LEGACY PARKWAY HOTSHEET

Planning Communities is a Local Process

2005-02-24T10:48:00.000-08:00

Today's (February 24) Standard-Examiner carries my response to a recent piece by Al Herring, Chair of the Utah Sierra Club Chapter. Click on Letters to the Editor to find it. I essentially say that if the opponents of Legacy have put forward an alternative for consideration, bring it through the local planning process. Whenever we create or update plans, many ideas are usually brought forward and evaluated. That doesn't gaurantee that all ideas will be accepted by the community, however. The process is still one of the people, by the people, for the people, ALL of the people.

Sierra Club Designs Highway for UDOT!!!

2005-02-17T13:19:00.000-08:00

It is very clear that there are a number of folks out there that hate highways. Up until a few months ago I thought that the Sierra Club fit in that category. However, many of you may be surprised that the Sierra Club is actually designing a highway for UDOT to take the place of the proposed Legacy Parkway. They obviously think they are better skilled at designing highways than UDOT and are branching out. Strange!

How many of you out there would have thought the Sierra Club would get into that business. You true highway haters out there might want to cancel your membership. I can picture the Sierra Club working with UTA on designing the commuter rail line throught Davis County or even helping the South Davis Communities design a light rail system, but designing a highway for UDOT? Kind of bizarre. I wish them luck in their new venture.

Cars, Highways, and Freedom of Choice

2005-02-15T11:51:00.000-08:00

Now that the oppostion has focused on this blog it is becoming very apparent that there is some real animosity towards Highways out there. However, is it highways, or is it cars that drive on the highways that is so upsetting to these folks? In reality who they are actually upset with are the people driving the cars on the highways. What they really want is people out of their cars and into mass transit. They think the way to accomplish this is to not build highways and build more transit.

Unfortunately this is a very simplistic and unrealistic view of the world. For example, numerous TRAX stations have large parking lots next to them, to accomodate those who commute to the TRAX station. One could argue that Mass Transit doesn't stop sprawl, it accomodates it ( much in the same way it started urban sprawl in the late 19th Century). As long as you have areas to develop that are cheaper than those in the city core they will develop. To get where they want to be (no new highways and less cars) the anti-highway folks will have to limit the public's choice by limiting where development can occur in order to force people to live in densities to support mass transit and prohibit development in areas not serviced by transit. Such a proposal has Zero political support in the State of Utah. So why push a philosopy that allows land to develop in a way that is auto dependent, but not build a transportation system that accomodates autos? Just doesn't make sense.

Accident in Woods Cross on Saturday underscores need for the Legacy Parkway

2005-02-14T13:59:00.000-08:00

The accident Saturday was another reminder that another route to move high volumes of vehicles through Davis County is needed. We were lucky that the accident did not occur during rush hour and that our public safety personnell did not have to respond to another major incident during the time I-15 was closed. The local streets in South Davis were gridlocked and it would have been difficult to move public safety personnel around if there was a need to respond to another incident. As I-15 becomes more congested the difficulties become greater.
It is only a matter of time before our luck runs out. We need the Legacy Parkway now!

Make Suburbs Work Better, Writer Says

2005-02-14T07:25:00.000-08:00

Part of the debate over Legacy Parkway raised by opponents is that it encourages sprawl and a focus away from the central city. We planners tend to think along those lines, and see lots of benefits from developing our communities with such a single-center focus.

But in reality, most growth in recent decades has been suburban, and whether we like it or not, we must deal with it. Urban affairs writer Joel Kotkin calls for such "reality-based" planning in a recent piece in Architecture magazine.

He says, "Creating a better suburban future is a noble - and potentially very profitable - calling. ... This critical work will do much to define the 21st-century modern city and attempt to meet the challenges laid out by the early visionaries of suburbia...who saw the move to the periphery as a chance to build 'a new civilization.' And it's a project worthy of the creative energies of architects, enviromentalists, and planners -- not their contempt and condemnation."

Our Blog Makes News

2005-02-14T04:29:00.000-08:00

Looks like our blogging has resulted in a news piece about... our blog! Read about it in the article in the Deseret News by Nicole Warburton.

Where is it?

2005-02-11T15:17:00.000-08:00

At the January 7th hearing the Groupees gushed on how wonderful their "Citizens Smart Growth Alternative" was, and how everyone would accept it with open arms as an alternative to the Legacy Parkway. To this date, more than a month away, the citizens are still in the dark as to what it really is and how it will impact them. It appears the groupees think the only citizens that count are UDOT, The Federal Agencies, the Courts and themselves. Why haven't they taken their plan to the people? Could it be that they are afraid that the citizens may not actually like the "Citizens Smart Growth Alternative".

I believe it is as we have suspected all along. This is just a ruse to justify their delay tactics of litigation.

Local Communities Ignored in Redwood Road Alternative

2005-02-11T07:40:00.000-08:00

Fellow blogger BuildItNowDude's piece on how the local communities have been ignored by the Sierra Club in the "planning" of their Redwood Road alternative to the Legacy Parkway was published recently in the Standard-Examiner and the Salt Lake Tribune.
Dude says, "...the battle over the Legacy Parkway is centered around who has the right to determine the future of this region -- those elected to represent the people in the region or a small group of elitists who think they know best for us all. ... How many citizens have had input into (the so-called "Citizens' Smart Growth Alternative") development and actually how smart is it?"

Also, the letter war between Davis County Commissioner Alan Hansen and Salt Lake Mayor Rocky Anderson continues. Read about it in the Salt Lake Tribune and the Standard-Examiner on Thursday, February 10.

Adding Traffic to Parrish Lane

2005-02-09T10:42:00.000-08:00

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.

Planning the "Citizens'" Communities

2005-02-08T08:56:00.000-08:00

Gary Uresk, aka "BuildItNowDude" in this blog, let me read an opinion piece he is submitting to the local papers on how the Sierra Club has put forward a plan for transportation in south Davis County, but has never run that plan by any of the local communities.

