Letters: UDOT and Park City don’t see the same solution on S.R. 248 | ParkRecord.com

Letters: UDOT and Park City don’t see the same solution on S.R. 248


Apples and oranges

Editor:
Apparently, Park City Municipal and UDOT have an apples and oranges view of solving the problem of congestion on S.R. 248.

UDOT sees apples: the need to move cars and trucks efficiently along their state highway to reduce travel time and limit conflicts. Park City Municipal sees oranges: the need to move people, goods and services efficiently into and out of town.

People are more efficiently moved by mass transit. Cars and trucks are more efficiently moved by larger highways. Cars move people, though not as efficiently. Park City must work with UDOT to be certain that we can receive the goods and services that travel along both S.R. 224 and S.R. 248. Since we no longer have rail service, we must rely on those two highways as essential arteries.

Since UDOT has only the hammer of wider highways, every problem they see is the nail of too much vehicle traffic. As citizens of the corporate body, we must kindly and intelligently advocate for remote parking of single occupancy vehicles and wise use of our buses to carry people into town. We can’t eliminate dump trucks and delivery trucks, but we can make it more attractive to walk, bike and use mass transit. My preference is to make our remote park-and-ride lots easier to access with more frequent mass transit access. Improving the Rail Trail as a dedicated bicycle/pedestrian access to remote parking is also a dire need.

Apparently, UDOT doesn’t like the idea of dedicated bus lanes on S.R. 248. Our job is to convince them that mass transit is our future … and continue to advocate with UTA for light rail from the airport to limit our guests’ need for cars. Please join me (regardless of your personal opinion) in expressing your thoughts on Wednesday, July 26, from 4 to 6 p.m., during an open house at Treasure Mountain Junior High. If you can’t attend the meeting, you may send your thoughts to UDOT or sr248improved@utah.gov or 435-602-7440.

Sally Elliott
Park City


UDOT alternative is not a solution

Editor:
Yes, it seems that we are drowning in cars. And yes, we need to a better job of getting people out of their cars and onto transit, bikes and walking. But I don’t want another monster road into Park City that will only move the problem into the near future and further overwhelm our local roads with even more traffic.

After two years of work, UDOT, with Park City Municipal staff, has released an Environmental Assessment for road improvements to S.R. 248. In short, UDOT has identified as the preferred alternative the one that widens the corridor to five lanes plus shoulders and creates a traditional intersection at S.R. 224 and S.R. 248. Imagine — all the way from U.S. 40 to The Yarrow Hotel — identical to S.R. 224. This car-centric solution fixes UDOT’s problem because it will create more state highway capacity. But it will further overwhelm our city’s streets and parking lots. Park City cannot handle, nor does it want, more cars.

So please take a look at the website, udot.utah.gov/SR248improved/#draftea, and see if this is the solution that will make our lives better. From that page, link to the “Preferred Alternative Video and Interactive Map” to graphically (a video simulation) see the overall situation and the preferred alternative.

I am looking forward to learning even more at the Public Hearing (the Park City Council and mayor will be there) Wednesday, June 26, 4-6 p.m. at Treasure Mountain Junior High.

If you can’t attend the meeting, send your thoughts to UDOT in the comment section. Or to Lochner c/o, SR-248 EA, at 3995 South 700 East, Suite 450, Salt Lake City, UT 84107. In both cases any comments must be received by July 11, 2019.

Sarah and Chuck Klingenstein
Park City


The norm is unacceptable

Editor:
President Trump lies on a regular basis. How can I trust the word of a serial liar? The continual drama oozing from this White House is exhausting. I do not want another conflict — Iran. The war hawks are circling, namely John Bolton (remember the Iraq War — oh some is still going on today John Bolton was part of that Bush, Cheney lying fiasco that got the U.S. in the Iraq War). Yet now another woman comes forward with sexual misconduct allegations and the same explanation by President Trump viciously bulling the woman by saying it is not true. How long is there a consensus among Republicans and others that this behavior is OK? Lies, lies and more lies! What happened to taking a stand for integrity, truth, honesty and compassion? Currently it appears the country is on a downward spiral. It is time to take action look inside of yourself and see what steps can be taken. The current norm is unacceptable!

