Welcome
Welcome — Your Input is Important!
The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) is initiating a Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) process to look at ways to improve the US-20 corridor between Ashton and the SH-87 Junction. Increasing traffic is causing congestion and crashes. Improvements are needed to maintain a safe roadway and reliable connections to adjacent communities, Yellowstone National Park, and the region.
The purpose of the meeting is to share alternatives developed as part of the PEL process. The project team is seeking your input on alternatives you think best improve safety and traffic flow in this area.
Click image to enlarge
How to Navigate:
- Click on the arrows on the bottom left and right side of your screen
- Use the navigation menu at the left of the screen to revisit any part of the meeting
- The pages are intended to be viewed in order to provide information about the study. However, you may use the tabs on the left side of the page to select any page
How to Participate:
- Click through the slides to learn more about the project
- Comments
- Provide your comments at any time by clicking the “ COMMENT" button at the top right of the screen.
- You can close the form to continue through the slides. Please make sure to hit the “Submit” button to confirm that your comment is sent to the project team.
- The entire session should take less than 15 minutes to complete.
Project Background
Increasing traffic is causing congestion and crashes. Improvements are needed to maintain a safe roadway and reliable connection to adjacent communities, Yellowstone National Park and the region.
With growth in traffic and tourism, it is time for ITD to find a solution to address safety and capacity concerns. ITD must find a solution that will handle increased traffic, meet driver expectations, and improve safety.

Click image to enlarge
Benefits of Alternatives
Based on public input, 56 alternatives were developed. Level 1 screening occurred in winter 2021 and Level 2 screening occurred in early spring 2022. The next slide, Alternatives, describes each alternative and its screening results.
What US-20 could look like in the future
Much of existing US-20 currently meets the minimum standards for traffic operations. However, as traffic volumes increase, parts of US-20 will drop below these standards. In the horizon year of 2050, most segments will not meet the minimum standards for traffic operations without increasing the number of lanes. Improving the highway to a four-lane configuration will bring the traffic operation up to, or above, the recommended minimum standards for most segments. These illustrations depict what US-20 could look like in the future.
Download a copy of the handout given at the in-person meeting. Alternatives in the handout with an asterisk (*) are not shown on the next slide, Alternatives. These were variations of the alternatives with lanes shifted.
Benefits of the Alternatives
The PEL Team, using public input and technical and environmental data, has developed and screened alternatives that:
![]() |
Add lanes in each direction and change access control |
![]() |
Address challenging intersections or approaches where traffic turns onto or crosses the highway |
![]() |
Look at opportunities to improve wildlife movement across the highway |




Click image to enlarge
Alternatives
Determined that alternative does merit further refinement and study
Determined that alternative does not merit further refinement and study
- Ashton
- Ashton Hill
- Elk Creek
- Island Park Village
- Last Chance
- Mack's
- Swan Lake - Harriman
Level 1: Ashton Area

Level 2: Ashton Area

Study Area 1: Ashton | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Alternative | General Location | Description of Alternative | Screening Result | |
Level 1 Screening | ||||
SA1-A1 | Ashton | Study Area (SA) 1 on alignment | Advances | Alternative continues and should be paired with Chester to Ashton alternatives (potentially from the light to the bridge as a five-lane roadway). |
SA1-B1 | Ashton | Northbound through Ashton; southbound west of Ashton with no interchange west of Ashton | Does Not Advance | Alternative does not continue with concerns of safety and lack of mobility improvement. Emergency services response capabilities are a safety concern. |
SA1-C1 | Ashton | Realignment west of Ashton with an interchange at SH-47 | Advances | Merits further study. |
SA1-C2 | Ashton | Realignment far west of Ashton | Does Not Advance | Alternative has extensive impacts and requires a lot of out-of-the-way travel. |
SA1-C3 | Ashton | Realignment to the east of Ashton | Does Not Advance | Alternative has extensive impacts and requires a lot of out-of-the-way travel. |
SA1-C4 | Ashton | Northbound and southbound realignment west of Ashton; no interchange west of Ashton; alignment moves US-20 to the east after the Henry's Fork Bridge | Advances | Merits further study. |
Level 2 Screening | ||||
SA1-A1 | Ashton | Study Area (SA) 1 on alignment | Advances | Merits further advancement if it can meet needs for access and safety; needs additional frontage road and access details. |
SA1-C1 | Ashton | Realignment west of Ashton with an interchange at SH-47 | Advances | Has potential to addresses capacity, safety, access management, and freight needs. |
SA1-C4 | Ashton | Northbound and southbound alignment west of Ashton; add interchange west of Ashton; alignment moves US-20 to the east near the Henry's Fork Bridge | Advances | Has potential to addresses capacity, safety, access management, and freight needs. |
Level 1: Ashton Hill Area

