3-3SD Trans Relocation Feasibility Study (2025-02-12 DRAFT).pdf

Transportation Facility Relocation Feasibility Study

South Summit School District

Rimrock Engineering and Development, LLC

Enhancing Educational Experiences through top notch transportation

Transportation Facility Relocation Feasibility Study TOC

Table of Contents 1 Feasibility Study

1.1 Introduction of Feasibility Study

1.2 Background / Existing Information

1.2.1 School District Boundary

1.2.2 Alternative Site Locations

1.2.3 District Schools

1.2.4 Bus Routes

2 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLANS

2.1 Generation of Conceptual Site Plans

3 EVALUATION

3.1 Key Components of Evaluation

3.2 Transportation Analysis

3.2.1 Access

3.2.2 Impact on Nearby Neighborhood

3.2.3 Potential to Disperse Bus Routes

3.2.4 Deadheading Impacts

3.3 Site Analysis

3.3.1 Accommodate Facility including Employee Parking plus Potential Growth

3.3.2 Does Not Limit Other Potential Uses

3.3.3 Requires Less Improvements to Facility

3.3.4 Requires Less Subsurface Improvements

3.3.5 Accommodate Above Ground Fuel Tanks

4 Evaluation

4.1 Comparison

5 Summary and Conclusions

Transportation Facility Relocation Feasibility Study Page 1 of 9

1 FEASIBILITY STUDY

1.1 INTRODUCTION OF FEASIBILITY STUDY

This feasibility study reviews the potential of relocating the District’s transportation facility to a different location. This facility would replace the existing facility and would be required to provide the same or better overall facilities to the District. The new facility would need to provide enclosed parking spaces for all of the district’s vehicles (buses, vans, cars, etc), room to stage the school buses during the school day and a shop in order to maintain the fleet.

1.2 BACKGROUND / EXISTING INFORMATION

To conduct the feasibility study there are existing components that need to be outlined including but not limited to the School District boundary, potential relocation sites, school locations, and bus routes.

1.2.1 School District Boundary

The extent of the South Summit School District is shown in Figure One.

Figure One – South Summit School District Boundaries

Transportation Facility Relocation Feasibility Study Page 2 of 9

1.2.2 Alternative Site Locations

This feasibility study addresses four alternative locations for potential Transportation Facility relocation, all of which are currently owned by the school district:

1. 300 South and 200 East in Kamas

2. 400 South and 500 East in Kamas

3. 140 West and Frontier Lane in Francis

4. 100 North and 200 West in Kamas

Figure Two on the following page shows potential transportation facility properties in black.

Transportation Facility Relocation Feasibility Study Page 3 of 9

Figure Two – Alternative Site Locations

Transportation Facilities Potential Alternative Locations

1. 300 S/200 E - Kamas

2. 400 S/500 E - Kamas

3. 140 W/Frontier L. - Francis

4. 100 N/200 W - Kamas

Figure Two

South Summit School District Transportation Facility Relocation Feasibility Study

Transportation Facility Relocation Feasibility Study Page 4 of 9

1.2.3 District Schools

The three schools that currently are serviced daily by the Transportation Services Department are listed below with the grades and general session times:

• South Summit High School o 45 South 300 East, Kamas, UT 84036 o Grades 9-12 o General Sessions 7:35 am to 2:20 pm (Friday to 1:25 pm)

• South Summit Middle School o 355 East 300 South o Grades 5-8 o General Sessions 7:40 am to 2:16 pm (Friday to 1:25 pm)

• South Summit Elementary School o 535 East 300 South o Grades K-4 o General Sessions 8:50 am to 3:20 pm (Friday to 2:20 pm)

1.2.4 Bus Routes

The three schools are supported by seven elementary as well as seven middle/high school bus routes – three from north, three from south and one more east/west. The drivers start at 6:40 am and end at 4:20 pm. Middle/High School are together with earlier routes that allow the drivers to return in time to follow up with elementary school routes. The afternoon routes are a reverse repeat of the morning routes.

Figure Two shows the Middle/High School Bus Routes (AM Pickups). Figure Three shows the Elementary School Bus Routes. (AM Pickups). The afternoon routes are not shown for brevity.

In reviewing the bus route maps, there are the following observations:

• Both Elementary and Middle/High School: Three of the north routes overlap along SR-32 from Center Street in Kamas, to 3700 North. The routes then diverge and cover different parts of Oakley, north on SR-32 past Peoa and northeast on Weber Canyon Road.

• Both Elementary and Middle/High School: Three of the south routes overlap along SR-32 from Center Street in Kamas, to 1700 North. The routes then diverge and cover different parts of Francis, Woodland and Samak. Two of the routes return along Foothill Drive.

