the Sidewalk Program. Lynn Zollinger noted that the project plans are approved by the region/district before a permit is issued to them for construction.

Commissioner Clyde moved to approve the Sidewalk Program as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Weston and it passed unanimously that:

Approval of 1995 Safety Sidewalk Program; further that Price District have latitude of adjusting project locations if warranted when remainder of requests are received from cities and counties.

Commissioner Lewis said he had received a call from a member of the Davis County School District. She indicated that because Davis County is discontinuing some of their bus service for the students there were a couple of areas where they thought it was critical to have some sidewalks constructed; areas that had not been critical prior to that. He said he had informed her that she should work through her local officials or request to be put on the agenda.

John said the projects listed for Davis County did not address that issue. He had also talked to someone from Davis County and his response had been that if the area was not on a state highway they would have to work with their local government. He said the two areas he was aware of were not on the state system. Dyke said one of the areas actually is on SR-106 between Centerville and Farmington which is right on that dividing line for Region 1 and Region 2. Neither Farmington nor Centerville has ever requested sidewalks in that area in the past, but it is more critical now that the pupils are not going to be bussed. Chairman Brown said it is important to help the schools and local governments understand how to work through the process and apply for the funds.

John noted that in some areas of the state we have pretty well taken care of the backlog of needs, but in Region 3 there is still a great need. Lynn Zollinger said in Region 1 he received twenty requests and was able to fund seven which are all high priorities. However, changes in bus routes has resulted in more requests for areas where there are no sidewalks.

Enhancements Funds for Sidewalk Projects
Chairman Brown asked if sidewalks were a potential consideration for Enhancements funds. It was determined they did qualify. The Chairman said it should be considered if our resources are being utilized in the most responsible way. Would funding sidewalks with the Enhancements funds have been a better use than some of the other projects which were actually funded. It was noted the projects can't be considered if the local governments don't apply. Commissioner Lewis emphasized that good information was put out by the Department to all the local governments on the Enhancements funds applications. The funding match for Sidewalk funds is a 75/25 state/local split, the match for Enhancements funds is a 20% match. John also noted that use of Enhancements funds would allow the sidewalks to be constructed on local roads, where the Sidewalk funds can only be used on state highways.

1995 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
Bob Hulick distributed a copy of the proposed 1995 STIP and a separate list of the three year capacity improvement projects. He explained the Commission was not being asked to approve the final STIP, but to approve it for advertising for opportunity of public comment. It will be advertised in the paper for a 30-day comment period. During that same time the Commission will have an opportunity to review the program and suggest whatever changes they feel are necessary. After the public comments are reviewed and incorporated where necessary the STIP will be brought back to the Commission for final approval to go to FHWA.

Bob explained several items were not included in the program he had distributed. Those items included:

• Transit Projects
  UTA
  Elderly and Handicapped
  Small Urban and Rural Assistance
  
• Update on National Parks
  
• Update on Indian Reservation projects
  
• State Maintenance Contracts
  
• Update of MAG projects

Bob indicated those projects would be included before it is advertised. He has been having a real problem getting correct Indian Reservation information.

They still need to finalize projects for the Ports of Entry. At the Commission Workshop in Park City on April 21-22, 1994, Ports asked for $4.875 million for projects, and they were allocated $3 million and it needs to be resolved how they want to spend that allocation. He said he also needs to review the State signal projects.

Bob explained changes to the program are reflected in the second and third columns which indicate the current year and the Commission approved year. The current year is the way staff proposes the project, the approved year is basically the way it was shown in last year's STIP.

All of the 1994 projects which have not been currently advertised he automatically converted to show 1995. Until final approval of the document, if any of those projects get advertised they will be removed from the listing. Projects with a four digit route number or those listed as LC are local government projects.

He continued that at a recent Commission Meeting a number of projects were approved for converting from federal-aid funding to state funding. That action fairly well balanced our federal-aid program so that we were able to advance quite a few new projects from CD or add some totally new projects into the 1997 fiscal year. He noted the program is based on apportionment not on obligation authority.

