cache county regional transportation plancachempo.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/...routes...

Regional Transportation

Cache County, Utah Regional Transportation Plan 2040

Mobility

Economic Vitality

Quality of Life

June 2015

CMPO Executive Council

Chair: Todd Beutler, CVTD Transit Manager Vice Chair: Lloyd Berentzen, North Logan Mayor Don Calderwood, Providence County Executive Craig Buttars, Cache County Mayor Shaun Dustin, Nibley Mayor Bryan Cox, Hyde Park Wayne Barlow, Utah Transportation Commissioner Holly Daines, Logan City Council Mayor Craig Petersen, Logan Mayor Thomas Bailey, Wellsville Mayor Darrell Simmons, Smithfield Mayor Stephanie Miller, Hyrum Mayor Mike Johnson, Millville Mayor James Brackner, River Heights

Cache Technical Advisory Committee

Jim Gass, Smithfield Bill Young, Logan Randy Parks, Transit Josh Runhaar, Cache County Scarlet Bankhead, Providence David Zook, Nibley Ron Salvesen, Hyrum Cordell Batt, North Logan Reed Elder, Hyde Park Don Hartle, Wellsville Elden Bingham, UDOT Dave Adamson, UDOT Steve Call, FHWA

Executive Director: James P. Gass

Staff: Jeff Gilbert, Transportation Planner

DRAFT

Cache Metropolitan Planning Organization

TABLE OF CONTENTS

chapter 1 – Overview & Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 5

2040 Background and regional information.............. 5

Cache Metropolitan Planning Organization .......... 5

Planning process .................................................... 5

Regional characteristics ......................................... 6

Transportation and Land Use ................................ 9

Development intensity .......................................... 9

Utah’s Unified Plan .................................................. 10

Chapter 2—Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................................................................ 11

Federal Requirements ............................................. 11

Envision Cache Valley- ............................................. 11

Quality Growth Principles ........................................ 11

2040 Regional Transportation Plan Goals & Objectives 12

CMPO 2040 RTP Goals ......................................... 12

Chapter 3--Performance Measures ..................................................................................................................................... 13

Utah Unified Plan Measure Selection Criteria..... 13

Summary of Five Utah Unified Plan Selected Joint Goals 13

Utah Unified Plan Performance Measures .......... 13

Chapter 4—Needs Analysis ................................................................................................................................................. 15

Roadway needs ........................................................ 15

Logan’s Main Street Corridor .............................. 16

Roadway Network: Existing System Performance17

Public Transit Needs ................................................ 17

service expansion ................................................ 20

Special Needs Public Transit ................................ 20

Transit and Land use ........................................... 21

Active Transportation Needs ................................... 21

Pedestrian Needs ................................................ 21

Bicycle Needs ....................................................... 22

Connecting Destinations ..................................... 22

Active Transportation Education ......................... 23

Freight transportation Needs .................................. 23

Truck Freight ........................................................ 23

Cache Rail Freight ................................................ 24

Cache Air Freight ................................................. 24

Transportation Safety Needs ................................... 24

Crash Data ........................................................... 24

Chapter 5-CMPO Transportation Vision Plans (2040 & Beyond) ........................................................................................ 27

2040 Transportation funding ................................... 27


2040 Statewide Funding Assumptions ................ 27

2040 Local Transportation Funding Assumptions 28

2040 Estimated hIGHWAY Funding For Cache County 28

Local Road Preservation Funding Challenges ...... 28

2040 Estimated Transit Funding For Cache County30

2040 Estimated Bicycle & pedestrian Funding For Cache County 30

Environmental Considerations ................................ 30

2040 CMPO Highway Vision Plan ............................ 31

Logan One Way Couplets .................................... 31

Systemic and Spot Safety Improvement Projects 32

Roadway “Buildout” Vision Plan (Beyond 2040) ..... 35

Transit Vision Plan ................................................... 37

Years 2021 to 2040 .............................................. 37

Beyond 2040 ........................................................ 37

Bicycle and Pedestrian Vision Plan .......................... 37

Trails, Pathways and Bike Routes ........................ 38

Additional 2040 Bike and Pedestrian Projects to Consider 38

Chapter 6-Implementation strategies ................................................................................................................................. 40

Plan Refinement & Update ...................................... 40

Implementation Studies ...................................... 40

Local Government Coordination ............................. 41

Land use Implementation ................................... 41

Project Implementation ...................................... 41

Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) ........... 42

Appendix 1-Air Quality Memorandum 2040RTP-1 ................................................................................................................ 1

A. Conformity Requirements .................................... 2

Conformity Process ............................................... 2

Conformity Requirements ..................................... 3

B. Transportation Modeling ...................................... 5

Cache County Utah Travel Demand MODEL (TDM)5

C. Emission Modeling................................................ 6

I/M Programs......................................................... 7

Vehicle Age Profile ................................................ 7

Vehicle Mix ............................................................ 7

Fuel Supply/Formulation ....................................... 7

Meteorological Conditions .................................... 7

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) ............................... 7

Speed Profile ......................................................... 8

D. Conformity Determination ................................... 8

Logan Utah/Idaho PM2.5 Non-attainment Area ..... 8


DRAFT Regional Transportation Plan 2040 5

CHAPTER 1 – OVERVIEW &

INTRODUCTION

2040 BACKGROUND AND REGIONAL

INFORMATION

The Cache Valley Area Regional Transportation Plan

(RTP) is the long-range transportation plan for the

Logan Urbanized Area and the Utah portion of the

greater Cache Valley area. The plan identifies specific

projects that will be needed to meet the transportation

demands of the region. At present, most travel in the

region is by automobile. However, other modes such as

public transit (buses), pedestrian, and bicycle

transportation are becoming increasingly important.

The RTP identifies future transportation investments

for all modes.

Not unlike many communities across the nation,

anticipated revenues are not sufficient to fund all the

needed transportation improvements in Cache County.

Therefore, this plan prioritizes projects for

implementation to respond to financial constraints.

CACHE METROPOLITAN PLANNING

ORGANIZATION

The Cache Metropolitan Planning Organization (CMPO)

works with Cache County and ten of the nineteen

incorporated cities in Cache County to oversee

transportation planning activities for the Logan

Urbanized Area (See Figure 1). Since transportation

needs and problems do not end at the CMPO planning

boundary, this plan includes all of Cache County.

However, communities outside the CMPO planning

area had less official involvement in the plan and are

included only by way of general recommendations.

However, for meeting the legal requirements of air

quality analysis as part of transportation conformity

required by the Federal Government, data for all of

Cache County and a portion of Franklin County Idaho

were used.

The oversight and planning/operational direction for

the CMPO is provided by its Executive Council. This

board is made up of elected officials from the 10

participating communities (in addition to the Cache

County Executive). UDOT and CVTD also have one

voting member on the board.

PLANNING PROCESS

This RTP attempts to build on and incorporate concepts

and recommendations from previous efforts. Federal

law requires the plan to be updated every four years.

However the plan can be amended at any time.

The CMPO utilized a simple approach to completing

this plan. This plan was developed in the following

steps:

1) REGIONAL VISIONING/GOALS AND OBJECTIVES-

A number of years ago the CMPO partnered with the

Figure 1: CMPO Planning Area

£¤89

¬«252

¬«30

¬«23

£¤89/91

¬«165

£¤91

¬«218

Logan

HyrumWellsville

Nibley

North Logan

Smithfield

Amalga

Hyde Park

Providence

Millville

Trenton

Mendon

Newton

River Heights

¯



Envision Utah organization to complete a nearly year-

long planning and public involvement effort. This effort

engaged citizens from all 25 cities and towns in the

greater Cache Valley area (including southern Idaho)

through the use of interactive comprehensive growth

alternative development workshops. Ultimately 53

alternative exploration maps were created by

workshop participants. This public input as well as

results from a wider public opinion survey eventually

led to the development of four alternative growth

scenarios. These scenarios included detailed land use

and transportation possible futures. The four scenarios

were then evaluated as to their relative impacts in

regard to various environmental, transportation and

social impacts as well as cost of public service delivery.

This information was again taken to the public in a

series of 14 town hall meetings or via an online survey.

This round of public input lead to the development of

the “Cache Valley Vision” preferred land use and

transportation scenario as well as a series of guiding

Cache Valley Quality Growth Principles. Ultimately, this

vision was endorsed by the Envision Cache Valley

Steering Committee and the Cache Valley Regional

Council.

2) NEEDS ASSESMENT- Using the specific

recommendations from the preferred alternative

identified by the Envision Cache Valley process, various

transportation projects and solutions were evaluated.

To aid in this effort a computer based Travel Demand

Model was used to analyze future travel demand and

attempt to identify when and where new travel

capacity might be most needed.

3) TRANSPORATION VISION PLAN- This phase of the

planning effort developed distinctive sets of

transportation improvement recommendations.

a) 2040 Roadway, Transit and Non-motorized Vision

Plans-The transportation system improvements

suggested as needed to provide levels of

transportation service at reasonable levels with

anticipated population growth in the year 2040.

This also identifies the portion of the 2040 Vision

Plans that we can afford to build given a reasonable

set of financial revenue assumptions.

b) Ultimate “Buildout” Roadway Vision Plan-

Suggested roadway network improvements are

needed to support the anticipated rough “buildout”

of the known land use plans even beyond the year

2040.

REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

The socioeconomic and land use characteristics of the

greater Cache County area provide insight into the

region’s transportation requirements. County level data

provided by the State of Utah Governor’s Office of

Planning and Budget (GOPB) was used for this plan.

POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLDS

In 2014 Cache County is estimated to have a population

of about 118,343 in about 37,000 households. Based on

GOPB projections, over the course of the planning

horizon of this document, in the year 2040 the

population is expected to increase to about 190,000 in

about 72,000 households.

EMPLOYMENT

In 2010 Cache County’s total employment is estimated

at just over 66,000. This is expected to increase to

about 120,000 in the year 2040.

EXISTING TRANSPORATION SYSTEM

Cache Valley is served by a roadway network that

makes up the backbone of the transportation system.

The roadway network is made up of a variety of road

types. Cache County has some state highways that

serve higher speed and typically longer distance

mobility needs and the majority of freight truck traffic.

Local minor arterial, collector and residential roads

typically serve at lower speeds for shorter trip lengths.

Cache County is thought to be one of the largest metro

Out of roughly 3,000 counties in the

United States, Cache County ranked

168 in terms of the rate of population

growth from 2000 to 2009

(Source: US Census Bureau)



areas in the United States that is not directly associated

with an interstate freeway system.

Transit buses use the road network to serve 11 fixed

routes in greater Logan area and two commuter routes

serving a number of outlying north and south valley

communities. The Cache Valley Transit District also

serves a commuter route to southern Idaho in Franklin

County (see Figure 2).

Bicyclist often travel directly on roads. To

accommodate this use, a number of roads in Logan City

and surrounding communities have bicycle lane striping

or share use markings (called sharrows). A number of

roads have been designated as bike routes. A portion of

these routes have been signed with bike route

markings.

Most of the roadways in the more urbanized

communities in Cache County are served by pedestrian

sidewalks. However, in many of the older

neighborhoods sidewalks are often in need of

maintenance or repair and frequently significant gaps

exist in the system.

Many communities in Cache County are also served by

an expanding network of shared use paths and trails.

Often these are in separate rights-of-ways from

roadways. While many of these facilities have a purely

recreation function, many also serve the mobility needs

of commuters or other types of users.

Cache County is also served by a rail “spur” of the

Union Pacific Railroad main trunk line. Currently about

one train a day uses the rail line in Cache Valley.

The Cache Valley Airport serves mostly personal and

private commercial aviation needs and some

commercial freight service. Ongoing efforts have been

directed to position the airport in the future to resume

commercial passenger air service.

AIR QUALITY

Portions of Cache County, Utah and Franklin County,

Idaho were designated by the Environmental

Protection Agency as “non-attainment” for fine

particulate matter (PM2.5) on December 14, 2009. This

means Cache County was found to have particulate

matter air pollution levels in excess of the parameters

established by the federal Clean Air Act Amendments.

Emissions from on-road mobile sources (trucks and

automobiles) are certainly a significant contributor to

the county’s air quality problem. According to federal

regulations, a plan must be developed to demonstrate

how this non-attainment area will reduce pollution

levels to acceptable levels within a specified timeframe.

Developed by the State of Utah’s Department of

Environmental Quality, a State Implementation Plan

(SIP) is a specific plan to attain the air quality standard

in Cache Valley for PM2.5 by a specified time (2015 for

Cache County). The SIP has been submitted to EPA but

has yet to be approved for the Logan Utah/Idaho non-

attainment area.

Once approved by the EPA, the SIP will have specific

Motor Vehicle Emission Budget (MVEB) for pertinent

contributory PM 2.5 pollutants. According to federal

requirements, the CMPO must establish that any plans

(this RTP) or programs “conforms” to these budgets.

EPA has yet to approve the SIP.

On March 25, 2015 notice was received from EPA to

begin a 30 day comment period for initiating the

“adequacy finding” process that will likely lead to a

determination that the MVEB included in the submitted

SIP is considered “adequate” and must be used for any

transportation conformity demonstration. Under this

process the MVEB from the SIP is approved in advance

of approval of the entire SIP (at least for conformity

analysis purposes).

Since it remains unclear if the SIP’s emission budget will

be approved before the adoption date of this RTP, the

CMPO has completed a “conformity determination”

analysis for both SIP emission budget (MVEB) and also

an EPA approved “interim” emission budget (This

conformity test requires that future targeted emissions

are lower than 2008 levels).

All conformity analysis must include emissions that are

a result of future growth in vehicles miles traveled

(including that derived from any planned regionally

significant highway or transit projects). The projects

contained in this document’s Financially Constrained

Figure 2 Existing Roadways & CVTD Bus Routes



Figure 2 Existing Road and Transit Network

£¤89

¬«252

¬«30

¬«23

£¤89/91

¬«165

¬«218

Logan

Hyrum

Nibley

North Logan

Smithfield

Hyde Park

Providence

Amalga

Wellsville

Millville

Mendon

River Heights

Newton

S U

S 8

9/9

1

W SR 30

S S

R 2

3

E SR 101

S S

R 1

65

W 6200 N

W 3000 N

W 200 N

N S

R 2

3

N 6

00

0 W

N 2

00

E

N 8

00

E

N 6

00

W

N 1

60

0 E

N M

AIN

ST

N 3

20

0 W

N 1

00

0 W

S 2

00

0 W W 1800 S

MENDON RD

E US 89

W 4400 S

N 4

00

E

S 3

20

0 W

W 1000 N

W 200 S

N 1

20

0 E

W 4200 N

N 8

00

W

S 1

00

0 W

N 2

40

0 W

N U

S 9

1

E 300 S

S 1

50

0 W

W 1400 N

S 5

40

0 W

N 4

80

0 W

E 400 N

E 1400 N

E 600 S

HO

LLO

W R

D

W 3400 N

E 6200 S

CAN

YON

RD

BIRCH CANYON RDN

10

0 W

E 1000 N

S 8

00

W

W 300 N

E 4400 N

S 5

0 E

W 3400 S

E 3400 N

AIRPO

RT R

D

W 5000 N

E 1900 N

W 4000 S

E MAIN ST

E 200 S

S 2

00

E

W 600 N

N 3

80

0 W

S 4

00

W

S 3

60

0 W

W 4600 N

W 6100 S

N 6

00

E

W 3000 S

W 2600 N

S 4

00

E

W 2500 N

S M

AIN

ST

S 5

90

0 W

S 5

00

E

S 1

00

0 E

W 5000 S

N 4

00

0 W

S 8

00

E

E MILLVILLE CANYON RD

N 2

00

W

W 2000 N

S 3

00

0 W

W 3800 S

W 2000 S

E 100 N

E 3100 N

E 300 N

S 5

50

E

N 2

00

0 W

N 3

00

E

N 1

60

0 W

W 800 N

W 6600 N

S 3

00

W

PROVIDENCE CANYON RD

N 1

00

0 E

W 300 S

GREEN CANYON RD

N 5

20

0 W

N 5

60

0 W

W 1200 S

W 4600 S

S 3

00

E

W S

R 2

18

S 4

00

0 W

E US 89

S 9

00

W

W 3200 S

W 1700 S

W 4200 S

N 4

00

W

MOUNTAIN RD

E 2500 N

W CENTER ST

S 1

90

0 W

W 5700 S

W 3800 N

W 2900 S

E 3025 N

S 1

800 W

N 1

25

0 E

W 3100 N

W 100 N

S 2

80

0 W

W 4700 N

E 250 S

W 3200 N

W 550 N

S 3

80

0 W

N 6

40

0 W

W 2

200

S

E 5400 N

S 1

00 W

W 100 S

S 3

90

0 W

S 2

40

0 W

W 600 S

S 1

00

EW 4300 S

W 400 S

ANVIL BLVD

W 1800 N

W 5400 N

N 1

20

0 W

N 8

80

E

N 5

00

W

E 700 N

N 4

40

0 W

W 400 N

S 4

20

0 W

N 3

10

0 W

E 400 S

W 4400 N

W 6550 N

W 3700 N

N 1

50

W

N 2600 W

W 4800 N

PRIVATE

E 100 S

W 220 NN

20

50 E

S 5

00

W

S 4200 W

W 2200 S

N 6

40

0 W

E 300 N

W 4700 N

N 2

40

0 W

S 1

90

0 W

S 3

60

0 W

W 300 N

W 3800 N

E 2500 N

N 4

00

W

W SR 218

N 3

20

0 W

W 4300 S

W 1400 N

CANYON RD

N 4

00

0 W

E 400 N

W 4600 N

W 2900 S

W 600 N

E 400 N

W 200 S

Legend

CVTD Bus Routes

State Roads

Local Roads



Vision Plans pass both the MVEB and interim

transportation conformity tests (See Air Quality

Memorandum 2040RTP-1).

