Riverton studies traffic calming after mixed results from speed dips; 'Do not block' markings eyed for Parkside

Riverton public works staff presented the results of recent traffic‑calming measures and sought direction from the council on next steps for problem streets and neighborhood egress. Councilors gave mixed responses and asked staff to gather additional data while permitting a short‑term marking option for one congested location.

Carrie, who led the traffic presentation, said staff installed radar‑counting devices to measure traffic speeds and volumes at two speed‑dip test locations. On Lambton View Drive the pre‑installation 80th‑percentile speed measured about 29 mph; after the speed dip it measured about 28 mph. Carrie noted the dips cost roughly $9,000 apiece to construct or to remove and that removing the concrete ramp normally requires chiseling out the concrete and repaving.

The limited effect prompted some councilors and staff to ask whether noninvasive alternatives — signage, targeted striping, “choking” of intersections, or enforcement — might be preferable. Council member Broker suggested removing the speed dips on Lambton because the devices produced only a 1 mph change while costing about $9,000 to install or remove.

A separate but related problem involves vehicular queuing and blocked intersections on State Route 126 near the Parkside townhomes. Carrie showed a concept that painting “keep clear” markings at key access points would recapture roughly 250 feet of vehicle storage into the intersection if motorists complied. Council members were split: several urged trying the pavement markings on a temporary basis to relieve severe backups for a neighborhood that submitted a petition (49 households signed a letter reported by Council member McKay), while others warned the markings could simply push backups to adjacent intersections without solving the underlying circulation problem.

Jason and staff reminded councilors that Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) is conducting an access management study on the corridor from Bangerter Highway to Harriman; that study will map alternatives, including medians and additional signals, and provide data relevant to long‑term treatments. Staff also said the proposed Dutchman Lane connection that would provide another exit for northern neighborhoods is development‑driven; city staff are exploring corridor‑preservation and project funding but said the connection is not an immediate solution.

Council member McDougall argued strongly against painting the intersection markings for Parkside, saying the north side residents have fewer alternate routes and reopening left turns would create more conflict. Council member McKay and Council member Perucci favored making an exception for the Parkside location to relieve what they described as severe backups.

Staff described practical next steps: deploy additional radar‑counting boxes to produce queuing counts and peak‑period delay metrics; consider temporary pavement markings for the single Parkside location while data and the UDOT study inform longer‑term investments; and return to council with cost estimates and an implementation plan. An update from city staff also reported good legislative news: state representatives helped secure funding so Riverton will not have to pay the $4–5 million bill UDOT had previously indicated would be required for a jurisdictional transfer on part of SR‑126.

No formal ordinance or vote was taken; council members gave staff direction to proceed with additional data collection and to prepare a temporary pavement‑marking option for the Parkside location for council approval.