Dakota Pacific’s traffic study examined 14 intersections around Kimball Junction—nine that already exist and five more that would be added.
The study found that putting new businesses and housing at Kimball Junction would likely increase driver wait times about two seconds at most intersections. Wait times could increase by 30 seconds at the biggest intersection, Interstate 80 and state Route 224, and at the corner of Tech Park Drive and Landmark Drive.
But the study found that wait times are going up with or without Dakota Pacific’s project, and an independent review backed that up. The developer could mitigate the congestion at the latter intersection by eliminating left turns from Tech Center onto Landmark, but the traffic study did not analyze mitigation measures for I-80 and 224.
Dakota Pacific funded one of the traffic studies and the county paid for the other. The county's was essentially a review of Dakota Pacific’s.
Overall, the county’s review found the study’s conclusions were sound. But some elements were missing. Peer reviewers recommended adding a safety assessment—looking at how accident patterns would change—and quantifying overall travel time for trips and quantifying traffic queues.
Jim Charlier, Dakota Pacific’s transportation planner, and Preston Stinger, who headed the team conducting the study, presented their findings on the 2023 proposal.
Charlier said that in recent years, as traffic has worsened, the Utah Department of Transportation has drafted ideas for improving 224.
“The county wanted us to look at the impact of the remaining UDOT alternatives, but they didn't want us to assume that they would be there in our analysis,” Charlier said. “So our basic presentation tables, the tables that we're presenting today, the data we're presenting today, assumes that UDOT does not build its quarter reconstruction.”
The findings this time average out to a 7% decrease in daily trips from the 2008 Tech Center proposal, and a 34% decrease in daily trips from Dakota Pacific’s previous proposal.
The traffic study showed the new proposal would not aggravate traffic at peak hours as much as the original Tech Center plan. That’s because offices generate lots of commuters at peak hours, while residences spread traffic throughout the day.
After the two presentations, the traffic consultants fielded questions from the council. Councilmember Chris Robinson questioned the scope of both studies. He said that the timelines of the 2008, 2021 and most recent proposals aren’t identical.
“I'm pointing out that it's in some ways an unfair comparison,” Robinson said. “Because we're comparing something that is going to happen very slowly, likely, if past is prologue, compared to something that will be accelerated.”
After the meeting, Dakota Pacific representatives hosted an open house. About 30 to 40 people attended to ask questions about the project.
A quorum of council members attended, but members could not legally take public comment about the project.
The council has announced two new dates for public hearings on Dakota Pacific’s proposal: Feb. 22 at 6 p.m. and March 1 from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. Both will be at the Ecker Hill Middle School auditorium.