Any amendments to this plan that add or substantially

change the scope of any regionally significant project

will require a new air quality conformity analysis.

TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE

Transportation and land use patterns are inextricably

linked. Roadway construction can have a great

influence on patterns of land development.

Construction of roadways provides new access to land.

Ideally, land use planning policy is mindful of the

transportation system needed to support the resulting

development. However, this is made difficult because

often local communities must blend new development

with already developed neighborhoods with a long ago

established system of roads. Today in Cache Valley,

land use policy makers are often left to deal the result

of land development decisions that date back, in some

cases, over 100 years when walking or horse buggies

were the main form of transportation. In some of the

more rapidly urbanizing communities, these historic

development patterns often conflict with the modern

transportation system needed to support current and

future population growth.

The Envision Cache Valley process succeeded in linking

long-term development decision making in Cache

Valley with the general type and form of the

transportation system that will likely be needed. This

was done by exploring various tradeoffs and gauging

the relative acceptance on the part of the public.

However, implementation of this vision at a community

level will be the ongoing challenge.

Policy makers and decision makers should be mindful

of the rather complex interaction between

transportation and land use. For example:

Will building another “by-pass” road in Cache

Valley to relieve Main Street traffic congestion

also encourage new sprawling development?

How do we balance the desire for commercial

access with maintaining vehicle capacity on

Cache County’s few critical principle arterial

roads?

What level and type of roadway expansion is

acceptable through or near established

residential neighborhoods?

Are we going to locate future schools or other

centers of high activity in communities to allow

for mostly shorter trips that are most accessible

by walking or biking?

What is the cumulative impact on the

transportation system of typically lower

density, incremental development in the

unincorporated portions of Cache County?

What is the most cost effective way to serve

the transportation mobility needs of current

and future development?

Who should pay the cost of the future

transportation system?

DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY

While increased development density may create

higher travel demand in a specific area, overall it

generally encourages shorter auto trips and also a

higher percentage of pedestrian, transit and bicycle

use.



The density and location of residential and employment

development is particularly important for the cost-

effectiveness of providing public transit service. Transit

service operates most effectively when there is a

concentration of activity, particularly for residential and

employment locations.

Envision Cache Valley’s preferred or “Vision”

alternative contemplates a more compact growth

pattern than in the past. The Cache Valley Vision

recommends that most of the new growth be

accommodated in, and around already established

towns and cities. This recommendation suggests that

much of the new growth to 2040 can be

accommodated by appropriately situated (and well

designed) mixed-use neighborhoods, and a

combination of various neighborhood, town and city

centers.

It also encourages land to be more effectively used

through redevelopment or increased infill development

in already established communities.

UTAH’S UNIFIED PLAN

As with the previous Regional Transportation Plan

effort, the CMPO participated in a coordinated planning

effort with UDOT and the four other Metropolitan

Planning Organizations in the State of Utah as well as

the Utah Transit Authority and Cache Valley Transit

District and the Federal Highway Administration for

the completion of this plan. This coordination effort

will eventually result in the production of a combined

plan document (Utah’s Unified Plan) that summarizes

the priorities of all transportation planning agencies in

the state of Utah. In addition, this effort has also

worked to manage a common completion schedule and

provide for consistency with core financial assumptions

and other planning approaches.

The willingness of individual

communities to implement the “Cache

Valley Vision” will have a significant

impact on the future transportation

system for Cache County.



CHAPTER 2—GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS

The Metropolitan Planning program under the

SAFETEA-LU federal transportation bill provided

funding for the integration of transportation planning

processes in the Metropolitan Planning Organizations

(MPOs) into a unified metropolitan transportation

planning process, culminating in the preparation of a

multimodal transportation plan for the MPO.

Title 23 of the United States Code, section 134(f)

(revised in SAFETEA-LU section 6001(h)) describes

Federal Planning Factors issued by Congress to

emphasize planning factors from a national

perspective. Under Map-21 (newest federal

transportation bill) these planning factors remain

unchanged. The eight planning factors (for both metro

and statewide planning) are as follows:

1) Support the economic vitality of the

metropolitan area, especially by enabling global

competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency.

2) Increase the safety of the transportation

system for motorized and non-motorized users.

3) Increase the security of the transportation

system for motorized and non-motorized users.

4) Increase the accessibility and mobility of

people and for freight.

5) Protect and enhance the environment,

promote energy conservation, improve the

quality of life, and promote consistency

between transportation improvements and

State and local planned growth and economic

development patterns.

6) Enhance the integration and connectivity of the

transportation system, across and between

modes, for people and freight.

7) Promote efficient system management and

operation.

8) Emphasize the preservation of the existing

transportation system.

ENVISION CACHE VALLEY- QUALITY GROWTH PRINCIPLES

The following principles were developed as overarching

goals to guide the implementation of the Cache Valley

Vision developed through the Envision Cache Valley

Process. Inclusion of these goals in the RTP indicates

general endorsement of these principles in terms of

guiding of transportation planning and prioritization on

the part of the CMPO’s Technical Advisory Committee

and Executive Council.

1) Enhance existing towns and cities and maintain

individual community identity by encouraging

inward growth and more compact

development and buffering community

boundaries with agrarian and natural lands.

2) Encourage mixed-use neighborhoods and town

centers that include a variety of housing

options and that allow individuals and families

to live close to where they shop, obtain

services, go to school, work and play.

3) Develop clean and sustainable industry and

good-paying jobs close to home.

4) Provide a balanced transportation network

with improved roadway connections, enhanced

public transportation options, and streets that

encourage bicyclist and pedestrian mobility.

5) Invest in efficient infrastructure systems to

serve existing communities and future growth.

These systems manage such services as water,

sewer, waste disposal, and energy.

6) Protect, preserve and improve air quality,

water quality, wildlife habitat, agricultural land

and the scenic beauty of Cache Valley.

7) Maintain and improve access to recreation by

connecting local recreational amenities to a

regional network.

8) Expand local recreation systems, providing

small parks located near where people live and

linked by trails for walking and biking.



9) Encourage close coordination among local

governments, school districts, universities,

businesses, and places of worship to address

growth issues and implement the Cache Valley

Vision.

2040 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN GOALS

& OBJECTIVES

In addition to the goals and guiding principles already

described, the CMPO endorses the following goals and

objectives as a guide to development of this plan and

future planning efforts.

CMPO 2040 RTP GOALS

Goal # 1: Provide increased mobility for persons and freight through a balanced and inter-connected transportation system.

Objective 1.a Roadway Capacity

Maintain regional vehicle hours of delay at present level as inflated by population growth rate.

Objective 1.b Complete Streets

Build arterial and collector streets as “complete streets”, accommodating automobiles, bikes, buses and sidewalks (See Figure 4).

Objective 1.c Transportation Choice

Develop and maintain a public transit system that enhances mobility choices and increases per capita ridership. Develop and maintain a system of safe and efficient pedestrian and bikeways connecting neighborhoods with activity centers.

Goal # 2: Increase transportation safety for all modes

Goal # 3: Protect and preserve existing transportation systems and opportunities.

Objective 3.a Access Management

Manage access to major facilities to maintain throughput and encourage compatible land uses.

Objective 3.b Corridor Preservation

Preserve needed future transportation corridors early.

Goal # 4: Provide a transportation system that protects the environment and improves the quality of life.

Objective 4.a Neighborhood Impact

Roadway widening that may impact existing neighborhoods should be avoided to the extent possible.

Objective 4.b Vehicle Miles Traveled

Implement projects and policies that help reduce the growth rate of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to be more consistent with the rate of population growth.



CHAPTER 3--PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Performance measures are specific follow-up data

collection and reporting requirements designed to

inform the public and decision makers as to the

ongoing effectiveness of a plan in terms of its success in

meeting selected targeted goals.

The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century

(MAP-21) federal transportation bill established a

performance and outcome based objective for national

transportation planning and programming. Overtime

these national goals are to be reflected in state and

MPO planning processes.

MAP-21 requires states, MPOs and other stakeholders

to establish performance measures in the following

areas:

Safety Infrastructure condition Congestion reduction System reliability Freight movement and economic vitality Environmental sustainability Reduced project delivery delays

At the time of completion of this plan these

performance measures and statewide targets have yet

to be fully implemented. The Federal Highway

Administration anticipates finalizing the rule making

process for these new policies in fall 2015.

Nonetheless as part of the Statewide Unified Plan

effort the various transportation planning agencies

(Utah Department of Transportation, Wasatch Front

Regional Council, Mountainland AOG, Dixie MPO as

well as the Utah Transit Authority & the Cache Valley

Transit District) have agreed on joint goals and

performance measures to facilitate continuing,

comprehensive, and cooperative planning for the multi-

modal transportation network in Utah. It is anticipated

that these joint goals will be largely consistent with the

national performance measures (once finalized). Joint

goals are important to ensure the transportation

network functions as an integrated network, rather

than independent road, transit, bike/ped networks.

The goals build on the collaboration that is occurring in

Utah and this approach is unique in the country. This

effort is considered a pilot program and will be

adjusted as it progresses.

Since performance measures had yet to be established

and used for project selection for this plan update, this

plan simply sets up the performance emphasis area

that will be tracked and reported over time. The benefit

of this effort will be most applicable for the next RTP

update.

In addition to these federal and statewide performance

measures, in the future the CMPO may develop other

individual measures consistent with the local needs

that best serve the needs of Cache County constituents.

UTAH UNIFIED PLAN MEASURE SELECTION

CRITERIA

With hundreds of potential performance measures as part of the Utah Unified Plan coordination seven basic criteria were established to help narrow the options:

Commonality between agencies and modes Level of impact Understandability Track-ability and predictability Availability of data and ease of calculation Level of control agencies have to “move the dial”

SUMMARY OF FIVE UTAH UNIFIED PLAN

SELECTED JOINT GOALS

The following overarching emphasis areas were

selected by the Utah Unified Plan team because each

agency already has these goals as part of their local

plans:

Safety Economic Vitality State of Good Repair / Preservation of Infrastructure

Improve Air Quality Mobility and Accessibility

UTAH UNIFIED PLAN PERFORMANCE MEASURES

This section identified the six objectives and

accompanying performance measures that will be



tracked and used for future planning and project

selection processes.

Key Objectives Key Performance Measures

1. Reduce the number of fatal and serious injuries on the transportation system

Fatalities + Serious Injuries per capita

2. Extend the useful life of our current transportation assets

Percent of useful life remaining

3. Reduce emissions that adversely affect health, quality of life, and the economy

Key mobile source ozone and PM2.5 emissions

4. Improve access to jobs & higher ed. opportunities

Number of jobs & higher ed. that can be reached within a certain travel time by the average household.

5. Increase the share of trips using non-SOV modes

Commute Mode Split Percentages

6. Reduce the likelihood of driving long distances daily

Vehicle Miles Traveled per capita


Regional Transportation Plan 2040 15

CHAPTER 4—NEEDS ANALYSIS

With significant growth in population and employment,

the current transportation system will not be sufficient

to accommodate future growth. This chapter provides

some information and analysis on components of

Cache County’s future transportation needs.

ROADWAY NEEDS

Cache County is served by a network of arterial roads

and highways primarily owned and maintained by the

Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT). Four of

these roads serve as the main entrances and exits out

of Cache Valley. Managing these roads to maximize

throughput capacity is of critical importance.

Over the past two decades the amount of daily vehicle

miles traveled (VMT) by Cache County resident’s has

increased at a higher rate than population growth (see

Figure 3).

The reason for VMT outpacing population growth might

be attributed to a combination of a more scattered

residential growth pattern, higher per family ownership

and perhaps a general trend toward a more mobile

lifestyle

Figure 3-Cache Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled/Population Growth

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

19

88

19

89

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

Total P

op

ulatio

n (Lin

e)

Dai

ly V

eh

icle

Mile

s Tr

ave

led

(B

ar)

YearDaily VMT Total Population

VMT AARC: 3.7%Population AARC: 2.7%

Data sources: VMT data UDOT HPMS dataPopulation data Utah State GOMB



Figure 4 shows a weekday trip profile for Cache County

determined from a 2012 home travel survey. Cache

County has the highest number of average daily trips

per household (11.9) in the state of Utah. However

those trips on average are shorter both in distance and

duration when compared to other parts of the state.

Cache County has the highest number of weekday trips

taken by bicycle and nearly the highest by walking

(survey was done in the spring and might be different

for winter months). Figure 4 shows the historical trend

from growth in vehicle miles traveled compared to

population.

LOGAN’S MAIN STREET CORRIDOR

Highway 89/91 is the main backbone roadway in Cache

County. It, along with Highway 165 extending to

Hyrum and other southern communities serves the

majority of internal longer distance Cache County trips.

Currently, for the most part, these roads function fairly

well with minimal traffic congestion related delays. The

exception is Logan City Main Street. Logan City not

only has the largest residential population in the area

(generating its own travel demand), but portions also

serves as the main shopping, recreation and

employment center of the region. Geographically

located in the center of the more populated portion of

Cache County, Logan’s Main Street is often the point of

convergence for those with north or south valley

destinations (or simply passing through).

The sheer number of vehicles (nearly 40,000 annual

average daily trips) combined with a need to

accommodate more east/west cross traffic (i.e. number

of intersections) results in fairly routine peak hour

traffic congestion in the downtown area mostly due to

intersection capacity failure. During these times of peak

hours, any benefits from signal timing and coordination

is also significantly reduced. The relatively congested

condition of Logan Main Street has led to a “spill over”

effect onto some of the more accommodating nearby

parallel roads. In terms of north/south mobility, Logan

City has a limited number of higher functioning

alternatives to Main Street. This is especially true when

you consider the alternative routes that can serve the

travel demand directly associated with Main Street

commercial/retail corridor.

A few parallel collector type roads that many years ago

likely served to accommodate only inter-neighborhood

traffic are increasingly being used to supply Logan Main

Street spill-over travel demand capacity. Currently on

the east side of Logan, 100 and 200 east (and to a

lesser degree 600 east) serve this purpose. On the West

side of Logan’s Main Street, 100 west (and more

recently 200 west) provides some “spill over” travel

demand capacity. Further to the west, 600 West and

1000 West provides some alternative Main Street

capacity, however much of the traffic on these roads

Over the last two decades in Cache

County, daily vehicle miles traveled

(VMT) has increased on average by

3.7% per year while population

grew only 2.7%.

Figure 4--Cache County Daily (Weekday) Trip Profile Comparison

Area Descriptions

Average Daily

Trips Per

Household

Average Trip

Distance (Miles)

Average Trip

Duration (min)

Percent By

Auto

Percent By

Bus

Percent By

Walk

Percent By

Bike

Cache County 11.9 3.7 7.4 78.2% 1.9% 7.7% 2.7%

Wasatch Front Counties 11.2 5.0 10.8 81.1% 1.7% 7.8% 1.7%

Rural Utah 11.3 9.0 12.8 88.3% 0.6% 6.5% 1.9%

National Average 9.5 9.8

Spring 2012 CMPO Home Travel Survey



already have origins/designations directly on the

corridor (or use the roads to serve as a bypass).

One of the challenges with this spill-over of Main Street

travel demand is that many of these roads are often

already largely built out with development. Much of

this development is historic residential neighborhoods.

This limits the type of capacity improvements that can

be made to the road as residents raise concerns about

the safety and other neighborhood impacts associated

with accommodating increased traffic. In most cases,

these roads are currently not anticipated for

improvements beyond building them to a major

collector road standard.

In much of Logan City, in the future impacts related to

the spill-over of Main Street traffic is anticipated to

continue. With Main Street becoming more congested

and as the limited adjacent parallel capacity fills up

(200 east in Logan already has about 11,000 cars a day)

motorists will seek other alternatives. Motorists will

increasingly use other parallel routes through

residential neighborhoods provided by the historic

Logan City roadway grid pattern.

As the main arterial backbone transportation facility in

Cache County Hwy 89/91 it is anticipated that any

future “premium” public transit (light rail or bus rapid

transit) would need to be integrated on or near the

corridor to be successful (this may include a dedicated

lane).

ROADWAY NETWORK: EXISTING SYSTEM

PERFORMANCE

A useful way to identify future roadway needs is to

analyze how the existing system would perform in the

planning horizon year of 2040. For purpose of this

analysis, the “existing” system also includes those

projects that are not yet built, but have committed

funding (200 East North Project).

With projected growth in population and employment,

significant traffic congestion will occur if no additional

improvements to the transportation system are made

(See Figure 5 “No-build map”). Roadways with high

levels of projected congestion are shown in red).

Figure 6 shows the level of roadway congestion if all

the RTP projects are constructed. As noted there is still

congestion albeit less than the “no-build” analysis.

Areas of particular concern for future traffic congestion

include:

Logan City Downtown area (East and West) Roads around Utah State University (including Hwy 89)

PUBLIC TRANSIT NEEDS

An increasingly large segment of Cache County’s

population do not have access or are not able to drive.

These individuals are either not of driving age, lack

physical capacity to drive or do not own a vehicle. For

many of these individuals, as well as many students

attending Utah State University, the fixed route bus

service provided by the Cache Valley Transit District

(CVTD) is essential for their daily mobility needs. Cache

County is also expected to have an increasing

percentage of elderly that will need to rely on transit.

Figure 4 shows that overall Cache County has the

highest percentage of daily trips taken by transit than

any other part of the state. Additional public transit.

Figure 5 Projected Year 2040 Traffic Congestions (with RTP Projects)

Constructing the projects

proposed in this plan would result

in an estimated 6,064 fewer hours

every day spent in traffic for Cache

County residents in the year 2040.



