Council signals support to advance Option 4 for 90 South–New Bingham connection after review of 12 concepts

The West Jordan Committee of the Whole on Jan. 14, 2025 reviewed a set of 12 design concepts for the planned 90 South connection to New Bingham and signaled support to advance Option 4 while staff completes the federal/state environmental review.

City consultant Jeremy Sorrell of WCG told the committee the team modeled a dozen alignments and said “the one that came out of it that is recommended both by UDOT and city staff … is option 2,” while walking the group through alternatives and tradeoffs. The discussion ranged from a no‑build baseline to roundabouts, skewed intersections, cul‑de‑sacs and more complex grade‑separated options.

Why it matters: 90 South is a regional east‑west corridor and the connection to New Bingham has been in local and regional plans for decades. Council members pressed staff on how each option would affect local neighborhoods, school crossings, truck movements to industrial areas and the land required to build each alignment.

Key facts and staff direction

- Option 1 (no build): Consultants warned that leaving the corridor unconnected created substantial queuing and operational failures as growth continues on the west side.

- Option 2: Sorrell said Option 2 was the alternative recommended in the feasibility study and by UDOT and city staff; it aligned New Bingham to meet 90 South at a 90‑degree intersection with a new signal.

- Option 3 (large roundabout): Staff and consultants said heavy traffic volumes make a single large roundabout operationally infeasible at this location.

- Option 4 (council’s working preference): Option 4 is similar to the staff‑recommended alignment but shifts the signal slightly east to provide an alley/collector giving direct access to a few Duckridge homes. Consultants told the council it is slightly more expensive than the preferred option but feasible. After extended debate, the council indicated a consensus to advance Option 4 and asked staff to move that footprint through the environmental process.

Traffic, safety and mitigation

- Traffic counts: City traffic staff Nate Nestor reported seasonal counts that peaked around 1,500 vehicles per day in summer on some local links and recent counts as low as about 300 for off‑peak locations; he said counts shifted after the new bridge opened, reducing volumes on Duckridge.

- Pedestrian crossings: Consultants recommended signalized crossings, improved lighting and use of a leading pedestrian interval at signals so pedestrians get a head start before vehicles. They also discussed mid‑block options such as HAWK signals and rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs), noting UDOT’s expectation that pedestrians use protected crossings at signals where available.

- Neighborhood impacts and property needs: Council members asked about purchasing homes, eminent domain and whether acquiring three homes would be cheaper than engineering alternatives. The conversation clarified there was no council directive to use eminent domain; one council member said they would accept taking a small number of homes if necessary to get alignment right but opposed taking property solely to reduce public opposition.

Implementation and schedule

- Environmental review: Staff said the environmental process is underway but paused to collect council direction on footprint. Dave (WCG technical) told the committee the environmental study timeline is likely “probably 6 to 8 months” once the footprint is set.

- Funding and jurisdiction: Consultants and staff repeatedly noted that 90 South is currently a UDOT route and that jurisdictional arrangements or UDOT approvals will inform design and funding. Council members heard that refusing to move forward on the local connection could jeopardize future funding and local influence over how the facility is built.

Public outreach and next steps

Council members and staff agreed to additional neighborhood outreach and at least one informational workshop before final approvals. Staff will resume the environmental review for the preferred footprint (Option 4), refine mitigation measures for pedestrian safety, and return to the council with updated analysis and outreach plans.

“We’ll move forward with 4,” the Council Chair said near the end of the discussion, signaling the council’s preference while several members continued to press for stronger pedestrian connectivity and clear outreach commitments.

What remains open: the council asked staff to refine cost differences among the leading options, outline mitigation steps for construction and operations, specify whether property acquisition will be required and present a public‑meeting plan tied to the environmental document.