Responsible Growth Coalition HomepageResponsible Growth Coalition

Encouraging transportation solutions consistent with safety, environmental, and wildlife core values.

By

Paid Parking for Teton Pass?

A study on paid parking for Teton Pass sheds an interesting light on a more innovative way to manage traffic. Would you be willing to pay $10 per vehicle per day, or $60 for the season to park and ski on the pass? Or would you rather take a shuttle from Stilson or Victor?

The study suggested at a ride on the shuttle costing $5, or $25 for a season pass. At that rate, running a shuttle seven days a week in the winter from Stilson to Victor, without a paid parking system, would cost the operator some $380,000. But study authors estimate that, with a paid parking system, a subsidy of only $48,500 a year would be needed to make the shuttle system “financially self-sustaining.”

At lower levels of service, running a shuttle system in conjunction with a paid parking system would allow the whole operation to run in the green. For example, when combined with a paid parking system, running a winter shuttle seven days a week from Stilson to Coal Creek, rather than Stilson to Victor, would generate a $20,800 annual profit.

RGC is in favor of this idea and we are curious to hear your thoughts. Please email us at responsiblegrowthjh@gmail.com

https://www.jhnewsandguide.com/news/environmental/local/study-mulls-paid-parking-passes-for-teton-pass/article_1592f70a-6493-11ee-abdb-47cdad9f5375.html

By

Gag order and blank check on Tribal Trails must be rescinded

By a 4-1 vote (with Luther Propst opposed), the Teton County Board of County Commissioners has abdicated its responsibility to our community by giving responsibility for planning the proposed Tribal Trails Connector to the state and federal government.

By the terms of a contract with the Wyoming Department of Transportation the board approved on March 21, “Teton County will give up sole decision-making authority on the project and will serve instead in an advisory capacity to WYDOT and FHWA through staff of Teton County Public Works.”

The decision on whether to build this county road will no longer be made by Teton County.

The last time a major highway project was proposed, the South Highway 89 expansion from South Park to Hoback Junction, our county staff and commissioners engaged. The Republicans and Democrats on the commission unanimously put forward a professionally drawn alternative for three lanes with turn lanes, rather than the five lanes we now have. Their alternative was less expensive, a narrower barrier for wildlife and less intrusive on the southern entrance to this special valley.

WYDOT refused to even consider the county alternative in its project evaluations. Today’s commissioners know that the state of Wyoming and WYDOT often do not consider local impacts. For example, they have failed to protect us from illegal and dangerous trucks on state Highway 22 over Teton Pass. It is just a matter of time before someone is killed.

The connector would require condemning private property — almost certainly requiring lawsuits. It is particularly difficult to condemn land where there is a conservation easement, which would be required.

According to the contract, the county must take on condemnation proceedings on private land as dictated by WYDOT’s decisions. According to this contract, the county must also commit to WYDOT’s preferred alternative and build the new highway or reimburse it at federal rates and overhead for all planning expenses.

At a minimum, land condemnation issues need to be resolved before writing WYDOT a blank check for planning costs.

Of great concern is the contract’s Section 7.S: “Any publicity given to the project or services provided herein including but not limited to notices, information, pamphlets, press releases, research reports, signs and similar public notices in whatever form, prepared by or for the county, shall identify WYDOT as the sponsoring agency and shall not be released without prior written approval from WYDOT.”

The commissioners have given up their ability to communicate on this project with their constituents, the people who elected them, unless they get WYDOT’s written permission. Essentially, the board has agreed to a gag order.

This contract is a terrible precedent for the decisions now being considered for expanding Highway 22. Will the county give up decision-making on this project as well? When Highway 22 expansion came up 20 years ago, county residents said no to WYDOT’s plan. We know improvements are needed, but why surrender decision-making to the state this early in the process?

This contract also makes it harder for the county to advocate for context sensitive solutions, such as design speed, traffic calming measures, vegetative strips or boulevards, in line with the community character provisions in our comprehensive plan.

Whether or not you think the Tribal Trail Connector is a good idea, turning over this much power to WYDOT at this time makes no sense. The county needs a fair local process for making this decision. The Board of County Commissioners needs to revisit this one-sided, potentially costly contract and rescind its approval.

By

Gondola Could Relieve Traffic in Utah Ski Town

The Utah Department of Transportation is backing a gondola to solve Little Cottonwood Canyon’s transportation and congestion problems.