Figure 5—Congestion Levels in 2040 without RTP Projects

¬«252

¬«30

¬«23

£¤89/91

¬«165

¬«218

Logan

Hyrum

Nibley

North Logan

Smithfield

Hyde Park

Providence

Amalga

Wellsville

Millville

Mendon

River Heights

S U

S 8

9/9

1

W SR 30

N S

R 2

3

S S

R 2

3

S S

R 1

65

W 6200 N

W 3000 N

W 200 N

N 6

00

0 W

N 2

00

E

N 8

00

E

N 6

00

W

E SR 101

N 1

60

0 E

N M

AIN

ST

N 3

20

0 W

N 1

00

0 W

S 2

00

0 W W 1800 S

MENDON RD

W 4400 S

N 4

00

E

W 1000 N

W 3200 S

W 200 S

N 1

20

0 E

W 4200 N

N 8

00

W

W 300 N S 1

00

0 W

N 2

40

0 W

S 2

00

W

N U

S 9

1

E 300 S

W 600 N

S 1

50

0 W

W 1400 N

S 5

40

0 W

S 2

00

E

S 1

20

0 W

W SR 218

E 400 N

N 4

80

0 W

E 600 S

W 1000 S

HO

LLO

W R

D

W 3400 N

E 6200 S

N 1

00

W

E 1000 N

S 8

00

W

E 4400 N

S 5

0 E

W 3400 S

E 3400 N

S 3

20

0 W

AIRPO

RT R

D

W 5000 N

CANYON RD

W 4000 S

E MA

IN S

T

E 200 S

S C

EN

TE

R S

T

N 3

80

0 W

S 4

00

W

S 3

60

0 W

W 4600 N

W 6100 S

N 6

00

E

W 3000 S

W 2600 N

S 1

60

0 W

S 4

00

E

S M

AIN

ST

W 2000 N

S 5

90

0 W

S 5

00

E

S 1

00

0 E

W 5000 S

N 4

00

0 W

S 8

00

E

N 2

00

W

S 3

00

0 WW

38

00

S

E 100 N

E 3100 N

S 1

80

0 W

E US 89

E 300 N

S 5

50

E

N 2

00

0 W

N 3

00

E

N 1

60

0 W

W 800 N

W 5100 N

W 6600 N

S 3

00

W

W 5400 S

N 1

00

0 E

W 300 S

N 5

20

0 W

N 5

60

0 W

W 1200 S

W 4600 S

S 3

00

E

S 4

00

0 W

E US 89

W 1700 S

W CENTER ST

W 4200 S

W 4800 S

N 4

00

W

MOUNTAIN RD

E 2500 N

S 3400 W

S 1

90

0 W

W 5700 S

W 3800 N

S 6

40

0 W

W 6600 S

S 4

80

0 W


W 2900 S

S 3

10

0 W

E 3025 N

W 2200 N

S 6

00

W

W 100 N

S 2

80

0 W

W 4700 N

W 5800 N

W 3200 N

W 550 N

S 1

10

0 W

W 6500 S

S 3

80

0 W

N 3

00

0 W

N 6

40

0 W

E 4200 N

W 2

200 S

E 5400 N

N C

EN

TE

R S

T

W 2600 S

S 1

00

W

W 100 S

E 6600 S

S 3

90

0 W

S 2

40

0 W

S 1

00

EW 4300 S

E 4500 N

W 400 S

W 1100 S

ANVIL BLVD

E 4100 S

W 2700 N

W 1800 N

W 5400 N

N 1

20

0 W

N 7

20

0 W

W 1400 S

E 30 S

N 5

00 W

E 700 N

S 1

40

0 W

N 4

40

0 W

W 280 N

W 6400 N

S 4

20

0 W

N 3

10

0 W

E 400 S

W 5230 N

W 4400 N

W 6550 N

N 2

70

E

W 3700 N

N 1

50

W

W 675 S

N 2600 W

W 4800 N

PRIVATE

N 2

00

0 E

S 3

30

0 W

N 3

30

0 W

S 5

00

W

PR

IVA

TE

CANYON R

D

W 1800 S

S 2

40

0 W

N 2

40

0 W

W 2200 S

N 3

20

0 W

E 6600 S

N 4

00

0 W

E 300 S

W 6200 N

E 400 N

W 200 SS

360

0 W

W 300 N

S 5

00

W

S 1

00

W

N 7

20

0 W

S 3

20

0 W

W 4000 S

W 4600 N

W 4700 N

E 100 N

W 600 N

Legend

2040 Traffic (without RTP projects)

PM Peak Traffic Level of Service

LOS C: Avg 9 Car lenghts

LOS D:Avg 6 Car lenghts

LOS E :Avg 4 Car lenghts

LOS F :Grid lock

¯



Figure 6—Congestions Levels in 2040 with RTP Projects

¬«252

¬«30

¬«23

£¤89/91

¬«165

¬«218

Logan

Hyrum

Nibley

North Logan

Smithfield

Hyde Park

Providence

Amalga

Wellsville

Millville

Mendon

River Heights

S U

S 8

9/9

1W SR 30

N S

R 2

3

S S

R 2

3

S S

R 1

65

W 6200 N

W 3000 N

W 200 N

N 6

00

0 W

N 2

00

E

N 8

00

E

N 6

00

W

E SR 101

N 1

60

0 E

N M

AIN

ST

N 3

20

0 W

N 1

00

0 W

S 2

00

0 W W 1800 S

MENDON RD

W 4400 S

N 4

00

E

W 1000 N

W 3200 S

W 200 S

N 1

20

0 E

W 4200 N

N 8

00

W

W 300 N S 1

00

0 W

N 2

40

0 W

S 2

00

W

N U

S 9

1

E 300 S

W 600 N

S 1

50

0 W

W 1400 N

S 5

40

0 W

S 2

00

E

S 1

20

0 W

W SR 218

E 400 N

N 4

80

0 W

E 600 S

W 1000 S

HO

LLO

W R

D

W 3400 N

E 6200 S

N 1

00

W

E 1000 N

S 8

00

W

E 4400 N

S 5

0 E

W 3400 S

E 3400 N

S 3

20

0 W

AIRPO

RT R

D

W 5000 N

CANYON RD

W 4000 S

E MA

IN S

T

E 200 S

S C

EN

TE

R S

T

N 3

80

0 W

S 4

00

W

S 3

60

0 W

W 4600 N

W 6100 S

N 6

00

E

W 3000 S

W 2600 N

S 1

60

0 W

S 4

00

E

S M

AIN

ST

W 2000 N

S 5

90

0 W

S 5

00

E

S 1

00

0 E

W 5000 S

N 4

00

0 W

S 8

00

E

N 2

00

W

S 3

00

0 WW

38

00

S

E 100 N

E 3100 N

S 1

80

0 W

E US 89

E 300 N

S 5

50

E

N 2

00

0 W

N 3

00

E

N 1

60

0 W

W 800 N

W 5100 N

W 6600 N

S 3

00

W

W 5400 S

N 1

00

0 E

W 300 S

N 5

20

0 W

N 5

60

0 W

W 1200 S

W 4600 S

S 3

00

E

S 4

00

0 W

E US 89

W 1700 S

W CENTER ST

W 4200 S

W 4800 S

N 4

00

WMOUNTAIN RD

E 2500 N

S 3400 W

S 1

90

0 W

W 5700 S

W 3800 N

S 6

40

0 W

W 6600 S

S 4

80

0 W


W 2900 S

S 3

10

0 W

E 3025 N

W 2200 N

S 6

00

W

W 100 N

S 2

80

0 W

W 4700 N

W 5800 N

W 3200 N

W 550 N

S 1

10

0 W

W 6500 S

S 3

80

0 W

N 3

00

0 W

N 6

40

0 W

E 4200 N

W 2

200 S

E 5400 N

N C

EN

TE

R S

T

W 2600 S

S 1

00

W

W 100 S

E 6600 S

S 3

90

0 W

S 2

40

0 W

S 1

00

EW 4300 S

E 4500 N

W 400 S

W 1100 S

ANVIL BLVD

E 4100 S

W 2700 N

W 1800 N

W 5400 N

N 1

20

0 W

N 7

20

0 W

W 1400 S

E 30 S

N 5

00 W

E 700 N

S 1

40

0 W

N 4

40

0 W

W 280 N

W 6400 N

S 4

20

0 W

N 3

10

0 W

E 400 S

W 5230 N

W 4400 N

W 6550 N

N 2

70

E

W 3700 N

N 1

50

W

W 675 S

N 2600 W

W 4800 N

PRIVATE

N 2

00

0 E

S 3

30

0 W

N 3

30

0 W

S 5

00

W

PR

IVA

TE

CANYON R

D

W 1800 S

S 2

40

0 W

N 2

40

0 W

W 2200 S

N 3

20

0 W

E 6600 S

N 4

00

0 W

E 300 S

W 6200 N

E 400 N

W 200 SS

360

0 W

W 300 N

S 5

00

W

S 1

00

W

N 7

20

0 W

S 3

20

0 W

W 4000 S

W 4600 N

W 4700 N

E 100 N

W 600 N

Legend

2040 Traffic (with RTP projects)

PM Peak Traffic Level of Service

LOS C:Avg 9 Car lenghts

LOS D:Avg 6 Car lenghts

LOS E :Avg 4 Car lenghts

LOS F :Grid lock

¯



service (service area expansion or increased frequency

of service) would be necessary to attract more “non-

ride dependent” drivers to leave their vehicles at home

and ride the CVTD bus system. Certainly this dynamic

will change over time as more roads are congested with

traffic and transit gains attractiveness in terms of travel

time and convenience. The cost of gasoline also

influences transit ridership. Currently the CVTD

provides “fixed-route” bus service for much of Cache

County (See Figure 2). Service is more extensive and

frequent in the populated and more urban core of

Logan and surrounding communities. Less frequent

express type commuter routes also serve outlying

communities including Preston Idaho.

CVTD completes an update of their Short Range Transit

Plan every five years. This effort evaluates the

efficiency of the system, analyses any needed changes

or expansion options and provides implementation

recommendations. This RTP will be updated to be

reflective of future updates.

SERVICE EXPANSION

As Cache County grows new locations of employment

and residential housing will need to be served by

transit service. Routinely, the CVTD undergoes a

process to decide how best to allocate bus service

changes with the resources they have available. This is

designed to ensure optimization in allocating service to

fully capitalize on ridership potential. This important

effort will need to continue with periodic adjustments

to bus routes and frequency of service as well as

passenger amenities.

Longer term needs include:

Commuter service between Logan and Ogden (Brigham City when served by commuter rail service)

Circulator Shuttles to serve growing internal needs of communities

A new larger maintenance facility to support the growing requirements of the CVTD system

Additional express bus routes that may eventually transition to Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

SPECIAL NEEDS PUBLIC TRANSIT

For those individuals not able to ride the fixed route

buses due to a documented physical or mental

limitation, CVTD also provides “para-transit” bus

service. This need is anticipated to grow with Cache

County’s anticipated elderly demographic anticipated

changes. In addition to CVTD, a large number of private

and non-profit entities provide limited transportation

services for individuals with special needs. Often, the

extent of these services are limited by the mission of

the organization and/or the source and availability of

funding.

As currently organized, it is often a real challenge for

individuals with specialized transportation needs to get

the services they require. Very often the transportation

component is an ancillary service provided to allow

access to other services provided by the organization.

For example, curb-side bus pickup is provided for

seniors to get to the senior center for services such as

congregate meals. The service contract with the senior

center may be for providing the meals. The

transportation component, while eligible, is

nonetheless limited in amount and purpose. Many of

the non-profits that provide transportation services

would much rather focus on the services related to

their core mission and not have to concern themselves

with the mobility needs of their clients. They do it

because there is no other option.

The end result of the fractured and often overlapping

provision of public transportation services for special

Communities need to encourage

transit supportive development in

order to prepare for the day when

transit will likely need to shoulder a

larger share of Cache County’s

transportation burden.



needs populations does result in many inefficiencies

and serious gaps in service. For example, on any given

day in Cache County, one or more public or non-profit

agencies might dispatch a bus to pick up a client in one

of the outlying communities. Even though the bus may

be nearly empty with plenty of remaining seating

capacity, it may well drive right past the home of

another special needs client of some other organization

(that may have very similar ending destinations).

However, for a host of reasons (e.g. liability, funding

source restrictions, and lack of a coordinating

mechanism) the trips are not consolidated and two

separate trips are made to nearly identical locations.

The Bear River Association of Government’s (BRAG)

Regional Mobility Management Plan recognize this

coordination concern and suggest some interim steps

that eventually lead to substantial consolidated

centralized special need transportation service

provision.

In addition BRAG recently implemented a travel

voucher reimbursement program to encourage family,

friends or neighbors to help provide medical trips for

special needs populations (income qualified). This

allows willing drivers to receive a small travel

reimbursement to help offset the cost of providing that

trip.

TRANSIT AND LAND USE

The efficiency and cost effectiveness of transit service is

very much dependent on the pattern and type of

development in the service area. Based on national

research applied locally, decision makers in Cache

County can maximize the ridership effectiveness of

current and future CVTD investments as it relates to

influencing land use by (Johnson 2003) :

1. increasing residential and commercial density

in the areas near transit corridors

2. concentrating mixed-use development within

an eighth mile of transit corridors, and

3. Channeling a greater proportion of retail

development within a quarter mile of transit

lines.

These recommendations are consistent with

recommendations found in the Envision Cache Valley

Report.

Public transit often faces a “chicken-and-egg” problem:

it’s hard to fully justify transit systems unless there’s

sufficient population density and/or adequate

employment and shopping concentration, yet it’s more

difficult to persuade people to live in denser

neighborhoods or to build more concentrated

commercial development unless they come with the

advantage of transit access.

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS

Walking or bicycling is a healthy and viable alternative

to the automobile for many trips. In fact, for many that

are not of driving age it may be the only alternative.

Also, most transit trips will begin or end with some

amount of biking or walking.

As Cache County grows and develops so does the need

for facilities that accommodate the needs of

pedestrians and cyclists. These amenities will include

sidewalks, shared use paths, street pavement markings

and additional bike route signage.

PEDESTRIAN NEEDS

One of the primary considerations in meeting the

needs of pedestrians is safety. Pedestrians need

adequate sidewalks and safe street crossing

opportunities.

In 2009, Logan City was designated as the “most

walkable” community in Utah by the Bonneville

Research Corporation. Data for Logan City shows a high

Based on a 2012 travel survey Cache

County has the highest percentage of

daily trips taken by bicycle (2.7%)

and nearly the highest for walking

(7.7%) in the State of Utah.



percentage of commuters for who walking is their main

mode of transportation to work.

Most communities in Cache County do a good job of

requiring sidewalks (where appropriate) for new

development. However development of a continuous

efficient pedestrian system is dependent on many

factors. Some of the problems in the more urban

portions of the county include:

Missing or deteriorated sidewalks

Lack of connectivity to major activity centers

Difficulty with enforcing wintertime sidewalk

snow removal

Accessibility issues for those with a physical

limitation

Less than friendly pedestrian street crossings

Additional bicycle storage near transit stops.

In rural areas the issues are more unique and site

specific. One of the problems is lack of sidewalks or

shared use paths as a pedestrian alternative on busier

county or state roads that link activities centers or even

adjacent communities. For example track team

students at Mountain Crest High School often run on

the narrow shoulder of State Highway 165 between

Hyrum and Paradise Town. Often problems surface

when a new school is located and the deficiencies of an

inadequate supporting pedestrian system become

apparent. Such was the case with the opening of the

Mountain Side Elementary School in Mendon. This will

likely be the case with the opening of two new high

schools in the Cache Valley in the next couple of years.

In the more rural areas, the cost of installing adequate

and safe pedestrian supporting infrastructure can be

too expensive for many city budgets mostly due to the

distances involved.

BICYCLE NEEDS

For many, the bicycle is a viable alternative to the

automobile. Increased bicycle use as a mode of

transportation can play an important role in helping the

region improve air quality, reduce congestion and

contribute to the overall health of Cache County

residents. Working to accommodate and encourage

this trend helps to develop a more balance

transportation system.

BICYCLE PARKING

Providing convenient parking accommodations for

bikes will help encourage more cycling use. Safe and

secure bicycle parking should be provided as necessary

in parks, schools, libraries, recreational centers and

other activity centers. Bike racks should be required of

all new major commercial or retail development.

Covered bike racks are needed in locations with a high

concentration of cycling use and near transit stops.

CONNECTING DESTINATIONS

Cyclist and pedestrians require safe and convenient

connections between their residence and destination

such as school, employment, entertainment or

shopping destinations.

Some areas of particular concern include:

Logan Boulevard Trail endpoint connections

(street crossing).

Highway 89 (400 North) areas below Utah State

University (street crossings)

Downtown Logan (Main Street crossings) South

Logan “Y” Intersection Area (Main Street and

Highway 165 Street crossings)

Mendon Road from Logan to Mendon

(shoulder widening)

Highway 23 from Wellsville to Mendon

(shoulder widening and shared path)



Highway 165 from Hyrum to Paradise (shoulder

widening and shared path)

State Route 30, Logan between 1st and 6th West

(street crossings)

Highway 101 from Hyrum to Wellsville

(shoulder widening)

600 West, Logan (shoulder widening)

400 East, North Logan (shoulder widening)

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION EDUCATION

The CMPO’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory

Committee (BPAC) has identified bicycle and pedestrian

safety education as a high priority. This is an ongoing

need for public education targeted to pedestrians,

cyclists and drivers of motor vehicles to increase

awareness and knowledge of appropriate roles, laws

and responsibilities.

FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION NEEDS

As the “crossroads of the west”, Utah plays a major role

in the movement of freight across the United States.

The smooth flow of freight in and out of Cache County

is of critical importance to continued economic vitality

of the region.

TRUCK FREIGHT

Truck transportation represents the largest mode for

freight to and from Cache County. According to the

Transearch commodity movement database from

Global Insight Inc., Cache County in 2007 imported over

2.4 million tons of freight valued at $2.2 billion. For that

same time period, Cache County exported just under 1

million tons of freight valued at $1.6 billion.