Utah State Code stipulates that cities and counties have the authority to prepare and adopt plans for the development of local communities, including transportation plans. UDOT learned very early on in the Legacy planning process that the views of the local communities must be taken into consideration, when south Davis elected officials put a stop to the Legacy planning because they had not been consulted.

While UDOT technically had the authority to go ahead without local review and buy-in, they quickly realized that the people being impacted needed to be part of the process.

Now along comes the Sierra Club with its plan for how transportation should work in south Davis County. They call their plan the "Citizens' Smart Growth Alternative." But the Sierra Club has not met with any local community officials to present or discuss their plan, to receive input from local planning commissions, city councils, or citizen groups. They have been invited by these groups, and they have never responded. These are the groups that develop and adopt local community master plans.

So who are the citizens that developed the "Citizens'" alternative? Certainly not those living in the corridor. Who knows? Maybe some of their ideas would win acceptance with the local communities. But they've never come through the process set forth in the state code for such community planning.

Why Bother with the People?

2005-02-06T07:19:00.000-08:00

The Sierra Club's letter to Gov. Huntsman exhibits another trait that I've found to be predominant with the group -- their disdain for the actual citizens who will be affected by their "Citizens' Smart Growth Alternative."

When the Sierra Club representatives first proposed the Redwood Road alternative in meetings on the Supplemental EIS over a year ago, Woods Cross City Manager Gary Uresk and other local community people invited the Sierra Club to come out and visit with the cities to discuss the proposal, because that alternative would likely have severe impacts on the communities. Nothing. They were never heard from again.

In their letter, the Sierra Club said, "...we sought assistance from some of the nation's most talented and respected transportation planners to help us define our proposed alternative more carefully. ... We met with UDOT along with all of the pertinent federal officials more than a year ago, in January 2004, in an effort to urge them to consider our proposed alternative on a level playing field with the current proposal."

In Utah, the State Code gives responsibility for the planning of local communities to the cities and counties. The Sierra Club is constantly saying that the Legacy Parkway would cause more sprawl, cause our communities to develop inappropriately. They even go so far as to call their Redwood Road alternative the "Citizens' Smart Growth" alternative.

The quote above from their letter shows clearly their disdain for what happens at the local community level. Not once have they met with or invited the communities along the Legacy corridor to their meetings, nor have they accepted numerous invitations to come to our community meetings to discuss their proposal.

Instead, they focus on the federal process, which they know they can manipulate to get their way, through endless study and lawsuits.

Who is the Sierra Club really concerned about? Is it the citizens of our communities?

What Really Happened with the Redwood Road Alternative?

2005-02-06T07:03:00.000-08:00

The Sierra Club is making some rather interesting claims in its letter to Gov. John Huntsman. The letter has lots of one-sided views, but the most interesting to me are those about their Redwood Road alternative.

In the letter, they say, "We first proposed an alternative to UDOT's 'shared solution' in May of 2003, during the scoping process for the supplemental environmental review process... . The doors remained closed to any further discussion, and when the agencies released the Draft SEIS late last year, our alternative was dismissed virtually out of hand."

I was in the meetings where the Redwood Road alternative was proposed. While we and others were skeptical that it would work, I never heard UDOT or the Federal agencies say they would not take a serious look at it. The opponents, however, never did get very specific about the alternative, other than to say widening Redwood Road and extending it to Farmington should be considered.

In the SEIS, there is an evaluation of such an alternative, all of it on the west side of I-15. And, of course, it was found to not have the capacity to carry as much traffic as the Legacy Parkway, and it still had nearly all the same environmental impacts as the Legacy.

But now, the Sierra Club is saying their alternative was never considered, because the Redwood Road alternative they put forward last December takes Redwood only as far as Parrish Lane in Centerville, crosses I-15 as part of Parrish Lane, then continues north along the eastside Frontage Road.

This proposal was not evaluated as part of the Legacy SEIS because it was never proposed that way to begin with. Could this be a bait-and-switch, delay tactic? Sure looks like it to me.

"It's YOUR Fault, Not Ours," Sierra Club Says

2005-02-06T06:52:00.000-08:00

It is truly amazing to me how, according to the Sierra Club guys, everything that has happened with the Legacy lawsuit is OUR fault, not theirs. See yesterday's Deseret News article for some rather remarkable comments.

Robert Adler, a University of Utah law school professor and Sierra Club guy, says its UDOT trying to cast blame elsewhere. Adler is quoted saying, "It's a political game to try to paint their opponents as being bad. They're misplacing the blame for why the project costs are skyrocketing." The Sierra Club, of course, is pure in its intent to protect the public interest, even though in this case the public wants the Parkway built!

But UDOT Director John Njord sticks by his guns, literally. He says, "They brought the gun to this fight, they loaded the gun, they aimed it, they pulled the trigger and they hit their target."

Anyone willing to bet on whether the Sierra Club goes back to court if their "Smart" version is not the one adopted?

Rocky "Bully Mentality"

2005-02-04T14:44:00.000-08:00

In his reply to Commissioner Hansen Rocky is claiming he is being taken out of context. I am sorry but that doesn't cut it. The fact is he said what he said, and he meant what he meant. He needs to show a little courage and stand up and accept what he said. It is the personality of a school yard bully to attack and when you are called on it to cry that you are the one being bullied. I have zero respect for Rocky Anderson

Game Plan for the Legacy

2005-02-04T07:35:00.000-08:00

More stories in this morning's Salt Lake Tribune and Standard-Examiner on the rising cost of the Legacy due to delays.

Rep. David Cox of Lehi said of the Sierra Club, "We've got an organization that doesn't give a hoot about the environment or the state. It's a national agenda; it's so unfair for them to do this to us."

The Sierra Club's Mark Heilson was less inclined to say there would be another lawsuit, so long as UDOT pushes extending Redwood Road to U.S. 89 in Farmington.

Since the Super Bowl is coming up this weekend, here's what I see as the Sierra Club's game plan for the Legacy Parkway fight.