The partially shaded projects on the list are those that FHWA had problems with last year; either they were bridge projects with a sufficiency rating not high enough to warrant replacement or they were projects not coming from an approved source such as our long range plan. The projects entirely shaded are those on which we anticipate we may have problems because of non-compliance to the Clean Air Act.

Commissioner Lewis made a motion to authorize staff to proceed to advertise the list for public comment once the additional projects Bob mentioned are included. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Larkin.

Bob said at the Workshop one of the main topics was that we had more capacity-related projects than preservation-type projects. Because of that staff asked that Provo Canyon be deferred to a later year but felt it could not be deferred later than 1996. To indicate how that influenced the program he made a separate list of all the capacity-related projects for 1995-1997 as they currently show up in the program. Moving Provo Canyon from 1995 to 1996 deferred the problem, it didn't really resolve it as far as still having too many capacity-related projects. He discussed this with the Engineering Team and they felt the best approach would be to work that out over a period of maybe three or four years. We were allowed $16 million in capacity projects, plus we were given credit for about $10 million out of our new construction and reconstruction items to come up with about $26 million per year for capacity-related projects. At the end of the three years we are still over by $28 million in capacity projects, so in 1998 we will have to go with almost zero for capacity projects to meet that goal.

Commissioner Clyde indicated he was comparing project costs from his 1994 approved STIP list with the one Bob had just distributed and some of the project costs had increased. Bob said where he had been able to get updated costs he had incorporated those changes.

Chairman Brown suggested title changes on two projects in the Region 2 list:

• Project *INH-80-4()168, Echo Port of Entry at Castle Rock - Change location from Castle Rock to Emory
  
• Project STP-LC43(), Summit Park Olympic Parkway along SR-224 to Park City - Delete reference to Summit Park Olympic Parkway and change it to Bike/Pedestrian Path along SR-224 to Park City. UDOT has no connection to the Olympic Parkway in Bear Hollow.

Commissioner Weston asked how he could identify which projects had been moved from concept design into a funding year; he wanted to know which projects had been advanced and why. Bob said he solicited as much information as possible from the regions and districts, and discussed it with the other division heads to make the determination. Commissioner Weston said it's impor tant the Commission receives the list ahead of time in order to study it to make certain they agree with the recommendations. If the Commission is going to do the planning, then they should be agreeing in which projects to advance, not leaving it entirely to the districts and staff. He reiterated they would like to receive the list early enough to study it before staff asks for approval. Bob agreed and pointed out staff was not asking for approval of the STIP today, just approval that they advertise it for public comment.

Commissioner Lewis said he would like to withdraw his motion for approval to advertise the list, with agreement of the Chairman and Commissioner Larkin who seconded the motion. The Commissioners agreed. Considering Commissioner Weston's comments he thought it would be appropriate to take more time to review the list.

Bob said they do have a certain schedule they would like to meet to get the list to the public, receive comments, adjust the list where appropriate, and receive final approval from the Commission to forward it to the Federal Highway Administration by September 1. Chairman Brown asked if deferring action until the July 1 meeting in Loa would create a problem with meeting their schedule and Bob didn't think it would.

Action deferred on approval to advertise 1995 STIP for public comment until July 1, 1994 Commission Meeting; further that Commission be updated on pertinent information in the meantime.

Resolution
Reconstruction of I-84, Morgan to Summit County Line, and Proposed Reconfiguration of Interchanges in Morgan City
Lynn Zollinger displayed a drawing of the Morgan Interchange area for discussion. He explained the preferred layout design is to have a diamond interchange at a single point location, and we had originally designed the project with a conventional diamond interchange which would obliterate some of the existing frontage road located on the south side of I-84. However, at the public hearing we received many comments from the residents of Morgan pertaining to the design, and they wanted to have the frontage road left in place. We reconfigured the design to two other concepts, they both had a modified diamond interchange but one kept the two way frontage road and the other redesignated the frontage road to one-way. We went back to Morgan City and Morgan County in a combined public meeting and presented the modified concepts and they adopted the modified interchange with the one-way frontage road.

