Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Teton Pass Pathway topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Teton County delays decision on Teton Pass pathway after YDOT objects to proposed mid‑route terminus
Summary
At its Aug. 18 meeting the Teton County Board of County Commissioners heard a YDOT reply opposing a proposed short‑term dead‑end of the Teton Pass pathway and directed staff to produce cost estimates and hold a workshop with Wyoming Department of Transportation before making a final decision.
The Teton County Board of County Commissioners on Aug. 18 debated whether to scale back the Teton Pass segment of the Centennial Pathway after a Wyoming Department of Transportation official said a mid‑corridor terminus would be inappropriate. The board did not make a final decision and directed county staff to provide detailed cost estimates and schedule a workshop with YDOT and other stakeholders.
The discussion began after county staff circulated an email reply from John Edens of YDOT opposing terminating the pathway at the scale turnout or otherwise dead‑ending the path at intermediate points along Wyoming 22. "I do not support ending the pathway at the scale turnout," the board read aloud from Edens’ reply. The county’s county engineer, Amy Ramage, told the board that the county’s original grant application and NEPA work were based on a logical terminus at Coal Creek and an underpass under Highway 22. "YDOT's support of that project was predicated on the underpass at Coal Creek as proposed," Ramage said.
Commissioners and staff discussed several options: (1) proceed with the original design that reaches Coal Creek and the underpass; (2) redesign to a nearer interim terminus (a "lollipop" turnaround) and seek YDOT approval; or (3) ask the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the BUILD grant administrator whether federal build funds could be reallocated to other local priorities. Pathways coordinator Brian Schilling told the board that surface changes such as gravel versus pavement make little difference in overall cost because the majority of expense is earthwork and retaining structures. "The cost savings between gravel and pavement is minimal when you're looking at the overall cost of the project," Schilling said.
Several commissioners urged caution. Commissioner Gardner said the county faces tradeoffs among the pathway, a Coal Creek tunnel, Spring Gulch road improvements and other capital needs such as emergency sirens. "If we don't extend the pathway all the way to Coal Creek, we're not gonna get the BUILD grant," Chair Newcomb said, adding that he places a higher priority on completing the Coal Creek tunnel and improving Spring Gulch. Commissioner Frey warned that foregoing the current federal portion of BUILD funds could mean losing roughly the federal share of the grant—"about $6,000,000-ish," in his words—while Commissioner Carlman noted the county’s required local match increased by about $4,000,000 because of higher cost estimates.
The board asked staff to return with a short, specific set of items: (a) a current, final capital summary from the county clerk; (b) a cost estimate showing how far the pathway could be extended under a 20% local match and what county funds that would require; (c) updated final costs for proposed emergency sirens; and (d) a near‑term estimate for initial Spring Gulch improvements. Staff said Jorgensen Engineering had been placed on hold and could prepare estimates, and the county tentatively scheduled the follow‑up discussion for mid‑September (dates discussed included Sept. 15–16).
Board members also asked staff to pursue direct conversations with YDOT because the discussion to date relied on a single email response. "We have someone who's had a conversation outside of our discussions here... it would behoove us to have an actual conversation with all the parties in the room," Schilling said. Commissioners emphasized public engagement before major changes; one public commenter, Tim Young of Wilson, asked that the county not make hasty decisions and said residents want to see a scaled‑back proposal that fits the available money.
The board did not vote to change the project or to withdraw BUILD grant funding during the Aug. 18 meeting. Instead, it directed staff to produce the estimates and schedule a workshop with YDOT and other stakeholders so the board and public can consider alternatives and the fiscal consequences.
The board's next substantive step on the topic will be the staff report and workshop with YDOT; staff said they expect to bring more complete information back to the board in mid‑September for a further vote or direction.
