Bond 5: 560 West
The purpose of Bond 5 is to extend 560 West southward over the railroad tracks, opening it to Pacific Drive. This would have the effect of relieving peak-hour back-ups at 400 West and dividing an estimated 3,000 daily road trips traffic along two minor collectors.
The neighborhoods surrounding Hindley Park have been clamoring for this for more than a decade. My first encounter was in November 2002, the night I was appointed as chair of Neighbors in Action. A well-organized group presented its plea to the City Council that same night, saying things had gone on long enough and it was time for the City to act.
When I took office in 2006, one outspoken neighbor took me by the shoulders and said, "If you don't do anything else during your term, see that 560 West goes over the railroad tracks!"
But this is not to suggest consensus throughout the neighborhood. I can name several residents who vehemently oppose opening the road. The mixed messages we continually receive from the neighborhood are one reason the mayor recommended this item for the ballot. The other reason, of course, is the need for additional funding.
Here is my understanding of the issues.
560 West is designated a minor collector. As such, it already has the sidewalks necessary for pedestrian safety and the width necessary to accommodate the vehicle trips it would siphon off of 400 West. Those trips, as stated above, are estimated to number about 3,000 each day. Half of that number, or 1500, is what we might reasonably expect to see at 560 West if it were open today. This is about the same number of daily vehicle trips we see along 900 East, which runs in front of Barratt Elementary.
2030 projections show that number at 6,000. This is the large number I attempted, unsuccessfully, to pull out of the air at September's hearing on the subject. (I have had occasional delusions of adequacy in this position, but none of them came that evening.)
Barratt Elementary brings up a useful comparison. Where 900 East has Barratt Elementary, 560 West has Hindley Park. Both attract large numbers of children. Both have ball fields. Both are situated along uninterrupted stretches of roadway -- a prime condition for a local speedway.
Where Barratt Elementary mitigates these conditions with ball field fencing and speed bumps (at least, we may hope the Barratt neighbors will be successful with their petition for speed bumps), Hindley Park will need the same.
However, neither mitigation is included in this bond.
The $5.03 million of this bond will pay for the cost of crossing the railroad tracks and for the cost of closing two other railroad crossings. This is in accordance with UTA policy, which governs these tracks and aims to make driving conditions safer in the towns it affects.
Information recently mailed to residents states that "the City has studied various railroad crossings that could be closed, but negotiations have not been completed for any specific crossings. "
This statement is true on its face; however, there is better information available.
After the neighbors spoke out in 2002, the late Council Member Jimmie Cates was able to negotiate two crossings for closure. While it is true that negotiations were not finalized -- the City lacked the millions necessary to continue -- it is also true that we can expect UTA to honor the same closings today.
The first of these has already been closed; this is at 50 South and Elm Street. The second involves reworking Pacific Drive between 100 West and 200 West so as to eliminate the crossing at the S-curve. Devilishly clever, the rework would convert Pacific Drive into two one-way streets for the length of this block, with the tracks running between. Existing crossings at 100 West and 200 West would be retained, but the S-curve would be eliminated.
Cost of this re-work plus the crossing at 560 West: $5.03 million.
So pros and cons fall into place on both sides of this issue. The 560 West crossing has long been shown in the general plan. But the bond has no mitigations to protect Hindley Park. The expense involved in the crossings and closures may be out of proportion to the benefit. It might be cheaper and more practical to widen 400 West, but this option has not been studied.
Given the public clamor both for and against, it makes sense to take the issue to the voters. However, a City-wide ballot is not the most efficient way to frame the question. A City-wide ballot is destined for defeat, as it must include votes cast in the eastern half of the City, whose residents seldom access this neighborhood and have never experienced the near-impossibility of turning left onto Pacific Drive from 400 West.
On the upside, the City will be able to analyze results by precinct, and this analysis ought to provide a clear direction from the local neighborhoods as to whether the City should pursue the crossing again, in later years, or whether it should remove it from the general plan.
===============
If passed, Bond 5 will raise $5.03 million for the railroad crossing at 560 West, with associated costs. It would be repaid through a corresponding increase in property taxes. The increase to a $240,000 home would be approximately $43 per year. The increase to a $240,000 business would be approximately $79 per year.
Disclaimer: Articles posted at my blog are personal opinion. In posting this series on the bonds, I do not claim to speak for the City or the City Council. This blog does not represent any official position of American Fork City, and no City resources have ever been used to finance this blog.
The neighborhoods surrounding Hindley Park have been clamoring for this for more than a decade. My first encounter was in November 2002, the night I was appointed as chair of Neighbors in Action. A well-organized group presented its plea to the City Council that same night, saying things had gone on long enough and it was time for the City to act.
