I've been doing a little study on my own with regard to the Redwood Road alternative proposed by the Sierra Club and how it would work. Let me state a couple of disclaimers right up front, so no one gets the wrong impression.
First, I am not doing this for or with UDOT or the federal agencies that are tasked with studying these proposals. I am simply looking at the published numbers and reaching my own conclusions. More detailed work will obviously be done by the agencies and consultants responsible for that work.
Second, we have not seen the detailed plan for the Redwood Road alternative as proposed. For all their touting of this plan as an alternative to Legacy, there is remarkably little detail out there to react to.
The alternative proposal, from what I can see, would bring Redwood Road north to Parrish Lane in Centervile and tie in to that street. Traffic would then have to cross I-15 on Parrish Lane, then turn left and continue up the Frontage Road through Centerville to Farmington and tie in to Highway 89 just north of Lagoon.
I have looked at the detailed traffic studies that were done for Parrish Lane recently as part of the Wal-Mart controversy on-going there. Those studies show that currently, at Parrish Lane and Frontage Road, there are 3,184 vehicles on that road during the afternoon peak hour.
If you've driven Parrish Lane during the afternoon peak hour, you know how congested that street is, with traffic moving very slowly, working its way through the various traffic signals. It is pretty darn congested.
The Legacy Parkway SEIS shows that in the year 2020, Legacy (if it is built) would be carrying 17,876 vehicles during the afternoon peak hour. Is it the intention of the Legacy opponents that that demand be accomodated on the Redwood Road alternative? How could you possibly add that volume of traffic to Parrish Lane and think that it would work? How would you accomodate that volume of traffic having to turn left at Parrish Lane and Frontage Road? Even if you were to double the width of Parrish Lane (which would be quite an accomplishment, with existing businesses all along the way now), how could it accomodate more than 5 times the current traffic volume?
This is but one example of how I just don't think the alternative proposed by opponents can realistically work. And if I have the it wrong, let us know! We haven't seen the details yet.