Level 2: Ashton Hill Area

Study Area 2: Ashton Hill | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Alternative | General Location | Description of Alternative | Screening Result | |
Level 1 Screening | ||||
SA2-A1 | Ashton Hill | On alignment; two lanes each direction | Advances | Merits further study. Combine alternatives into a single alternative as determined by design team. |
SA2-B1 | Ashton Hill | On alignment; two lanes each direction; the southbound lanes are on the existing road; the northbound lanes are shifted east | ||
SA2-C1 | Ashton Hill | Southbound west of Ashton Hills Estates; northbound to remain existing alignment | Advances | Merits further study. |
SA2-C2 | Ashton Hill | Southbound far west of existing alignment; northbound to remain on existing alignment | Does Not Advance | Does not advance due to terrain, impacts, emergency service safety concerns, migration concerns, concerns with mobility. |
SA2-C3 | Ashton Hill | Northbound east of existing alignment; southbound to remain on existing alignment | Does Not Advance | Does not advance due to terrain, impacts, emergency service safety concerns, migration concerns, concerns with mobility. |
SA2-C4 | Ashton Hill | Ashton Hills Estate access | Idea/Concept Advances | Does not advance as a standalone alternative but idea should be combined and considered. |
Level 2 Screening | ||||
SA2-A1 | Ashton Hill | On alignment; two lanes in each direction; the existing road is in between the proposed road | Advances | Has potential to address capacity, safety, and access management. |
SA2-C1 | Ashton Hill | Southbound west of Ashton Hills Estates; northbound to remain existing alignment | Does Not Advance | Alternative has problematic U.S. Forest Service impacts. Emergency services response capabilities are a safety concern. |
SA2-C4 | Ashton Hill | Ashton Hills Estate Access | Advances | Potentially addresses safety and access management needs if combined with another alternative. |
SA2-C5 | Ashton Hill | Ashton Hills Estate Access | Advances | Potentially addresses safety and access management needs if combined with another alternative. |
SA2-C6 | Ashton Hill | Ashton Hills Estate Access | Does Not Advance | Does not advance due to terrain impacts not as desirable as other similar ideas. |
Level 1: Elk Creek Area
Level 1: ALT SA6-C5