Transportation Facility Relocation Feasibility Study Page 5 of 9

Figure Three – Middle/High School Bus Routes

Transportation Facility Relocation Feasibility Study

Middle/HS Bus Routes Legend (AM Pickups) S9-Bus 20 S14-Bus 14 S16-Bus 15 S13-Bus 19 S12-Bus 17

S15-Bus 18

Figure Three

Transportation Facility Relocation Feasibility Study Page 6 of 9

Figure Four – Elementary School Bus Routes

Transportation Facility Relocation Feasibility Study

Elementary Bus Routes Legend (AM Pickups) E6-Bus 20 E1-Bus 15 E7-Bus 14 E5-Bus 19 E4-Bus 17

E3-Bus 18

Figure Four

Transportation Facility Relocation Feasibility Study Page 7 of 9

2 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLANS

2.1 GENERATION OF CONCEPTUAL SITE PLANS

Conceptual site plans have been generated to aid in evaluating all aspects of the alternative sites.

To assist in comprehending the scale of the sites, the buildings shown on the site plans, even though some are different configurations, are essential the same size of the existing building located at the current transportation facility. Each site includes a depiction of drive routes patterns using the AutoTurn® software analyzing a bus that is 40’ in length replicating the larger buses within the district’s fleet. The site plans can be found in Appendix A.

3 EVALUATION

3.1 KEY COMPONENTS OF EVALUATION

In considering the key components to evaluate the feasibility of the four sites it was determined that the two major components were the transportation aspects along with the physical attributes and the of the individual sites. The transportation analysis compares the different alternatives with respect to transportation efficiency. While the physical attributes are addressed in the site analysis determining if the site is suitable for a transportation facility.

3.2 TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS

The purpose of this section will be to compare the different alternatives with respect to transportation efficiency. The factors in this analysis are access, impact to nearby neighborhood, potential to disperse bus routes, and deadheading impacts.

3.2.1 Access

One of the factors to consider is access to the site. The access evaluation will consider the general characteristics of the roadway to be accessed: volumes of opposing traffic, speeds and ability of a bus to access the site (bus turning limitations mean that buses will need to use the opposite side of narrow roads to make turns).

3.2.2 Impact on Nearby Neighborhood

The District wishes to minimize impacts to the neighborhoods where possible. This includes minimizing the number of buses using a street along with minimizing bus travel on subdivision roads.

3.2.3 Potential to Disperse Bus Routes

The location of a bus facility may necessitate that all the routes enter and exit on the same residential street. Based on either the location of the facility or the location of access to a facility, there may be potential for naturally dispersing bus routes and thereby minimizing neighborhood impacts. Dispersing the routes through out-of-direction routing or inefficient routing is not recommended.

Transportation Facility Relocation Feasibility Study Page 8 of 9

3.2.4 Deadheading Impacts

Deadheading is when a bus is out of service bus and is running without passengers. Deadheading can occur for one or more of the following reasons:

• buses leaving or returning to the vehicle yard

• buses changing routes

• buses driving to a break location

3.3 SITE ANALYSIS

The purpose of this section will be to evaluate the physical attributes of the different alternatives and compare them to each other. The factors in this analysis to be considered are if the site can accommodate the facility, limits using the site for other potential more beneficial uses, improvement needed to service and access the facility, extent of subsurface improvements needed to stabilize the site for construction, and if the site can accommodate above ground fuel tanks.

3.3.1 Accommodate Facility including Employee Parking plus Potential Growth

The major factor in the analysis is how the site can accommodate the transportation facility and all if it’s needs including employee parking along with the potential for future growth.

3.3.2 Does Not Limit Other Potential Uses

It needs to be considered if the site would be better suited for other potential uses or if placing the transportation facilities on the site will not limit the other potential uses from being located in the vicinity.

3.3.3 Requires Less Improvements to Facility

It is assumed for this evaluation that the facility itself will not deviate significantly from one site to the next therefore, the extent of improvements to each site is a factor to be considered. Each site has been evaluated to compare the infrastructure needed to provide services (power, culinary water, sanitary sewer, road access, etc) to the site.

3.3.4 Requires Less Subsurface Improvements

Subsurface improvements for the facility including building and site stabilization is another factor to be included in the analysis. The cost to build in unstable areas can be significant.

3.3.5 Accommodate Above Ground Fuel Tanks

Fueling the fleet is a significant operational factor to include in the evaluation of sites.

Transportation Facility Relocation Feasibility Study Page 9 of 9

4 EVALUATION

4.1 COMPARISON

To complete an overall comparison of the alternative sites the sites along with the factors from the transportation analysis and site analysis have been inserted into a comparison table. In the comparison table each of the factors discussed above are being evaluated with a range of 1 – 5 with one being a low or poor score and 5 being the best score. Each factor also has a weighting for how critical it is to the analysis. For example, deadheading is a problem that increases vehicle maintenance, miles of non-essential travel and traffic on residential streets. Therefore, in this evaluation it is weighted with a high percentage. The weights add up to 100 percent and by multiplying the score for each factor by its weight as a whole number, a weighted scoring is developed (in red) that makes the analysis more objective.

“COMPLETED TABLE TO BE INSERTED HERE”

The table above shows that Alternatives… TO BE COMPLETED UPON COMPLITION OF

COMPARISON

5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

TO BE GENERATED UPON COMPLITION OF EVALUATION