County staff outline three alternatives, costs for Kimball Junction EIS as UDOT prepares public outreach

Carl Miller, Summit County transportation staff, gave the council a status update on the Kimball Junction environmental impact statement, explaining the EIS screening process and how three alternatives were narrowed for further study.

Miller said the EIS follows a multi‑step screening process that begins with a broad “fatal flaw” analysis and narrows to level‑3 screening (traffic and mobility) and level‑4 screening (environmental impacts, relocations and cost). He told the council that UDOT’s preliminary cost figures put Alternative A — a split‑diamond interchange that routes significant local traffic onto Landmark Drive — at about $90,000,000; Alternative B — a grade‑separated fly‑under that separates regional through traffic from local frontage roads — at about $162,000,000; and Alternative C — a simpler widening and intersection‑improvement option — at about $35,000,000.

Miller described tradeoffs among the designs: Alternative B provided the best travel speeds in modelled forecasts (up to roughly 33–37 mph for through movements) but required a wider footprint, additional right‑of‑way and building relocations that raised environmental and cost scores. Alternative A would route more local traffic onto Landmark Drive and add a pedestrian undercrossing; Alternative C was the lowest‑cost option with improvements to throughput but required pedestrians to use a southern tunnel and could reduce east‑west at‑grade crossings.

Council members pressed staff on pedestrian safety, the footprint and right‑of‑way impacts on Landmark Drive, and why UDOT had concluded a cover or “lid” over 224 was no longer feasible. Miller said UDOT’s most recent turn‑movement and lane‑geometry work had widened the required corridor and that relocations and additional turn lanes were driving much of B’s cost increase. He offered to share the level‑3 and level‑4 screening documentation and the newly issued maps with the council by email.

Miller said the public comment period will begin Feb. 12 and run into mid‑March, and that UDOT will make a public presentation to the council on Feb. 14. He urged the council to review the technical materials in advance so its Feb. 14 discussion could focus on policy objectives (for example, whether traffic speed, pedestrian connectivity or minimizing property acquisition should be prioritized).

Why this matters: the design chosen through the EIS will shape whether Kimball Junction remains a high‑speed, through‑traffic corridor or becomes a more locally integrated neighborhood with altered traffic patterns, pedestrian connections and potentially substantial right‑of‑way purchases.

What’s next: UDOT’s public presentation to the council is scheduled for Feb. 14; the county staff and UDOT will accept public comments during a mid‑February comment period, a draft EIS is expected by summer 2024, and a final EIS is scheduled by the end of 2024.

Representative quote: “There’s a public comment period beginning Feb. 12; that period is to refine the alternatives, not to vote on which alternative is best,” Carl Miller said, explaining the role of public feedback in refining — not selecting — alternatives.

The council did not take formal action on the alternatives at the meeting; staff agreed to provide the level‑3 and level‑4 screening materials and maps to council members in advance of the Feb. 14 presentation.