Question: Cumulatively, what needs to be considered in study area 4

Considerations:
• Effect on Swans
o Noise study if off alignment is selected
• Wetland issues when widening on alignment – west alignment may be the LEDPA
• Possible that the project will need to use the sensitive species approach with lake and
Swans
• Swans cross to the east to get to the river with their offspring
o Swan crossing - raise the road.
• How does the alternative add to road number density? If it increases above the forest
plan study, there is a process to amend the plan.
o One road, no matter how wide, is preferred
• Swan crossing - raise the road.
• High use area.
• Safety at the top of Federal Hill
• Address campground access
• Suggested to move interchange south to Little Bute - would be a forest service road.

Study Area 5
SA5-A1

High-level Overview of Initial Screening Committee Responses:

Alternative Overview: On alignment through Harriman Park. On alignment two lanes in each
direction

Discussion:
• Note the parking for the bridge
• Research the ROW in Harriman park
• Considerations for additional or enhanced parking
• Tunnel for Snowmobile crossing peds and animals

Results of discussion: This alternative advances on alignment

Study Area 6
SA6-A1

High-level Overview of Initial Screening Committee Responses:

Alternative Overview: 2 lanes in each direction on alignment, drawn up as a divided highway

Discussion:
• Addresses capacity, safety, access management, and freight needs.

Results of discussion: This alternative will advance

SA6-C2 (Last Chance)

High-level Overview of Initial Screening Committee Responses:

Alternative Overview: Last Chance access via the frontage road

Seven lanes- 5 for US-20 and two frontage roads
US-20 Shift West across the river at last chance (M.P. 381-386)

Discussion:
• State access management (Expressway)
• Three access points
• Snow storage issues
• Keep frontage road behind businesses for snow storage reasons
• At grade crossings
• Stop sign-controlled
• Does not meet safety purpose and need

Results of discussion: This alternative does not advance

SA6-C2 Last Chance (the second area of C40 reviewed in this meeting)

High-level Overview of Initial Screening Committee Responses:

Alternative Overview:

Discussion:
• Has consideration for trails and crossings
• Addresses capacity, safety, access management, and freight needs
• Designers must be cautious where the access points are (overlapping into acceleration)
• Chance of wrong direction traffic
• Business access travel distance
• The frontage road may be too close to business and remove the need for a frontage
road

Results of discussion: This alternative will not advance

SA6-C5 Elk Creek

High-level Overview of Initial Screening Committee Responses: Screeners were split down the
middle on advancing this alternative

Alternative Overview: One lane with new Frontage Road East of US-20 at Elk Creek Road;
Restrict access from US-20 to businesses, Business access from the new frontage road

Discussion:
• Out of direction traffic
 • Does not provide intuitive access or safety benefits

Results of discussion: This alternative does not advance due to at grade access and intersection
complications

SA6-C17 Elk Creek

High-level Overview of Initial Screening Committee Responses: Screeners were split down the
middle on advancing this alternative

Alternative Overview: One lane in each direction. Frontage Road East of US-20 at Elk Creek
Road, with On/Off-Ramps and bike Pedestrian Tunnel

Discussion:
• Traffic analysis indicated that as shown the alternative would develop a level of service
of the roadway to LOS D or worse on the one-lane road

Results of discussion: This alternative does not advance due to Level of service D or worse
SA6-C21 Island Park

High-level Overview of Initial Screening Committee Responses: Screeners were split down the
middle on advancing this alternative

Alternative Overview: Realign Yale-Kilgore to line up with Phillip’s Loop road and add a traffic
signal at the intersection

Discussion:
• Intersection moves south
• At grade with a signal
• Satisfies immediate need however may not address long term needs
• It has 5 to 7 lanes
• It has the potential to address capacity, safety, access management, and freight needs.
Interim only

Results of discussion: These alternative advances. Need to collect traffic count on the side road
SA6-C29 Elk Creek

High-level Overview of Initial Screening Committee Responses: All screeners would like this
alternative to move forward

Alternative Overview: Interchange at Yale Kilgore Road

Discussion:
• West shift avoids wetlands
• Could be built in phases (from signalizing to interchange)
• Right of way is set up for future interchange
• Has the potential to address capacity, safety, access management, and freight needs
• Needs turning movement counts
• Better phasing options than SA6-C30

Results of discussion: These alternative advances- Interchange was shifted west to avoid
wetlands. It could be built in phases with two stop sign-controlled access/crossing points. Need
additional turning move count info.
SA6-C30 Elk Creek

High-level Overview of Initial Screening Committee Responses: Screeners were split down the
middle on advancing this alternative

Alternative Overview: Interchange South of Yale Kilgore Road

Discussion:
• Wetland considerations
• Similar SA6-C29
• Has the potential to address capacity, safety, access management, and freight needs

Results of discussion: These alternative advances - Moves interchange further to the south.
Potentially easier to phase.
SA6-C12 Mack’s Inn

High-level Overview of Initial Screening Committee Responses: Teams screening response was
not decisive either way.

Alternative Overview: Complex design. Interchange at M.P. 392.6; raise US-20 Bridge over the
River; Access both sides under the bridge on North and South of the River under the raised
bridge. Add Recreation bridge on the East and Frontage Road Bridge on the West

Discussion:
• Constructible .27 miles long structure?
• Height may cause a noise impact
• Meets safety and mobility

Results of discussion: Move forwards for more evaluation - Needs to be looked at for
innovation to meet goals. Needs a constructability review for MOT and other vital
considerations.
SA6-C13

High-level Overview of Initial Screening Committee Responses:

Alternative Overview: Interchange at M.P. 389.4; Reroute US-20 East of Existing US-20

Discussion:

Results of discussion: This alternative will not advance as a standalone alternative.

SA6-C14 Mack’s Inn

High-level Overview of Initial Screening Committee Responses:

Alternative Overview: Alignment shifts to the West. Reroute US-20 East of Existing Alignment
with Overpass at Big Springs Road

Discussion:
• Interchange moves south
• Adjust the public meeting

Results of discussion: This alternative advances with the interchange moving to the south

SA6-C22 Mack’s Inn

High-level Overview of Initial Screening Committee Responses:

Alternative Overview: Traffic Signal at S. Big Springs Loop Road M.P. 392.6

Discussion:

Results of discussion: This alternative does not move forward

SA6-C28 Mack’s Inn

High-level Overview of Initial Screening Committee Responses:

Alternative Overview: Traffic signal at Sawtell Peak Road (M.P. 394.3)

Discussion:

Results of discussion: This alternative does not move forward

SA6-C25 Island Park Village

High-level Overview of Initial Screening Committee Responses:

Alternative Overview: Interchange north and south of Island Park, Overpass at M.P. 394.6

Discussion:
• Are both south and north interchanges needed?
• Combine grade-separated interchanges
• Southside good location
• Move the north interchange out of wetlands
• Frontage roads
• Old highways have ROW but need rehab
• Rest area needed in the red rock area (At Red Rock Road)
• Has the potential to address capacity, safety, access management, allows for future rest
area
Results of discussion: This alternative advances with modifications to move out of the wetlands
up to the red rock area The design team will meet with Fremont County to discuss potential
changes to this design.

SA7-A1

High-level Overview of Initial Screening Committee Responses:

Alternative Overview: On alignment, two lanes in each direction; the existing road is in
between the proposed road

Discussion:
• Addresses capacity, safety, access management, and freight needs.

Results of discussion: This alternative will advance

Next steps:

• Make agreed-upon modifications.

• Put together reports and notes and present to public approx. May 10th

• See acknowledgments for contribution of info