Level 1: ALT SA6-C8

Level 1: ALT SA6-C13

Level 1: ALT SA6-C16

Level 1: ALT SA6-C17

Level 1: ALT SA6-C21

Level 1: ALT SA6-C24

Level 1: ALT SA6-C26

Level 1: ALT SA6-C29

Level 2: Elk Creek Area
Level 2: ALT SA6-C5

Level 2: ALT SA6-C17

Level 2: ALT SA6-C21

Level 2: ALT SA6-C29

Level 2: ALT SA6-C30

Study Area 6 (Location 2 of 5): Elk Creek | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Alternative | General Location | Description of Alternative | Screening Result | |
Level 1 Screening | ||||
SA6-C5 | Elk Creek | Connecting frontage road east of US-20 at Elk Creek Road; restrict access from US-20 to businesses; business access from frontage road | Advances | Merits further study. Modifications required. |
SA6-C8 | Elk Creek | Roundabout at Yale Kilgore Road (M.P. 389.2) | Does Not Advance | Safety, maintenance, driver expectancy concerns. |
SA6-C13 | Elk Creek | Interchange at M.P. 389.4 | Advances | Merits further study; look at frontage roads on C-16 to combine; combine to new alternative for Level Two Screening. |
SA6-C16 | Island Park - Elk Creek | Frontage road east of US-20 between M.P. 387-389.4; interchange at M.P. 388 | Idea/Concept Advances | Merits further study; look at frontage roads on C-16 to combine; combine to new alternative for Level Two Screening. |
SA6-C17 | Elk Creek | Frontage road east of US-20 at Elk Creek Road with on- and off-ramps and a bike/pedestrian tunnel | Advances | Merits further study; may want to combine with C13 or C29; mobility is a concern. |
SA6-C21 | Elk Creek | Realign Yale-Kilgore Road to line up with Phillips Loop Road and add traffic signal at intersection | Advances | Has potential to address capacity, safety, access management and freight needs. May be an interim solution only. |
SA6-C24 | Elk Creek | Realign Yale-Kilgore Road to line up with Phillips Loop road and no traffic signal at intersection | Does Not Advance | Safety and traffic operations concerns. |
SA6-C26 | Elk Creek | Change grade at Yale Kilgore Road; add free-running-right from Yale Kilgore Road to US-20 | Does Not Advance | Does not advance with mobility and decision site distance (free running right). Considerations for grade concerns to be addressed during design. |
SA6-C29 | Elk Creek | Interchange at Yale Kilgore Road; realign US-20 west of current intersection location. | Advances | Merits further study. |
Level 2 Screening | ||||
SA6-C5 | Elk Creek | Connect frontage road east of US-20 at Elk Creek Road; restrict access from US-20 to businesses; business access from frontage road | Does Not Advance | Does not provide defined approach access from US-20. |
SA6-C17 | Elk Creek | Frontage road east of US-20 at Elk Creek Road with on- and off-ramps and a bike/pedestrian tunnel | Does Not Advance | Based on the traffic memo conclusions, this alternative does not provide sufficient capacity and will not meet the level of service (LOS) needs. |
SA6-C21 | Elk Creek | Realign Yale-Kilgore Road to line up with Phillips Loop Road and add a traffic signal at intersection | Advances | Has potential to address capacity, safety, access management and freight needs. May be an interim solution only. |
SA6-C29 | Elk Creek | Interchange at Yale Kilgore Road; realign US-20 west of current intersection location. | Advances | Has potential to address capacity, safety, access management, and freight needs. |
SA6-C30 | Elk Creek | Interchange south of Yale Kilgore Road | Advances | Has potential to address capacity, safety, access management, and freight needs. This alternative was introduced after Level 1 and was evaluated during Level 2 screening. |
Level 1: Island Park Village Area
Level 1: ALT SA6-C4

Level 1: ALT SA6-C10

Level 1: ALT SA6-C20

Level 1: ALT SA6-C23

Level 1: ALT SA6-C25

Level 1: ALT SA6-C27

Level 1: ALT SA6-C28

Level 2: Island Park Village Area
Level 2: ALT SA6-C28

Study Area 6 (Location 4 of 5): Island Park Village | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Alternative | General Location | Description of Alternative | Screening Result | |
Level 1 Screening | ||||
SA6-C4 | Island Park Village | Off-ramp from US-20 to N Big Springs Loop | Does Not Advance | Does not meet purpose and need as a standalone alternative. May consider implementing concept with other alternatives. |
SA6-C10 | Island Park Village | Roundabout at Sawtell Peak Road (M.P. 394.3) | Does Not Advance | Does not advance, safety, maintenance, driver expectancy concerns. |
SA6-C20 | Island Park Village | Interchange at M.P. 389.4 | Idea/Concept Advances | Does not advance as a standalone alternative but idea should be combined and considered. |
SA6-C23 | Island Park Village | Traffic Signal at Sawtell Peak Road (M.P. 394.3) | Idea/Concept Advances | Has potential to address capacity, safety, access management, and freight needs. May be an interim solution only. |
SA6-C25 | Island Park Village | Interchange south of Island Park Village and interchange north of Island Park Village | Advances | Merits further study. Evaluate frontage roads and combining. |
SA6-C27 | Island Park Village | New roundabout north of Island Park Village. | Does Not Advance | Safety, maintenance, driver expectancy concerns. |
SA6-C28 | Mack's Inn - Island Park Village | Traffic signal at Sawtell Peak Road (M.P. 394.3) | Advances | Has potential to address capacity, safety, access management and freight needs. May be an interim solution only. |
Level 2 Screening | ||||
SA6-C28 | Mack's Inn - Sawtelle | Traffic signal at Sawtell Peak Road (M.P. 394.3) | Does Not Advance | SA6-C28 was not evaluated as a standalone alternative for the Level Two screening. This alternative was combined into the SA6-C21 alternative for evaluation. |
Level 1: Last Chance Area
Level 1: ALT SA6-C1

