Another few bite the dust. The Utah Department of Transportation released an update Thursday on route options for the U.S. 40 bypass corridor Environmental Impact Statement. Two alternatives remain — one travels through the North Fields, and one avoids the area. When UDOT began the Environmental Impact Statement study, there were five alternatives with at-grade and free-flow options. What was once called WB1 is now referred to as Alternative A, and WB3 is now Alternative B. Both are free-flow variations, which means there would be quicker travel times and fewer places that require stopping or intersections. Alternatives A and B are largely the same everywhere except between Potters Lane and 900 North. There, Alternative A stays on U.S. 40, and B cuts through the North Fields. Route option WB1 has been renamed Alternative A while WB2 has been renamed Alternative B. Both are moving forward for additional screening processes in the Utah Department of Transportation’s Environmental Impact Statement. Credit: Photos courtesy of the Utah Department of TransportationUDOT Heber Valley Corridor EIS Project Manager Craig Hancock and Environmental Manager Naomi Kisen explained in a video by UDOT that the alternatives have both been improved with information collected from a recent traffic study. To combat the nearly 50,000 vehicles traveling through the area by 2050 (similar to Bangerter Highway now), UDOT has tweaked their designs to add capacity by either widening U.S. 40, adding turn lanes or a combination of the two. The main difference, Hancock said, is that Alternative A includes improvements on the existing U.S. 40 while Alternative B includes a new road to S.R. 32. Both options include intersections on North U.S. 40 at S.R. University Avenue, Commons Boulevard, Corner Canyon Parkway and 900 North. ImpactsBoth alternatives, Kisen said, will have impacts on waters and wetlands, Section 4(f) resources, residences and businesses. Section 4(f) legislation refers to protection of publicly owned parks and recreation areas open to the general public, including wildlife and waterfowl refuges and privately owned historic sites. Alternative A, they said, would have fewer impacts to waters and wetlands. Alternative B would have fewer property impacts. The former costs $6.5 million more than the latter with a price tag of $590.4 million. These are the impacts:22.3 acres of waters including canals, ditches, streams and wetlands 3.36 acres of Section 4(f) resources Two residences for potential full acquisition and one business under construction 11 residences, four businesses and four businesses under construction in regard to full acquisitionCosting $583.9 million, Alternative B would affect these resources:51.2 acres of waters including canals, ditches, streams and wetlands 4.62 acres of Section 4(f) resources One residence for potential full acquisition Five residences and four businesses under construction in regard to full acquisitionUDOT’s refiningThe Environmental Impact Statement study has been in the works since early scoping in early 2020. Purpose and need definitions came next. Then, in mid-2021, alternatives development and screening processes started. Now, UDOT is refining and rescreening the five alternatives they presented to Heber City and Wasatch County councils.What’s left is Alternative A and Alternative B. When they were WB1 and WB3, both options made it through three rounds of reviews and screenings: a preliminary stage, a first-level and a second-level stage. Kisen said that the level-two screening in particular eliminates alternatives that perform similarly but would result in greater impacts. Level 2 screening in the Environmental Impact Statement identifies potential impacts with each bypass option. Credit: Photo courtesy of the Utah Department of TransportationIn December, Hancock presented traffic study findings to the Wasatch County Council, claiming that Main Street in Heber City would face traffic congestion no matter what, but that the bypass could curb some of that traffic. UDOT took the travel times from that study and refined their five options.In January, North Fields landowners spoke up to say that the bypass plan so far leaves them out of the equation.“Going home, it’s a deathtrap,” Mark Wilson, a North Fields landowner, said at the Wasatch Open Lands board meeting Jan. 14. Wilson added that a frontage road was absolutely necessary to ensure safe travel for farmers and landowners navigating the area with tractors and other equipment. During that meeting, Hancock said that UDOT would make sure to meet with landowners and farmers who have concerns about the Heber Valley corridor bypass routes once there was further research from the Environmental Impact Statement. The amendment released Thursday explains that inside lanes along 1300 S on the western corridor are through lanes that would be elevated over Daniels Road, U.S. 189 and 300 West. The outside lands, however, would be one-way frontage roads specifically for local access.Alternative A would have a partial frontage road along U.S. 40. Alternative B, however, would not have a frontage road included in the design that cuts through the North Fields.Moving onAccording to Kisen, UDOT will be refining the alternatives by doing an in-depth analysis of even more potential impacts than were identified in the second level screening process. She said UDOT will identify nearly 20 resources that could possibly be impacted, like farmland, water quality, wildlife and economics. With the most recent update, Hancock said that public hearings and a 45-day comment period will be available for the public to voice their comments and concerns in Fall of this year. That’s when the final draft of the Environmental Impact Statement will be completed. Until then, comments can be submitted on the Heber Valley EIS website. UDOT is scheduled to revise the study, respond to comments and publish the final Environmental Impact Statement in Spring of 2026. The post UDOT’s U.S. 40 bypass options are down to two appeared first on Park Record. ...read more read less