Kaysville Passes WDC Resolution

Kaysville City passed a resolution on the Western Davis Corridor. You can read the resolution here.

In the resolution Kaysville repeatedly mentions support of the 2001 North Legacy Transportation Corridor and 2001 study. However in item 5 the City deviates from supporting the 2001 study (and its own master transportation plan) with regard to the I-15 alignment and “strongly favors and fully supports” the Glovers Lane and westerly alignment.

38 Comments

  1. matt says:

    It sounds like they want to have it both ways.
    It is a tough spot for them to be in and I would not envy them (the leaders in both city’s) in these tough decisions.
    At least Farmington City has been consistent on this issue for the past 15 years.
    Kaysville item 7 diverts from the “Propose and Need” of the WDC EIS study.

    The WDC is intended to achieve the following purposes:
    • Improve regional mobility for automobile, transit, and freight trips by reducing user delay on the road system compared to the No-Action conditions through the consideration of all transportation modes.
    • Enhance mobility during the AM and PM peak periods for the main travel direction (north-south) to accommodate the projected travel demand in the study area in 2040.
    The WDC project will also evaluate the following secondary objectives:
    • Improve regional mobility by improving the connections between transportation modes such as automobile, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian travel compared to the No-Action conditions.
    • Support the objectives of the adopted local land-use plans for communities west of I-15 in Weber and Davis Counties.
    • Increase bicycle and pedestrian options consistent with the adopted local and regional plans in the parts of the study area in Weber and Davis Counties.

    So there are three points of the “proposes and need” that are greatly diminished by their Resolution. And Nowhere in the study does it say anything about “an alternative to interstate 15”. That is a nice talking point that people try to use as a way to get people to believe that is the propose of this project. Please read and study the material that is provided on the project web site. This study is not the continuation of Legacy. They told us that at the beginning of this EIS study. I do believe we should fight to have something like Legacy built. Item 6 tells me that Kaysville City ”strongly favors and supports” the Glovers Lane corridor alignment. That’s great. So, they favor that the citizens of west Farmington to be completely encircled by highways? This Glovers Lane corridor alignment is like have a noose around west Farmington. It will strangle all that we love in west Farmington as well as hurt Farmington economically. Farmington already has the Wasatch Weave and we don’t need the Farmington Noose.

  2. matt says:

    NORTH LEGACY CORRIDOR STUDY FROM 2001 is at this link
    http://www.wfrc.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=96%3Anorth-legacy-

    The link will take you to a page by the Wasatch Front Regional Council that shows all sorts of data from a 2001 study of what was then being referred to as the “North Legacy Corridor.” It has a lot of maps and diagrams showing routes that support the Farmington City’s C-1 option and also WEST of the Kaysville Power lines.

  3. Anita says:

    Goodness….please let’s not let the Kaysville City Leadership decide what happens in Farmington! More “human habitat” would be affected in FARMINGTON…and what on earth does “human flourishing” mean?

  4. Jason says:

    I would suggest that the reason Kaysville prefers the A-1 alignment in Farmington is because the C-1 route will likely take at least 10 Kaysville homes on it’s southern border. I applaud the mayor for taking a stand in support of preserving the homes of his residents.

  5. Christy says:

    Anita, the decision that Farmington’s Mayor made in support of A-1 sacrifices 10 homes in Kaysville. If it’s OK for your mayor to make decisions for another city, it’s certainly permissible for Kaysville’s Mayor to do the same. I too applaud his efforts.

  6. Anita says:

    10 homes either alignment.
    Within a 1/4 mile of alignment:
    200 A1
    400 C1
    This really is a no brainer.
    I’m sorry for the homes that will be affected, either way, but
    “The human being is the most adaptable creature on earth.”

  7. Jason Wheeler says:

    Just curious. Is this “Farmington Citizens” site neutral on this issue, or do the administrators have a conflict of interest. I’m not saying one way or the other, I’m just asking. I just want to make sure I’m making comments on a neutral forum. I’ve been reading and interacting with this site for years, and I’d hate to find out it’s being managed by someone who has been biased by the issue.