Wouldn’t it also be a good idea for Teton County to think out of the box? A gondola from Jackson Hole Airport to Teton Village could be more than just a pipe dream – it would be a vital transportation link while also providing a more enjoyable experience for Jackson Hole’s visitors.

https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/udot-backs-gondola-option-for-little-cottonwood-canyon

By

The Paradox of Tribal Trail Build Options

A letter to Teton County Commissioners from Responsible Growth Coalition, Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, Protect our Waters JH and Indian Springs Ranch HOA.

August 16, 2022

Dear Madam Chair Macker and Commissioners,

We are writing to object to the stated meeting purpose for tomorrow’s TTC Stakeholder Meeting, and ask that you broaden it. The agenda states:


Stakeholder Meeting #12 Purpose:

To review the results of the public meeting and identify a Stakeholder-preferred build alternative for recommendation to the project team. Per County Commission direction, County staff has said that it is tasked with providing a recommendation for a preferred build alternative for a proposed Tribal Trail connector. Once identified and presented to the Commission, the Staff says the Board is to vote on whether to proceed with the project.

The last Stakeholder Committee was told the same thing, and despite that, 7 out of 10 members of the committee voted for an alternative plan that provided solutions for emergency redundancy and other project objectives without putting thousands of vehicles through this sensitive meadow every day and increasing traffic on an already congested Highway 22. Several members of the committee were subsequently replaced in a fashion seen as biased by this group and many residents.

Why would the BCC direct the planners to choose a preferred build alternative rather than determine whether the road is feasible, what benefits it might provide, what it could cost, what the risks would be to the environment, and what alternatives exist? To insist that a choice is made is tantamount to asking if someone would prefer to drive or run off of a cliff. The committee has been tasked with making a choice when perhaps none are the right choice.

We were unable to find notes from BCC meetings directing the planners to choose a preferred build alternative. In fact, to our knowledge, The Board of County Commissioners actually did not give direction to the planners in over two years on this project. In that time:

  1. The extent and value of the wetlands was identified by BIOTA, whose analysis included a 2,000 year old fen that supports the surrounding wetlands, absorbs carbon emissions, and purifies waters that flow all the way down into the Snake, our single source aquifer.
  2. The Army Corps ruled that these wetlands are under federal jurisdiction, so their stringent process for securing a section 404 permit, including approval procedures, public comment (and dissent), wetlands mitigation, alternative consideration analyses, etc. will have to be followed if the commissioners vote for continuance.
  3. WYDOT has moved up their planning process for the WY22 corridor, so this potential project could and should be considered in the context of any plans that may include a road extension that would connect WYO 22 with South Park Loop Road.
  4. The Jackson Hole Land Trust has publicly stated that they do not want their easements picked at ‘piecemeal,’ but rather prefer to see a holistic plan for the corridor.
  5. Indian Springs Ranch HOA and the Land Trust have publicly said they are not in favor of modifying the easement, which leaves one route (the existing right of way) as the only option that doesn’t call for lawsuits and condemnation of wetlands under federal jurisdiction and conservation easement.
  6. That route on the right of way would require a new intersection, which undoubtedly would make HWY 22 worse even beyond the more than 6% volume increase that would be created by induced demand, per the County models.
  7. Traffic figures have not been updated since the BCC last weighed in on this project over 2 years ago, despite continued requests from the public to see updated models. Questions about traffic model assumptions such as how much pass through traffic would be anticipated go unanswered.
  8. The budget, to our knowledge, has not been updated in over 2 years. What was estimated to be a $7 million project could cost $15 million or more now.
  9. The recent survey of Teton County residents no resulted in 2/3 of the voters being against the road and 1/3 in favor. The No Build Option had approximately five times the support of any other option.
    We ask that ‘No-Build’ and/or ‘delay/incorporate into the WYDOT NEPA process for the corridor’ be considered as options, particularly given that the No-Build Option is the opinion of 2 /3 of residents who have submitted official public comment.

    Thank you,
    Responsible Growth Coalition
    Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance
    Protect our Waters JH
    Indian Springs Ranch HOA

By

RGC Comments to 4/27/22 Open House

RGC’s Review of the County’s Tribal Trail Connector Open House 4/27/22

The Tribal Trail Connector (TTC) project continues apace, without regard to any of the material issues and problems with this project:

  1. The latest public presentation, held in the form of exhibits displayed at an open house on April 27, reflects a glaring lack of data and rigorous analysis, which is appalling, given the stakes, and basically disregarded the “No Build” option.
  2. County Staff do not know the total cost of the TTC, nor have offered any evidence of tangible benefits to justify its cost.
  3. The financial cost is likely to be at least $15-20mm, EXCLUDING the cost of eventual condemnation and lawsuits, which could easily double or triple this number.
  4. In the meantime Staff have allocated a further $850,000 to the TTC in the upcoming budget.