Holly A. Carlin
Park City


Historic move

Editor:
It was both a reason for applause and a sigh of relief to see the U.S. Olympic Committee’s board of directors vote to change their name to reflect the full scope of their mission and publicly declare their commitment to inclusion. As of June 20, it is now named the U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee; no longer USOC, now USOPC. I am encouraged that their commitment is not only in words, but also in their actions, including this past September when the board voted to increase monetary awards for medal-earning Paralympic athletes to match those of Olympic athletes who win medals.

With Utah being a leading state in the Olympic and Paralympic movement, I am hopeful our state is not far behind in recognizing equally, both in name and action, the legacy of our past and future Olympians and Paralympians. For those interested in bringing the Games back to Utah, and Park City specifically, taking this step forward is yet another way to show our commitment to equity, diversity and inclusion.

In the meantime, I want to acknowledge the determination, patience and resilience of countless athletes, volunteers, staff, supporters and leaders within the Paralympic movement (locally and nationwide) who pushed for this historic move over many decades. Thank you.

Gail Loveland Barille
Midway


Statement was incorrect

Editor:
In the recent “Sunday in the Park” column the author wrote, “Deer Valley was trying to create itself with a guy who knew lots about the hotel business and close to zero about skiing.”

That statement is offensive and the part about knowing close to zero about skiing is 100 percent incorrect.

Allen Titensor
Park City


Council’s decision discouraging

Editor:
I am stunned. The Park City Council’s decision on weighting of affordable housing applicants is absolutely contrary to the PCMC “critical priority” of social equity — and it comes months before the city gets its social equity input from the community.

• It has taken the possibility of affordable housing for Park City’s non-seasonal army of servers, cooks, housekeepers, landscapers, kitchen workers, etc., right out of the conversation. Forget it.

• New affordable housing is rare and difficult in Park City. PCMC’s goals of 220 new units by 2020 and 800 new units by 2026 is decidedly optimistic. Vague statements that housing for lower-wage workers will be provided from some other source are simply fantasy.

• This Council action says, in essence, “Leading is too hard, so we’re going to back off and let NIMBYs make policy. There’s an election coming up, and voters don’t want a dishwasher living next door.”

• And I’ll come right out say what we all know: The teacher, first responder, nurse, community builder (whatever that is) workforce is mostly white. The non-seasonal resort worker and laborer workforce is mostly brown. And immigrant.

If I worked for Park City Community Foundation on the city’s contracted social equity report, due in a couple of months, I would be really discouraged. Affordable housing will be, I guarantee you, a major part of the report, and yet its future has already been decided. Social equity is about equitable outcomes — not opportunities, not processes, but outcomes — and for this outcome, the round bin is waiting.

Tom Horton
Park City


Make landscape a legacy, not a loss

Editor:

The developers are at the doors of a Park City heirloom; the Armstrong Snow’s Ranch, its pastures, its serene beauty and sandhill cranes. These pastures have sustained multiple generations of Park City residents, from dairy cows, to mining families, to Mel Armstrong and Herb Armstrong. What argument will we use when a developer proposes mixed-use development beyond the 48 units already zoned for this property? Will we say it came down to the last million dollars and we just didn’t have the willingness to ensure its preservation? Will we try to outbid the developer at that point costing millions more? Will we simply resign ourselves to the loss of a community treasure? The choice is up to each and everyone of us and the answer to these questions has to be that we stood up for the protection of this land and challenged our friends and neighbors to do the same. Please ask the Park City Council to make up the shortfall and please consider making a contribution to ensure this landscape is a legacy, not a loss.

Wendy Fisher
Utah Open Lands executive director


Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.