  8. Carolynn says:

    well last I looked the C-1 option affected Farmington residents as well or did Farmington forget that Hunters Creek/Destination Homes is in Farmington?

    I applaud Kaysville’s mayor for supporting its residents and not being concerned with the almighty $$.

  9. matt says:

    Thanks for the opportunity to write some thoughts. Jason, as soon as any site entertains an open forum, biased opinions will be abundant. The facts are that either route will destroy homes and either route will be a life changing event for a few people and be an inconvenience for a lot of others. It isn’t a guess why Kaysville supports the Glovers Lane approach and it isn’t rocket science why Farmington supports the northern C1 route. Both ways affect people and that is what matters most. However, the Farmington route affects the same people while also destroying important wildlife habitat. It will cost more money and we lose more wetlands if the road goes through Farmington. If the road goes down Glovers, there will be an interchange right next to the future high school, though I have now heard that they would have to move that site if the legacy goes through Farmington. There is already a fenced off area through the C1 Kaysville route and I can’t imagine how somebody moving into that area wouldn’t have realized that it was meant to be a road. I understand the resentment if they are trying to widen that. However, all things being equal, the Kaysville C1 route affects less people, costs less, saves more wildlife and wetlands and just makes more sense. If an unbiased observer where to make the decision, they would choose the Kaysville C1 route. Thanks.

    • Jason Wheeler says:

      Matt, just a quick response. I agree with the importance of an open forum on critical issues such as these, and all opinions need to be heard. I just wanted to make sure that those actually administering this site were committed to objectivity and neatrality. I think overall they have done a pretty good job, and I think you have tried to present the facts as you know them the best you can. Just a few comments about the alignments. I believe there are many questions yet to be answered, and the best choice for Farmington is far from “a no brainer”. I have honestly inquired of many unbiased observers, who are not residents of Farmington, and there are many more than you might realize that disagree with your assertion that C-1 is the best choice for Farmington, and for the project in general. There are very heavy concerns about the C-1 alignment. I don’t intent to reiterate them all here, but many residents are very concerned about that accuracy and objectivity of the data being presented in the study, including wetland impact, social impact and cost. Finally, I don’t think many will argue with you that we knew a road was coming at some point between Hunters Creek and Quail Crossing. That has never been a point of contention, at least not with me. It has alot more to do with what type and width of road was represented to many people who built homes in those subdivisions. In my mind, it reflects poor foresight, planning, and poor decisions made early on which leave us in the bind we are in. As to the rest of the facts, UDOT could answer alot of questions and perhaps settle some concerns if they start doing a better job of disclosing sufficient details to more fully support their conclusions (i.e. detailed cost breakdowns would be nice for starters).

  10. Matt M says:

    Thanks for the reply Jason, and just so we don’t get confused, I am not the Matt that posted a reply on March 4. I have added an “M” to my name to clarify that. Jason, Because I am curious, what objective reasons are there that the non-residents see? I feel that UDOT is being very objective as they don’t seem to care one way or the other which way they use. Any claims that they are biased should be more than speculation. I know some of the residents at the meeting tonight used the cost of projected home-value-loss against UDOT, saying that their homes, in the study, were valued at only $200,000. They were irate. After UDOT explained that 200k was just a number used, and that none of the homes were actually appraised, but roughly estimated, same as the A1 route, it was hard to complain about the numbers, though many still did.
    After attending the Farmington City Hall meeting tonight,this is what I came away with. Even though the Glovers lane route would save upwards of $50-$70 million (that includes the Shepard Lane interchange), would destroy more wetlands, would destroy an equal amount of houses (10), would lose more business revenue, would probably be an easier project to build and navigate once completed and may displace a lot of Eagles, they are going forward with equal consideration to the EIS, the environmental study. I must say this surprised me, but I commend UDOT for being so methodical about their approach.
    I honestly feel bad that the corridor set aside by Shepherd Lane needs to be expanded and the people who built there felt like they had a guarantee that the existing 150 feet or so would not be increased. I also feel bad for the farm houses on Glovers that are facing losing land they will never be able to replace nor regain within the Davis County area. There are also new houses that will be affected, but in my mind, a half acre is much easier to find in Davis County than is a 5-acre horse property. It is a sad phenomenon all the way around.
    I know this is childish to say, but I would like to thank all of the Farmington residents who didn’t interrupt, didn’t ask questions out of turn and behaved like grown-ups, instead of mad fifth graders. I know everyone has a strong opinion about the issue but it was interesting that only the Northern C1 people were rude. I didn’t hear one rude A1 supporter, so thank you all for being polite and showing your true colors. Just because someone is yelling louder doesn’t make them right.

