Last night I was able to attend a community meeting with a representative from the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), Randy Jefferies. He has been involved with the planning of the West Davis Corridor (WDC) from it’s onset in 2010. As many might not have been able to attend, I wanted to do a write up of some of the information that was given and the questions that were asked.


Mr. Jefferies began by giving some basic background.

  • WDC will be a 4 lane highway (as apposed to a 6 lane freeway) with a land area dividing the two directions of traffic as does Legacy Parkway.
  • Quiet pavement will be used in construction.
  • There will be NO speed reduction like Legacy Highway.
  • There will be NO truck restrictions. However, due to the terminating route of the WDC (as apposed to connecting to another major freeway system), only local delivery truck traffic is expected.
    • For comparison, I-15 has about 20% large truck traffic. WDC is projected to have <5%
  • Lighting along the corridor will be dark sky lighting so as to not cause light pollution to local neighborhoods.


With this information, the discussion was then moved into a Q&A.


Why has the WDC been routed along the eastern side of the power lines vs. being moved west?

  • In 1970 the Clean Water Act was put into effect on a national level. Some of it’s purposes are to;
    • Protect shorelines and habitats
    • Store H2O for emergency water storage and to help prevent flooding
    • Mitigate potential impacts
  • The Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) has been tasked with upholding the Clean Water Act. In regards to WDC, when 20 homes were in the non-wetlands path of the corridor, ACE granted use of 6 acres of wetlands to be used in order to mitigate this need.
  • The area west of the power lines is protected wetlands area. In order to move WDC west, we would have to be able to make a case to ACE for why this would be needed.



The Central Davis Sewer District (CDSD) has indicated that in order to maintain current practices for waste disposal, they require large tracts of land for waste burial. The WDC will greatly impact their land use thus necessitating the purchase of expensive equipment to alternatively dispose of the waste. The cost of this machinery could be passed on to the residents within the sewer district. Additionally, the total cost of the impact is being estimated by the CDSD to be around $150,000,000. What is being done to resolve this issue?

  • This issue is a relatively new concern and solutions are still being worked out. UDOT does not believe that the $150MM impact is the only viable option and is working to see if there are other solutions. Options that are being looked at (from least severe to most) include (but are not limited to);
    • UDOT deeding unused acreage to CDSD in a different location to compensate for the acreage that is being lost. (A local concern that will still need to be addressed is whether new land use can be included into a grandfathered in method of treatment. New standards have been set but since this facility has been in operation since 1960, the methods that are used are not subject to current standards.)
    • Trucking waste to other disposal facilities
    • Working with ACE to determine if the impact is great enough to move WDC into the wetlands in order to mitigate CDSD land use loss.


What is the history of UDOTS interactions with CDSD? Why is this issue just now coming to light? Is there a guarantee that the cost to CDSD will not be passed on to resident?

  • UDOT  met with CDSD two times throughout the course of development process, prior to the Final Environmental Impact Study (EIS) being released.
    • Notes indicate that during the first meeting in 2011, CDSD requested that the corridor lie on the west side of the sewer plant for easier access. Existing trunk lines flow in from the west side.
    • When the Draft EIS was released in 2013, CDSD sent comment indicating that the land use would be impacted but no further follow up occurred.
  • There is a $610,000,000 budget for the entire WDC project. Mr. Jefferies indicated that UDOT will work with the district and within their budget to mitigate the impact to the sewer district and in-turn, the residents that utilize the sewer district.




Why are there no sound barriers planned between the west Kaysville neighborhoods and WDC?



  • In the original draft EIS in 2013, there were no sound barriers along any section of the corridor.
  • When evaluating, UDOT decided it needed to re-evaluate and loosen it’s noise abatement policy.
    • The new standard for a sound abatement:
      • New road must change the noise level measurement by an increase of at least 10 decibels
      • Sound barrier must decrease noise level impact by at least 5 decibels.
    • When measuring in Kaysville, the average sound level is currently at 49. Using a federal model for projecting sound impact, WDC is projected to increase that level to 56-59
      • There are two places in Kaysville that meet the 10 decibel increase but did not meet the criteria of a sound barrier decreasing this impact by 5 decibels.
      • No where else along the west end of Kaysville met both of the criteria for a sound barrier.
  • There are 3 locations throughout the corridor (one in W. Farmington and two in Syracuse) that qualify for a sound barrier.


