SLC Transportation Presents Three Options for McClelland Trail
Dec 06, 2016 03:40PM
● By Bryan Scott
Three options for McClelland Trail side-by-side. Images by SLC Transportation
SLC Transportation Presents Three Options for McClelland Trail [1 Image] Click Any Image To Expand
By Aspen Perry | email@example.com
During the Sugar House Community Council’s (SHCC) November meeting, Colin Quinn-Hurst, transportation planner for Salt Lake City Transportation shared three potential designs for the McClelland Trail and encouraged community input. The area being reviewed for the next phase of improvements stretches from 2100 South to Sugarmont Drive on McClelland Street.
The three potential plans utilize recommendations from the Sugar House Circulation Plan prepared for the SLC Redevelopment Agency by Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants with CRSA Architecture, and adopted by Salt Lake City in 2013 to accommodate the growing demand of Sugar House residents, businesses, and visitors.
“[The] Circulation Plan recommended what this should be… it should be a gateway district between the business district Sugar House Street Park and Parley’s Trail,” Quinn-Hurst said during the council presentation.
Quinn-Hurst explained that due to the significant changes in the area, SLC Transportation is now coming back to connect with community members to ensure the design continues to meet the needs of the growing community.
Before designing the three proposed options, Quinn-Hurst reported SLC Transportation compiled a report on various impacts and trade-offs.
“Cost, parking impact, traffic impact, green space additions, street furniture improvements, timing of installation, and, above all, safety for all the users of the street,” wrote Quinn-Hurst.
The first option is the basis of what was proposed in the Circulation Plan and maintains a two-way bike lane on the east side of the street, done by removing parking on the east side of the street with parallel parking on the west side of the street.
Quinn-Hurst explained while the disadvantages would be losing parking on one side of the road, the advantages of option one are having safer modes of travel for all involved.
Presenting the second option Quinn-Hurst said, “The second option is virtually the same thing, but it’s a variation in that we keep as much parking as possible, by adding angle parking…to preserve the same number of parking spaces out there now.”
One difference between option one and two is option two turns McClelland Street into a one-way from 2100 South to Elm Street. The council asked if one-way streets really do improve the flow of traffic.
“[SLC Transportation conducted] a transportation study [and found] one-way would improve the level of service at the McClelland and 2100 South intersection because it reduces the number of turning movements in and out of that street,” Quinn-Hurst said.
Third Vice Chair and Westminster trustee Amy Barry, brought up another concern regarding road barriers between cyclists and motor vehicles in both options.
“I wonder, with the scenario of going to a one-way…if the bike-lane actually needs to be protected?” Barry asked.
Barry pointed out the protected bike-lanes often make it too difficult for city to keep them clean because the street sweepers cannot access them.
“[Community utilizing the bike lane] may prefer an open lane, street sweepers can access and keep clean,” Barry said.
The third option offers a shared street with vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists in a shared plaza space with decorative pavers to encourage those utilizing the intermixed area do so at slow speeds. Quinn-Hurst and SLC Transportation realize this design is thinking “out-of-the-box” and recommend those curious to look up Wall Street in Seattle, Wash. for an existing example of this design.
All three proposed options include a High-Intensity Activated crosswalk, or HAWK pedestrian and bicycle crossing signal to increase safety while crossing the intersection at 2100 South and McClelland Street.
SLC Transportation and the SHCC encourage the community to review the three options being proposed and provide their feedback, now through early March. Comments and questions for SLC Transportation can be emailed to urbantrails@slcgov or by calling Quinn-Hurst at 801-535-6134.
Online feedback can be given at sugarhousecouncil.org, slcgov.com/opencityhall, as well as on the Sugar House Community Council’s Facebook page.