They will push for consideration of the Redwood Road alternative to Legacy (what they call the "Smart Growth" alternative -- why is this "smart?"). UDOT will spend extra time and money to study the alternative, and will ultimately conclude that it will not meet the purpose and need for transportation through south Davis County (not because UDOT is pre-determined in favor of Legacy, but because the Redwood Road alternative really will not work!). The Sierra Club will go back to court and argue that UDOT did not "adequately" consider or study the Redwood Road alternative.

Judges hearing the issue, who are not technical people, and thus may easily be convinced that perhaps more could be done, may say, "yeah, there is more that could be done to study that alternative," and the whole project is stopped again for a couple of years while millions more is spent to study an alternative that in the end will still show it can't meet the need.

In the meantime, construction costs escalate, public dissatisfaction grows, pressure builds, and eventually, UDOT gives up because it is just taking too long and costs too much, and agrees to build something like Redwood Road because that's all they can get, even though it doesn't meet the need, but it won't cost nearly as much as the protracted litigation and study and escalating cost of the Legacy.

Winning by delay and rising costs, not because they have a "smarter" or better plan. Then the Sierra Club can go out nationally and say, "see, we are so good and powerful, we can stop stuff like the Legacy to save our environment. Give us money!"

So how does the other team counter this? Hmmm....

No Responsibility for Increased Cost of Legacy, Sierra Club Says

2005-02-03T17:31:00.000-08:00

My blood is boiling again. I just watched a segment on KSL News about the increased cost of the Legacy Parkway because of delays to the project, primarily from the Sierra Club lawsuit. And, of course, the Sierra Club responds by saying the delay is because UDOT forged ahead on the project without doing the environmental work adequately.

The Sierra Club's Mark Heilson goes on to say that going to court is a last resort for the Sierra Club, they "don't want to do that" (hah!), and that's why they have proposed the "Smart Growth" alternative -- Redwood Road.

Read between the lines to what Heilson just said -- essentially, if UDOT doesn't accept the Redwood Road alternative, they will sue again because they say that's the "right" answer -- their answer. Not the community's, not the planners and engineers, not the elected officials, but the Sierra Club's answer, that's the only right one, the "Smart" one.

You can also read about this issue in this morning's Standard Examiner. The story says, "Heilson added that if UDOT hadn't ignored Sierra Club concerns about construction of the road, the lawsuit would not have been necessary."

What he's really saying is, if you don't do what we want, what we say is right, we'll sue you again, and stop the project. Because that's what this is all about, not protecting the environment, not meeting the transportation needs of the residents of northern Utah. Its about winning and stopping construction of the Legacy, no matter what. How will this end, unless the courts see through this ruse and say enough is enough?

Support Grows for Legacy, According to New Poll

2005-01-31T06:41:00.000-08:00

A story in the Deseret News this morning reports on a new statewide Dan Jones survey on the Legacy Parkway. No surprise to us, support is growing steadily over time. Statewide, the survey shows 63 percent support going ahead with the Legacy. This compares with 49 percent who supported the action in 2002, right after the 10th Circuit Court issued their ruling halting work on the project.

And, once again, the Sierra Club trots out its mantra that transit should be given the chance to run first and change everyone's minds, and that the Redwood Road alternative will take care of the rest of the need. What evidence do these groups base this solution on? Some of the best minds in transportation have worked years on the Legacy study, taking evidence from existing systems all around the world to show what is reasonable to expect from transit in this corridor, and what will be needed in new roadway construction to meet the demand. Yet somehow, the Sierra Club thinks they know better, with no credible work to support their views. Hmmm.

Pro-Transit Walker Says Legacy Needed

2005-01-29T08:44:00.000-08:00

Nice little story in the Deseret News this morning about Paul Burnham of Kaysville walking to Salt Lake City to invite Mayor Rocky Anerson to visit him in Davis County -- if he walks, too.

Paul was a user of UTA's express bus while he worked in Salt Lake, and feels it would be a good idea to build transit first (news flash, Paul -- commuter rail will be up and running now before Legacy is completed because of lawsuit delays).

But Paul agrees that the Legacy is still needed. One more voice joining the overwhelming chorus!

7.8 to 1 What are they crying about!

2005-01-28T13:58:00.000-08:00

As part of the Legacy Highway Project UDOT has proposed the "Legacy Nature Preserve comprised of 2,098 acres of which 778 acres are wetlands. This preserve is being put in place to mitigate the 99 acres of low quality wetlands that are being displaced by the Parkway.

Counting only the 778 acres of wetlands that are located in the preserve (You can tell the parkway is not located in a high quality wetland area because nearly a third of the area in the preserve west of the Parkway cannot even be classified as a wetland even thought it is closer to the Great Salt Lake). Let me repeat that so it is clear. Counting only the 778 acres of preserve that can be classified as wetlands the ratio of mitigation to impacts is 7.8 to 1. If we were to count the full 2,098 acres, which are certainly a benefit to the environment since the non-wetland acres are available for development if the Parkway isn't built, the ratio is 21 to 1.

Keep in mind that over the last 12 years, mitigation ratios for Corps permits in Davis and Salt Lake conties average 2 to 1.

This seems a little lopsided to me! And guess who pays for this over-kill. Right! The Utah Taxpayers. I think if the taxpayers really understood what is going on here they would be outraged at what these Special Interest Groups are costing the public.

Ironically they (The Groupees) are not happy with the 7.8 to 1 ratio and are still fighting the project. It is very clear that the wetlands and the environment are not the real issue.

What they really want is their way. Power and Control that is what it is all about.

Those Dudes need to be stopped!!!!

Too Many Lawyers

2005-01-28T07:04:00.000-08:00

More from the Crichton novel, State of Fear.

One of the points Crichton makes is that today's environmental groups are too much vested in the system, that they are now all about fundraising and political power, and are not looking objectively at the science of the issues they take on. They have essentially hardened their arteries, and will fight anything that makes it look like things are really getting better.