Accommodating the needs of truck freight movement

in Cache County today and in the future are of critical

importance. A large portion of the employment in

Cache County is dependent on industries that require

reasonable freight mobility in, out and through Cache

County. Also, the availability and price of consumer

goods and services in Cache County is directly linked to

the level of mobility for freight.

For the most part, roadways that are built to

accommodate higher volumes of cars and light trucks

generally also work well for trucks. Recent local input

received from truck drivers and freight industry

representative highlight the need for roads with

adequate shoulders that do not have a great deal of

residential use. Inadequate intersections are often

identified as major problems for truck drivers. With the

increase trailer lengths of many trucks, inadequate

intersection turning radiuses presents a significant

problem for trucks. Most of the local input from freight

industry representatives centered on the need to

improve specific intersection turn radiuses. Many of

those intersections are on 1000 West which is

scheduled for major reconstruction in 2011-2012.

TRUCK FREIGHT ORIGINS AND DESTINATIONS

In 2007, 70% of the truck freight by tonnage and 82% of

the truck freight by value from within the state of Utah

that was brought to Cache County originated from

counties located on the Wasatch Front. These same

Wasatch Front counties received 60% of the in state

Cache 2007 Top Truck Freight Commodity (in State)

Within Utah By weight

IMPORT: Nonmetallic Minerals 1.6 Million Tons

EXPORT: Food or Kindred Products 206,612 Tons

Within Utah By value

IMPORT: Secondary Traffic (mixed finished commodities)

$1.4 Billion

EXPORT: Secondary Traffic (mixed finished commodities)

$1.3 Billion

Cache 2007 Top Truck Freight Commodity (out of State)

Outside Utah By weight

IMPORT: Nonmetallic Minerals 445,656 Tons

EXPORT: Food or Kindred Products 319,445 Tons

Outside Utah By value

IMPORT: Secondary Traffic (mixed finished commodities)

$715 Million

EXPORT: Chemicals or Allied Products $578 Million



truck freight by tonnage and 73% of the truck freight by

value exported from Cache County.

When considering freight outside the state of Utah in

2007, Casper Wyoming (26.3%) and Franklin County

Idaho (7.6%) are the top contributors to freight

imported into Cache County by weight. Likewise, Los

Angeles California receives the most freight exported

by weight from Cache County (13.4%).

In terms of the dollar value of freight imported into

Cache County from outside the state of Utah in 2007, a

number of counties mostly in the western United

States contributed. These included Maricopa County

Arizona (5%), Spokane Washington (4.9%), Billings

Montana (4.5%) and Los Angeles County California

(4.4%) with the remainder scattered across the United

States. In terms of where Cache County exports truck

freight out of the State, over 30% of the freight (by

value) had destinations somewhere on the west coast.

CACHE RAIL FREIGHT

Cache County is served by the Union Pacific (UP)

Railroad on the Cache Valley Branch. Indirectly, Cache

County is also served by rail service via Union Pacific’s

Salt Lake City Intermodel Terminal. At this facility, rail

containers can be transferred on or off trucks for

transport to destinations to or from Cache County.

The Salt Lake City terminal serves much of the

intermountain west. For the foreseeable future, Cache

County has nowhere near the volume of rail freight to

justify the expense of developing its own intermodal

terminal.

One of the most important assets for Cache County and

its ability to attract future businesses is the retention of

railroad service. Further, the future of possible rail

passenger transit service would be eliminated without

the preservation of the Cache Valley Branch Line.

Retention of Cache County’s railroad service in the

future largely hinges on the ability for Union Pacific to

keep the service profitable. This can be helped locally

by encouraging and facilitating the location of new

business and industry on the rail line to generate new

business for Union Pacific.

CACHE AIR FREIGHT

Air freight is the smallest component of the freight

transportation system serving Cache County. However,

often the goods shipped by air are of higher value and

more time sensitive items that can be important to the

regional economy. The United Parcel Service (UPS)

provides one afternoon flight from the Logan Municipal

Airport to the Salt Lake International Airport each

weekday. However, air freight for Cache County is

primarily a service provided by the Salt Lake

International Airport.

TRANSPORTATION SAFETY NEEDS

As a member of the Utah Safety Leadership Team, the

CMPO participated with other stakeholder groups and

agencies in the development of the Utah

Comprehensive Safety Plan. While statewide in focus,

this plan provided the analysis framework for

investigating local transportation safety issues. The

stated goal of this plan is to improve transportation

safety for all modes.

CRASH DATA

One of the most important assets for

Cache County and its ability to

attract future businesses is the

preservation of railroad service.



Statistics that document types, severity and

contributing factors can be very helpful in identifying

problem areas or safety issues. However, one needs to

exercise caution when drawing conclusions from crash

data. A higher number of crashes at a particular

location does not necessarily indicate a problem or a

roadway deficiency. Locations with a concentration of

higher volume transportation activity will likely have

more crashes. It is often more useful to analyze the

crash data in terms of crash rates or comparisons with

other locations.

The highest contributing characteristic among Cache

County crashes is intersection‐related crashes (see

figure 7). It is a more frequent characteristic than the

next highest characteristic (Young Driver) by almost 20

percent. However, less frequent crash characteristics,

such as Improper Restraint, Motorcycle Involved, and

Pedestrian Involved more frequently involve a severe

injury.

The top five crash characteristics for Cache County

matched the top five crash characteristics statewide

However, of the top five crash characteristics, Cache

County shows a higher percentage of intersection

related crashes, young driver crashes, and adverse

roadway surface conditions crashes.

Cache County has a number of intersections with safety

issues scattered throughout the county (see Figure 8).

However, due to relatively low volumes of traffic they

may not have the frequency of crashes as in the more

populated urban areas. Inadequate shoulder width is

also a significant contributor to roadway departure

crashes in rural portions of the county. Increase the

shoulder width on new and reconstructed roads.

Crashes tend to cluster in the Logan area with some

extending north along US‐91 towards Smithfield. A few

small localized pockets occur near Wellsville and

Hyrum. The worst parts of Logan Canyon are about

midway through the canyon.

Figure 7--Cache County Percent Crashes (& Severity) by Contributing Factor

2% 2% 2% 2%3%

1%

4%5%

3% 3%2%

0%

9%

13%

3%

10%

13%

5%

16%

1% 2%

10%

0% 0%0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Pe

rce

nt

of

Cra

she

s

Contributing Factor

Total Severe



Figure 8—Regional Crash Density Frequency “Heat Map”

£¤89

¬«252

¬«30

¬«23 £¤89/91

¬«165

£¤91

¬«218

¬«142

Logan

Trenton

Hyrum

Nibley

North Logan

Smithfield

Hyde Park

Amalga

Wellsville

Providence

Millville

Richmond

Mendon

Newton

River Heights

Lewiston

W SR 30

S U

S 8

9/9

1

E SR 101

S S

R 2

3

S S

R 1

65

W 6200 N

W 3000 N

W 200 N

W SR 142

N 6

00

0 W

N 2

00

E

N 8

00

E

N 6

00

W

N 1

60

0 E

N 3

20

0 W

E US 89

N 1

00

0 W

S 2

00

0 W

W 1800 S

MENDON RD

W 4400 S

W 7000 N

N 6

40

0 W

N 4

00

E

N 4

80

0 W

W 600 N

S 3

20

0 W

W 8600 N

W 1000 N

N S

R 142

W 3200 S

N U

S 9

1

CAN

YON

RD

W 200 S

N 8

00

0 W

N 1

20

0 E

W 4200 N

S 4

00

E

W 300 N

S 1

00

0 W

S 4

00

W

N U

S 9

1

E 300 S

S 1

50

0 W

W 1400 N

S 5

40

0 W

S 8

00

E

E 9600 N

W 9800 N

E 800 S

E 400 N

W 7800 N

E 600 S

W 1000 S

HO

LLO

W R

D

W 3400 N

E 6200 S

N 8

00

W

BIRCH CANYON RD

N 1

00

W

E MAIN ST

N S

R 2

3

W 9200 N

E 4400 N

N 5

80

0 W

S 5

0 E

S 2

00

W

S 2

00

E

E 3400 NAIR

PORT RD

W 5000 N

N 6

80

0 W

W 4000 S

N 2

400

W

W 7400 N

E 200 S

W 5100 N

N 3

80

0 W

S 3

60

0 W

W 4600 N

W 6100 S

E 9800 N

W 3000 S

W 2600 NN

30

0 E

W 2000 N

E 8500 N

S 5

90

0 W

S 5

00

E

S 1

00

0 E

N 4

00

0 W

N 2

3 S

R N 2

00

W


S 3

00

0 W

E 8950 N

W 3800 S

E 100 N

W S

R 2

18

E 3100 N

E 300 N

N 2

00

0 W

N 1

60

0 W

W 6600 N

S 3

00

W

W 5400 S

N 1

00

0 E

W 300 S

W 10100 N

GREEN CANYON RD

N 5

20

0 W

N 5

60

0 W

W 1200 S

W 4600 S

S 3

00

E

W 7200 N

E US 89

W 1700 S

W CENTER ST

N 4

00

W

N M

AIN

ST

W 4200 S

W 4800 S

S 1

20

0 E

MOUNTAIN RD

E 2500 N

N 7

00

0 W

S 3

40

0 W

W S

R 2

3

S 1

90

0 W

W 3800 N

N 7

800

W

S 6

40

0 W

W 2900 S

W 7820 N

W 9600 N

W 2200 N

E 8

200 N

N 6

30

0 W

S 6

00

W

W 3100 N

W 100 N

S 2

80

0 W

W 4700 N

W 5800 N

W 3200 N

W 550 N

N 6

00

E

N 7

00

E

S 3

80

0 W

W 2

200

S

E 5400 N

N 6

20

0 W

W 100 S

S 3

90

0 W

S 2

40

0 W

W 600 S

W 5800 S

S 1

00

E

W 725 N

W 4300 S

E 4500 N

E CENTER ST

N 20

00 E

W 2700 N

W 5400 N

N 1

20

0 W

S 5

50

0 W

N 7

20

0 W

W 800 S

E 9300 N

S 1

40

0 W

N 4

40

0 W

N 2

15

0 W

S 4

20

0 W

N 1

50 E

W 3700 N

E 500 S

N 2600 W

W 5600 S

PRIVATE

S 5

80

0 W

E 100 S

W 9800 N

E 200 S

W 7800 N

W 3800 N

N 2

40

0 W

N 4

00

0 W

W 8600 N

CANYON RD

W 1400 N

N 2

00

W

E 300 NN S

R 2

3

W 4600 N

N 4

00

W

E 300 N

W 2200 S

N 2

40

0 W

¯Legend

Crash Frequency

Lower Crash Density

Higher Crash Density



CHAPTER 5-CMPO TRANSPORTATION VISION PLANS (2040 & BEYOND)

The Cache Transportation Vision Plan shows roadway,

bicycle, transit and pedestrian projects that attempt to

address the needs identified in the previous sections.

The plan attempts to define what is needed and also

what we can afford to build given the anticipated

future revenues. This exercise is necessary to produce a

“fiscally constrained” plan as required by the federal

government. This also helps local jurisdictions

understand the resources available and what funding

gaps might exist. The Transportation Vision Plans also

attempts to implement the recommendations from the

Cache Valley Vision recommendation that was the

result of the Envision Cache Valley process. Collectively

these plans constitute the CMPO’s long term vision of

the future as it relates to Cache County’s transportation

system. In most cases the improvements described in

the plans are consistent with the planning documents

of participating local jurisdictions. The contents of the

CMPO Vision Plans constitute recommendations and

become “official” only as recognized by the individual

jurisdiction’s planning documents.

2040 TRANSPORTATION FUNDING

Funding assumptions for the 2011 update to the 2040

Cache Regional Transportation Plan are based on

coordination between the four Utah MPOs (Cache,

Dixie, Wasatch Front, and Mountainland) and UDOT.

Utah follows an advanced practice in the development

of a Unified Transportation Plan, encompassing a

summary of the Regional Transportation Plan of each of

the four MPOs as well as the rural areas planned by

UDOT. In order to ensure consistency for this Unified

Plan, each individual Regional Transportation Plan

followed a common set of demographic, financial, cost

estimating, and related assumptions. Therefore, the

cost assumptions included in the CMPO Regional

Transportation Plan Update are consistent with those

made statewide.

This section is a response to the Federal requirement to

produce a “financially constrained” Regional

Transportation Plan. Future transportation funding

assumptions are developed for planning purposes only.

They do not suggest endorsement of any particular tax

or transportation funding solution on the part of the

CMPO or the Executive Council. This effort is also not

intended to craft optimal public taxing policy to fund

transportation infrastructure. Rather it is a statewide

attempt to develop a reasonable set of funding

assumptions that are based, at least in part on the

history of the Federal Government and the Utah State

Legislature as it relates to funding transportation

infrastructure. The amount and identified funding

mechanisms in all likelihood will end up different than

what is described. Increased statewide economic

growth that results in greater than expected increase in

revenue from existing funding sources would also

eliminate the need to even consider additional funding

sources.

2040 STATEWIDE FUNDING ASSUMPTIONS

The following statewide assumptions regarding long-

term funding for transportation projects in Utah are

drawn collectively from all concurrent transportation

plans (part of Utah’s Unified Plan) and included in the

CMPO Regional Transportation Plan.

Federal funds and programs are projected to increase at a rate of 1.5% per year.

The B&C program is projected to continue at the present 30% of total fuel tax revenue.

All financial assumptions are presented in today’s costs, inflation is used in the plan, generally at 4%, but costs and revenues are brought back to today values using net present value.

Currently 50% of auto related sales tax goes to transportation with the remainder to be added by 2019. The remainder is placed in the state general fund. This does not represent any new tax, rather a reallocation of how the existing tax revenue is allocated.

The equivalent of a 5-cent increase in statewide fuel tax is proposed in 2015 and each decade after. This projection would continue the historical average of what funds are dedicated to transportation and allows for inflation for state projects and local projects through the B&C program.



A $10 statewide increase in vehicle registration fees in 2018 and each decade after.

2040 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDING

ASSUMPTIONS

The following additional local funding assumptions

regarding long-term funding for transportation projects

in Cache County.

Voter approved, additional ¼ cent local option sales tax for transportation by 2020 (or equivalent).

Implementation of $10 vehicle registration fee by 2020 (or equivalent).

2040 ESTIMATED HIGHWAY FUNDING FOR

CACHE COUNTY

After applying the funding assumptions as described,

Cache County’s total 2040 estimated available roadway

capacity funding is $746 million. This includes all

anticipated Federal, State and local funds that are

primarily allocated to capacity related improvements.

However, it should be noted that this assumes an even

distribution of state’s capacity transportation

improvement funds based on Cache County’s share of

the state’s population (currently 4%). Based on this

approach (state Unified Plan method) state funds are

the largest source of available roadway capacity

funding anticipated for Cache County.

While this is a reasonable approach for long term

planning purposes, it does pose somewhat of a

challenge for Cache County. Unless there is a change in

state policy, state appropriated capacity funds can only

be applied on state (UDOT) roads. Also, in practice the

state appropriated funds are not distributed based on

any geographic equity formula using the county’s

population. The Utah Transportation Commission

allocates these funds based largely on statewide

transportation and traffic congestion need. Lacking an

interstate freeway and also being somewhat

underserved by existing state routes that are well

positioned and therefore attractive for UDOT

improvements, Cache County has not historically been

allocated (on average) 4% of the state’s transportation

capacity funding. In addition to lacking eligible state

roads, this is also largely because Cache County must

compete for state (UDOT) funding with bigger urban

areas in the state with higher levels of congestion and

in some cases faster population growth rates.

Figure 9 chart shows the anticipated revenue and

projected needs in three different phases of the plan

for local (non-state) roads of “regional significance” (i.e.

collector and above type roads). The third phase of the

plan shows all those project needs in excess of available

projected revenue. Many of the projects are needed in

earlier phases. However without available funding in

either the 1st or 2nd phase those projects are pushed to

phase three to show need in excess of revenue.

Figure 10 shows the anticipated revenue for state

(UDOT) funds along with the fiscally constrained project

need for state highways capacity projects.

LOCAL ROAD PRESERVATION FUNDING

CHALLENGES

Lack of funding for local road preservation (road

maintenance and operations) is one of the most

significant challenges faced by local governments.

Even with recent changes in the gas tax approved by

the 2015 legislature significant shortfalls remain. The

estimated shortfall for Cache County is estimated at

over $200 Million during the timeframe of this plan.

If history is any indicator (over the last 20 years), while representing 4%

of the state’s population, Cache County has received (on average)

only 1% of the state’s funds allocated for transportation capacity

improvements.



Figure 9-- Cache Roadway Capacity Funding (Local Roads)

$62,079,886

$80,638,313

$155,506,483

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2015-2024 2025-2034 2035-2040

Mil

lio

ns

New Revenues Existing Revenues

Total Need Constrained Need

$94.7 Estimated Unfunded Need

Figure 10-- Cache Roadway Capacity Funding (State Roads)

$80,491,280

$263,883,125

$170,739,687

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2015-2024 2025-2034 2035-2040

Mil

lio

ns

New Revenues Existing Revenues

Total Need Constrained Need



2040 ESTIMATED TRANSIT FUNDING FOR CACHE

COUNTY

The majority of the funds used by the Cache Valley

Transit District (CVTD) are from a local option sales tax.

This has been approved by a number of communities

that make up the CVTD service area. A mixture of local

sales tax funds and federal funds help provide the

operational revenue needed to run the CVTD bus

system. This includes staffing (bus drivers and support

staff) as well as ongoing maintenance and fuel.

Federal funds are used largely to help pay capital

expenditures (e.g. purchase of replacement or

expansion buses) as well as the cost of providing

service support facilities (e.g Transit and

operation/maintenance center).