    • Jason Wheeler says:

      Matt, simply put, many people still aren’t buying the fact that putting two major highways in one corridor is a good idea, especially when there is another alternative. UDOT seems to think it can work, and I guess time will tell. But alot of people that drive these roads every day and curse UDOT’s name more often than not, do not agree.
      Trust me, as far as public opinion goes, even outside of Farmington, this is not a slam dunk decision by any stretch. I do trust that UDOT is trying to be objective. I do however feel like they have intentionally misled cities, developers and residents in the not too far past. Nearly every city in the study area, UDOT and the WFRC has known that this road was planned since 2001 (and before). To make anyone feel that a 146 foot right of way “could” work for the next 20 years is misleading, if not outright intentional misrepresentation. True, the nature of this project is constantly changing, but even back then (in 2001) every city in Davis County agreed to a planned alignment and a width of 328 feet for corridor preservation. You can blame Farmington, you can blame Kaysville, you can blame UDOT. No one took the 2001 study seriously in this area, and no one made enough effort to preserve the corridor, and the residents that are getting jacked aren’t settling for excuses any more.
      Finally, from my perspective, there has been rude people on both sides of this issue for a long time. I would suggest that it’s easier to sit back and enjoy the presentation when the City is backing you and the numbers seems to be on your side. I also think that the format was difficult for some people to deal with, as some questions tended to be skirted and were not adequately addressed, leaving no opportunity for follow up. Also, the green shirts didn’t help any in my opinion. It seem to highlight the segregation in our community even further. But if people want to celebrate St. Patty’s day a day early… who am I to stop them. I think there has been childish behavior all the way around. Just my two cents. By the way… I feel for the people on Glover as well. You are right about the farm land and their homes. But the majority of the “green cheerleaders” do not live on Glover. I’m finding it difficult to buy this whole “environmentalist” loyalty. There are probably a few who are truly concerned about that environment, but I would put my money on the fact that if the Eagles lived up north… they would be singing a differrent tune. A true environmentalist doesn’t build a community the size of a space station on wetlands, and then seek to protect it thereafter. Sorry Ranches, but I feel the “environmental” loyalty has much more to do with your homes than the birds, which is fine, because that is ultimately what we are fighting for up here.

      • Matt M says:

        For some reason a portion of my reply got posted, but not the entire, edited, response. Please disregard or delete this post and read the second, very similar reply.

  11. Matt M says:

    Thanks for the reply Jason,
    I would like to clarify your reply. My earlier question was what “non-residents” thought were the downsides of the C1 option. The only thing you state is that “many people still aren’t buying the fact that putting two major highways in one corridor is a good idea.” While that is a good concern, it would be difficult to decide if either option would work better than the other, but that is what we pay UDOT for. I am certain that UDOT is taking into account that very concern. Many people still aren’t buying that a messy interchange near Glovers is a good idea. Both valid concerns, but neither holds more validity than the other. If there are other thoughts, I would like to hear them, but I think this argument is merely trying to subtilize the real issues.
    I get the feeling that the C1 home owners somehow think that their homes are more valuable, both in economic and emotional terms. I haven’t talked to one home owner, from either side, that is excited at the prospect of losing their home and land. I would be interested why you think that the people living on Glovers aren’t fighting for their homes or why they are less concerned about their loss.
    Your statement, “but the majority of the “green cheerleaders” do not live on Glover” is interesting and I would like to know if you have information I don’t, or like many in these discussions you are trying to create your own truth. I am not accusing you of that, merely asking where you are getting your facts. It would be of great interest to me to know your source.
    As far as the environmental issue, you really should point the finger both ways. It is interesting that the C

