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 1347^th 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.