Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rail Trail topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rail Trail Corridor Plan update highlights management options, community input; paving left open
Summary
Planners presented the Rail Trail Corridor Plan adopted May 24, 2023, highlighting extensive public engagement, three implementation options for ownership/management, and the plan’s neutral treatment of trail paving; council direction includes coordinating with Utah State Parks, budgeting maintenance, and pursuing design guidelines.
Maddie McDonough and Jennifer Leslie of the Community Development Department updated the Council of Governments on June 20 about the Rail Trail Corridor Plan, an effort adopted by the Summit County Council on May 24, 2023, to guide future management and connected land uses along the trail.
The presenters said the plan was shaped by a two‑phase public engagement process that produced 741 survey responses, 112 open‑house attendees and 44 focus‑group participants. The plan defines a corridor roughly a quarter‑mile on either side of the trail and sets goals for accessibility, environmental quality, economic vitality, sustainable recreation, agricultural preservation and history/arts/culture.
Planners described three broad implementation approaches and said the county is more deeply exploring options 1 and 2 while retaining option 3 as the status quo. “Just to be clear, this plan is not advocating for or against paving the trail,” one presenter said, describing the plan as an exploration of pros and cons and of possible management changes if ownership shifts away from Utah State Parks.
Other recommended next steps from the council direction include scheduling a meeting with Utah State Parks to discuss potential changes in ownership or management; preparing a proposed budget for initial and ongoing maintenance; developing corridor design guidelines and a specific management plan; and coordinating with Colville and other municipalities on trail connections and access points.
Members raised safety and user‑conflict concerns; a Park City representative described a near‑miss involving a toddler and an e‑bike and asked whether e‑bike classifications and speed limits are addressed. Presenters said the plan references Park City’s e‑bike classifications and that if the county assumed management it could consider regulations or separated‑use approaches in design guidance to reduce conflicts.
Planners asked municipal leaders to identify opportunities for local connections and collaborative grant applications. The presentation closed with an offer to work with jurisdictions on design, wayfinding and adopt‑a‑trail programs.