    • Jason Wheeler says:

      Matt. I’m not sure if we are communicating clearly with one another. With respect to the “non-residents”, that is precisely who I was talking about. There are people outside of Farmington also share our concerns about all roads coming together in one corridor. I explain the preliminary C-1 concept, and they say “What!???” (and believe it or not… that’s without little persuation from me.) That’s as clear as I know how to be. I agree that also likely “non-residents” that might be concerned about the effectiveness of a Glover connection as well (with respect to traffic flow and expandabillity), but that has not been my experience thus far in talking with others. Your experience may be different. But my point all along was, the decision is not as clear cut as your previous post implied. I don’t think concern is subtle at all, but if you disagree, great.
      So, moving on. I’m not sure how you inferred that people up North feel that their homes are more valuable or emotionally important that those on Glover. I have never implied that at all. The simple fact is that most of us up North (I’m not going to pretend to speak for every person up here)would like to see the road pushed further west and further South. I have heard over and over and over that UDOT will never do that. Well, I have no control over that. I only have control over fighting for what I feel to be the right choice, i.e. save homes over wetlands. Perhaps that frustrates UDOT, and perhaps even you, but I believe it is absolutely the right choice. We are not talking about “houses” here, we are talking about people losing their homes. I’m going to guess that you might not be one of them. I will readily admit that I am not (at least not that I’m aware of). I could care less about the average dollar value of homes. So, I’m not sure how you read into my comments that people on Glover aren’t or shouldn’t be fighting for their homes, or are less concerned about their loss. Quite the contrary, anyone living on Glover will perfectly relate to the people of Quail Crossing (and potentially Hunters Creek, if the road ends up taking the south side of the corridor). If you read my comments again, you’ll see that it’s those on Glover that I’m most concerned for on the South end. But I also know how many people were wearing green shirts last night, and I know approximately how many homes are along Glover. I’m just doing the math. But if for whatever reason, you live on Glover, then I’ll fight for you too, but not simply at the expense of the people that I care about up here.
      I would respond to the rest of your comments… but it looks like they got cut-off above.

  12. Matt M says:

    Thanks for the reply Jason,
    I would like to clarify your reply. My earlier question was what “non-residents” thought were the downsides of the C1 option. The only thing you state is that “many people still aren’t buying the fact that putting two major highways in one corridor is a good idea.” While that is a good concern, it would be difficult to decide if either option would work better than the other, but that is what we pay UDOT for. UDOT is taking into account that very concern, which unfortunately makes both options seem plausible, though the C1 option seems so much easier. Many people still aren’t buying that a messy interchange near Glovers is a good idea. Both valid concerns, but neither holds more validity than the other. If there are other thoughts, I would like to hear them, but I think this argument is merely trying to subtilize the real issues.
    I get the feeling that the C1 home owners somehow think that their homes are more valuable, both in economic and emotional terms. I haven’t talked to one home owner, from either side, that is excited at the prospect of losing their home and land. I would be interested why you think that the people living on Glovers aren’t fighting for their homes or why they are less concerned about their loss. I might be reading too much into the following statement, but that was the impression I got from your last post.
    Your statement, “but the majority of the “green cheerleaders” do not live on Glover” is interesting, perhaps misleading, and I would like to know if you have information I don’t, or like many in these discussions you are trying to create your own truth. I am not accusing you of that, merely asking where you are getting your facts. It would be of great interest to know your source.
    As far as the environmental issue, you really should point the finger both ways. It is interesting that the C1 defenders are adamant that they will lose as much wetlands as the A1 group and that we should reassess their wetlands. Either the wetlands are important, or they aren’t. If not, the A1 is still cheaper, easier to build, affects less homes (I’m not talking demolished, but within the .25 mile radius) affects less business and the Eagle population isn’t an issue.
    Once again, thanks for your responses. I believe open forums like this are a good way to see both sides and hear different opinions. Perhaps we will both come away a little more enlightened.

  13. Jason Wheeler says:

    Agreed Matt. No grudges on this end. :) (except with perhaps the City, but that’s what elections are for). We’ll see what happens.