In his Author's Notes at the end of the book, Crichton says, "We need a new environmental movement, with new goals and new organizations. We need more people working in the field, in the actual environment, and fewer people behind computer screens. We need more scientists and many fewer lawyers."

Relating this to the Legacy Parkway fight, anyone who has been out in the field will quickly see that the Redwood Road alternative proposed by the opponents will not work. It is simply an academic proposal to divert attention from the real need, the real solution and how to best make it work with minimal harm to the environment.

It's About Power, Really

2005-01-27T15:43:00.000-08:00

Just finished reading Michael Crichton's new book, State of Fear. Quite an indictment of the environmental movement today, I must say. I've never read a novel with footnotes and a bibliography, but I guess Mr. Crichton figured he was going to take some real heat over what he wrote in the book, so he was going to meticulously document his sources.

If you haven't heard, the book is about environmentalists' need to keep up a constant "state of fear" about the future, in this case global warming, even when the science doesn't support the claims. I've done a fair amount of reading myself about global warming the last few years, and I reached the same conclusion long ago -- there is no definitive answer to the question of what is causing global temperatures to increase. It could all just be part of the regular, cyclic warming and cooling of the planet that has taken place over the last several hundred thousand years.

But the approach of the environmental groups described in the book rings true to me as I've experienced them in this fight over the Legacy Parkway. Real answers don't matter, its all about winning, about keeping the "scare" over harm to the environment alive despite all the mitigation that is happening.

Crichton quotes another author, Alton Chase, in describing the history of the conflict over forests in the Northwest, to describe what has happened with today's environmental movement. Chase says, "when the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power."

That is truly what has happened with the environmental groups in the fight over the Legacy Parkway.

Even the Food Editor Gets in the Act!

2005-01-26T16:02:00.000-08:00

Sheesh, even the food editor for the Deseret News is getting in the act on Mayor Anderson's comments! This has certainly become a "hot" issue!

UTA Supports Legacy SEIS Conclusions on Transit

2005-01-25T07:13:00.000-08:00

I recently obtained a copy of a letter that UTA General Manager John Inglish sent to the Federal Highway Administration with his comments on the Legacy Parkway SEIS.

The letter says, "We have been involved in the analysis...of the elements of the multimodal solution for the north corridor, and we continue to be quite comfortable with the conclusion that a combination of highway and transit improvements is necessary and appropriate in this corridor."

The letter goes on to say, "The analysis done for the...Supplemental EIS and the planning level analysis that has been done for the South Davis corridor both support the need for Legacy Parkway and the eventual widening of Interstate 15 along with the transit improvements."

Seems kind of hard for opponents of the project to continue to argue that transit alone would be adequate to serve the need for northern Utah when the transit agency that would be providing that service agrees with the study that both transit and highway improvements are needed.

Thanks to UTA for their work to help us meet the transportation needs in northern Utah, and their reasoned conclusion that the shared solution is the right approach.

The Last Word on Mayor Rocky

2005-01-24T07:39:00.000-08:00

Once again, I've been out of town for a few days, and again my fellow bloggers have failed to keep things up to date. Time to get on their cases a little!

This issue of Mayor Rocky Anderson's State of the City speech has taken a lot of press space and time, and we need to move on to other issues. But let me refer you to what for me will be the last word on this topic -- an opinion piece written by Mayor John Petroff of West Point City. Mayor Petroff raises a very relevant point by asking why Mayor Anderson seems to oppose primarily the Legacy Parkway, and is not as vocal about other projects that would produce the same result for his city, like the Mountain View corridor and commuter improvements in Utah County.

You can read Mayor Petroff's piece in the Deseret News, as well as in the Standard-Examiner.

Oh, one more to add. See today's KSL editorial, too, for more support of the Legacy Parkway.

UPDATE Jan. 25: Boy, the Deseret News will just not let this die! But the pieces are pretty good. See article on all the Salt Lake City employees who are commuters, and the opinion piece by Marjorie Cortez. They are worth the read.

The Process Worked - Now Let the Project Go Forward

2005-01-19T13:07:00.000-08:00

I hear a lot of comment from the opposition to the Legacy Parkway project lately about how they are simply doing what the national environmental protection laws allow them -- even require them -- to do: make sure all the issues are looked at and examined so that the environment is protected.

To my understanding, protection of the environment is just what has happened in the Legacy Parkway process up to this point. Environmental issues were given thorough consideration, and a lot of good things happened because of it -- the alignment of the Parkway was changed be less damaging, the right-of-way was narrowed to be less damaging, transit was fully considered to see if there was another way to meet the need, and more than 2,000 acres of wetlands and natural habitat was acquired and preserved to compensate for the small amount of wetlands that would be affected. What a victory! Before enactment of these laws, very little or none of these would have happened as part of a highway project.

So I think it has been very helpful and successful. But the opposition is now abusing the law to stop a project cold in its tracks, because they think, contrary to what the vast majority of the community wants, is better. They can do this because of the way the law is written, the legal challenges that can be brought and because federal judges are not technical experts. This is just plain wrong. Maybe something needs to change.

Rocky is just a sideshow

2005-01-19T09:51:00.000-08:00

Hey everyone! We must not get into having sooo much fun beating up on Rocky that we forget who the real villians are. Rocky just doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut and enjoys tweaking us. However, I view him as a puppet on a string. His special interest buddies get him revved up and pull his strings and off he goes. He turns this into a great sibling rivalry.

However the truth be known, Rocky's input in the process is minimal. The real drivers behind the delay are the special interest groups with money. I think we struck a nerve with them on the 7th. We need to keep the heat on them and not waste all of our time on Rocky. It was interesting that Marc Heileson (Sierra Club) would spend most of his time on the 7th explaining how he was a long time resident of the state. I think they are nervous. They know where their money is coming from, and it is not from the state of Utah! As in most things, to find who is calling the shots "Follow the Money"

More Than a Week Later, Rocky Speech Still Smoking

2005-01-19T08:05:00.000-08:00

I know this has become a favorite of the media -- who can resist such a public "feud" between neighbors? But it also shows the depth of feeling in the community on this issue.