When I took office in 2006, one outspoken neighbor took me by the shoulders and said, "If you don't do anything else during your term, see that 560 West goes over the railroad tracks!"
But this is not to suggest consensus throughout the neighborhood. I can name several residents who vehemently oppose opening the road. The mixed messages we continually receive from the neighborhood are one reason the mayor recommended this item for the ballot. The other reason, of course, is the need for additional funding.
Here is my understanding of the issues.
560 West is designated a minor collector. As such, it already has the sidewalks necessary for pedestrian safety and the width necessary to accommodate the vehicle trips it would siphon off of 400 West. Those trips, as stated above, are estimated to number about 3,000 each day. Half of that number, or 1500, is what we might reasonably expect to see at 560 West if it were open today. This is about the same number of daily vehicle trips we see along 900 East, which runs in front of Barratt Elementary.
2030 projections show that number at 6,000. This is the large number I attempted, unsuccessfully, to pull out of the air at September's hearing on the subject. (I have had occasional delusions of adequacy in this position, but none of them came that evening.)
Barratt Elementary brings up a useful comparison. Where 900 East has Barratt Elementary, 560 West has Hindley Park. Both attract large numbers of children. Both have ball fields. Both are situated along uninterrupted stretches of roadway -- a prime condition for a local speedway.
Where Barratt Elementary mitigates these conditions with ball field fencing and speed bumps (at least, we may hope the Barratt neighbors will be successful with their petition for speed bumps), Hindley Park will need the same.
However, neither mitigation is included in this bond.
The $5.03 million of this bond will pay for the cost of crossing the railroad tracks and for the cost of closing two other railroad crossings. This is in accordance with UTA policy, which governs these tracks and aims to make driving conditions safer in the towns it affects.
Information recently mailed to residents states that "the City has studied various railroad crossings that could be closed, but negotiations have not been completed for any specific crossings. "
This statement is true on its face; however, there is better information available.
After the neighbors spoke out in 2002, the late Council Member Jimmie Cates was able to negotiate two crossings for closure. While it is true that negotiations were not finalized -- the City lacked the millions necessary to continue -- it is also true that we can expect UTA to honor the same closings today.
The first of these has already been closed; this is at 50 South and Elm Street. The second involves reworking Pacific Drive between 100 West and 200 West so as to eliminate the crossing at the S-curve. Devilishly clever, the rework would convert Pacific Drive into two one-way streets for the length of this block, with the tracks running between. Existing crossings at 100 West and 200 West would be retained, but the S-curve would be eliminated.
Cost of this re-work plus the crossing at 560 West: $5.03 million.
So pros and cons fall into place on both sides of this issue. The 560 West crossing has long been shown in the general plan. But the bond has no mitigations to protect Hindley Park. The expense involved in the crossings and closures may be out of proportion to the benefit. It might be cheaper and more practical to widen 400 West, but this option has not been studied.
Given the public clamor both for and against, it makes sense to take the issue to the voters. However, a City-wide ballot is not the most efficient way to frame the question. A City-wide ballot is destined for defeat, as it must include votes cast in the eastern half of the City, whose residents seldom access this neighborhood and have never experienced the near-impossibility of turning left onto Pacific Drive from 400 West.
On the upside, the City will be able to analyze results by precinct, and this analysis ought to provide a clear direction from the local neighborhoods as to whether the City should pursue the crossing again, in later years, or whether it should remove it from the general plan.
===============
If passed, Bond 5 will raise $5.03 million for the railroad crossing at 560 West, with associated costs. It would be repaid through a corresponding increase in property taxes. The increase to a $240,000 home would be approximately $43 per year. The increase to a $240,000 business would be approximately $79 per year.
Disclaimer: Articles posted at my blog are personal opinion. In posting this series on the bonds, I do not claim to speak for the City or the City Council. This blog does not represent any official position of American Fork City, and no City resources have ever been used to finance this blog.
posted by Heidi Rodeback at 10:30 PM
2 Comments:
I'm curious, why is bond 5, regarding 560 West, a separate bond, while bond 1 combines plans for different streets in different areas of the city, into one vote?
There's not a strong reason or stragegy behind this, but I can comment from two perspectives.
First, chronologically: In discussions, the first four bonds had already been formulated when a resident came to the City Council during a public comment period to ask when the City was ever going to do something about 560 West? In response to that query, Mayor Thompson decided to add the crossing to the ballot as Bond 5.
Second, logically: The three roads on Bond 1 are not in question. They are part of the transportation element of the general plan, and this bond won't change that; it will only determine whether the City finances them at this time or at a later date.
With 560 West, however, the question is different. If the voters reject this bond, the Council will likely drop the matter.
Post a Comment
<< Home