Deseret News | Provo frontage-road plan assailed

Reader comments
Provo frontage-road plan assailed

west sider | 6:55 a.m. Feb. 20, 2008

Booo Freaking hoooo......

All you freaking snobs on grandview want to have easier access to the interstate, yet you sure as heck don't want it in your area.

Yeah lets just put it in the westside neighborhoods, heck they are the lower class so we will just let them deal with the added problems of it running thru their neighborhoods, that's the ticket.

All of the proposed alternatives will impact someone, and just expanding Geneva road is not going to take care of the problem.

provo resident | 8:14 a.m. Feb. 20, 2008

And we learn once again that the Grandview neighborhood holds the better good of the city hostage so that they can throw a tantrum and get their way. The frontage road option was a solution that benefitted ALL of us. The traffic could have been worked through with traffic calming and routing.

The very thing you are trying to avoid--having traffic move through your streets--is exactly what you are doing, and don't care that you are doing, to Orem neighborhoods.

Not everyone in Grandview felt like the frontage road was a bad option. They just got drowned out be the activist crowd. You are doing a disservice to your neighborhood and community.

It's time to widen your entitled perspective Grandview and realize you are a neighborhood in the middle of a growing city. Why don't you start working for better solutions instead of NO solutions.

Grandview resident | 8:58 a.m. Feb. 20, 2008

Please note that the article states that our fine elected official did not listen to the opponents or proponents of the I-15 connection but they listened to the minority.....the enviromentalists that said the connection would impact the wet lands.
Who ever the majority is they do not make the decisions anymore. We certainly should get some new elected officials.

Comments continue below

Long-time Provo Resident | 9:12 a.m. Feb. 20, 2008

What's wrong with 820 North? I don't think it makes much sense to cut Grandview in half but 820 seems like the obvious location. Why don't the residents of Provo push for that option?

T-Rex | 9:31 a.m. Feb. 20, 2008

First, whining didn't save Grandview elementary, so it's probably not fair to say Grandview always gets their way. Second, I don't think 820 or any point south makes sense because it's right on top of Center street where there is an existing exit that is set to be expanded. Finally, what the county really needs is an east-side belt. Obviously that's not going to happen. But I love the fact that the city is run by the east-side and they've got Grandview and the West-side arguing about who should get the shaft, because we know it won't be the East-side that gets the shaft.

swprovo | 9:39 a.m. Feb. 20, 2008

wetlands in Gradview? Really? Since when has wetlands stopped a Utah Government agency?

grandview activist #1 | 10:21 a.m. Feb. 20, 2008

I love being called an activist - just for stating the obvious. It is amazing that the Mayor and City Council can make promises to keep non-neighborhood traffic out of Grandview in 2001 (written letters signed by the Mayor and City Council) including eliminating any current or future plans or freeway off/on ramps at 1730. And the next thing you know we are fighting it again. It is obvious that they never meant to keep their word! And by the way we are not whiners - we are just trying to get elected officials to honor their promises.

Provo | 10:44 a.m. Feb. 20, 2008

I don't understand why some people think this issue pits Grandview against the Westside neighborhoods. Geneva road and Grandview roads go in completely different directions. Grandview residents are trying to avoid being the most direct way to BYU and the hospital from the freeway. Those cars are not using Geneva road to get to those places instead.
Good City planning keeps heavy traffic off of residential streets and puts them on major roads.
Neither Provo nor Orem have done a good job of planning for traffic while protecting neighborhoods. It is interesting that wetlands have legal protection but neighborhoods with children do not.

itsjustme | 10:59 a.m. Feb. 20, 2008

When it comes to improved electrical lines(to eliminate the possibility of brown-outs), roads(to get from here or to there faster)or shopping(more choices), most everyone is in favor of it. But unfortunately, way too many people have a NIMBY(Not In My Back Yard) mentality. They want everything to be bigger and better, just as long as they do not have to see or deal with it. When you get a large populous in a community that has the NIMBY thinking, nothing ever gets better, and everyone complains.