He explained the concept they adopted for the interchange included leaving the existing eastbound on and off ramps in service and reconstructing them to current interstate design standards; the existing westbound off ramp will be closed and removed, and a new westbound off ramp will be constructed on a new alignment at the West Morgan Interchange; and the existing two-way frontage road on the south side of I-84, which is currently a portion of SR-66, will be redesignated as a one-way frontage road eastbound. By redesignating the frontage road to one-way, it also functions as an on ramp and provides that single point feature yet still provides access to property. There are two businesses along that frontage road--one a potato cellar, the other a storage building--which do have very low traffic volumes, but if the road was closed there would be absolutely no access to them because of railroad tracks.

There was discussion about the project and the safety of having that long one-way frontage road which basically functions as an on ramp, yet still has access points on it. Walt Running said FHWA does have some concerns about the frontage road; there is a potential hazard of people traveling the wrong way on it because there are three access points on it. The FHWA is willing to go along with it at this time, but if in the future it proves to be hazardous they would expect it to be changed to a regular diamond interchange.

It was noted this concept would add no mileage to the State Highway System. The frontage road is currently designated as part of SR-66 and Lynn said part of a portion of that frontage road could be removed from the State System, but the issue of abandonment of that had not been discussed at the public meetings.

Chairman Brown said when the existing westbound off ramp is abandoned that will leave quite a bit of right-of-way. Can that property be sold and used commercially. Dyke said Region 1 plans to use it as a stockpile site. Lynn said there will be a surplus tract and it could be utilized for UDOT purposes or sold. We have already been approached by the City or the County, Lynn wasn't sure which, to purchase the parcel.

Commissioner Weston asked the local representatives what they thought of the project. Morgan County Commissioner Joan Patterson endorsed the project concept as did Mayor Lee Dickson of Morgan. Mayor Dickson did suggest that a statement should be added to the resolution under item 2 that the existing westbound off-ramp will be totally closed. Commissioner Patterson said the reason they wanted the eastbound ramp to remain at the current offset location was because their fairgrounds are located near it and that will give eastbound traffic more direct access to the interstate without creating a bottleneck at the West Morgan Interchange. Also, leaving the eastbound on ramp at it's current location leaves the frontage road intact; Morgan County doesn't have too many roads so any road which can be left in place is a benefit to them.

Chairman Brown said he thinks the design is a good compromise at this time, but if the one-way road does prove to be a safety hazard then a change will have to be considered.

Commissioner Larkin made a motion to approve the resolution with the addition of a statement to item 2 that, ". . . the complete closure and removal of the existing westbound off ramp." Commissioner Weston seconded the motion and it passed unanimously that:

R E S O L U T I O N
On the Reconstruction of Interstate Highway 84
from Morgan to Summit County Line
And Proposed Reconfiguration of
Interchanges in Morgan City, Morgan County
Project No. *IM-84-6(70)102

WHEREAS, in accordance with State and Federal laws, a combined public hearing was held in the Morgan City/County Building by the Utah Department of Transportation on April 26, 1994 to discuss the location and design features and the environmental effects of the reconstruction of Interstate Highway 84 from Morgan to Summit County Line and the proposed reconfiguration of Interchanges in Morgan City, Morgan County, and

WHEREAS, location, design, and environmental aspects of the projects were discussed at the hearing, and

WHEREAS, as a result of concerns expressed by the public at the public hearing and subsequent recommendation made by the County and City, the project concept of the interchange reconfiguration has been changed to include:

1. Reconstruction to current design standards the existing westbound on-ramp to I-84, the existing eastbound off-ramp to Morgan City and the existing eastbound on-ramp to I-84;
   
