UDOT narrows Heber Valley bypass to two options; trade‑offs include wetlands, property relocations and travel times

Utah Department of Transportation officials said at a Midway City Council work meeting that they have narrowed a planned US‑40/US‑189 corridor study in the Heber Valley to two alternatives and are preparing a draft environmental impact statement.

“I’m Naomi Keiss and I work for UDOT. I’m the environmental manager for this project,” Naomi Keiss said. Keiss said the project team will carry two alternatives forward and that recent travel‑demand model updates prompted the change in approach.

The narrowed options are being described as: (1) an alignment that ties back to the existing US‑40 corridor (often discussed as “alternative A”) and (2) a route that runs through the Northfields area, parallel to US‑40 (described as “alternative B”). UDOT staff said each alternative is available in at‑grade and grade‑separated (“free‑flow”) forms. Staff told the meeting the project’s purpose is to improve regional and local mobility on US‑40 from SR‑32 to US‑189 and to provide nonmotorized facilities that are compatible with Heber City’s vision for its historic center.

Why it matters: the project responds to modeled traffic growth through 2050 that staff said is substantially higher than earlier forecasts. Keiss said “that model ended up adding an additional 30% more traffic on that segment of North 40 from 900 North up to River Road and put about an additional 10% more traffic onto Main Street.” Without improvements, staff presented a scenario in which peak‑hour travel time on the corridor would rise from about 8 minutes, 20 seconds (2019 conditions) to roughly 20–22 minutes by 2050 and queue lengths at studied intersections could grow from about 375 feet to roughly 17,000 feet (about three miles).

What UDOT staff showed and the trade‑offs

- Travel times and configuration: UDOT staff said both free‑flow alternatives produced the best modeled regional travel times (examples shown ranged from about 6 to 8 minutes between SR‑32 and US‑189 in the free‑flow cases). At‑grade alternatives produced smaller improvements (one example shown was about 10 minutes, 55 seconds). Staff said those shorter travel times on the bypass would be expected to attract through traffic and trucks that currently travel Main Street, reducing some peak‑hour demand on Heber’s main commercial corridor but not eliminating local congestion.

- Safety / conflict points: staff noted a safety benefit from grade separation. The presentation listed a very high number of conflict points for at‑grade alternatives and said each conflict point increases opportunities for vehicle‑pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. By contrast, the free‑flow alternatives were shown with a single remaining conflict point (the 900 North connection) outside the main bypass corridor.

- Environmental and property impacts: the project team said alternative B (the Northfields route) has substantially greater wetlands impacts based on field data collected to date, while the alternative that ties back into existing US‑40 would have greater property impacts, including full acquisitions and more historic resource (Section 4(f)) consequences. UDOT staff said both wetlands and Section 4(f) are “heavy hitter” resources they are evaluating and that the trade‑offs drive much of the screening decision.

- Costs and other constraints: staff presented a screening table showing overall cost estimates for the two alternatives were broadly similar and therefore cost alone was not the deciding factor. Staff also said groundwater elevation makes underpasses (below‑grade solutions) more expensive and higher maintenance, and that aesthetic treatments are possible but increasingly constrained by design standards and funding.

Numbers and timing described at the meeting

- Model updates: staff said the updated travel demand model increased traffic projections by about 30% on the North‑40 segment (900 North to River Road) and about 10% on Main Street compared with the earlier model.

- Peak‑hour travel times: 2019 modeled peak travel time along Main Street ~8 minutes 20 seconds; 2050 no‑action ~20–22 minutes; free‑flow alternatives modeled at ~6–8 minutes; at‑grade alternatives around ~10–11 minutes in example slides.

- Queues: an example queue length used in the presentation increased from ~375 feet (2019 study) to ~17,000 feet under the no‑action 2050 scenario.

- Projected daily volume: staff and the consultant offered a rough guesstimate in the meeting of about 50,000 trips per day by 2050 on the corridor — a comparison UDOT used to illustrate scale by referencing similar corridors.

- Near‑term work: staff said the City/UDOT team is close to advertising a signal work package at River Road and SR‑113 for construction this summer and hopes to finish by the end of the calendar year or that work may extend into next year. Staff also said a SR‑189 widening project near the reservoir will be advertised in the near term and is expected to last about 12–18 months, possibly extending into 2026–2027.

- Regulatory process: UDOT told the meeting it is preparing a draft environmental impact statement (draft EIS) under NEPA. Staff noted an outstanding question about Army Corps of Engineers review of jurisdictional wetlands (“Waters of the U.S.”), and said recent federal guidance and case law have introduced uncertainty over which wetlands the Corps will consider jurisdictional.

Community questions and concerns

Council members and residents raised visual and community‑character concerns about grade‑separated interchanges and ramps, the effect on views in the Northfields area, and school access. Attendees asked about underpasses and were told underpasses can be more expensive and are often complicated by groundwater. The team also said interchange ramps will require signals where local streets meet ramps (for example, access to a planned high school was discussed), and that those signals are part of the free‑flow design in places where local access is required.

Next steps

UDOT staff said the screening will carry the two alternatives into the draft EIS, collect additional field data where the alternatives extend beyond earlier surveys, and pursue further regulatory coordination (including with the Army Corps) and public outreach. Staff emphasized the draft EIS will examine a broader set of resources beyond the initial screening, including agricultural and groundwater impacts, community effects, and more detailed cost estimates.

No formal decisions or votes were taken at the work meeting; staff said the draft EIS release and subsequent public comment will be the next major steps in the schedule.