  14. Jason Wheeler says:

    By the way… I suggested to UDOT that they consider the feasability of splitting the routes to avoid residential impact. They didn’t outright shoot down the idea… so who knows.

  15. Matt M says:

    Okay, I think I see what you were trying to say. There are 10 homes on the A1 route that will be demolished, but there were many more “green cheerleaders” than 10 people. No arguing there. You were simply saying that there are more people advocating the A1 option than people who own homes on, or around Glovers. Thanks for clearing that up. From the rallies I see supporting the C1 route, the same is true. There are more than 10 families actively trying to defend their neighborhood. All of us have individual and community desires that drive us and our choices. That puts us in the same boat. I think that having more people show up supporting the A1 option just shows that people really do care about their environment and also about their closer neighbors. If ONLY 10 people showed up in favor of the A1 option, I’d say go with the A1 because there probably aren’t any good reasons not to. To me this stresses the fact that the A1 option may be a bad choice.
    You didn’t really address the fact that you chastise the ‘greenies’ for using the environment as a smoke screen for our true intentions. I think your point is that we are using the environment as a weapon to protect the A1 option. Sadly to say, I really do care about the environment. I recycle, I conserve energy, I drive an economical car and I am eco-friendly. You are correct, I don’t live on Glovers and may even benefit from the proximity of a quick on ramp. But I do honestly care about the Eagles and the wetlands. I just can’t see that between the 2 options, A1 is better. I really think that if a group of ten people from, let’s say, Scandinavia (I had France at first, but who likes the French :) ) were to look at both scenarios, all of them would most likely chose the C1 route. Financially, economically and constructability, the C1 option appears best. Now, the new EIS may show something completely different, in which case, I may change my opinion. But as it stands, to me, it is obvious which to choose.
    I am torn with a road that will destroy any more wetland and habitat than what is proposed. It would be nice to have the road extremely south and west, but who are we hurting in the long run? I agree that humans are certainly more important than any animal or land, but we do live in a symbiotic relationship with our world. Should we have no wetlands? Should we cut down every tree or exterminate any animal that gets in our way? I doubt you would say yes to either of these. So a stand has to be made somewhere. If the environmentalists didn’t push back hard, we wouldn’t have an environment. We need balance in our world and so we often have polar opposites that balance somewhere near the middle. I don’t think the total-wetland approach would ever pass. I think I would rather have it down Glovers than displace all of the birds that live there and I think the major environmental groups would appeal this heavily. Also, I think having a major west road on a flood plain will someday be disastrous. If we build a causeway, like the one that goes to Antelope, I suppose that could avoid flooding, but short of that it will flood someday.
    I hope that whatever way the road goes there will be compassion from the other group. I know either side will breath a sigh of relief, but I will be very disappointed in our community if it leads to parties or hurtful rhetoric towards our fellow neighbors. I hope that those who celebrate do so honorably and discreetly and those that mourn get comfort from those aren’t mourning. Thanks again for the discussion Jason. I’m surprised no one else is chiming in.