So, here's some more tidbits to take a look at.

The Salt Lake City Council extends a welcome to commuters and others, trying to smooth things over (and, in the process, show their own differences with Mayor Anderson's comments)-- see Salt Lake Tribune today.

Also, Charles Deneris, a Davis County Democrat(how about that!?!), offers his criticism of Rocky's comments in a letter to the Tribune today.

And Gov. Huntsman, in his State of the State speech last night, said it's time to keep commitments made on transportation. "Let's build it!" he said of the Legacy Parkway.

I was asked to speak at the Kaysville Rotary Club this morning, and to a person there was support for construction of the Legacy Parkway, and also for commuter rail. So what is going wrong? The community sure has expressed its will. Isn't it scary to think that the plans and efforts of our local communities can be thwarted by a small minority, many of whom don't even live in the community?

Davis Commissioner Writes Love Letter to Mayor Rocky

2005-01-18T15:09:00.000-08:00

Davis County Commissioner recently sent a letter to Mayor Rocky Anderson of Salt Lake City, responding to his comments in last week's State of the City address. Here's the letter.

Dear Mayor Anderson:

I find your recent comments in your "State of the City" address concerning those of us in Davis and Weber Counties, very insulting and unprofessional for an elected official.

Your remarks are completely absurd. You insinuate that none of us "up north" care about clean air, mass transportation or any issue that affects the quality of life for all of us in this great state. I quote from your speech, "We respond that the negative impacts of this highway, (Legacy) including more air pollution, a greater incidence of respiratory and cardiac diseases and cancers, increased sprawl development, etc., will be sustained by the people of Salt Lake City." "The choices of those who have decided to commute long distances, mostly as they drive one-person-per-automobile, and to foul our air, clog our roads, and increase our dependence of foreign oil should not be encouraged, etc." "We want our friends from the north to come to Salt Lake City, we just don't want them to increase our city's traffic, further foul our air, undermine the quality of our lives, and make us sick simply because of the choices they make about where they live and how they get around." This is hardly what I would call "throwing out the welcome mat", Mr. Anderson.

If I was to make a comment in my office, as an elected official, saying, "We don't want our friends from the south driving their vehicles into our county to enjoy Lagoon, or Antelope Island or commute to Hill Air Force Base or Freeport Center, or pass through to our ski resorts, but please, by all means feel free to visit us any time by boarding a bus..." I would expect some very strong negative feedback. Instead, I say, "Welcome to Davis County, and come one come all, in any way you choose to arrive. Please enjoy what we have to offer" because this is America, and we have choices, we are not some communistic or socialistic country that tries to force our individual will on the people.

Consider this. There are 683,700 passenger vehicles and trucks registered in Salt Lake County. In Davis and Weber Counties we have a combined number of 342,468 registered passenger vehicles and trucks (Utah DMV current statistic). It seems your air pollution problems are mostly within your own borders. You also fail to mention the amount of traffic you have coming in from the Park City area as well as Utah County. Sprawl is happening already, your own population has jumped from 898,387 to an estimate of 924,247 (US Census Bureau, 2000-2003 county facts). Davis County has also grown from 238,994 to 255,597 during the same period. It is happening without the Legacy Highway being built.

Do we need commuter rail? A resounding "YES" comes from me. Do we need improved bus rapid transit lanes and light rail? Again a resounding "YES." Do we need to protect the west side of Davis County and the shores of the Great Salt Lake? Again a rounding "YES." Do we need Legacy Highway to provide an alternative route in case of an accident or other emergency, while providing a nature preserve and a natural barrier to our shores of the Great Salt Lake that will never be developed? Again, a clear and resounding "YES." Do we need more lawsuits that have cost the residents of Utah, to date, over 100 million dollars of taxpayer money? A very firm and resounding "NO."

Mr. Anderson, you owe the good people of Davis and Weber County an apology. And now. Your city is not an island surrounded by a moat, with you at the drawbridge deciding whom you will let in. Your Chamber welcomes us to shop and spend money at your places of business just as we welcome all residents to do the same here. We will never build a better place for our future prosperity by filing frivolous lawsuits to suit your own personal agenda.

Sincerely,

Alan Hanson
Davis County Commission

The "Beating Up" Goes On

2005-01-18T10:15:00.000-08:00

I've been out of town for the last few days, and it seems my fellow bloggers haven't had much to say.

Reviewing what's been going on the last few days in the press, it looks like the fallout from Mayor Rocky Anderson's speech last week continues.

See the Standard Examiner for a couple of articles, including former Speaker of the House Marty Stephens commenting at the opening of the state legislature yesterday that the poor cousins from the north would be careful how they act while they're visiting in Rocky's city.

The Salt Lake Tribune has an article about new Davis County Commissioner Alan Hansen sending Mayor Anderson a letter with his feelings, and the Trib editorial page joins with all the other opinion leaders in Utah saying its time for the Legacy.

The Deseret News today tells us that the Salt Lake City Council will be adopting a resolution inviting their "Friends from the North" to come to their city, contrary to recent comments from the Mayor. See also Saturday's story which says, "we're hot under the collar."

Wow, what a tempest. Thanks to all for your support! Doesn't all this uproar go to show the overwhelming community support for the plan we in northern Utah have for our transportation needs? Will all this be stopped by another lawsuit by a small fraction of contrarians, many from outside our community, who want to make their point at our expense?

Stay tuned, more coming soon!

More Reaction to Mayor Rocky

2005-01-14T09:49:00.000-08:00

The reactions to Mayor Rocky Anderson's State of the City speech and his attack on commuters and supporters of Legacy Parkway continue to pour in, even from his own city council members. See Deseret News and Tribune articles.

