Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rio Grande Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Speakers urge WFRC to study Rio Grande plan rather than isolated Second South grade separation
Summary
Two public commenters told the Transcom meeting of the Wasatch Front Regional Council that the Rio Grande plan — a community-led proposal to lower rail and restore street connections downtown — should receive formal study and not be pre-empted by a standalone grade separation at Second South.
Many supporters of the Rio Grande plan urged the Wasatch Front Regional Council—s Transcom committee to incorporate the plan into regional project study, rather than advance an isolated grade separation at Second South. Michael Kroll, a recent Salt Lake City resident and Rio Grande plan advocate, told the committee the proposed standalone grade separation would be “a band aid fix for what is a much larger issue.”
The Rio Grande plan proposes lowering railroad tracks in downtown Salt Lake City to remove multiple at-grade crossings and reopen streets, supporters say. Frederick (Fred) Jenny, who identified himself as a downtown Salt Lake resident and Rio Grande plan advocate, said the citizen proposal has gained “momentum, including receiving a critical preliminary endorsement from Salt Lake County,” and urged WFRC and partner agencies to study it openly and transparently.
Why it matters: Transcom is the technical advisory arm of the Wasatch Front Regional Council and helps shape which projects move into the region—s Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Speakers said an isolated Second South separation would not open land for redevelopment or sufficiently improve east 0west connectivity, while the Rio Grande plan would remove multiple crossings and create stronger station-area opportunities.
Details from public commenters: Kroll said a stand-alone grade separation at Second South would still impose steep pedestrian climbs, limit disability access, and would “not open up any land for redevelopment.” He asked that council members, particularly those representing the affected area, consider whether funding a large project that addresses only crossings at Second South would “solve more problems than just transportation.”
Jenny said the Rio Grande plan would separate eight railroad crossings, reopen streets that have been closed for decades and yield station-area development opportunities. He expressed concern that the Power District transportation plan and WFRC—s draft TIP did not reflect the Rio Grande plan despite Salt Lake County—s preliminary endorsement.
What the record shows: Comments on the Rio Grande plan were made during the meeting—s public comment period and were included in the public input summary for the draft 2026—2031 TIP presented to Transcom. No formal Transcom action on the Rio Grande plan was taken at the meeting; commenters urged study and formal consideration.
Next steps: Transcom staff and regional partners (WFRC, UDOT, UTA) will continue to process public input as part of TIP and regional planning cycles; proponents asked that their commentary be reflected in future planning and funding decisions.