Some of the federal funds received by CVTD are

distributed based on a formula applied by the Federal

Transit Administration. However, unlike highway

funds, much of the federal funding for capital transit

expenditures comes from discretionary grants or

earmarks. In the past CVTD has been successful in

securing grants for the purchase of new and

replacement buses as well as to construct facilities such

as the transit center and the current operation and

maintenance facility. However, due to the

discretionary nature of some of this funding; it is

difficult to estimate future revenues for the next 30

years.

Table 1 shows the total expected transit funding to the

year 2040. It should be noted this is the total revenue

available for both system operation and capital. With

transit service operational expenses represent the

largest category of expenses.

2040 ESTIMATED BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN

FUNDING FOR CACHE COUNTY

Many of the anticipated bicycle and pedestrian

improvements (e.g. bike lanes, sidewalks and in some

cases shared-use pathways or trails) to the year 2040

will be completed either as part future roadway

improvement projects or required of developers as new

development occurs (required by most city ordinances).

However, there will still be significant needs in terms of

completing missing linkages and retrofitting bicycle and

pedestrian facilities in already developed areas. There

also will be a need to provide system-wide

improvements.

In Cache County, there is not a consistent annual

funding source for bicycle and pedestrian type

improvements (however various communities will

often budget a small portion of their general funds or

impact fee revenues to these types of improvements).

Typically, most of the funding sources that have been

used for non-motorized types of improvements in

Cache County have come from competitive grants.

From the federal government these have included

Transportation Enhancement Grants (TE) and a newer

source called Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality

(CMAQ). These sources are allocated based on project

merit (and programmatic intent) either locally or at a

statewide level. The State of Utah also funds some

non-motorized trail projects based on a competitive

selection process.

A major source of additional local funding is the

countywide Restaurant and Recreation, Arts, Parks and

Zoos (RAPZ) tax. Jurisdictions with trails and pathways

projects that have some recreational benefit (often

with duel transportation use) are eligible to apply.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

Environmental impacts and trade-offs were analyzed

and considered as part of developing this plan and

ultimate project selection. Potential particulate matter

(PM 2.5) air quality impacts were evaluated to establish

Table 1: 2040 TOTAL TRANSIT FUNDING BY PHASE

Phase I Phase II Phase III

2015-2024 2025-2034 2035-2040

Federal $18,409,766 $18,801,256 $12,700,177

State

Local $48,516,342 $78,819,011 $69,416,776

Total $66,926,108 $97,620,267 $82,116,953

Total Funds Available all Phases $246 Million



that this plan meets the EPA “interim” air quality

conformity test (See appendix 1). The EPA requires an

detailed analysis to document that mobile source PM

2.5 emissions resulting from projected growth in

vehicle miles traveled in the last year of this plan is less

than 2008 levels.

For the various Cache Valley growth scenarios

developed as part of Envision Cache Valley process,

information was provided to the public and community

officials comparing the relative environmental impacts

of each of the described futures. Environmental factors

considered by the Envision Cache Valley process

included the impact of growth on water quality (and

quantity), residential energy consumption, prime

agricultural, wetlands and air quality.

Additionally, to the extent practicable, transportation

improvements have been situated in the more

developed core areas to be supportive of increased

land use densities and minimize urban sprawl. This is

consistent with the recommendations of Envision

Cache Valley to accommodate most of the growth in

the incorporated cities.

Finally, the CMPO utilized a new environmental

planning tool provided by UDOT. Uplan is a web based

mapping and analysis tool that delivers relevant and

up-to-date geographic environmental map data. The

tool allowed draft CMPO projects to be evaluated

relative to proximity to environmentally sensitive

locations. The system also was able to produce a

number of project specific environmental summary

reports. These reports were used to evaluate the

merits of various projects.

It should also be noted that all federally funded

projects will need to meet the requirements of the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This law

requires extensive environmental resource evaluation

and analysis as well as significant public involvement

for any federally funded project. The State of Utah has

a similar process for state funded projects. It is the

intent of the CMPO to integrate long range planning

and NEPA by attempting to utilize quality

environmental resource information as early as

possible in the planning process.

2040 CMPO HIGHWAY VISION PLAN

The 2040 CMPO Roadway Vision Plan shows those

projects that are needed to provide a reasonable level

of mobility (based on computer based travel demand

modeling) for future years (see Figure 11)

Table 2 further describes the projects included by each

phase of the plan as well as the “needed but unfunded”

projects. The table also includes potential maintenance

or operational roadway improvements. These are

generally not capacity motivated improvements (such

as adding additional lanes). These are important

roadway improvements that are needed to correct

some sort of roadway deficiency and may include such

things as pavement rehabilitation, shoulder widening

or corrections of roadway or intersection deficiency

(such as poor roadway or intersection geometry).

LOGAN ONE WAY COUPLETS

This update introduces a pair of one way streets from

south of the “Y” intersection to about 900 North in

Logan (project II-12) in the 2nd phase of this plan. This is

a result of a feasibility study completed in 2013. The

study looked at the feasibility of converting from a

two‐way road system to a one‐way couplet system, for

either a portion or the entire length of the Main Street

corridor. The intent of this study was to determine the

feasibility of one‐way couplet scenarios for meeting the

future traffic capacity requirements of the Main Street

corridor. This study evaluated the five couplet scenarios

identified in the Logan City Transportation Master Plan

in greater detail to determine which, if any, are feasible

and beneficial to the city. This study also evaluated

traditional two‐way street options and the

improvements planned as part of the CMPO Regional

Transportation Plan projects to compare the potential

solutions to addressing future congestion.

The study resulted in a recommended alternative to

convert two way streets on Main Street to a 3 lane one

way street northbound and 100 west to a 3 lane street



southbound. Additionally the study suggested

converting 100 east and 200 east to another pair of

complementary one way couplets streets. One of the

more difficult and expensive aspects of implementing

this project is the nature of how the one way streets

transitions back to two way streets on each end of the

couplets. This must be done seamlessly in order for the

one way couplets to operate effectively.

The feasibility study showed the mobility benefits of

implementing the recommended alternative. The study

suggested levels of delay and traffic congestion could

remain at roughly today’s level all the way to the year

2040 for the main street corridor. This because of the

added lane capacity in each direction and better

operational function (signal coordination).

While this study suggested that the concept of one way

couplet streets for the Logan Main Street corridor merit

further consideration. More planning and study is

required to advance the project to the next stage

(environmental study). The preliminary feasibility study

suggested a future investigation so as to better

understand the potential impacts to the businesses in

the Logan Downtown.

SYSTEMIC AND SPOT SAFETY IMPROVEMENT

PROJECTS

This plan introduces strong consideration for systemic

(system wide safety improvements such as signage,

rumble strips or shoulder improvements) as well as

location specific “spot” safety improvements. This plan

does not attempt to identify specific projects. These

projects will be chosen later from a data driven project

prioritization process.



Figure 11—Cache 2040 Highway Vision Plan (Financially Constrained Projects)



Table 2—2040 Highway Projects (Fiscally Constrained and Unfunded)

Phase Project #Length

(Miles)

Funding/

OwnershipProject Name Description Lanes 2015 Cost

1 I-1 1.45 Local 1200 East (Phase I) Unbuilt sections (No Logan to Smithfield) 2 Lanes, Median $8,115,360

1 I-2 0.80 Local 200 East Phase I 3100 North to 3700 North (Hyde Park) 2 Lanes, Median $6,491,300

1 I-3 1.30 Local 3100 North 200 East to 1200 East (No Logan, Hyde Park) 2 Lanes, Median $7,268,116

1 I-4 0.85 Local 200 West 1800 North to 2500 North (Logan, No Logan) 2 Lanes, Median $4,757,280

1 I-5 0.50 Local 1800 North 600 West to 10th West (Logan) 2 Lanes, Median $2,798,400

1 I-6 2.55 Local 600 West 400 North to Hwy 89/91 (Logan) 2 Lanes, Median $15,992,120

1 I-7 0.22 Local 2300 South Realign to 450 North & Main (Millville) 2 Lanes, Median $1,231,296

1 I-8 0.40 Local Mill Road Realign to 3200 South (Nibley/Millville) 2 Lanes, Median $2,242,470

1 I-9 0.19 Local 100 West 600 South to Golf Course Rd (Logan) 2 Lanes, Median $2,984,312

1 I-10 6.35 State SR-30 Phase I 10th West to SR 23 (Logan/County) 4 Lanes, Median $66,261,680

1 I-11 0.50 Local 500 North 300 East to 650 East (Richmond Canyon) 2 Lanes $400,000

1 I-12 NA Local 1400 North 600 West Intersection Signalization 2 Lanes, Median $2,000,000

1 I-13 0.25 Local 400 North 600 West to 800 West Linkage (Logan) 2 Lanes $1,399,200

1 I-14 NA Local Roadway Safety Projects Systemic and Spot projects in various locations TBD NA $3,000,000

1 I-15 1.40 State 10th West Completion 1400 N. to 2500 N, (Logan) 4 Lanes, Median $14,229,600

$121,941,534

$58,679,854$80,491,280


(Miles)

Funding/


2 II-1 12.75 State Western Arterial Hwy 89/91 to 6200 North (Logan/County) 4 Lanes, Median $129,548,921

2 II-2 3.10 State SR-30 Phase II Hwy 23 to Cache County Line (County) 4 Lanes, Median $36,009,600

2 II-3 0.55 Local 200 East Phase II 3700 North to 4100 North (Hyde Park) 2 Lanes, Median $3,078,240

2 II-4 0.50 Local 200 East Phase III 1400 North to 1800 North (Logan, No Logan) 4 Lanes, Median $4,065,600

2 II-5 1.60 State SR-30 Phase III 10th West to Main Street (Logan) 4 Lanes, Median $18,585,600

2 II-6 1.00 Local 400 east/Canyon Rd 300 South to 400 North (Logan) 4 Lanes, Median $8,131,200

2 II-7 0.40 Local 200 East Phase IV 300 South to Gateway Drive (Logan, River Heights) 2 Lanes, Median $3,950,045

2 II-8 1.36 Local Gateway Drive (South) 100 North (Providence) to 2300 South (Millville) 2 Lanes, Median $7,611,648

2 II-9 3.80 Local 4400 South Hwy 89/91 to Hwy 165 (Nibley) 2 Lanes, Median $21,273,605

2 II-10 2.82 State SR-101 200 West (Hyrum) to Hwy 89/91 2 Lanes, Median $19,739,004

2 II-11 1.92 Local 800 West Phase I 3200 South to Hwy 89/91 (Nibley) 2 Lanes, Median $10,727,275

2 II-12 3.15 State Logan Main/ 100 West One way Couplets (Logan) 3 Lane -One Way Streets $60,000,000

2 II-13 0.65 Local 600 East 300 North to Hwy 165 (Hyrum) 2 Lanes, Median $3,637,920

2 II-14 1.60 Local 1200 East (Phase II) Hwy 89 to 1800 North (Logan) 2 Lanes, Median $8,954,880

2 II-15 NA Local Roadway Safety Projects Systemic and Spot projects in various locations TBD $5,000,000

$340,313,538

$76,430,412

$263,883,125


(Miles)

Funding/


3 III-1 1.2 Local 250 East 4100 North (County) to 600 South (Smithfield) 2 Lanes, Median $6,673,233

3 III-2 4.6 State Hwy 91 1400 North (Logan) to 600 South (Smithfield) 6 Lanes, Median $52,852,800

3 III-3 7.6 State Mendon Road 10th West (Logan) to Hwy 23 (Mendon) 4 Lanes, Median $78,973,287

3 III-4 3.4 State Hwy 89/91 3200 South (Nibley) to 100 West (Logan) 6 Lanes, Median $38,913,600

3 III-5 1.4 Local 600 South Hwy 91 to 1200 East (Smithfield) 2 Lanes, Median $7,835,520

3 III-6 4.0 Local 1200 West 300 North (Hyrum) to Hwy 89/91 (Logan) 2 Lanes, Median $22,387,200

3 III-7 0.6 Local 300 South (aka 1700 South) Hwy 165 to 200 West ( Providence) 2 Lanes, Median $3,414,048

3 III-8 1.2 Local Center Street Hwy 91 to 400 East (Hyde Park) 2 Lanes, Median $6,923,527

3 III-9 NA Local Roadway Safety Projects Systemic and Spot projects in various locations TBD $3,000,000

$220,973,214

$50,233,528

$170,739,687


(Miles)

Funding/


UF UF-1 0.9 Local 100 East 300 South to 400 North (Logan) 2 Lanes, Median $6,025,714

UF UF-2 1.1 Local 400 North Hwy 89/91 to Center (Wellsville) 2 Lanes, Median $7,318,080

UF UF-3 2.1 Local Airport Rd 1000 West to 3400 North (County, Logan) 4 Lanes, Median $11,674,466

UF UF-4 2.6 Local 600 West 400 North to 2500 North (Logan) 2 Lanes, Median $14,551,680

UF UF-5 1.2 Local 100 North Hwy 165 to 300 East (Providence) 2 Lanes, Median $6,716,160

UF UF-6 2.2 Local 200 West 2500 North to 600 South (No Logan, Smithfield) 2 Lanes, Median $14,313,765

UF UF-7 3.35 Local 4000 South Hwy 89/91 to Hwy 165 (County, Nibley) 2 Lanes, Median $22,286,880

UF UF-8 2.1 Local 1200 West Remaining Unfinished Segments 2 Lanes, Median $13,970,880

UF UF-9 1.03 Local 800 West Phase II 3200 South to 4000 South (Nibley) 2 Lanes, Median $5,748,362

$102,605,987

$102,605,987

$0


(Miles)

Funding/


1 1.7 Local 3600 West Trenton to Amalga 2 Lanes $100,000

1 NA Local TBD by COG Process Various Projects outside MPO area $3,300,032



$10,274,901

PHASE 2 TOTALS FOR COUNTY

Phase 1 Capacity Projects 2015 to 2024

PHASE 1 TOTALS

PHASE 1 TOTALS FOR COUNTYPHASE 1 TOTALS FOR STATE


PHASE 2 TOTALS


PHASE 2 TOTALS FOR STATE


PHASE 3 TOTALS



Capacity Projects Needed (but not enough funding by 2040)

PHASE 4 TOTALS

Major Roadway Preservation Projects (2015 to 2040)

All PHASE PRESERVATION TOTALS

Phase II: 2025 to 2034

Phase I: 2015 to 2024

Phase III: 2035 to 2040




ROADWAY “BUILDOUT” VISION PLAN (BEYOND

2040)

In the long term (beyond 2040), additional roadway

improvements will be needed to accommodate Cache

County’s growth. The Cache Buildout Roadway Vision

Plan (See Figure 12) assumes a rough “buildout” of the

current land use plans for all communities in the valley.

It proposes a version of the future roadway network

that will be needed.

This plan is for illustrative purposes only.

Improvements identified have not been financially

constrained nor have they been evaluated for air

quality conformity purposes.

This plan attempts to incorporate the longer term

transportation master plans of communities to the

extent possible. The plan should be used as a joint tool

used by the CMPO and local communities and Cache

County to ensure planning consistency. Local officials

should exercise caution when using the plan to require

right-of-way dedications. In many cases, the

alignments listed might need more detailed attention

and study before they are incorporated into local

planning documents.

Whenever proposing solutions that are more than 30

years in the future it should be noted that many of the

assumptions used will likely change. Assumptions that

are subject to long term change include things like car

ownership rates, vehicle fleet characteristics, fuel

prices, changes in land use patterns and shifts in Cache

County’s employment types. Nonetheless, it is

important to attempt to evaluate and plan for longer

term transportation facilities to ensure preservation of

rights of way and evaluate possible impacts. Over time,

this plan will need continual adjustment and

refinement as land use policies and development

trends change.