Is the sound abatement qualifications set through state law or UDOT policy?

  • State law simply states that UDOT must have a policy.
  • This follows the standard set by federal law.


When homes were built around 2010, the Kaysville city master plan indicated that the corridor would run west of the power lines. Now, we are finding that they will be on the east side? Why the change?

  • In the original planning study in 2001, there was no budget for wetland studies.
  • $14,000,0000 was spent on the final EIS including wetland studies.  The current route was set according to these findings.
  • Kaysville updated it’s master plan in 2016 to match these updated findings.


Antelope Drive is already very congested. Why is the corridor named in a way that suggests the highway will terminate at Antelope?

  • The full plan is to extend the highway to SR193. Although the name indicates a termination at Antelope Drive, the intention is to continue on to create a more feasible end.
  • The project has to come in within the $610MM budget that has been set. The road will continue on as long as there is budget to complete this stretch of road.




When the Final EIS was released this summer it indicated an interchange being placed around Shepard Lane. Why was this included?





  • Farmington requested this interchange so that as Famington Station expands and hires 10,000 new employees, these new hires will have easier access to work from the northern region of Davis County.
  • There is an easement that has been retained in Farmington that could be built in order to accommodate traffic coming off of the interchange. However, as the interchange would be within Kaysville city limits, streets would have to be built to connect the off ramp to the Farmington easement.
  • **Added note of my own thought that came after the meeting**; While the interchange is put into place to benefit Farmington, it does provide Kaysville with an additional opportunity for business development .


What are the traffic implications to west Kaysville neighborhoods for the new interchange?

  • Shepard Lane will have a new bridge built over I-15 in the coming years. At the same time, an on and off ramp to I-15 will be added. This project is expected to be completed around the same time WDC is completed. Because of this, traffic impact on neighborhoods should be minimal.
    • Those going south will have the quickest path taking Shepard all the way to the I-15 on ramp.
      • Shepard Lane will be widened to four lanes around the bridge to accommodate for added traffic
    • Those going north will, in large, flow to the 200 N. entrance.


Will the Shepard Lane interchange have access for the residents of southwest Kaysville?

  • This will be left up to the city. The city is discussing the possibility of connectors or access roads.
  • Any access will come at a cost to the citizens. There are grants available on a state level that might help generate the funds to help build these access points.


Why do we have an interchange at Shepard but no plan for a connection at Glover Lane for the new High School?

  • Farmington’s transportation plan shows a future exit off of WDC in south Farmington.  How quickly this is utilized and built up will be left up to Farmington.
  • For now, the quickest access for west Kaysville access to the new Farmington High School will be to take Shepard to the new I-15 on-ramp, exit at Park and take surface streets to the school.


Does UDOT assess impact by evaluating property value loss to homeowners near the corridor?

  • UDOT does not look at property values as a variable in assessing impact. Some homes increase in value due to access while others decrease in value. Determining which homes will have what effect is beyond the scope of that is assessed.


As the corridor will be next to many backyards, what safety measures are being taken?

  • Federal safety requirements are being met throughout the corridor.
  • Studies have found that the current design is the safest.  UDOT places barriers only where full safety measures cannot be met.




Why has the trail system been planned for the west side of the corridor?





  • Cities decided which side of the corridor would hold the active transportation paths.
  • Kaysville requested to have the path on the west with access to the west side from Angel Street.


A few final points from the meeting that are important:

  • Construction will begin in 2020 with a projected finish in 2022.
  • The process is not a democratic process. ACE considers technology, logistics and cost.
  • UDOT will continue meeting with the cities regularly through this process.
  • Citizens focus groups will be created in each city to aid with the design process. More information about this will be forthcoming.


I would just like to end by saying thank you to Randy Jefferies for coming out. Over the last few months I have been a critic of UDOT’s willingness to take feedback from cities. While I do think that the above point of this being more of a logic based process than a democratic one holds, I appreciated Mr. Jefferies willingness to come out and meet with the residents in an attempt to help bring understanding to the situation. If you have further questions, I would recommend reaching out to our local city council members for answers as well as contacting UDOT with concerns.