Level 1: ALT SA6-C2

Level 1: ALT SA6-C7

Level 1: ALT SA6-C15

Level 1: ALT SA6-C18

Level 1: ALT SA6-C19

Level 2: Last Chance Area
Level 2: ALT SA6-C2

Level 2: ALT SA6-C41

Study Area 6 (Location 1 of 5): Last Chance | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Alternative | General Location | Description of Alternative | Screening Result | |
Level 1 Screening | ||||
SA6-C1 | Last Chance through Island Park Village | Connecting frontage road east of US-20 at Elk Creek Road; restrict access from US-20 to businesses; business access from frontage road | Does Not Advance | Merits further study. Modifications required. |
SA6-C2 | Last Chance | Roundabout at Yale Kilgore Road (M.P. 389.2) | Advances | Safety, maintenance, driver expectancy concerns. |
SA6-C7 | Last Chance – Red Rock Road | Interchange at M.P. 389.4 | Idea/Concept Advances | Merits further study; look at frontage roads on C-16 to combine; combine to new alternative for Level Two Screening. |
SA6-C15 | Last Chance | Frontage road east of US-20 between M.P. 387-389.4; interchange at M.P. 388 | Does Not Advance | Merits further study; look at frontage roads on C-16 to combine; combine to new alternative for Level Two Screening. |
SA6-C18 | Box Canyon | Frontage road east of US-20 at Elk Creek Road with on- and off-ramps and a bike/pedestrian tunnel | Does Not Advance | Merits further study; may want to combine with C13 or C29; mobility is a concern. |
SA6-C19 | Box Canyon | Realign Yale-Kilgore Road to line up with Phillips Loop Road and add traffic signal at intersection | Idea/Concept Advances | Has potential to address capacity, safety, access management and freight needs. May be an interim solution only. |
Level 2 Screening | ||||
SA6-C2 | Last Chance | US-20 remains on alignment with the addition of a frontage road on the east side adjacent to the current alignment | Does Not Advance | Does not adequately improve safety and access management. Extensive impacts and maintenance concerns. |
SA6-C41 | Last Chance | Realign US-20 to the east of Last Chance area. | Advances | Has potential to address capacity, safety, access management, and freight needs. This alternative was introduced after Level 1 and was evaluated during Level 2 screening. |
Level 1: Mack's Area
Level 1: ALT SA6-B2

Level 1: ALT SA6-C3

Level 1: ALT SA6-C9

Level 1: ALT SA6-C12

Level 1: ALT SA6-C14

Level 1: ALT SA6-C22

Level 2: Mack's Area
Level 2: ALT SA6-C12

Level 2: ALT SA6-C14

Study Area 6 (Location 3 of 5): Mack's Inn | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Alternative | General Location | Description of Alternative | Screening Result | |
Level 1 Screening | ||||
SA6-B2 | Mack's Inn | Couplet concept through Mack's Inn Area with the southbound lanes shifted to the west | Does Not Advance | Concerns with safety, driver expectancy, maintenance. |
SA6-C3 | Mack's Inn - Island Park Village | New county road to connect from US-20 to South Big Springs Loop | Idea/Concept Advances | May want to use this approach with other alternatives. |
SA6-C9 | Mack's Inn | Roundabout at South Big Springs Loop (M.P. 392.6) | Does Not Advance | Safety, maintenance, driver expectancy concerns. |
SA6-C12 | Mack's Inn | Interchange at M.P. 392.6; raise US-20 bridge over the river; access both sides under the bridge on north and south sides of the river under raised bridge; add recreation bridge on the east and frontage road bridge on the west | Advances | Merits further study. |
SA6-C14 | Mack's Inn | Realign US-20 west of existing alignment with connection at South Big Springs Road | Advances | Merits further study, may need to be adjusted. |
SA6-C22 | Mack's Inn | Traffic signal at South Big Springs Loop Road (MP 392.6) | Idea/Concept Advances | Has potential to address capacity, safety, access management and freight needs. May be an interim solution only. |
Level 2 Screening | ||||
SA6-C12 | Mack's Inn | Interchange at M.P. 392.6; raise US-20 bridge over the river; access both sides under the bridge on north and south sides of the river under raised bridge; add recreation bridge on the east and frontage road bridge on the west | Advances | Has potential to address capacity, safety, access management and freight needs. |
SA6-C14 | Mack's Inn | Realign US-20 west of existing alignment with connection at South Big Springs Road | Advances | Has potential to address capacity, safety, access management and freight needs. |
Level 1: Swan Lake - Harriman Area
Level 1: ALT SA4-C1