Figure 12—Cache Unconstrained “Buildout” Roadway Vision Plan (2040 and Beyond)

¬«252

¬«30

¬«23

£¤89/91

¬«165

£¤91

¬«218

¬«142

Logan

Wellsville

Hyrum

Nibley

North Logan

Smithfield

Amalga

Hyde Park

Providence

Millville

Newton

Trenton

Mendon

River Heights

S U

S 8

9/9

1

W SR 30

S S

R 2

3

W 6200 N

W 3000 N

W 200 N

S S

R 1

65

S 2

40

0 W

N 6

00

0 W

N 2

00

E

N 8

00

E

N 6

00

W

N 1

60

0 E

E SR 101

N 3

20

0 W

N 8

00

W

N 1

00

0 W

S 2

00

0 W W 1800 S

MENDON RD

W 4400 S

W 7000 N

N 4

00

E

N 4

80

0 W

W 600 N

W 1000 N

W 3200 S

N U

S 9

1

S 2

00

E

W 200 S

N 8

00

0 W

CANYON R

D

N 1

20

0 E

W 4200 N

W 300 N

S 1

00

0 W

N 2

40

0 W

S 2

00

W

N U

S 9

1

E 300 S

S 1

50

0 W

W 1400 N

S 5

40

0 W

N S

R 142

S 1

20

0 W

E 7400 S

E 400 N

W 7800 N

E 1400 N

E 600 S

W 1000 S

HO

LLO

W R

D

W 3400 N

E 6200 S

N 1

00

W

E 1000 N

N S

R 2

3

S 4

00

W

S 8

00

W

S 3

20

0 W

S 3

60

0 W

E 4400 N

S 5

0 E

W 3400 S

E 3400 N

AIRPO

RT R

D

W 5000 N

E 1900 N

N 6

80

0 W

W 4000 S

E MAIN

ST

S C

EN

TE

R S

T

E 200 S

N 6

40

0 W

E 1800 N

W 5100 NN

38

00 W

W 4600 N

W 6100 S

E 1600 S

N 6

00

E

S 8

00

E

PA

RK

AV

E

W 3000 S

S 7

00

W

W 2600 N

S 1

60

0 W

S 4

00

E

S M

AIN

ST

W 2000 N

E 8500 N

S 5

90

0 W

S 5

00

E

S 1

00

0 E

W 5000 S

N 4

00

0 W

S 6

40

W

S 4

00

0 W

N 2

00

W

E 900 N

W 7400 N

S 3

00

0 W

W 3

800

S

W 2000 S

E 100 N

W S

R 2

18

E 3100 N

S 1

80

0 W

E 6600 S

E 300 N

S 5

50

E

N 2

00

0 W

N 3

00

E

N 1

60

0 W

E US 89

W 800 N

W 6600 N

S 3

00

W

BIRCH C

ANYON R

D

W 5400 S

N 1

00

0 E

W 300 S

N 5

20

0 W

N 5

60

0 W

W 1200 S

W 4600 S

S 3

00

E

W 7200 N

E 1000 S

W 7400 S

N 7

60

0 W

W 1700 S

W CENTER ST

N 4

00

W

N M

AIN

ST

W 4200 S

W 4800 S

N 6

75

0 W

MOUNTAIN RD

E 2500 N

N 7

00

0 W

S 3400 W

W S

R 2

3

W 2400 S

W 5700 S

W 3800 N

N 7800 W

S 6

40

0 W

W 6800 S

W 6600 S

S 4

80

0 W

HELL CANYON

W 2900 S


W 7820 N

S 3

10

0 W

E 3025 N

W 2200 N

E 8200 N

S 2

50

E

S 6

00

W

N 1

25

0 E

W 3100 N

W 100 N

S 2

80

0 W

W 4700 N

SU

MA

C D

R

AS

PE

N D

R

W 5800 N

W 3200 NS

19

00 W

W 550 N

S 1

10

0 W

W 6500 S

S 3

80

0 W

N 3

000 W

E 4200 N

W 2

200 S

E 5400 N

N C

EN

TE

R S

T

N 6

20

0 W

W 2600 S

S 1

00

W

W 100 S

S 3

90

0 W

S 6

00

E

SA

M F

ELLO

W R

D

W 600 S

S 1

00

E

W 4300 S

E 4500 N

E CENTER ST

W 8100 N

E 450 N

W 400 S

W 1100 S

S 8

30

E

N 5

00

E

S 2

65

0 W

ANVIL BLVD

SU

MM

IT D

R

N B

ON

NE

VIL

LE

SH

OR

EL

INE

W 1800 N

W 5400 N

N 1

20

0 W

N 7

20

0 W

W 2500 N

W 7500 N

W 1400 S

N 7

30

0 W

W 6800 N

W 5900 N

N 8

80

E

DRY CANYON RD

W 1600 N

N 5

00 W

S 4

50

W

E 700 N

QUAIL WAY

N 4

40

0 W

N 3

00

W

W 1330 N

E 2

30

0 N

E 800 N

E 7100 N

N 9

00

W

W 8100 S

W 400 N

S 6

50

W

S 4

20

0 W

S 4

50

E

W 7200 S

N 3

10

0 W

E 800 S

S 4

30

0 W

E 400 S

N 1

80

0 W

RIVER HEIGHTS BLVD

W 5230 N

N 1

00

E

W 900 S

W 4400 N

W 6550 N

E 440 S

HYCLO

NE R

D

N 1

70

0 W

W 450 N

GA

RD

EN

DR

W 3700 N

N 1

50

W

W 700 S

VA

LLE

Y V

IEW

WE

ST

N 2600 W

N 9

00

E

E 525 S

W 4800 N

N 6

500 W

N 1

90

0 W

PRIVATE

E 8000 S

W 1700 N

N 1

40

0 W

E 100 S

E 590 N

W 1900 S

N 3

30

0 W

W 3700 S

S 2

14

0 W

W 150 N

E 500 N

E 2900 S

S 2

58

ES 1

40

W

S 5

00

W

S 2

80

W

N 1

40

E

N 2

30

0 W

W 1050 N

SA

RA

H S

T

S 3

50

W

S 1

56

5 W

E 1250 N

S 2

10

0 W

W 1400 N

E 300 S

W 2200 S

N 1

90

0 W

SAM FELLO

W RD

N 6

40

0 W

S 2

40

0 W

N 5

60

0 W

W 600 S

N 2

00

W

W 2600 S

S S

R 1

65

N 1

20

0 W

E 200 S

N 6

40

0 W

W 1400 N

N S

R 2

3

W 4800 N

W 6800 S

W 7000 N

E 2500 N

W 1400 S

W 300 S

S 8

00

W

W 4200 S

W 300 N

W 100 N

N 5

60

0 W

N 3

20

0 W

W 7800 N

S 3

80

0 W

N 4

00

W

W 1800 S

S 2

40

0 W

N 8

00

W

N 8

00

E

CANYON RD

E 200 S

E 100 N

W 600 N

S 1

00

E

E 400 N

S 1

00

EN

40

00 W

S 4

00

0 W

N 5

60

0 W

W 4000 S

N 1

00

E

W 100 N

S 1

60

0 W

N 2

40

0 W

W 1200 S

N M

AIN

ST

W 4600 N

Legend

Roadway Buildout Functional Class

Other Principal Arterial

Future Principal Arterial

Minor Arterial

Future Minor Arterial

Collector

Future Collector

¯



TRANSIT VISION PLAN

With steady population growth in Cache County and

increasing levels of projected traffic congestion,

demand for public transit service is expected to

increase. To accommodate this expected demand for

additional service, the following elements of service

expansion are included as part of the CMPO’s Transit

Vision Plan.

YEARS 2021 TO 2040

This period is marked by expansion in the levels of

service offered mostly to the existing service areas.

This would include:

Increased bus frequency for all CVTD routes during peak times where demand warrants.

Extended service hours Study the appropriate bus service on Sundays Main Street Service (e.g. bus trolley connecting Logan downtown with Utah State University)

Add Automated Vehicle Location service for all routes (e.g. real time texting of bus arrival time)

BEYOND 2040

As demand for transit increases it will be important to

determine how to most efficiently meet that demand.

Technology continues to play a stronger role in transit

with products like automatic vehicle location that lets

the user know where the bus is in real time.

Additionally express routes with limited stops,

dedicated travel lanes for transit, signal prioritization

and other improvements that make transit more

convenient make transit more attractive to users.

How to implement the correct items and service

delivery will be something that will take continued

study.

BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT)

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is a premium form of rapid

transit that provides similar levels of service as

traditional light rail. However, for most applications,

BRT can be implemented much cheaper than

traditional light rail. BRT also allows for more flexibility

in terms of the operational design. Some

characteristics of optimal BRT include:

Separated (bus only) right-of-way lanes (can operate portions in mixed traffic if needed)

Rapid boarding from enhanced loading platforms Special branded or “styilized” bus vehicles Fast, frequent and reliable (bus frequency less than every ½ hour)

BRT is proposed as part of the Cache Transit Vision Plan

roughly on the main street corridor from Hyrum to

Smithfield along with a spur to Utah State University.

The largely “linear” north-south development pattern

of Cache County makes BRT attractive as a possible

enhanced transit solution. Planning and right-of-way

preservation activities for BRT should begin now in

Cache County. Because specific funding has not been

identified, BRT was not used for any of the traffic

analysis or air quality conformity modeling in this plan.

BRT is presented for planning purposes only. However,

since the technology can be implemented

incrementally (fixed route bus change to express bus

and eventually bus rapid transit), elements of BRT may

begin during the life of this plan.

CACHE COUNTY PASSENGER RAIL

As a longer term option, “heavy rail” or commuter

passenger rail for Cache County should be explored.

This likely would include evaluating options for future

rail construction adjacent to the current Union Pacific

Cache Valley rail spur to connect to Union Pacific’s

main line. It is not at all clear when or if this type of

transportation facility would be justified in terms of

ridership or cost effectiveness. However, in order to

potentially preserve opportunities and to reduce future

right-of-way or construction costs, the region should

begin to explore the feasibility and cost effectiveness of

this type of service and begin to plan accordingly.

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN VISION PLAN

This section is intended to identify short and long term bicycle and pedestrian needs and appropriate solutions to increase transportation choice in Cache County. The plan focuses primarily on the needs of these modes as they relate to transportation. This means not only the commuter, but also the student or shopper, or anyone



who makes a trip by walking or cycling instead of by automobile. These two modes do overlap into recreation and the proposed solutions will certainly be a benefit to the recreational cyclist and walker.

TRAILS, PATHWAYS AND BIKE ROUTES

Communities in Cache County have proposed over 240 miles of new trails and pathways. Another 196 miles have been proposed in the unincorporated portions of the county. In some cases these identified pathways might be recreational single track (unpaved) trails or urban (paved) shared use paths (at least 10 feet wide paths to accommodate both pedestrians and bicyclist) or in some cases sidewalks (at least 10 feet wide).

Figure 13 shows the existing and proposed “regionally significant” trails and shared use pathways for Cache County. This plan does not attempt to include all the many community trails and paths that exist or are proposed. Rather it attempts to identify a “backbone” network of priority trails that have significance regionally to connect community trails throughout the Cache Valley. The trails that make up this regional network is a starting point and other segments will be considered for inclusion as community plans mature.

The “on-road” Bike Routes for Cache County are also shown in Figure 13. These routes are generally located on existing roads (shoulders or mixed traffic) and usually distinguished by road signage (and in some cases pavement markings). A portion of the proposed regional bike route has been completed with signage (shown in blue).

This plan makes no attempt to prioritize implementation or construction scheduling for the trails, pathways or bike routes identified. With the uncertainty of funding (allocated largely through competitive grants) and the difficulty of assigning costs to projects (each project is unique with vastly different right-of-way and construction costs) no attempt was made to constrain the plan financially. However, future efforts should be directed toward prioritizing trail and pathway projects and linkages.

Priorities should be based on a project’s ability to serve the largest population, provide safe linkages to high use activity centers and its ability to accommodate the needs of a concentrated special needs populations (e.g. children or those without a car). Also, since trips on public transit often begins and ends via walking or biking, priority should be given to those projects that

are positioned to support transit stops and connections. Priorities should also be given to facilities that support schools (Safe Routes to School) or other educational institutions.

ADDITIONAL 2040 BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN

PROJECTS TO CONSIDER

In addition to the trails, pathways and bike routes

identified, the following bicycle and pedestrian related

projects or programs have been identified through

public involvement and the CMPO’s Bicycle and

Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC).

Upper Boulevard Trail Completion- (Short Dugway aka 600 East, Logan): roadway crossing solution (e.g. overpass)

Close Gaps in Sidewalk Connectivity -(all urban or urbanizing communities): identify network gaps and install sidewalks as necessary

Accelerate Repair/Replacements of Deteriorated Sidewalks-(all urban or urbanizing communities)

South Logan Highway 89/91 Crossing-(near “Y” Intersection, Logan): enhanced roadway pedestrian & bicycle crossing solution (e.g. underpass)

Install High Visibility Pedestrian Flags -(appropriate high pedestrian use non-signalized intersections in all communities)

Non-signalized Crosswalk Enhancements- (200 North between 100 W. & 600 W. & Logan Downtown mid-block “store back” walkway from 300 North to 100 South and other busy roads that have heavy foot crossing traffic based on an inventory): provide pavement markings, traffic calming and adequate lighting

Create Trail, Pathway and Bikeway User Map- (countywide): Hardcopy and web based version

On-street Pavement Markings-(Countywide where appropriate): Provide shared lane “sharrow” or bike lane striping



Figure 13—Regionally Significant Trails and Shared Use Pathways (and On-road Bike Routes)

¬«252

¬«30

¬«23

£¤89/91

¬«165

£¤91

¬«218

Logan

Trenton

Hyrum

Nibley

North Logan

Smithfield

Amalga

Hyde Park

Wellsville

Providence

Millville

Richmond

Newton

Mendon

River Heights

Lewiston

S U

S 8

9/9

1

W SR 30

S S

R 2

3

S S

R 1

65

E SR 101

W 6200 N

W 3000 N

W 200 N

N 6

00

0 W

N 2

00

E

N 8

00

E

N 6

00

W

N 1

60

0 E

N 3

20

0 W

N 1

00

0 W

S 2

00

0 W W 1800 S

MENDON RD

W SR 142

W 4400 S

W 7000 N

N 6

40

0 W

N 4

00

E

N 4

80

0 W

S 3

20

0 W

W 1000 N

W 3200 S

N U

S 9

1

CANYON R

D

W 200 S

N 1

20

0 E

W 4200 N

S 4

00

E

S 1

00

0 W

S 4

00

W

W 300 N

N U

S 9

1

E 300 S

S 1

50

0 W

W 1400 N

S 5

40

0 W

S 8

00

E

W 600 N

S 1

20

0 W

W 9800 N

E US 89

E 800 S

E 9600 N

E 400 N

W 7800 N

E 1400 N

E 600 S

HO

LLO

W R

D

W 3400 N

W 1000 S

E 6200 S

W 8600 N

N 8

00

W

N 1

00

W

E M

AIN

ST

E 1000 N

N S

R 2

3

E 4400 N

N 5

80

0 W

S 5

0 E

W 3400 S

S 2

00

W

S 2

00

E

E 3400 N

AIRPO

RT RD

W 5000 N

E 1900 N

N 6

80

0 W

W 4000 S

N 2

400

W

E 200 S

BIRCH C

ANYON R

D

N 3

80

0 W

S 3

60

0 W

W 4600 N

W 6100 S

E 1600 S

E 9800 N

PA

RK

AV

E

W 10000 N

W 3000 S

S 7

00

W

W 2600 N

S 1

60

0 W

N 3

00

E

S M

AIN

ST

W 2000 N

E 8500 N

S 5

90

0 W

S 5

00

E

S 1

00

0 E

W 5000 S

N 4

00

0 W

N 2

3 S

R

N 2

00

W

S 6

40

W

N S

R 142

E 900 N

S 3

00

0 W

E 8950 N

W 3

800

S

W 2000 S

E 100 N

W S

R 2

18

E 3100 N

E 300 N

S 5

50

E

N 2

00

0 W

N 1

60

0 W

W 800 N


W 6600 N

S 3

00

W

W 9000 N

W 5400 S

N 1

00

0 E

W 300 S

N 5

20

0 W

N 5

60

0 W

W 1200 S

W 4600 S

S 3

00

E

S 4

00

0 W

W 5100 N

W 7200 N

E 1000 S

E US 89

W 1700 S

W CENTER ST

S 2

50

E

N M

AIN

ST

W 4200 S

W 4800 S

N 6

75

0 W

N 4

00

W

MOUNTAIN RD

E 2500 N

N 7

00

0 W

S 3400 W

W S

R 2

3

W 2400 S

S 1

90

0 W

W 5700 S

W 3800 N

S 6

40

0 W

S 1

80

0 W

S 4

80

0 W

HELL CANYON

W 2900 S

PROVIDENCE CANYON RD

W 7820 N

S 3

10

0 W

W 9600 N

E 3025 N

GREEN CANYON RDW 2200 N

E 8200 N

N 6

30

0 W

S 6

00

W

N 1

25

0 E

W 3100 N

W 100 N

S 2

80

0 W

W 4700 N

SU

MA

C D

R

AS

PE

N D

R

W 3200 N

W 550 N

S 1

10

0 W

E 2600 N

N 6

00

E

S 3

80

0 W

W 2

200 S

E 5400 N

N 6

20

0 W

W 2600 S

W 9200 N

W 5800 N

S 8

00

W

W 100 S

S B

ON

NE

VIL

LE

SH

OR

EL

INE

S 3

90

0 W

S 6

00

E

SAM FELLO

W RD

E 200 N

S 2

40

0 W

N 5700 W

W 600 S

W 5800 S

S 1

00

E

W 4300 S

E 4500 N

E CENTER ST

W 8100 N

E 450 N

W 400 S

S 8

30

E

N 20

00 E

ANVIL BLVD

W 1800 N

W 5400 N

N 1

20

0 W

N 7

20

0 W

W 2500 N

W 7500 N

W 1400 S

E 9000 N

N 7

30

0 W

W 800 S

W 6800 N

W 5900 N

N 8

80

E

DRY CANYON RD

N 5

00

W

S 4

50

W

E 700 N

QUAIL WAY

S 1

40

0 W

N 4

40

0 W

N 3

00

W

W 1330 N

E 2

30

0 N

W 280 N

N 6

75

E

E 7100 N

W 10200 N

N 9

00

W

E 9400 N

W 400 N

S 4

20

0 W

S 4

50

E

N 3

10

0 W

W 3900 S

S 4

30

0 W

N 1

80

0 W

W 5230 N

S 5

0 W

N 1

00

E

E 400 S

W 4400 N

E 8600 N

W 6550 N

N 1

70

0 W

GA

RD

EN

DR

W 3700 N

N 1

50

W

S 5

00

W

S 1

00

W

W 675 S

N 2600 W

E 1030 N

E 525 S

W 4800 N

N 6

500 W

N 1

90

0 W

PRIVATEW 1700 N

N 1

40

0 W

N 3

85

W

S 3

30

0 W

E 100 S

E 590 N

W 1900 S

N 3

30

0 W

W 3700 S

ORCHARD DR

N 6

50

E

E 2900 S

HA

MM

ON

D L

N

W 2100 N

W 1050 NN

68

50 W

E 6800 N

S 6

75

E

S 3

50

W

S 1

56

5 W

W 2200 S

W 9800 N

N 6

40

0 W

N 3

00

W

E 100 S

S M

AIN

ST

N 3

20

0 W

N 2

00

W

N 1

20

0 W

E 2500 N

W 3400 N

E 200 S

W 100 N

N 2

00

W

S 2

00

W

PR

IVA

TE

W 4200 S

E 300 S

E 300 S

W 600 N

S 8

00

W

N 6

00

0 W

S 2

40

0 W

E 300 S

N 8

00

W

N 6

40

0 W

S 1

00

E

N 1

60

0 W

CANYON RD

W 4600 N

W 7200 N

N 1

60

0 W

N 1

00

W

E 300 S

W 3800 N

S 4

00

W

W 8600 N

W 300 S

N 2

40

0 W

S 2

00

0 W

W 4000 S

N 8

00

W

W 400 N

E 200 S

N 5

60

0 W

N 6

30

0 W

N 4

00

0 W

W 2200 N

S 3

20

0 W

N S

R 2

3

E MAIN ST

E 300 N

S 1

00

E

S 2

00

W

S 3

60

0 W

S 2

50

E

N 2

40

0 W

N 2

00

E

E 400 N

W 8600 N

S 2

40

0 WLegend

Existing Trails and Paths

Proposed Trails and Paths

On Road Bike Routes



CHAPTER 6-IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES

Implementation of the 2040 Regional Transportation

Plan will need to be a cooperative effort. As an

organization, the CMPO will coordinate future planning

and implementation activities with local, state and

federal officials.

