Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Transportation Master Plan topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

River Heights reviews UDOT‑funded Transportation Master Plan; council asks consultant to correct maps

River Heights City Council · November 18, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The council heard a presentation on the UDOT‑funded Transportation Master Plan (CRS/Horrocks). Members questioned traffic‑count dates, map labels and proposed connector lines (including 400 South), and asked the consultant to fix wording and map clarifications before formal adoption.

River Heights City Council on Nov. 18 received a presentation of a UDOT‑funded Transportation Master Plan prepared by CRS (now Horrocks). The consultant said the plan uses traffic counters, travel‑demand modeling and regional inputs to project 5‑ and 20‑year traffic volumes and to recommend Roadway Capital Improvement Projects (RCIP) such as completion of 400 South, 800 South and upgrades to River Heights Boulevard.

Craig, the transportation consultant, said existing traffic levels are generally acceptable (industry standard level‑of‑service D or better) and that the 5‑year horizon shows little change. Councilors pressed for editorial and technical fixes: several maps show connections that do not yet exist or omit clarifying labels (for example, the appendix traffic‑count maps and a park name listed as "Quinley's Garden" that several members said should read "Stewart Hill Park"). Members also asked for clearer dates on when counters were active and for the consultant to remove an unfinished sentence in the level‑of‑service summary on page 4.

Council discussion focused on policy implications if the city were to adopt the master plan map as the transportation component of the general plan, including potential right‑of‑way width requirements (proposed 66‑ft collector standard) and whether to incorporate the master plan as a standalone adopted master plan or as an appendix to the general plan. The consultant recommended adopting the plan as a stand‑alone master plan and then updating the general plan map as needed; council asked that requested map and text corrections be made and resubmitted before any adoption vote.

No formal adoption vote occurred; the council requested consultant revisions and additional clarifications (traffic‑count dates, map labels, and clear statement about which modeled road connections are existing vs. proposed).