2. Reconstruction of the westbound off-ramp to Morgan City on a new alignment at the West Morgan Interchange, and the complete closure and removal of the existing westbound off-ramp;
   
3. Redesignation of an existing two-way frontage road which is currently a portion of SR-66 as a one-way eastbound frontage road along the south side of I-84, and

WHEREAS, the Utah Transportation Commission has considered all testimony given at the hearing and the social, economic, environmental and other effects of the proposed route;

NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Utah Transportation Commission concurs and supports the location and design features of the proposed project as subsequently modified as a result of the public hearing.

DATED on this 17th day of June, 1994.

UTAH TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
/s/ Glen E. Brown, Chairman
/s/ Todd G. Weston, Vice Chairman
ATTEST:
/s/ James G. Larkin, Commissioner
/s/ Ted D. Lewis, Commissioner
/s/ Hal M. Clyde, Commissioner
/s/ Shirley J. Iverson, Commission Secretary

Chairman Brown said the relocation of the westbound off ramp had been sought by Morgan City and Morgan County for a number of years and he was happy to see it had progressed this far. Commissioner Patterson thanked the Commission for their consideration.

Next Commission Meetings
Chairman Brown explained the July 1 meeting had originally been scheduled for Kanab, but it was determined that was in the same general area and would involve the same local governments as the March 18 Commission Meeting in St. George. The location of the July 1, 1994 Commission Meeting was moved to Loa in Wayne County at 9:00 a.m. A Commission Update Meeting with executive staff was set for 8:00 a.m. prior to Commission Meeting in Loa.

The August 5, 1994 Meeting was set for Brigham City at 9:00 a.m., with a tour of the Wellsville Canyon project scheduled for Thursday afternoon, August 4. Commissioner Weston will investigate a location for lodging.

September 9, 1994 Commission Meeting is scheduled at 9:00 a.m. in Vernal.

The meeting adjourned at 12:00 Noon.

The following Commissioners, staff members and others were in attendance:

Glen E. Brown, Chairman
Todd G. Weston, Vice Chairman
James G. Larkin, Commissioner
Ted D. Lewis, Commissioner
Hal M. Clyde, Commissioner
Shirley J. Iverson, Commission Secretary
W. Craig Zwick, Executive Director
Kathy Davis, Administrative Assistant
David K. Miles, Program Development Engineer
Doug Anderson, Engineer for Planning
John Monsen, Planning & Programming
Kim Schvaneveldt, Project Development Engineer
L. Robert Fox, Chief, Right of Way Division
Sheldon W. McConkie, Operations Engineer
Glenn B. Goodrich, Director, Motor Carriers
Kim N. Morris, Director, Community Relations
Dyke M. LeFevre, Region 1 Director
Lynn Zollinger, Region 1 Assistant Director
Gene Sturzenegger, Region 2 Director
Dale Peterson, Region 4 Director
Ken Adair, Region 4 Preconstruction Engineer
Ed Klarich, Training Section
David Alvarez, EIT Rotational
Kevin E. Griffin, EIT Rotational
Kelly Barrett, EIT Rotational
Brooke Struve, EIT Rotational
Shelly Vidmar, EIT Rotational
David Holmgren, EIT Rotational
Xue Dong Liu, EIT Rotational
Daryl Friant, EIT Rotational
Tim Buntrock, EIT Rotational
Brett Hadley, EIT Rotational
Brett Dawson, EIT Rotational
Greg Searle, EIT Rotational
Bryan Chamberlain, EIT Rotational
Walter M. Running, Assistant Division Administrator, FHWA
Reed Reeve, Utah Motor Transport Association
Will Jefferies, Wasatch Front Regional Council
Matt Roffuin, Wasatch Front Regional Council
Joan M. Patterson, Chairman, Morgan County Commission
W. Lee Dickson, Mayor of Morgan City
Don Baker, Ogden Standard Examiner