Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council pauses Wall Avenue corridor vote after public safety, parking and UDOT concerns
Summary
After a presentation on the Wall Avenue corridor plan, councilmembers and residents raised safety, parking and access concerns; the council voted to extend consideration while staff and consultants respond to UDOT comments and public input, and to return with a timeline in several months.
Consultants from Kimley-Horn presented the Wall Avenue Corridor Plan Oct. 21, describing a preferred near-term concept that keeps existing vehicle capacity while introducing traffic-calming features (bulb-outs, medians, shared-use path) to slow speeds and improve pedestrian refuge. Jacob Farnsworth said UDOT's chief concerns are preserving north-south mobility and managing the number of pedestrian crossings.
The consultant outlined alternatives studied, including a pedestrian overpass (rejected for large ramps and right-of-way impacts), an underground bypass/tunnel (costly, high water-table and utility relocation concerns) and a set of traffic-calming boulevard options. Farnsworth described the preferred near-term concept as maintaining lanes while narrowing lane widths, adding medians and a shared-use path on the west side, and preserving left-turn and on-street parking options where feasible.
Council members and residents questioned narrower lane widths and on-street parking, arguing those changes could create new safety risks or pinch points for trucks and commerce. "I don't think parking should be allowed on that street," Chair White said in questioning the design; public commenters including Laura Lewis and Linda Sanchez pressed for an underground option or more study. Residents also compared the plan to recent Salt Lake City projects and urged caution based on those outcomes.
Farnsworth and planning staff acknowledged trade-offs and said UDOT requested more technical analysis of mobility impacts and pedestrian crossing counts. Staff told council that some near-term features could be implemented within 5–10 years while long-term solutions (including underpasses) would require substantial state and federal funding and multijurisdictional agreements. Planning manager Barton Bridal reportedly estimated 4–6 months of additional work to address UDOT feedback and refine a public timeline.
Given the volume of public concern and outstanding technical questions, Vice chair Hyer moved to extend consideration of the referenced resolution (identified in the meeting as resolution 2025-21). Council approved the extension by voice vote and asked staff to return with a public timeline and further community engagement. The council set a placeholder to receive an updated plan and schedule at a future meeting (staff indicated a multi-month timeframe to resolve UDOT comments and provide additional analysis).