Councilman Dave Buhler took the Mayor on and defended those who live elsewhere, saying, "To suggest everybody who lives outside of the city is somehow evil if they drive into the city -- if they drive alone -- is wrong. More than wrong, it hurts (this) very city."

Kudos to Councilman Buhler for his courage to call someone to task who tackles such important issues in such a divisive and unhelpful way. I just think it a shame that there are some who think the way to deal with important policy matters is to blast away. There are times that I think something like that can be useful, but not generally.

Mayor Rocky Hits a Nerve!

2005-01-13T10:09:00.000-08:00

Just as I thought, Mayor Rocky has once again enraged northern Utah community leaders with his broadside. See the Standard-Examiner News and Standard-Examiner Editorial.

It's so easy to lecture everyone on what you think they ought to do. Does this work with your kids at home? Not with mine! It only seems to make them mad and want to do something else. Better to work with and persuade, but I fear our vaunted opponents of the Legacy Parkway have no concept of this. Witness their approach to the Redwood Road alternative. This approach would put a major roadway right through the middle of a number of Davis County communities. Have the proponents of the Redwood Road alternative come to talk this through with the community leaders? Not a chance.

I'm sure we'll hear more on this soon.

What creates sprawl - Highways or something else?

2005-01-12T15:57:00.000-08:00

The opponents of Legacy Parkway keep harping on Sprawl. What exactly is sprawl? They (the groupees) never provide a definition or really make the connection between building a highway and creating this thing they call sprawl. I think what those dudes are trying to say is that highways create a development pattern which draws population away from the inter city. In other words sprawl is the suburanization of a metropolitian area. If this is what they define as sprawl, then I am sorry dudes, but there are a lot of factors that contribute to this, and highway building is only one of many. Before I elaborate on this if anyone out there feels there is a better definition of sprawl I would like to know. If you disagree with my attempt of defintion, please let me know, and provide me with your thoughts.

"There You Go Again..." Mayor Rocky Contradicts Self

2005-01-12T06:53:00.000-08:00

Mayor Rocky Anderson of Salt Lake City gave his State of the City speech last night to the City Council, and again could not restrain his desire to lecture all the rest of the state about how we're doing things wrong, that only Salt Lake City is the beacon of right in this sea of darkness and sprawl that surrounds them. See the Deseret News and Salt Lake Tribune for stories on the speech.

And, of course, despite his promise to State Representative Stuart Adams a couple of years ago to not attack the Legacy Parkway again, he cannot restrain himself.

Mayor Anderson said about the Legacy Parkway and those of us uneducated masses living outside his enlightened city that "the choices of those who have decided to commute long distances, mostly as they drive one-person-per-automobile, and to foul our air, clog our roads, and increase our nation's dependence upon foreign oil, should not be encouraged and further accomodated by asphalting over open spaces and exacerbating those enourmous problems these people have already created." These people? What, we're different from Rocky and the citizens of Salt Lake City, because we choose to live elsewhere?

The Deseret News pointed out in their story that Mayor Rocky contradicted himself when he lambasted Wal-Mart inthis year's speech, noting that in 2003 the Mayor welcomed the construction of a new Wal-Mart at 300 West 1300 South because it would provide much-needed new shopping for the city's westside residents.

Well, let me point out another clear contradiction for the Mayor. In his speech this year, he said, "We want our friends from the north to come to Salt Lake City; we just don't want them to increase our City's traffic, futher foul our air, undermine our quality of lives, and make us sick simply because of the choices they make about where they live and how they get around."

Sorry we make you "sick" because of our choice to drive cars, Mayor. Is that why, a few years ago, you began a campaign to provide lots of new, free parking spaces in downtown Salt Lake City? Who are those parking spaces for, if not your friends from the north who drive their cars, poor ignorant souls that we are?

I could go on, but I've said enough for now. Think about the contradictions that are put forward here.

Deseret News Gets It

2005-01-11T13:49:00.000-08:00

Another opinion leader on the Wasatch Front gets it -- see today's Deseret News editorial.

The DesNews is right on when they say we are reacting to growth that is already here -- the parkway will not cause new growth. Wish we were at a point where we could plan and build transportation facilities well ahead of new growth.

Bad Form Rocky !!!!

2005-01-11T07:54:00.000-08:00

At Friday's hearing Rocky dude (Mayor Anderson of SLC for those who care to know) was in his typical bad form. Not that he chose to send someone in his place, because in Davis County a day without Rocky is a good day, but the fact that he charged his representative to support the Groupee's so-called "Citizens Smart Growth Alternative". (in this blog the Sierra Club and Utahn's for Better Transportation are referred to this in short for Special Interest Groups)

Now how would Rocky like it if Bountiful hired an out of state consulatant to design Bountiful Boulevard to go right through residential neighborhoods in his city and do it without any input from him, his staff or any residents affected, and then asked the Federal Government to approve it as part of the NEPA process, claiming it was the most practical alternative.

I would imagine Rocky would cry foul !

Well! that is exactly what he has done to the City's of North Salt Lake, Woods Cross, West Bountiful, Centerville, and Farmington. The groupees have drawn up their plan without any input from city officials or residents of these cities and have asked the Federal Agencies to approve their plan as the official plan. Rocky has endorsed this plan showing total disregard for these cities. BAD FORM !!! What do you think should be the consequences for this rash action of the Mayor Dude of SLC?

What's in a name?

2005-01-11T07:39:00.000-08:00

Hey fellow bloggers! We have received a number of comments concerning our identity. Please be assured we are not trying to hide behind our alias's. If you want to know our identity all you have to do is click on our alias in the upper right hand of the blog sheet and viola!! our real names and more about us than you probably want to know will appear. We have chosen to use alias's because we have been involved in this issue for a number of years and for those involved can be readily identified as staunch supporters of the Legacy Parkway. In our interaction on this blog sheet we want to identify with the countless number of individuals who are frustrated with all the delays, but remain nameless.

