Capitol Hill Traffic Analysis and Suggestions – Final Proposal Review

At our Council’s July 16th meeting we received a briefing from Lisa Zundel of UDOT and Charles Allen of InterPlan regarding a final suggested proposal for changes to the traffic patterns around the State Capitol. Their analysis suggests three alternatives of placing a traffic light at the Columbus Street and 500 North intersection.  The three alternatives are outlined in the attached “July Council Meeting” document.

Please take a look at these alternatives and, if you desire, provide your comments and suggestions by clicking on “Leave Reply.”  UDOT would like to finalize their proposal and start making their presentations to the various stakeholders that are involved in this final decision. As a result, comments need to be made prior to July 31st.

We especially appreciate the great effort by Lisa Zundel of UDOT and Charles Allen of InterPlan in working closely with community members to make sure input was heard and addressed.

There have been comments regarding the need to address both bicycle safety and access and pedestrian safety and access.  These issues were not specifically part of this study, but, will certainly be taken up in coordination with SLC Transportation as part of the ongoing effort to make our neighborhood and the State Capitol area more bike and pedestrian friendly.  Also, stay tuned for more discussion of access improvements along East Capitol Boulevard to the east of the State Capitol Building.

Again, comments on the final proposals need to be made prior to July 31st, so please take some time to review these options and comment.

July Council Meeting

Comments 16

  1. Post
    Author
  2. I am not sure which one is best. All I know is that I can’t get to ensign peak to do anything without fearing for my life. Also getting down from the hill is a nightmare. The traffic there from bountiful etc is horrible I’ve had people scream at me at the top of their lungs to get out of the way and honk their horns viciously when making a turn onto state street from the Capitol. I think it’s ridiculous that nothing has been done about this yet…. How many accidents have there been on victory road.. You shouldn’t call it victory road you should call it hells highway, or deaths drive… I think there should consequentially be a light at every street that has people turning on that street. The more lights the better the poor people of Capitol Hill can’t get anywhere without a huge hassle.

  3. Wow! Thanks for the great work! The traffic light proposed in all of the options is long over-due. I support A-4. A-2 would be okay if we could turn LEFT off Victory Road onto 300 W in order to have access to the 600N options to I-15. I’ve never understood the no left turn at VR and Beck Street.

  4. I’ve even seen passengers get out of the car and voluntarily direct traffic coming from northbound Victory Road to get them to stop so they can turn left! So dangerous! So glad the stoplight is finally coming!

    1. Mr Wilson the reason for a no turn was when they had the second turn lane on Beck Street. They was a direction that was given to UDOT by the folks up north in Bountiful and Davis County.

    2. So by putting a light up at Columbus and 500 North and potentially closing off Zane, Columbus or putting lane restriction on Victory. We now have created a bigger problem for the folks down in Marmalade area. What will the City of Salt Lake and UDOT plan to do, to assist with this problem.

      Has anyone really taken a hard look at the economic repercussion on this for those folks that are being affected in the areas. If anyone was going to try to sell their house in the affected areas, they will have a hell of a time trying to get top dollar with a house that is in a area with a traffic problem. The traffic in peak times will be awful, so now we have a situation where we will have to be careful on 500 North and West Capitol.

      A2 / A3
      So the residents that live up on Capitol Hill and the Downs that normally would make a left turn lane at Zane to catch the freeway. How are you going to divert that traffic, since you can’t make a left turn Victory to Beck. One of your UDOT folks took care of that a few years back when he decided to add a second turn lane at Beck and Victory and increase the timing of the lights.

      We have also created more traffic for DeSoto, Girard, Cortez and Zane with the cul de sac being created.

      (Eric you said the following… The A-2 and the A-3 fully restrict turning from Zane on to Columbus and vice versa because of the median. The travel option under these scenarios, if I understand your question correctly, is for drivers wanting to go west to the freeway is to go to 500 North and go through the light continuing west on 500 North to the freeway.

      Coming east from the freeway, people can wind through the neighborhood using Zane to cross Columbus. Under this scenario, drivers would follow the same route they do now, but, rather than use Zane, they would go to the 500 North light to cross to the Downs and the De Soto area.)

      I REALLY BELIEVE THAT UDOT SHOULD CREATE A LEFT TURN LANE ON VICTORY AT THE BOTTOM OF THE HILL, SO THOSE THAT LIVE UP HERE CAN HAVE A DIRECT ROUTE TO THE FREEWAY. THIS WOULD TAKE AWAY THE CONGESTION FROM THE MARMALADE AREA.

      I think that something should be published in the Salt Lake Tribune, so the residents that have not gone to the meetings or read the article in the newsletters from their Community Councils know what is going to happen.

      1. Vince, we have already requested UDOT to study the potential of a short duration left turn from Victory on to 300 West/Beck Street.