PLAN REFINEMENT & UPDATE

In order to be effective, transportation planning needs

to be a continual process. Major updates to this plan

will happen a minimum of every 4 years. However, this

plan will be amended by the CMPO as new information

is available and substantive changes are warranted.

New or altered projects can be amended into the plan

at any time. However, projects added that meet the air

quality definition of “regionally significant” will require

a new air quality conformity analysis and

determination.

IMPLEMENTATION STUDIES

This RTP proposes mostly “concept level”

transportation solutions. The projects identified in the

various “Vision Plans” in the previous chapter do not

represent precise alignments or detailed project

characteristics. Rather they identify the type and form

of transportation project, its regional connectivity

requirement and a rough idea of a possible alignment.

As already noted, for many project funded with federal

or state dollars, a project specific environmental review

process will ultimately refine the project details and

resolve definite alignments (after full evaluation of any

alternatives). However, for transportation

improvements that are many years away from a full

federal or state environmental review (or for some of

the locally funded longer term projects), the region

would be well served by taking a project beyond

concept level planning sooner, rather than later. The

reason for this is because development pressure and

uninformed incremental decision making today can

preclude (or make more expensive) options for

tomorrow (when the project finally moves to the

environmental or design stage). This is especially true

for preservation of needed rights-of-ways.

If forerunner transportation studies are done well (and

are sufficiently comprehensive and sensitive to factors

that will eventually be more fully considered as part of

a future environmental process), these early results

can be used to better guide ongoing local decision

making (such as what corridor to preserve or which

sensitive lands to avoid). In fact, if approached

correctly, this early analysis and public involvement

effort (and results) can be “handed-off” to a federal or

state environmental process (when the time comes)

and avoid the need to backtrack on already resolved

issues.

With this in mind, the following special project specific

planning studies have been identified and should be

completed as soon as resources and funding allow:

Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Feasibility Study Western Arterial Corridor Study Logan Main Street One-way Couplet Economic Study

Commuter Rail Feasibility Study (beyond 2040)

In addition, there is a need to have more

comprehensive and detailed plans (than what is able to

be provided in this RTP) to guide future transit and

bicycle and pedestrian investments. Therefore the

following plans (eventually to be incorporated into this

plan) are needed:

Cache Valley Short Range Transit Plan Cache County Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan



LOCAL GOVERNMENT COORDINATION

The CMPO will work with local community officials in

an attempt to ensure general consistency between this

RTP and the local transportation master plans of

participating jurisdictions. This will need to be an

ongoing process as plans and circumstances change.

LAND USE IMPLEMENTATION

Other than education and advocacy, the CMPO has no

direct authority over the land use of participating

jurisdictions. This authority resides with the local

elected and appointed community officials. However,

the adequacy of the transportation solutions proposed

in this plan are largely predicated on a gradual trend

toward local implementation of some of the growth

principles described in the Envision Cache Valley plan

as it relates to land use. The resulting socio-economic

data that was used in the travel models is based on

these land use assumptions and form the basis of the

needs analysis and transportation project selection in

this plan. As communities further embrace and

implement the Envision Cache Valley plan, the CMPO

will need to adjust the land use (and resulting socio-

economic demographics) and re-evaluate the adequacy

of the RTP.

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

While the CMPO does provide assistance in the form of

facilitation, technical assistance and shared staff

resources, project implementation activities are largely

left to individual communities and participating

agencies (such as UDOT). For example, even though a

particular highway project might be identified in this

RTP it still requires one or more local jurisdictions (city

or county) to incorporate the project into their

individual jurisdiction’s master planning, preserve the

rights-of-ways and provide the administrative oversight

and contracting for project design and construction.

The responsibility of local governments might vary

depending on how the project (highway or

bicycle/pedestrian) is funded and who will ultimately

own the right of way.

FEDERALLY FUNDED LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROJECTS

In the case of a local road improvement project (non-

UDOT) that is supported with federal transportation

funding (allocated and programmed by the CMPO),

UDOT is required to assist the local jurisdiction with

environmental approvals, design and construction. This

does not mean the project is a “UDOT” project. It’s still

a local government project for which UDOT is required

to provide assistance and administrative oversight. This

is because UDOT has the experience and technical

capacity to make sure the project is done according to

federal guidelines (which can be rather onerous and

difficult). Nonetheless, the local government is the

ultimate contracting authority and has the main

responsibility to see the project through to completion.

The local governments also have the responsibility of

funding any ineligible project costs as well as those

costs in excess of the federal share and providing the

required local match (usually at a minimum of about

7%).

LOCALLY FUNDED PROJECTS

All aspects of project delivery for those transportation

projects (including bicycle and pedestrian projects)

funded only with local funds is the responsibility of the

participating local governments.

COUNTYWIDE TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX

In 2008 countywide voters approved a one-quarter

cent increase in sales tax to help fund regionally

significant roadway improvements. The revenue from

this locally administered tax presently generates about

$3 Million annually for highway related projects

anywhere in Cache County.

According to state code, the funding resulting from this

tax is to be allocated by the Cache County Council

based on a recommendation by the Cache County

Council of Governments (CCCOG). The CCCOG is made

up of mayors from each of the 19 jurisdictions and the

Cache County Executive. The CCCOG has established a

project application and prioritization scoring process.

One of the policies adopted by the CCCOG specifies

that in order to be eligible to apply, any project located



in the CMPO planning area must be included in this

RTP.

Once funding is approved by the Cache County Council,

project design and delivery is the responsibility of the

local jurisdiction(s).

TRANSIT PROJECTS

Following the CMPO’s programming of any federal

urban transit funds, project delivery becomes the

responsibility of the Cache Valley Transit District

(CVTD). Most of the federal funding available to the

CVTD is programmed toward the purchase of expansion

or replacement buses and other capital expenditures.

The local funds (collected by CVTD through a dedicated

voter approved sales tax) from participating

jurisdictions are programmed by the CVTD Board of

Trustees. This board is made up of appointed officials

from all the participating CVTD communities.

STATE (UDOT) PROJECTS

The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) is

responsible for all aspects of project delivery in state

owned rights-of-ways. As a matter of practice, UDOT

coordinates the project planning and delivery with local

community officials and the public. UDOT generally

follows a required environmental review process that is

largely patterned after its federal counterpart.

TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

(TIP)

The CMPO works with UDOT, CVTD and local

communities through the Transportation Improvement

Program (TIP) to program funding for specific RTP

projects identified in this plan. The TIP is a six-year

capital improvement program for highway,

bicycle/pedestrian and transit projects. While the RTP

is generally “financially constrained” in the long term

under a set of funding assumptions, the TIP is where a

project is linked to actual funding sources and amounts.

Both the RTP and the TIP must be approved by the

CMPO Executive Council. The TIP is generally updated

and approve annually and includes opportunity for

public comment and involvement.

The CMPO assists the local governments and transit

agency providers in the region in implementing projects

in the TIP by programming federal funding for the

projects.

Appendix 1 April 2015

APPENDIX 1-AIR QUALITY MEMORANDUM 2040RTP-1

MEMO # 2040RTP-1

DATE April 13, 2015

FROM Cache Metropolitan Planning Organization (CMPO)

SUBJECT DRAFT CONFORMITY ANALYSIS FOR THE CACHE COUNTY 2040 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN

ABSTRACT

Portions of Cache County, Utah and Franklin County, Idaho were designated by EPA as a non- attainment area for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) on December 14, 2009. The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) and the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) require that all regionally significant highway and transit projects in air quality non-attainment areas be derived from a “conforming” Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). A conforming Plan or Program is one that has been analyzed for emissions of controlled air pollutants and found to be within emission limits established in the State Implementation Plan (SIP), or found to be in compliance with EPA interim conformity requirements until a SIP is approved. This conformity analysis has been prepared by the Cache Metropolitan Planning Organization (CMPO), and submitted to the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration for their concurrence. This conformity analysis is being prepared under the March 2010 conformity regulations issued by the EPA and FHWA final rulemaking found in the MAP-21 legislation.

This document analyzes the air quality impacts of the proposed CMPO 2040 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) to be presented to the CMPO’s Executive Council for adoption following a public comment process and review. This analysis also includes vehicle activity in Franklin County, Idaho.

Based on the analysis presented in this document, the Cache Valley 2040 RTP conforms to mobile source budget in the State Implementation Plan and also conforms to the interim regulations for PM2.5 non-attainment areas.


A. CONFORMITY REQUIREMENTS

This conformity analysis report compares expected emissions in various future years to emission “budget”

thresholds as established by federal regulations. This analysis must include all anticipated capacity

increasing transportation projects and also take in account the normal population growth impacts. All

projects included in the Cache Valley 2040 RTP (see Appendix 1) were included in this emissions analysis.

Franklin County Idaho does not have any capacity increasing projects planned to the year 2040.

CONFORMITY PROCESS

Since the commencement of the planning requirements in the late 1960s, further requirements (most

recently the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century and the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments) have

added to the responsibilities and the decision making powers of local governments through the

Metropolitan Planning Organization. The Cache Metropolitan Planning Organization (CMPO) is the

Metropolitan Planning Organization for the Logan Urbanized Area.

In November 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued rules establishing the interim

procedures to be used, prior to the approval of a State Implementation Plan (SIP), to show that

transportation plans and programs conform to air quality regulations. Developed by the State of Utah’s

Department of Environmental Quality, a “SIP” is a specific plan to attain the air quality standard in Cache

Valley for PM2.5 by a specified time. The SIP has been submitted to EPA but has yet to be approved for the

Logan Ut/ID non-attainment area.

On March 25, 2015 notice was received from EPA to begin a 30 day comment period for initiating the

“adequacy finding” process that will likely lead to a determination that the Motor Vehicle Emission Budget

(MVEB) included in the submitted SIP is considered “adequate” and must be used for any transportation

conformity demonstration. Under this process the MVEB from the SIP is approved in advance of approval of

the entire SIP (at least for conformity analysis purposes). The SIP MVEB only applies to the Cache County

portions since Idaho would have their own MVEB as part of the Idaho PM2.5 SIP.

Until the entire SIP is approved or the MVEB is officially approved by EPA as adequate, the interim

conformity rules apply. Conformity regulations require that transportation projects that use federal funds,

as well as “regionally significant” transportation projects sponsored by recipients of other federal funds,

may not proceed in areas designated as “non-attainment (or maintenance) with respect to the National

Ambient Air Quality Standards” until and unless a regional emissions analysis of the Plan and TIP

demonstrates that conformity requirements are satisfied. This report summarizes CMPO’s conformity

analysis of the 2040 RTP. Interim conformity requires that future PM2.5 emissions and precursor emissions

must be lower than 2008 levels. The process for applying the “interim” rules requires that emissions from

the northern Franklin County Idaho emissions also be included.

At the time of this draft report the “interim” emission budget is what is applicable to the CMPO RTP

conformity analysis. However not knowing the timing of when the SIP MVEB might be officially designated

as “adequate” by the EPA, this report also compares projected emissions to that anticipated budget. In the

case of both budget thresholds the CMPO RTP establishes conformity.


This conformity analysis is subject to public and agency review, and requires the concurrence of the Federal

Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration.

CONFORMITY REQUIREMENTS

The CAAA established conformity requirements for transportation plans. These requirements are outlined

in 40 CFR 93.109 and include the following:

LATEST PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS

Current travel models are based on the latest available (2015-2040) socioeconomic data from the

Governor’s Office of Management and Budget and the Division of Workforce Services. Current zoning and

future land use plans were used to anticipate housing and employment growth to the year 2040. This socio-

economic data were allocated to traffic analysis zones by CMPO for use in the travel demand model.

LATEST EMISSIONS MODEL

The conformity analysis presented in this document is based on the EPA mobile source emissions model

MOVES 2014.

CONSULTATION PROCESS

Section 105 of 40 CFR Part 93 (Conformity Rule) requires, among other things, interagency consultation in

the development of conformity determinations. As a member of the Interagency Consultation Team defined

in the Conformity SIP adopted by the State Division of Air Quality and approved by EPA, CMPO subscribes to

the interagency consultation procedures outlined in the Conformity SIP. As part of the consultation

procedures defined in the Conformity SIP, the CMPO will present this report for review and public comment.

The Utah Division of Air Quality, Idaho Division of Air Quality, UDOT, CVTD, FHWA, and FTA will also be

provided with a copy of this report at the beginning of the public comment period.

This Conformity Analysis for the CMPO 2040 RTP will be made available for public inspection and comment

from in accordance with EPA conformity regulations. This Conformity Analysis will also be posted on the

CMPO website for public access and review during the public comment period. Written comments are due

by the noticed comment period expiration date. A notice of RTP and this conformity report will be sent by

e-mail to interested stakeholders and published in the Herald Journal newspaper.

TRANSPORTATION CONTROL MEASURES

A conformity analysis for the 2040 RTP must certify that nothing in the RTP interferes with the

implementation of any Transportation Control Measure (TCM) identified in the applicable State

Implementation Plan (SIP). At this time there is not an approved SIP addressing PM2.5 emissions in Cache

County and consequently there are no TCMs for Cache County. In addition, there were no TCM activities

identified as mobile source control strategies latest SIP revision submitted by the Utah State Governor in

December 2014. Further the Idaho PM 2.5 SIP also does not have any TCM control strategies.

EMISSION BUDGET AND INTERIM EMISSIONS BUDGET

In the revised State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted to EPA by the Utah Governor December 2014 a

Motor Vehicle Emission Budget (MVEB) is identified for direct PM 2.5 as well as precursor emissions for NOx

and VOC pollutants. The Idaho SIP likewise identifies a MVEB. At the time of this report neither of the


submitted SIPs has been approved by the EPA. Without approved SIPs the Logan Utah-Idaho non-attainment

area does not have an approved MVEB. If a MVEB was approved this conformity determination would need

to establish that projected emissions to the last year (and selected interim years) of the RTP (2040) is less

than the MVEB. Areas lacking an approved MVEB are required to prove conformity with an “interim” test. In

this case the interim test for the Logan Utah-Idaho non-attainment area is that mobile source emissions

must be less than those documented for the year 2008. Any analysis must include anticipated population

growth and resulting increases in VMT as well as predictions of the impacts of new transportation projects

or improvements.

EPA does not have to approve the entire SIP for a MVEB to become binding for conformity purposes. EPA

can approve just the MVEB (by issuance of an “Adequacy Finding” for the MVEB). On March 24, 2015 the

Federal Highway Administration received notice from EPA of their intent to begin the process of adequacy

finding for the Cache County MVEB found in the submitted Utah SIP (does not include Idaho). This process

includes a public comment period and other administrative approval steps. At the time of this report it is

unclear if this process will culminate in an approved MVEB before the expiration of the previous FHWA

conformity finding for the CMPO’s RTP. Rather than risk a “conformity lapse” this report established

conformity to both the proposed MVEB and the interim less than 2008 budget.

CURRENTLY CONFORMING PLAN AND TIP

As demonstrated in this document, the 2040 RTP for Cache County satisfies interim conformity

requirements. Also, all projects in the CMPO’s 2015-2020 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for

Cache County are defined in the 2040 RTP. Therefore, the TIP also satisfies conformity requirements. The

existing RTP 2035 established conformity and received such a finding from FHWA & FTA in a letter dated

August 16, 2011.

REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANT

All regionally significant projects, regardless of funding source (federal, state, or local) are included in the

CMPO 2040 RTP. Regionally significant projects are identified as those projects functionally classified as

principal arterial or higher, or certain minor arterials as identified through the interagency consultation

process. At the time of this document preparation, Cache County has not designated any minor arterials as

regionally significant. This action will be considered as needed in the future and in accordance with

interagency consultation procedures. The current Utah Department of Transportation Functional

Classification map was used to identify principal arterials. There are presently no planned regionally

significant projects in Franklin County, Idaho. Interstate highways, freeways, expressways, principal

arterials, light rail, and commuter rail are treated as regionally significant projects.

Because of their relative impact on air quality, all regionally significant projects regardless of funding source

must be included in the regional emissions analysis, and any significant change in the design or scope of a

regionally significant project must be reflected in the regional emissions analysis. The transportation

projects identified in Appendix 1, including all regionally significant projects, have been included in the

regional emissions analysis, and the modeling parameters used for these projects are consistent with the

design and scope of these projects as defined in the 2040 RTP. In order to improve the quality of the travel

model, other minor arterials and collectors, as well as local transit service, are also included in the regional

travel model (and thus the regional emissions analysis) but these facilities are not considered regionally

significant since they do not serve regional transportation needs as defined by EPA.