  16. Jason Wheeler says:

    I think we’re getting somewhere, Matt. It’s actually refreshing to be able to discuss these things and over time perhaps get closer to understanding one another than further apart. Most of the “chiming in” is taking place on individual Facebook support sites. This is fine, of course, and needed to increase information flow, but it’s a little hazardous for the purpose of opposite opinions tying to communicate, as we recently found out with a FB group that was intented to find common ground. Both sides are very emotional, and it just didn’t seem to work well. Okay… now for my replies.
    It appeared last night that many people showed up on both sides. As for me, my highest priority is saving homes. The road is going to just plain suck for anyone. It will change our neighborhoods forever. Period. BUT, before I can worry about that… I feel it’s important to fight for those potentially losing homes. I’ll go on record stating that I believe this is even more important that the immediate wetlands that will be impacted. I respect an honest fight for the environment, and if you are honestly that concerned with the environment, then I can respect that. But I’ll give you my opinion. We probably should not have built homes out here if we didn’t want roads to support them. It’s hypocrisy. I think I would have felt more comfortable about restrictions on building in the wetlands altogether than attracting familes who want to adopt environmentalism once they’ve planted their feet. (i.e. the joke the mayor made last night about “locking the gates” after we get here was spot on indeed, I only wished he would apply it to roads and not only commercial development). By the way… there are loads of wetlands just west of I-15. Drive along the new Park Station/Burke addition… and you’ll see what I’m talking about. Then… look at what the City wants to do there… and you’ll see exactly what I’m talking about). Secondly, you wanted me to address my criticism of individuals using the environment as a political tool. Let me clarify. I don’t believe that everyone is doing that. Some people are genuninely dedicted to a very stringent preservation of the natural environment, and always have been. Others not so much. I can’t judge individual motives, and perhaps my comments came across as doing just that. This is my opinion only, based soley on my observations and from the fact that people chose to build (or purchase) homes there. I have yet to understand how doing so was in the best interest of the environment. There are plenty of homes to be had without the need to build additional homes where once was the Great Salt Lake (that might be true of my property as well). So, I don’t feel comfortable making claims of my allegience to the environment having built in or near wetlands, and few down South have been able to convince me of such an allegience either. Finally, since we both may be paddling around our front lawns in 20 years instead of mowing them, I would love for them to build a road designed to protect from future flooding. I’ve lived in this area all my life, and was sandbagging during the floods of ’82. I remember sleeping at the mouth of Baer Canyon with my dad, holding a walkie talkie all night, waiting for a flash flood. If I lived in the Ranches… I’d be begging for a road that could provide protection. Of course they’d have to build the road to do so.

  17. Matt M says:

    I agree that the first priority is saving homes. We keep coming back to the home issue, but I feel both options weigh in equally in that arena. I understand that we are losing the same amount of homes either way. If that is the case then we have to move onto secondary or tertiary concerns. If both options destroy and displace 10 families, equally, then there is nothing we can do but choose one option, or create another. Looking at it that way, A1 and C1 both lose ten homes, but the A1 option is the most environmentally safe, costs less and appears to be more favorable based on criteria we can measure. I totally support a teleporter or road supported by hot air balloons, but nobody will take me serious. I wish we had better technology, but we don’t. I am going to take a hard look at a further west and south option and see if I can’t get a fresh take on it. My thought is UDOT won’t budge on that, so then we are back to the A and C options, which of course you know the one I favor. Thanks as always.
    Matt

    • Jason says:

      If both options are crap, which they are, then I won’t support either, hence my call to go further west. The only reason why we are stuck with cruddy options is because Farmington City and/or Kaysville City AND UDOT failed to follow the 2001 Corridor Preservation plan. Tell you what. Go to UDOTs site, read the 2001 study and let me know what you think. This COULD have been SOOOO much easier! No excuses. EPIC fail!

      • Mike B says:

        I have a question regarding your comment that you “feel its important to fight for those potentially losing their homes”. Because there are an equal number of home aquisitions on both options, I assume you are referring to the homes that will be affected rather than lost. According the EIS, there are more homes affected on the A-1 route. I have seen some maps drawn up by A-1 supporters that grossly exaggerate that numbers, is that where you get your information? Those maps seem to suggest that homes will be affected if the corridor is in eye-sight of the home. I think if we use the numbers given to us by those who have conducted the unbiased study, it would suggest that you would be in support of C-1, because less homes are affected in that route.

    • Nate says:

      I dont understand the argument about “Saving homes”. If you had the option of having a concrete barrier in your back yard, traffic noise, pollution and a huge loss in home value versus having UDOT buy out your home and give you a fair market value what would you choose? Who would want to have the road in there back yard? This to me is a far greater issue then someone getting a fair market value and having to move. No one wants to buy your home when its got a freeway going through the back yard. Jason I appreciate your frustration in the corridor not being preserved. Had the developers been stopped and the land protected for the road then we wouldnt be at this difficult point with such a divisive issue. I live out west because I want to be close to nature away from roads and noise. While I realize the home I live in probably pushed out wildlife I was not the one that developed on the land. I ride the bus and feel that mass transit is the best solution for reducing the pollution and gridlock. I have heard rumor that some in the Quail Crossing have pushed to expand the road so that UDOT will buy out there property. That I can understand but saying someone will loose there home is not an accurate statement. UDOT will buy there home. Either option at this point will be detrimental for some, I feel for all those that will be affected by this road.