Level 1: ALT SA4-C2

Level 1: ALT SA5-B3

Level 2: Swan Lake - Harriman Area
Level 2: ALT SA4-C1

Study Areas 4 and 5: Swan Lake to Harriman | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Alternative | General Location | Description of Alternative | Screening Result | |
Level 1 Screening | ||||
SA4-C1 | Swan Lake / Pine Haven Area | Realign US-20 west of existing US-20 | Advances | Merits further study. |
SA4-C2 | Swan Lake / Pine Haven Area | Realign southbound US-20 west of existing US-20; northbound stays on the existing alignment (couplet) | Does Not Advance | Couplet concept does not continue at this location; however, may retain the alignment to possibly combine with C1. |
SA4-B3 | Harriman Park Area | Roundabout at Mesa Falls Road | Does Not Advance | Concerns with safety, driver expectancy, maintenance. |
Level 2 Screening | ||||
SA4-C1 | Swan Lake / Pine Haven Area | Realign US-20 west of existing US-20 (to the west of Swan Lake Area) | Advances | Potentially addresses capacity, safety, access management, and freight needs; however, may increase environmental impacts through area. |
Click images to enlarge
Access Management
What is Access Management?
Access Management reduces conflict points to promote safety and mobility and has been proven to:
- Reduce the number and severity of crashes, reducing cost
- Reduce congestion
- Improve travel times
- Support bicyclist and pedestrian safety


Increased Safety
Research by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and other agencies in the last 50 years has consistently shown that Access Management increases roadway safety.
What Access Management Studies Show
- It decreases the number of access points on a roadway reducing the crash rate
- Roads with medians are safer than undivided roads, or roads with two-way left-turn lanes
- It is safer for vehicles to make a U-turn and a right turn, than to make a direct left turn into or from a driveway


Multi-Use Crossings
ITD is evaluating opportunities throughout the corridor to provide safe crossings on US-20 for wildlife, sportsman, recreational and local traffic. ITD is analyzing movement and migration information and maps for mule deer, elk and pronghorn shared by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) to identify areas of opportunity for wildlife passage design features.
Additionally, the United States Forest Service (USFS) and IDFG have shared information and maps about grizzly bear movements around and across US 20. ITD will continue to work with partner agencies for technical assistance pertaining to wildlife information during the PEL process.
Underpass

Sportsman/Recreational
Jump-Out Exit

Ecopassage

About the PEL
What is the US-20 Ashton to SH-87 JCT PEL?
ITD initiated the PEL process to analyze US-20 between Ashton and the SH-87 Junction and will look at ways to improve safety and reduce congestion.
Increasing traffic is causing congestion and crashes. Improvements are needed to maintain a safe roadway and reliable connection to adjacent communities, Yellowstone National Park, and the region.
The US-20 Ashton to SH-87 Junction PEL is separate project from the Targhee Pass Environmental Assessment (EA). The EA was completed and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued in late 2020. Decisions made as part of the EA will not be revisited during the Ashton to ID-87 Junction PEL project.
What is involved in the PEL Process?
Watch this video to learn more about the steps that take place during a PEL process.
Purpose, Needs and Goals
DRAFT Project Purpose and Need
The Ashton to SH-87 Junction section of US-20 was originally built in the 1950s. The current roadway does not provide sufficient traffic flow or passing opportunities to accommodate growing traffic volumes. The roadway has exceeded its service life and requires improvements to roadway and drainage features. Reconstruction will provide the opportunity to include design elements that reduce the severity and frequency of crashes.
Purpose
The purpose of the US-20 Ashton to SH-87 Junction project is to enhance highway safety and operations by:
- Improving capacity and Level of Service
- Improving access management
- Improving regional freight movement
- Decrease severe crashes
Need
The need for improvements to the US-20 corridor is to:
- Address existing deficiencies such as:
- Travel time
- Congestion
- Delays
- Safety
- Prepare for future growth, economic development and tourism in the region
- Increase freight mobility
Goal
When consulting with the public and resource agencies, ITD identified additional goals to be considered as the project is developed:
- Integrate wildlife movement strategies in the corridor
- Provide traffic calming measures or separation where the US-20 alignment runs through developed areas
- Provide multiuse solutions that provide a range of options for recreational users
How does US-20 function now?
![]() |
Increasing congestion is contributing to traffic crashes in the area. |
Here’s what the traffic data says:


Click image to enlarge
Where are we in the process?

Stay Involved
Please share ideas about the project. Public input will be an important part of the decision-making process along with technical information and engineering best-practices.
Comments
If you have questions please contact the project team.
Use the comment button at the top right of this meeting to view the comment form where you can submit comments. You can also submit comments via email to comments@us20ashtonto87.com
or mail them to:
ITD
206 N. Yellowstone Highway
Rigby, ID 83442
While your comments are always welcome, they can be best utilized if received by June 9, 2022.