  5. Thank you Eric for continuing to resolve this traffic issues on the Victory Road and 500 North. Patience and Perseverance pays off. It will be a great service to our neighbors to have a traffic light on 500 North–A-2 is a good choice to serve Capitol Hill Residence and it will slow the traffic of those cars coming from Bountiful thru our neighborhood. A traffic light will help those who needs to cross the street on East & West of 500 North also.

    Thank you also to UDOT Staff for their continuing dialogue in resolving this traffic issues with Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council. Their participation in studying this issue is greatly appreciated.

  6. As someone who lives on Columbus Street, I STRONGLY prefer option A3. 95% of the traffic on Columbus is people trying to get to Ensign peak (despite the sign indicating there is no access). I work from home and have had people come up to my door and knock to ask me how to get up there. They all turn around at the gates at Columbus Court and speed back down the road. It’s dangerous and it allows for traffic that does not need to be on that street. The other options you present are all great options to solve the safety issues at 500N, but only one option, A3, solves the issue of inappropriate traffic on Columbus. I have a child and a pet, and their safety is put at risk when confused, frustrated drives come speeding back down Columbus when they’re unable to get up to Ensign.
    Thank you for working on a solution, regardless of the option chosen.

  7. So by putting a light up at Columbus and 500 North and potentially closing off Zane, Columbus or putting lane restriction on Victory. We now have created a bigger problem for the folks down in Marmalade area. What will the City of Salt Lake and UDOT plan to do, to assist with this problem. So by closing of Zane and Columbus we now create a problem for those residents that live on West Capitol Hill and 500 North. The west side of 500 North will create a backup of cars trying to cross the street to go to the other side of 500 North behind the Capitol. To get to the freeway we will still need to go thru the Marmalade area and with the light you will see probably a heavy traffic flow since now that there will be a signal regulating the traffic. So more cars will be inclined to travel that route.

    Making Columbus and Zane Cul De Sac are also going to create a heavier flow of traffic for those folks on De Soto and Girard. Remember there will only be two ways in and two ways out of the DeSoto, Cortez, Zane and Girard area.

    So has anyone really taken a hard look at the economic repercussion on this for those folks that will be affected with the heavy traffic flow in the areas. If you try to sell your house in the affected areas, you might have a hell of a time trying to get top dollar with a house that is in a area with a traffic problem. So think about which of the choices that you select.

    I think instead of having a deadline put on us, we should take a serious look at this situation and force our hand with UDOT about putting the left turn lane on Beck at Victory.

    I think that something should be published in the Salt Lake Tribune, so the residents that have not gone to the meetings or read the article in the newsletters from their Community Councils know what is going to happen

  8. Until the Bicycle and Pedestrian issues are included in the study, the study should not be sent out for final approval. All of the configurations look like they will make cycling along Victory Road and Columbus more difficult for cyclists, and potentially more dangerous by narrowing the roadway with medians, etc.
    Ped/Bike issues need to be comprehensively included in this study. Until then, it’s not ready for primetime.

  9. Thank you so much for sharing this information and arranging everything, Eric. I also want to thank UDOT for there work. However, I don’t think any of the three options are great for those of us living up Columbus St. or Zane. The reality is I travel that road constantly while commuters travel it 2 times a day, 5 days a week. Both option A2 and A3 cause great inconvenience to those living up Columbus. Part of the reason I choose to live up that street was ease of access to the freeway (600 N) and quick accessibility to downtown. By putting a median or building a cul-de-sac at the end of the street, I now have to drive all around only to end at a light on 500 N (which I support) and wait even longer. I would not call this ease of access to the freeway. As much as I hate and am terrified of getting on to Victory Rd. during the times of 8-9 am and 4-6 pm, 5 days of the week, I would rather do that than cause every journey I take from home (7 days a week at all hours even when it is not busy) to be difficult. All of these options still seem to favor the commuters rather than the residents who live in the area. Having said that, option A4 is probably the one that I would vote for since it seems to be the least restrictive for residents who travel the road frequently and need to get to downtown and the freeway regularly.

  10. The current speed limits are unnecessary and need to be lowered…with or without the proposed changes. Less accidents & less noise pollution benefit commuters, residents, and ped/bike. Little cost, easy, & biggest benefit for all.
    Of the proposed changes, I prefer A3. Living on Columbus we are already forced to drive around the Capitol or to 500N during rush hours. I am willing to give up another minute to do this safely. Due to this, I believe there would be little change to the traffic patterns in our neighborhood. We would benefit all around from the added privacy (safety, home values, decrease in non resident traffic…etc.).
    My concerns are the increase in traffic flow to w500n and on to wCapitol St. I do not believe ppl will drive down Victory and double back on Beck to access 600N/freeway as suggested.
    “Liveability” and safety should be our biggest goals and reducing the speeds along this cooridor need to be the first step. Thank you for your efforts-

Leave a Reply to Nicole Beer Cancel reply