Legacy Proponents Not "Cooperative," Sierra Club Says

2005-01-10T09:08:00.000-08:00

Friday was an interesting day, spent at the public hearing on the Legacy Parkway Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Supporters of the project were overwhelmingly on view. (You can read about the hearing at the Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News websites)

Lawson Legate, Utah Sierra Club head, took all us supporters to task during his comments, saying we were not even giving a better alternative to the Legacy a good look before we dismissed it out hand. He also said we were not being very cooperative and had our minds made up.

Interesting comment for someone to make when their idea of cooperation and negotiation was to file a lawsuit to force their point of view.

The Sierra Club's idea of negotiation is to bring forward a "new" alternative, Redwood Road/East Side Frontage Road. A proposal they have never brought to the communities to discuss and ask their opinions about.

I still recall a meeting about a year ago where the federal agencies invited a number of different groups interested in the SEIS process to see and comment on what they were doing. As it became obvious that the need for Legacy Parkway was, if anything, stronger than ever, a representative from the Army Corps of Engineers asked Lawson Legate that if indeed the studies came back and said that Legacy needed to be built, would the Sierra Club accept and support that conclusion?

I'll never forget Lawson's answer. He said, "Well, we're certain that if the studies are done correctly, they will show there is no need for the Legacy."

How can you discuss and negotiate with someone who is already convinced from the beginning, before the study work is even done, what the conclusion of the study "should" be? We're going back to court, folks. That's how it looks to me.

Force Or Persuade?

2005-01-07T07:32:00.000-08:00

An article in today's Deseret News about the upcoming public hearing for the Legacy Parkway SEIS includes quite a bit of comment from the opponents. What those comments make clear to me is that their opposition to the highway is more about their vision of how things should be and making it come about through force rather than persuasion and reason.

Robert Adler, University of Utah Law School professor, is quoted saying, "This is a major decision that will help us define who we are and what we look like." And what is that? "Picture this, he says: walkable neighborhoods with little shops. Less smog. Less congestion. Improved quality of life."

Less congestion if we don't build Legacy Parkway? Not likely. In order to get everyone to ride transit the way Prof. Adler would like to see it, congestion would have to be unbearable. And it will be, if Legacy is not built.

I personally don't have much quarrel with the vision that some have for how life could be lived along the Wasatch Front in the future. I like those ideas, too. What I disagree with them on is the methodology they are going about it make it happen.

Not building Legacy Parkway will not make those things happen, at least not for a long time. Regardless of how we want our neighborhoods and local communities to be in the next 20 years, we have one big factor staring us in the face -- growth. Lots of it. And for the near-term future, people will need to (want to!) drive their cars to get to work and other places.

Planners like myself and those at Envision Utah are trying to present alternative futures to our residents, and people are beginning to like the picture they see. But it will take some time, and some more persuasion and reason, to make it happen.

The methodology of Prof. Adler, Mr. Heileson and others is, we have our vision, we are right, and we are going to make everyone live it by preventing them from doing what they want to do.

Forcing things with lawsuits and compulsion, or persuading people to adopt new lifestyles? Which do you think will be more effective in the long run?

Stewards of the Great Salt Lake Wetlands?

2005-01-06T11:52:00.000-08:00

Throughout the Legacy Parkway EIS fight, the Sierra Club, Friends of the Great Salt Lake and other environmental groups made numerous statements about the wetlands that would be affected by construction of the Legacy. These wetlands are part of the world-famous global flyway used by migrating birds, and any impact is too much, they said. Destruction of any wetlands is reason enough not to build the highway, they said. No to the highway, in part because it would destroy valuable wetlands, they said.

So...

Along comes commuter rail from Ogden to Salt Lake City. The proposal is to build a third track for commuter rail adjacent to the existing Union Pacific Railroad tracks through Davis and Weber Counties. Part of this corridor runs right along the same area where the Legacy Highway would go, adjacent to the Great Salt Lake wetlands.

Now let me say, we are all in favor of building commuter rail also. It is part of the overall solution to meeting future transportation need in northern Utah. Full speed ahead, we're all for it!

Take a look at the EIS for commuter rail, on page 124 of the document at the UTA website. You will find that the construction of the commuter rail line will impact 18.4 acres of wetlands. The same wetlands that are so zealously guarded by Sierra Club, Friends of the Great Salt Lake, et.al.

I checked to see if any comments were made by these groups about the impact on these wetlands by commuter rail. Guess what? None. No negative comments. In fact, it appears there were no comments made on the commuter rail EIS, either positive or negative, by these groups.

This leads me to ask, how concerned really are these groups about the Great Salt Lake wetlands? How concerned are they really about transportation in northern Utah? Or are they really more concerned just with killing Legacy Parkway, to show they have clout? What do you think?

It's about more than a highway

2005-01-06T09:21:00.000-08:00

I only wish that the current debate swirling around the Legacy Parkway was in fact about a highway. The highway element of this controversy is however a distraction. The real question to be answered focuses more on whether the rule of law will prevail over the rule of the few.

It is abundantly clear that the vast majority of Davis County citizens support the construction of the Legacy Parkway and that they were likewise willing to do as the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered and complete the Supplemental Environmental Impact Study (SEIS). Now the study is complete. The conclusion of that study continues to support the construction of the Legacy Parkway. Now we await another challenge by the Sierra Club and Utahns for Better Transportation. Their plan is to study this issue literally to death. They claim we have not adequately addressed the absurd alternative of utilizing Redwood Road and routing traffic through residential areas in south Davis County. In reality, this option was addressed by the SEIS and subsequently shown to be infeasible and inadquate.

Inevitably, there will be more alternatives that they will insist we study. More injunctions and court battles will also follow, until the citizens of Davis County and the State of Utah simply run out of funding and the will to fight. This is their plan.

