6.1.1.3Connectivity to neighboring Counties

Connectivity to neighboring counties is important to planning on a larger scale. Some of the proposed projects suggest connectivity to Carbon, Uintah, and Wasatch Counties. Due to the remote nature and topography of the Uinta Mountains there were no connection suggestions to Summit County. Most of the connections between the counties will be for motorized use along non-paved roads and cycling routes along paved roads. Priorities for these connections will be given to trail projects. These projects will be given priority as intercounty connections that can be used in the bigger picture planning efforts between counties.

6.1.2Public Input

The priority projects have been developed using count data as it is available, STRAVA data obtained through UDOT, and public comments.

The STRAVA data obtained has been incorporated into the GIS database so it can be cross referenced with the proposed projects. The GIS database inventory of trails and proposed projects has been a vital tool to determine connectivity, develop and analyze alternatives, identify land ownership and to quantify wetlands and other environmental concerns for each proposed project. The GIS database was also utilized to collect public comment through web applications, the first of which allowed the stakeholders and others to browse the database and make comment on specific trails or areas of the maps. The second web application was distributed to the public to obtain comments on proposed projects and ideas which came from the initial round of public meetings and collected data. Comments received in both of these processes are included alongside the written public comments in the appendix. The GIS database is also the base data for all of the maps created in association with this master plan.

6.1.3Project Profile Forms, Fields and Evaluation Methods

The GIS inventory of existing roadways and trail data obtained from multiple sources allowed for easy reference to specific areas, existing conditions and need. With all the collected data, specific roads or areas were reviewed and deficiencies identified. For example, a query of existing sidewalks highlighted places where sidewalks exist and where gaps in connectivity are found. Bike lanes are similarly queried, and connectivity issues easily found. With this data and public input, projects could be proposed and developed.

The process of creating project profiles started during the data collection/inventory process and extended beyond the final public meeting. The forms included in Appendix B represent the detailed development of all projects suggested, vetted, and included in the possible project list. Fields included in these forms were developed from an iterative process determining which information would be most relevant to include in a one-page summary that would be useful to those referencing this plan in the future.

With over 100 proposed trails mapped out in the plan, it is necessary that the trails on the plan be divided and graded on a scale of priority. The trails have been divided into three groups: Small Urban, Non-Urban, and UDOT. Any trail within the more densely populated Roosevelt area of the county have been classified as Small Urban. Conversely, trails outside of the Roosevelt area of the county and on public lands have been classified as Non-Urban. Finally, any trail that would fall under the UDOT jurisdiction is classified in its own category both in small urban and non-urban areas.