      • Jason says:

        Nate. I take it you are not at risk of losing your home. In either case, if folks want to offer their homes to UDOT, then I fully support them in that decision. All I know is we have a load of signatures attached to a petition, and many of these signatures are from individuals fighting for their homes, so perhaps that answers your question. Make no mistake. We don’t want a road running through our neighborhoods at all. At least if the corridor had been preserved, people would have been given a choice.. And for the record, if my home were at risk, I would double and triple my efforts to save it. I’ll take this fantastic community any day over UDOT’s “fair” value. What do you think “fair” value is right now with home prices at all time lows and a bullseye painted in your back yard? It is completely accurate to say people will lose their homes. You may not appreciate the dilemma these families face, and you can be grateful for that. If the Ranches ever gets put on the chopping block, you may find yourself singing a much different tune. Many of us moved to Farmington for the peace, tranquility and less populated environment, just like yourself. I love the idea of mass transit, but it doesn’t work for everyone. Many of us travel to various locations from day to day, and within a day.

        • Jason says:

          One more thought. I believe that people forced from their homes should be compensated so generously that the offer is impossible to refuse. That might serve as a deterrent for UDOT and local communities in so leisurely contemplating the destruction of someone else’s personal property.

          • Mike B says:

            Is there a way farmington and kaysville leaders could “sweeten the deal”? Provide some kind of credit towards a lot somewhere else in farmington. It seems like they could do something, but I don’t know how well received that kind of treatment would fare with the general population. Special considerations to a select group of people never is a good idea.

      • Jen says:

        Guess what, you are right, it is a RUMOR!! Why on earth would we want MORE homes to be taken out??? We want NO HOMES taken out. Hope that clears any confusion up! :)

  18. Matt M says:

    Things are so hard to find on that site. Can you post a link, or tell me what tab to look under? Thanks.

  19. Jason Wheeler says:

    Looks like my comment is awaiting moderation. Once again. If this is not a neutral site for concerned Farmington residents, PLEASE let me know. There’s no point wasting my time if this is not an open forum.

    • admin says:

      Sorry Jason about the moderated comments. The commenting system is set to moderate all comments with more than one link. Otherwise comments (not tagged as spam) are posted right through. Moderated comments can take a day or two to be approved.

  20. JAP says:

    An interesting consideration during this wonderful debate is long-term effect if one route is chosen over the other. “Room for expansion” isn’t always good. Ensuring that the parkway would stay at most, 2 lanes each way is good for the character of Farmington and Kaysville. The idea that a parkway could possibly be expanded in the future, when the constraints on the Legacy Parkway expire in 2020, to something along the lines of an I-215 Belt Route out west and around Farmington is sickening. This could be the case if the A-1 route is chosen. Keeping the parkway next to intermodal transportation (frontrunner, UTA bus route)and in a narrow corridor would help ensure we don’t eventually get stuck with a huge, wider bypass choking the whole westside of Farmington. I believe trying to think of the long-term consequences of each route is very important. For example, in 20 years maybe there will be a lot more telecommuting (working from home on your computer and video conferencing) that hasn’t been accounted for in traffic models. Maybe the road will stay at one lane each way and still be able to accomodate 2040 traffic.

  21. Mike B says:

    I would like someone who supports the westerly alignment to post about the bypass of the economic hub if the that alignment is chosen. Rather than have traffic flow into the new businesses there if will completly pass it and eccentially push it into centerville. We have discussed how construction would impact surrounding homes, but if the glover ln option is chosen there will unavoidably also be several offramps into the ranches and other west farmington subdivisions. Traffic will increase by commuters trying to go to the business hub in farmington rather than exit at glovers and turn around. It seems like not only will homes be affected by the corridor initially through construction, but ultimately all of west farmington will be impacted by congestion and off ramps. small neighborhood roads will need to be expanded and traffic lights added. All of west farmington will become west valley if it is surrounded by the corridor.