Meanwhile, it is critical to understand that these special interest groups perpetuate their existence with issues like the Legacy Parkway. They are less interested in preserving the environment than they are in preserving their funding. How can I say this? Consider this fact: The Legacy Parkway project includes as a primary component the preservation of 2100 acres of pristine wetlands adjacent to Farmington Bay. In fact, the Utah Department of Transportation has already purchased this land and is willing to place it in permanent reserve. The construction meanwhile will only impact 100 acres of both uplands and wetlands. Most of the impacted property has historically been used for grazing. Much of it is currently used for illegal dumping. Legacy will not only preserve 2100 acres of true wetlands, but will also clean-up the corridor and prevent further dumping. Meanwhile, the Parkway will provide a barrier to future development that will surely continue to encroach upon the Great Salt Lake without Legacy's presence. The question begs, "Who are the true environmentalists?"

Once again, environmentalism is a side-line preoccupation with the opponents of Legacy. They've found a "poster child" in the Legacy Parkway project that allows them to perpetuate their existence. It has become a rallying cry for them; one they hope will galvanize their constituencies from throughout the country and bring more contributions into their coffers. Isn't it ironic to realize that if their membership truly understood that the organization to which they are contributing is willing to sacrifice 2100 acres of wetlands to preserve 100 acres of questionable quality, they would probably join our fight?

Now for those of you who may believe this issue does not touch you . . . consider my initial point. This is about preserving the rule of law. You cannot affort to allow our destiny to be highjacked by special interests. This is a traveling show that these folks present. They're coming to a city or town near you. You can count on that. When it happens, and it surely will, you'll need and you will receive our support.

Citizens Smart Growth Alternative?

2005-01-06T09:12:00.000-08:00

The Sierra Club is trumpeting their Redwood Road Alternative as the "Citizens Smart Growth Alternative". This is very misleading since they have solicited no public input on this alternative. They want to give the impression that this is a citizen intiated proposal when it is exactly the opposite. This proposal was put together by out-of-state consultants for the Sierra Club and Utahns for Better Transportation. Great Way to Implement Policy Dudes!

I would like to know if there are any citizens of Davis County out there that had any input in the development of this Alternative. Particularly I would like to know if any of the residents living on the frontage road in Centerville were contacted to get their input on the Alternative. I would hate to be those Sierra Club dudes when they find out that their Alternative places traffic on the east side of the sound wall that was put in to separate those residents from I-15 traffic. I wonder if the Sierra Club dudes thought or even care about this?

Special Interest Groups

2005-01-05T14:25:00.000-08:00

For all of you who are frustrated about the length of time it is taking to get to the point of starting construction on the legacy parkway, you need to understand at term. The term is "SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP" A special interest group is defined as a group of individuals that:
1. Think they are special
2. Because they are special only their interests count.

The lawsuit that has stopped the Legacy Parkway was filed by two special interest groups, the Sierra Club and Utahns for Better Transportation. (Unfortunately a lot of Davis County residents give Rocky Anderson the credit for the lawsuit, but in reality he was used by these groups so they could use Salt Lake City's name to lend legitamacy to their actions.) These two groups think their way is the only way and they could care less about the needs and desires of those who live in Davis County, or those travelling through Davis County. These special interest groups do not represent us here in Davis County and are using the Federal Enviromental Process to further their own agenda at our expense. These Dudes need to be stopped.

Ogden Standard Gets It!

2005-01-05T13:40:00.000-08:00

Today's edition of the Ogden Standard Examiner has an editorial supporting the Legacy Parkway and encouraging all to come to the public hearing on Friday, Jan. 7 at the Davis County FairPark to express their support as well.

The Standard says, in part, "...if Legacy's foes were counting on public disdain for the project building over time, they were badly mistaken. In fact, public regard for the Legacy has blossomed since work on it was halted in 2001 due to an environmentalists' lawsuit. A Dan Jones poll recently found 86 percent of Davis County residents favor renewed construction, and they are joined by 81 percent of Weber County residents."

Fantasies About Transit -- Again!

2005-01-04T20:43:00.000-08:00

Today's edition of the Davis County Clipper has a point-counterpoint on the ViewPoint page about transit. Dawn Brandvold argues that transit would take care of all our travel needs, if we only give it a chance, and don't build that obnoxious Legacy Highway. She says, "contrary to Wilf Sommerkorn and his cohorts in a Davis County Development group, there are many of us in Davis County who strongly oppose the Legacy Highway until (transit) options are explored." (Interesting perception, given that a recent Dan Jones poll showed that some 86% of Davis County residents responded with support of the Legacy Parkway.)

Well, Dawn, if you had read the Legacy Parkway environmental impact study, you would know that transit is very much part of the plan for meeting the future transportation need of Davis and Weber Counties. But transit alone will not be enough.

It seems that Dawn and others who share her opinion think that if we just build enough transit, people will fill it to capacity and obviate the need for any new roadways. But in reality, there is no city in the western United States where transit serves more than about 5% of total travel demand in the peak hour.

There is some variation in those percentages. For example, TRAX in Salt Lake County, which is generally held up as the shining example of a successful transit system that we should all emulate, will be difficult to duplicate in northern Utah. We do not have nearly the population base that would surround a TRAX line, since we have about 260,000 people in Davis County, compared to some 900,000 in Salt Lake County. The TRAX system is focused on getting people to downtown Salt Lake and, to a lesser extend, the University of Utah. About 1 out of every 8 workers in Salt Lake County is employed in those locations. In Davis County, however, only about one in 20 of our workers goes to those locations. So the market for transit is much smaller.

The truth is, we will never be able to meet the demand for transportation in northern Utah that will be generated by our growth in the next 20 years by building commuter rail or TRAX. They will help, and they are needed to help meet that need. But transit doesn't carry much more than 5% of travel demand anywhere else, why would it here, given our demographics?

Welcome!

2005-01-04T14:30:00.000-08:00

We welcome you to the Legacy Parkway Hotsheet, a blog dedicated to bringing you the latest news and views on the effort to get this important component of northern Utah's transportation system through the approval process and getting it built!

Please check in frequently, as there will be new postings regularly as news and views come forward.

Thanks, and we hope we can be informative and interesting!