PM2.5 “HOT SPOT” ANALYSIS

In addition to the regional emissions conformity analysis presented in this document, Section 93.116 of the

Transportation Conformity Regulations states that specific projects within particulate matter (PM2.5) non-

attainment areas are required to prepare a “hot spot” analysis of emissions. The “hot spot” analysis serves

to verify that localized emissions from a specific project will meet air quality standards. This requirement is

addressed during the NEPA phase of project approval before FHWA or FTA can issue final project approval.

B. TRANSPORTATION MODELING

CACHE COUNTY UTAH TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL (TDM)

For Cache County Utah a travel demand model was used to estimate vehicle miles of travel (VMT) and

hourly speed profiles for the 2008 base year (interim test) and analysis years 2019, 2024, 2034, and 2040.

Improvements to the CMPO travel model practice and procedure is an ongoing process. This conformity

analysis is based on the latest version of the CMPO travel model. The CMPO travel modeling domain is only

for Cache County Utah.

The CMPO recently complete a major update of its TDM. This included updated traffic analysis zones

geography, sub county land use forecasting using CommunityVis GIS, socioeconomic updates based on the

Utah Governor’s Office of Management and Budget countywide totals for employment and population and

improved school “special trip” generator algorithms. In addition, the data collected from a 2012 home travel

survey and transit on-board survey were integrated into the model with this update.

PLANNING PROCESS

Federal funding for transportation improvements in urban areas requires that these improvements be

developed through a comprehensive, coordinated, and continuous planning process involving all affected

local governments. The planning process is certified annually by the CMPO Executive Council and reported

to the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration.

The documentation of the planning process includes, at a minimum, a twenty year Regional Transportation

Plan updated at least every four years; and a three-year to five-year Transportation Improvement Program

(capital improvement program) updated and adopted at least every four years. The planning process

includes the involvement of local elected officials, state agencies, and the general public.

TRAVEL CHARACTERISTICS

The CMPO travel model is used to estimate vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and vehicle speeds for current and

future transportation networks. The model VMT for 2013 is factored to match the 2013 VMT reported by

UDOT through the HPMS data reporting system. The resulting 2013 HPMS adjustment factor (see Table 1

below) for each road type is then applied to the travel model VMT for future years resulting in the HPMS

adjusted future VMT. The CMPO travel demand model is based on the latest available planning assumptions

and a computerized representation of the transportation network of highways and transit service. The travel

model files used for this conformity analysis are available upon request.


Table 1

Summary of 2013 Model to HPMS Factors

Table 2 summarizes the weekday vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for Cache County and Franklin

County and for each horizon year in the regional emissions analysis. The HPMS adjusted average

weekday VMT data shown in Table 2 is adjusted further for winter variations as part of the emission

projection calculation in a separate step.

Table 2

Weekday VMT 2019 2024 2034 2040

Cache County, Utah 2,764,131 3,063,264 3,785,650 4,178,123

Franklin County, Idaho 259,348 272,100 302,567 318,388

C. EMISSION MODELING

The MOVES model computer program developed by the EPA and is the required platform to complete

emission modeling for conformity purposes. Inputs to the MOVES 2014 model include vehicle population,

emission testing programs, fuel supply, fuel formulation, meteorological conditions, and vehicle age.

Roadway Type

2013 HPMS to

Model Adj

Factor

Rural Interstate 0.00

Rural Other Principal Arterial 1.03

Rural Minor Arterial 0.92

Rural Major Collector 1.24

Rural Minor Collector 1.41

Rural Local 6.55

Urban Interstate 0.00

Urban Freeway and Expressway 0.00

Urban Other Principal Arterial 1.06

Urban Minor Arterial 1.38

Urban Collector 0.73

Urban Local 3.20


I/M PROGRAMS

Cache County, UT implemented a vehicle emission and testing (I/M) program beginning January 2014.

Franklin County, ID does not have vehicle emission and testing programs at this time. Cache County’s I/M

program is comprised of a decentralized, test and repair network and requires a biennial test for all vehicles

1969 and newer. The program exempts vehicles less than six years old from an emission inspection.

VEHICLE AGE PROFILE

The Cache County vehicle age profile used in the MOVES 2014 emissions model is based on 2011 Utah

Department of Motor Vehicle registration data. The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality indicated

that the use of the Cache County based vehicle age profiles represents a reasonable estimate of the vehicle

age profile for Franklin County, Idaho.

VEHICLE MIX

The vehicle mix, or vehicle type VMT profile, for Cache County used in the MOVES 2014 emissions model is

based on MOVES2014 default adjusted to 2008 Utah Department of Transportation data. The Idaho

Department of Environmental Quality indicated that the use of the Cache County based vehicle mix

represents a reasonable estimate of vehicle activity for Franklin County, Idaho.

FUEL SUPPLY/FORMULATION

The fuel formulation and supply is based on MOVES2014 default data.

METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS

The Meteorological Conditions used in the MOVES2014 model are those utilized in the PM2.5 SIP for the

Logan, UT-ID Nonattainment Area. The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality indicated that the use of

the Cache County based Meteorological Conditions is a reasonable estimate of vehicle activity for Franklin

County, Idaho.

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT)

The VMT for Cache County was determined by use of the CMPO’s updated Travel Demand Model (TDM).

The travel model base year was calibrated with observed transit and traffic count data (HPMS). Forecasted

socio-economic and future transportation network inputs were used by the model to project future year

VMT. Franklin County Idaho does not have a travel model. VMT estimates for Franklin County Idaho are

based on the MOVES2014 default data. All VMT was adjusted seasonally (winter time) and for week day.

These adjustments were based on local year round traffic counts.


SPEED PROFILE

The CMPO travel model was used to establish existing and anticipated travel speeds as inputs to the

emission analysis. The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality indicated that the use of the Cache

County based speed profile represents a reasonable estimate of vehicle activity for Franklin County, Idaho.

D. CONFORMITY DETERMINATION

The following conformity findings for the Cache 2040 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) are based on the

transportation systems and planning assumptions described in this report, and the vehicle emissions model

approved by EPA, MOVES 2014.

LOGAN UTAH/IDAHO PM2 . 5 NON-ATTAINMENT AREA

Portions of Cache County, Utah and Franklin County, Idaho were designated by EPA as a PM2.5 non-

attainment area in December of 2009. Since a PM2.5 SIP for the Cache Valley area has not been submitted to

EPA for approval, the Cache Valley PM2.5 area is subject to interim conformity requirements. Interim

conformity requirements are that Cache Valley Area emissions related to PM2.5 pollution must be lower than

2008 levels. The analysis years 2019, 2024, 2034, and 2040 were selected in accordance with the

requirements of 40 CFR Section 93.119(e).

Transportation capacity increasing projects found in Appendix 1 & 2 were included as part of this air quality

analysis and resulting conformity report. Currently there are no transportation capacity increasing projects

planned or scheduled for Franklin County, Idaho in the 2040 planning horizon. Since Franklin County is not

part of an urbanized area, Metropolitan Planning Regulations requiring interim conformity determinations

do not apply and no Long Range Transportation Plan has been developed.

PM2.5 related emissions are present in two varieties referred to as direct emissions and precursor emissions.

In this analysis, direct emissions of PM2.5 consist of particles emitted from vehicle exhaust and brake wear,

and tire wear. Precursor emission of PM2.5 refers to vehicle exhaust emissions of gaseous nitrogen oxides

(NOx) that change to a particulate form through subsequent chemical reactions in the atmosphere.

Nitrogen oxides Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) are the main component of mobile source PM2.5

emissions in the Cache Valley Area.

As summarized in Tables 5a, 5b and 5c, emission estimates for the CMPO 2040 RTP satisfy the “Build < 2008”

test for direct emissions and precursor emissions of PM2.5 in the Cache Valley non-attainment area. From

this demonstration it is concluded that the CMPO 2040 RTP conforms to EPA interim conformity

requirements for PM2.5 non-attainment areas.


Table 5a

Table 5b

2019 2024 2034 2040

Seasonal Vehicle Miles Travled (VMT)

Cache County Utah 3,027,077 3,355,038 4,145,464 4,575,781

Franklin County Idaho 259,349 272,100 302,568 318,388

Total 3,286,426 3,627,138 4,448,031 4,894,170

2008 Emissions Interim Budget (ton/day)

Cache County Utah 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

Franklin County Idaho 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03

Total 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43

2015 SIP MVEB Budget (ton/day)

Cache County 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32

Total 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32

Emission Projections (ton/day)



Total 0.170 0.128 0.095 0.105

Conformity Results

Projection < 2008 Interim Budget Test PASS PASS PASS PASS

Projection < SIP MVEB Test PASS PASS PASS PASS

EMIS

SIO

N B

UD

GET

SC

ON

FOR

MIT

Y R

ESU

LTS

Logan Utah-Idaho PM 2.5 Non-attainment Area

Direct Particulates Conformity Determination

VM

T

Year 2019 2024 2034 2040

Seasonal (Week Day) Vehicle Miles Travled (VMT)



Total 3,286,426 3,627,138 4,448,031 4,894,170




Total 7.42 7.42 7.42 7.42


Cache County 4.49 4.49 4.49 4.49

Total 4.49 4.49 4.49 4.49




Total 2.25 1.48 0.90 0.86

Conformity Results




NOx Precursor Conformity Determination

VM

TEM

ISSI

ON

BU

DG

ETS

CO

NFO

RM

ITY

RES

ULT

S


Table 5c

Year 2019 2024 2034 2040

Seasonal Vehicle Miles Travled (VMT)



Total 3,286,426 3,627,138 4,448,031 4,894,170




Total 5.38 5.38 5.38 5.38


Cache County 3.23 3.23 3.23 3.23

Total 3.23 3.23 3.23 3.23




Total 2.04 1.60 1.18 1.16

Conformity Results



EMIS

SIO

N B

UD

GET

SC

ON

FOR

MIT

Y R

ESU

LTS

VM

T


VOC Conformity Determination


Appendix-1

Highway and Transit Projects

2040 RTP

Cache County



(Miles)

Funding/


1 I-1 1.45 Local 1200 East (Phase I) Unbuilt sections (No Logan to Smithfield) 2 Lanes, Median $8,115,360

1 I-2 0.80 Local 200 East Phase I 3100 North to 3700 North (Hyde Park) 2 Lanes, Median $6,491,300

1 I-3 1.30 Local 3100 North 200 East to 1200 East (No Logan, Hyde Park) 2 Lanes, Median $7,268,116

1 I-4 0.85 Local 200 West 1800 North to 2500 North (Logan, No Logan) 2 Lanes, Median $4,757,280

1 I-5 0.50 Local 1800 North 600 West to 10th West (Logan) 2 Lanes, Median $2,798,400

1 I-6 2.55 Local 600 West 400 North to Hwy 89/91 (Logan) 2 Lanes, Median $15,992,120

1 I-7 0.22 Local 2300 South Realign to 450 North & Main (Millville) 2 Lanes, Median $1,231,296

1 I-8 0.40 Local Mill Road Realign to 3200 South (Nibley/Millville) 2 Lanes, Median $2,242,470

1 I-9 0.19 Local 100 West 600 South to Golf Course Rd (Logan) 2 Lanes, Median $2,984,312

1 I-10 6.35 State SR-30 Phase I 10th West to SR 23 (Logan/County) 4 Lanes, Median $66,261,680

1 I-11 0.50 Local 500 North 300 East to 650 East (Richmond Canyon) 2 Lanes $400,000

1 I-12 NA Local 1400 North 600 West Intersection Signalization 2 Lanes, Median $2,000,000

1 I-13 0.25 Local 400 North 600 West to 800 West Linkage (Logan) 2 Lanes $1,399,200

1 I-14 NA Local Roadway Safety Projects Systemic and Spot projects in various locations TBD NA $3,000,000

1 I-15 1.40 State 10th West Completion 1400 N. to 2500 N, (Logan) 4 Lanes, Median $14,229,600

$121,941,534

$58,679,854$80,491,280


(Miles)

Funding/


2 II-1 12.75 State Western Arterial Hwy 89/91 to 6200 North (Logan/County) 4 Lanes, Median $129,548,921

2 II-2 3.10 State SR-30 Phase II Hwy 23 to Cache County Line (County) 4 Lanes, Median $36,009,600

2 II-3 0.55 Local 200 East Phase II 3700 North to 4100 North (Hyde Park) 2 Lanes, Median $3,078,240

2 II-4 0.50 Local 200 East Phase III 1400 North to 1800 North (Logan, No Logan) 4 Lanes, Median $4,065,600

2 II-5 1.60 State SR-30 Phase III 10th West to Main Street (Logan) 4 Lanes, Median $18,585,600

2 II-6 1.00 Local 400 east/Canyon Rd 300 South to 400 North (Logan) 4 Lanes, Median $8,131,200

2 II-7 0.40 Local 200 East Phase IV 300 South to Gateway Drive (Logan, River Heights) 2 Lanes, Median $3,950,045

2 II-8 1.36 Local Gateway Drive (South) 100 North (Providence) to Mill Road (Millville) 2 Lanes, Median $7,611,648

2 II-9 3.80 Local 4400 South Hwy 89/91 to Hwy 165 (Nibley) 2 Lanes, Median $21,273,605

2 II-10 2.82 State SR-101 200 West (Hyrum) to Hwy 89/91 2 Lanes, Median $19,739,004

2 II-11 1.92 Local 800 West Phase I 3200 South to Hwy 89/91 (Nibley) 2 Lanes, Median $10,727,275

2 II-12 3.15 State Logan Main/ 100 West One way Couplets (Logan) 3 Lane -One Way Streets $60,000,000

2 II-13 0.65 Local 600 East 300 North to Hwy 165 (Hyrum) 2 Lanes, Median $3,637,920

2 II-14 1.60 Local 1200 East (Phase II) Hwy 89 to 1800 North (Logan) 2 Lanes, Median $8,954,880

2 II-15 NA Local Roadway Safety Projects Systemic and Spot projects in various locations TBD $5,000,000

$340,313,538

$76,430,412

$263,883,125


(Miles)

Funding/


3 III-1 1.2 Local 250 East 4100 North (County) to 600 South (Smithfield) 2 Lanes, Median $6,673,233

3 III-2 4.6 State Hwy 91 1400 North (Logan) to 600 South (Smithfield) 6 Lanes, Median $52,852,800

3 III-3 7.6 State Mendon Road 10th West (Logan) to Hwy 23 (Mendon) 4 Lanes, Median $78,973,287

3 III-4 3.4 State Hwy 89/91 3200 South (Nibley) to 100 West (Logan) 6 Lanes, Median $38,913,600

3 III-5 1.4 Local 600 South Hwy 91 to 1200 East (Smithfield) 2 Lanes, Median $7,835,520

3 III-6 4.0 Local 1200 West 300 North (Hyrum) to Hwy 89/91 (Logan) 2 Lanes, Median $22,387,200

3 III-7 0.6 Local 300 South (aka 1700 South) Hwy 165 to 200 West ( Providence) 2 Lanes, Median $3,414,048

3 III-8 1.2 Local Center Street Hwy 91 to 400 East (Hyde Park) 2 Lanes, Median $6,923,527

3 III-9 NA Local Roadway Safety Projects Systemic and Spot projects in various locations TBD $3,000,000

$220,973,214

$50,233,528

$170,739,687


(Miles)

Funding/


UF UF-1 0.9 Local 100 East 300 South to 400 North (Logan) 2 Lanes, Median $6,025,714

UF UF-2 1.1 Local 400 North Hwy 89/91 to Center (Wellsville) 2 Lanes, Median $7,318,080

UF UF-3 2.1 Local Airport Rd 1000 West to 3400 North (County, Logan) 4 Lanes, Median $11,674,466

UF UF-4 2.6 Local 600 West 400 North to 2500 North (Logan) 2 Lanes, Median $14,551,680

UF UF-5 1.2 Local 100 North Hwy 165 to 300 East (Providence) 2 Lanes, Median $6,716,160

UF UF-6 2.2 Local 200 West 2500 North to 600 South (No Logan, Smithfield) 2 Lanes, Median $14,313,765

UF UF-7 3.35 Local 4000 South Hwy 89/91 to Hwy 165 (County, Nibley) 2 Lanes, Median $22,286,880

UF UF-8 2.1 Local 1200 West Remaining Unfinished Segments 2 Lanes, Median $13,970,880

UF UF-9 1.03 Local 800 West Phase II 3200 South to 4000 South (Nibley) 2 Lanes, Median $5,748,362

$102,605,987

$102,605,987

$0


(Miles)

Funding/


1 1.7 Local 3600 West Trenton to Amalga 2 Lanes $100,000




$10,274,901


Major Roadway Preservation Projects (2015 to 2040)

All PHASE PRESERVATION TOTALS

Phase II: 2025 to 2034

Phase I: 2015 to 2024

Phase III: 2035 to 2040




PHASE 3 TOTALS



Capacity Projects Needed (but not enough funding by 2040)

PHASE 4 TOTALS



PHASE 1 TOTALS

PHASE 1 TOTALS FOR COUNTYPHASE 1 TOTALS FOR STATE


PHASE 2 TOTALS

Appendix-2

Highway and Transit Projects

2040

Franklin County

Currently there are no transportation capacity projects planned or scheduled for Franklin County, Idaho in the 2040

planning horizon. Since Franklin County is not part of an urbanized area, Metropolitan Planning Regulations requiring

interim conformity determinations do not apply and no Long Range Transportation Plan has been developed.

Appendix-3

List of Acronyms

ADT Average Daily Traffic

CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments

CMPO Cache Metropolitan Planning Organization

CVTD Cache Valley Transit District

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FTA Federal Transit Administration

HPMS Highway Performance Management System

IDOT Idaho Department of Transportation

IDEQ Idaho Department of Environmental Quality

MPO Midland-Odessa Metropolitan Planning Organization

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standard

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

PM 2.5 Particulate Matter less than 2.5 micrometers

RTP Regional Transportation Plan

SIPs State Implementation Plans

VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled

cache county regional transportation plancachempo.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/...routes...

Documents