Staff have steadfastly ignored these important issues, either because they are being directed to by the four commissioners who want this road regardless of the consequences, or they are simply not competent enough to deal with them.

There are several other alternative measures to alleviate our summer traffic congestion, which would be much more effective and less expensive than the TTC. Why the County isn’t pursuing these opportunities is a mystery.

More important, we encourage you to stop thinking the TTC may be inevitable. If you oppose it, please get involved. Responsible Growth Coalition and JH Conservation Alliance are fully engaged in challenging this folly of a project and ask you to join us. There is still time and opportunity to defeat the TTC.

So please act now, and submit your own comments. Vote “No Build,” the only sensible option. Thank you.

——————————————————————————————————————–

The following are the issues identified, and open questions raised by the content of the exhibits displayed at the Open House:

  1. The TTC’s right of way grant is subject to a wetlands study. A document entitled “Memo for TC/WYDOT hydrology analysis” provided by Jacobs Engineering has been sharply criticized and called into question in a review by Clearwater Geosciences.
  2. Staff have disregarded the “No Build” option in their evaluation of the alternatives.
  3. Shifting the TTC roadway west takes it outside the boundary of the easement, therefore not an option.
  4. The wetlands analysis cited has been discredited in a review by Clearwater Geosciences. The conclusion set forth here is false.
  5. The redundancy argument put forth by Staff contains no definition of a “catastrophic occurrence,” nor if/when if there ever has been one in our community. No indication of how does the TTC reduce the likelihood of such an event, nor how much shorter transit times as defined here would be. There is no data or analysis to support this claim. There is no description of how emergency vehicles, most of which are in the town of Jackson, benefit from using the TTC and under what circumstances.
  6. The Y: why isn’t further increasing its capacity considered? That would be much less expensive than building the TTC, which in fact would not reduce congestion at all. The Y’s capacity was increased by WYDOT’s upgrade in 2017, eliminating it as the top bottleneck. As a result, the Spring Gulch and Moose-Wilson Rd junctions have emerged as bottlenecks. Those need to be addressed more urgently than the Y does.
  7. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) for trips from points west to the school district would indeed be lower, but Vehicle Time Traveled (VTT) would not, due to induced demand. Even without induced demand, a trip from Teton Village to the schools would only be reduced by a minute or two (5-10%), not worth the TTC’s expense and environmental impact. How does the County justify conferring a minor, if any, benefit to a group of commuters at the expense of all valley residents, especially those in affected neighborhoods? Also, “5% reduction in trips through the Y in 2045” is highly unreliable, and even if it weren’t, certainly not worth the TTC’s cost.
  8. Congestion at the Y continues to be disingenuously used as justification for the Y – because it was relieved when the Y upgraded in 2017.
  9. Redundancy already exists: emergency vehicles (EVs) can travel through ISR or on the bike path, although this is unlikely to be used much since most EVs are in the town of Jackson.
  10. Much is made of the USA Today survey from 2019, which is largely irrelevant. The scope of the survey appears to be limited to the town of Jackson. What would be the impact of being in 1347th place in terms that matter? How much better ranked would Jackson be with the TTC? Isn’t the ranking based on number of ways to exit the area? If so, how does the TTC have any impact on that? (It doesn’t). This point is a perfect reflection of how dependent Staff is on unsupported opinions and assertions. Citing this survey is absurd, and highlights Staff’s lack of professionalism.
  11. Other than bypassing the Y, what else is there? What is the benefit to START to have its buses bypass the Y? How much time and money is saved? Staff haven’t provided anything that would answer these reasonable questions.
  12. Evaluation of the proposed alternatives: the level 1 and 2 screening exercises are shoddy and of no value. Ranking the alternatives was based on hired consultants’ opinion of the potential benefit of the TTC against different criteria/objectives. This approach says nothing about how much actual, tangible benefit any alternative would deliver. For all we know, none does, and the rankings simply indicate the least worst.
  13. Feasibility of the alternatives: three of the four alternatives would cross easements held by ISR, TSS, and JHLT. We understand ISR and JHLT will not grant the County such access, and have advised them accordingly. That leaves the alternative which would join WY22 at the end of the bike path. WYDOT would not accept an additional intersection so close to Coyote Canyon unless the north entrance of ISR is closed, which could trigger an expensive lawsuit. Bottom line: only the “No Build” is feasible.