Rich | 11:26 a.m. Feb. 20, 2008

I think UDOT ought to be able to make decisions on what's best for handling traffic without giving in to local government. The reason we have such severe traffic problems in Utah is that we haven't allowed our planners to do their job. Instead, we throw roadblocks in their way until things get so bad that the solutions are either impossible or extremely expensive. UDOT should be able to deal with current problems in the best way that serves the citizens of the state. Then UDOT should be able to plan for future growth, for it's certainly coming. We're not in a zero population growth phase and won't be for at least 50 years.

unknown | 5:28 p.m. Feb. 20, 2008

now that udot is not planning on a frontage rd system because of the wetlands maybe all of the grandview/provo traffic that travels on sandhill rd can start either going the speed limit which i am sure they would want on there neighborhood streets
or start taking a different route when the speed limit is posted 25 mph thats the speed not 45 to 50 mph i am so sick of you speeders on sandhill road one of these days so one is going to be killed every body is in a big hurry. if you can not go the speed limit then stay off sandhill rd we are sick of all the speeders the ones that are speeding deserve to have a ticket issued and double the fines
SLOW DOWN

Non - Grandview Resident | 7:21 p.m. Feb. 20, 2008

I love that everyone thinks that because you live on Grandview you are a snob and think you are entitled to this that and the other. There were several things in play here that were not even mentioned in the article.

1. UVRMC (Hospital) is looking for a direct route from the freeway for saving lives. This would be from 800 N which is not on the plans because the city engineer lives on that street, and it used to be where the Mayor lives.

2. Orem needs us to take some of the BYU traffic, and rightfully so. Again, 800 N. is a direct route to BYU.

3. Expense of it. Also not mentioned in this article. Have you heard about iProvo. the Provo mayor likes to spend our money on his pet projects. This would prove to be another one.

4. Provo Mayor's plan for a regional airport. He needs multiple roads to make it a regional airport. Why not have UDOT flip the bill?

The plan doesn't make sense. Pull out a map. I don't want to wind through neighborhoods to get home.

East Sider | 8:03 p.m. Feb. 20, 2008

First of all, Provo brought in engineers as outside consultants to help us with our traffic problems. They walked away saying, "What traffic problems -- you don't have traffic problems." And to you that have built expensive homes in the west side (many that are far more expensive than those on Grandview, or on the east side), you will have to live with the fact that you chose to live in a neighborhood without the existing infrastructure for traffic. I chose to live on the east side, knowing I would have a beautiful view, but also a longer commute. These are choices we make. The finger pointing is silly. If we really chose to put the emphasis on roads, and not communities (remember, not just Grandview would be fielding this traffic, but several other along the corridor), we could very well look like Ogden city...busy traffic, high crime, high taxes to pay for infrastructure, and a city trying to fix itself.

Provo is a nice place. Let's work together to keep it that way.

Don Allphin | 9:44 p.m. Feb. 20, 2008

How short-sighted can one neighborhood be? Has anyone actually tried to use Grandview as an access point to the east side? It's not a pretty route. It' really easy to shove the traffic to 820 North but what about west bound traffic? Like it or not Grandview, Provo doesn't end at the hill's edge. The future growth of Provo is west of you. We should be talking about solutions to transportation issues long into the future, not just for the immediate here and now. Why should we bow to one island neighborhood at the expense of the rest of Provo and the county.

They say that ignorance is bliss, and I believe those lemmings that follow without knowing the facts hurt us all. Wake up Grandview, and think beyond your tiny box just this once.

Grandview Resident | 10:38 p.m. Feb. 20, 2008

I have lived on Grandview all my life. I think that building an interchange on 820 North makes more sense becasue it is already an east west road with access to BYU, UVRMC and many neighborhoods. It would save tax dollars to me, i would think. I do also agree that the growth in Provo is shifting to the west side, which is a nice area. What they need to do is have a 4 lane road that collects the residents from that area and takes is to I-15 , so to build 2 new interchanges!

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.