Action Alert—Anti-traffic safety bill targeting Salt Lake City
Update: February 26th at 5:00 PM
The bill, SB 242 S2 has passed the Senate. Our positions on the bill have not changed, and it remains important to reach out to your legislators! The bill will now move on to the House, starting with the House Transportation Committee. This committee will be the next chance for public comment on the bill, and is one of the best opportunities to secure changes before it moves to the House floor. Now’s the time to get your emails out! If you’d like to make a public comment, the next committee hearings are Monday, March 2 at 8 AM and Tuesday, March 3 at 4 PM. We don’t know which day the bill will be assigned, but should know by the day before. Once it’s assigned, it will go to the “Assigned Bills” list on this page, before getting listed on the agenda for a meeting.
End of update
The time has come, this year’s anti-traffic safety legislation has been introduced at the Utah legislature, and it’s bigger and badder than last time. After the UDOT study showed mostly neutral to positive impacts of recently constructed SLC street designs, the bill, numbered SB 242 (lines 3369-3480), replaces what passed last year, adding in “mitigation” of traffic calming on recently completed streets projects.
Here’s what SB 242 S2 - Transportation Amendments, includes:
Similar to last year
Targets “highway reduction strategies,” which is anything that UDOT deems as having the potential to permanently decrease the vehicle capacity. As written, it doesn’t matter if the road capacity is even being met. Strategies specifically called out include: lane reductions, lane narrowing, and anything that can “impede” traffic flow (this is a catch all)
Formalizes the road tier system mentioned in the UDOT study, identifying the streets where high-speed traffic is more important than safety. Tier 1 restricts most traffic calming and requires study and UDOT approval if allowed, tier 2 includes study by the city and approval by UDOT, tier 3 requires documentation, and tier 4 are residential streets that are left to Salt Lake City, though the crossings at higher tiered streets will likely still impact safety on these streets
New this year
Expands the geographical scope to include the west side to Redwood Road (previously was i-15), and to the southern city boundary (previously was 2100 South)
Requires “mitigation” (whatever that means) of the impacts of traffic calming on recently constructed streets, specifically: 300 West (the bikeway area), 400 South (the trail area), and 200 South in downtown
Includes anything that has the “potential” to impact or reduce on-street parking on tier 1 and 2 streets, specifically requires engagement and UDOT approval anytime 3 or more parking spaces on a block face are planned to be removed
Requires a minimum of 11 foot travel lanes on Tier 1 and 2 streets, and a minimum of 10 foot travel lanes on Tier 3 streets. This reduces space for other uses (including parking) and may encourage speeding, see Cycling Utah for more)
Salt Lake City must enter an agreement with UDOT to establish the tiered “critical capacity routes map.”
The City-UDOT agreement must be in place before the end of the year and the City must work with UDOT to report back to the Transportation Interim Committee annually
The inclusion of the “mitigation” of recently built streets could mean more construction and wasted taxpayer dollars, all to make the street design less safe. The language in the bill is broad, and places the highest priority on hypothetical road capacity, with safety and local control pushed to the wayside.
What can you do?
Step 1 - Contact your legislators:
Find your legislators and their contact info using the map tool (enter your address then click on their name)
Draft a concise email (see writing tips in the next section)
Send emails to both your state representative and senator
Step 2 - Contact the bill sponsors:
Sen. Wayne Harper, R-Taylorsville
wharper@le.utah.gov, M: 801-566-5466
Rep. Kay Christofferson, R-Lehi
kchristofferson@le.utah.gov, M: 801-592-5709
Step 3 - Contact the members of the House Transportation Committee:
Rep. Kay Christofferson, R-Lehi (committee chairman)
kchristofferson@le.utah.gov, M: 801-592-5709
Rep. Calvin Roberts, R-Draper (committee vice-chair)
croberts@le.utah.gov, M: 801-438-4051
Rep. Ariel Defay, R-Kaysville
adefay@le.utah.gov, M: 435-760-7726
Rep. Kristen Chevrier, R-Alpine/Highland (a cyclist!)
kchevrier@le.utah.gov, M: 801-520-6773
Rep. Rosalba Dominguez, D-Murray
rdominguez@le.utah.gov, M: 801-419-3283
Rep. Ken Ivory, R-West Jordan
kivory@le.utah.gov, M: 801-694-8380
Rep. Ashlee Matthews, D-Kearns/West Jordan/Taylorsville
amatthews@le.utah.gov, M: 385-264-2024
Rep. Clinton Okerlund, R-Sandy/Cottonwood Heights
cokerlund@le.utah.gov, W: 801-999-8605
Rep. Michael Petersen, R-Logan/Smithfield
mpetersen@le.utah.gov, M: 435-770-6925
Rep. Jake Sawyer, R-Ogden/West Haven
jsawyer@le.utah.gov, M: 801-641-5928
Rep. Norman Thurston, R-Provo
normthurston@le.utah.gov, M: 801-477-5348
Rep. Angela Romero, D-Salt Lake City/West Valley City (House Minority Leader)
angelaromero@le.utah.gov, M: 801-538-1408
Here are all of the committee members in a list: kchristofferson@le.utah.gov, croberts@le.utah.gov, adefay@le.utah.gov, kchevrier@le.utah.gov, rdominguez@le.utah.gov, kivory@le.utah.gov, amatthews@le.utah.gov, cokerlund@le.utah.gov, mpetersen@le.utah.gov, jsawyer@le.utah.gov, normthurston@le.utah.gov, angelaromero@le.utah.gov
Extra Credit:
Contact legislators who represent the district where you work (if different from those for your home address)
Share this email with family and friends and encourage them to contact their legislators. Not only are anti-safety bills putting their loved ones in Salt Lake at risk, but if they’re targeting Salt Lake City now, similar bills could be introduced elsewhere or statewide in the future!
Share this with local groups that would be impacted, such as community councils, schools, organizations, and businesses, and encourage them to write a letter to legislators stating their opposition
Tips on Writing
Keep it brief
State who you are, include your address and relation to the legislator (state that you are a constituent or that the bill specifically targets where you live)
Specifically state opposition to “Section 72-20-101, Local Highway Mobility Plans,” in SB 242 - Transportation Amendments, the rest of the bill will certainly pass, we just want that section removed
Limit to your strongest points, with your main points up front
Make it personal
Be courteous and to the point, but don’t shy from taking a firm position
Remember the pressure is not on your email alone to convince them, it need not be perfect, we just need as many people as possible to speak up
Following up on the changes in the substitute and legislators’ responses:
We remain opposed to the bill and still recommend asking that the bill be amended to remove the section on “Local Highway Mobility Plans.” At this point, legislators have likely heard many of the basic points on why they should support traffic calming and multi-modal infrastructure. Therefore, it’s better if forthcoming reasoning addresses the responses from legislators that we heard during the committee hearing. Here are some examples of talking points.
Legislators pointed towards this bill outlining the “framework” for UDOT and SLC to work together, however, they neglected to talk about how UDOT would become the single authority that approves changes to tier 1 and 2 streets (major and minor arterial streets). It also still places vehicle capacity over safety. We cannot stress enough that arterial streets are also our most dangerous, so blocking or delaying meaningful safety improvements will result in continued risk of traffic violence to anyone traveling on those streets. This aspect of the bill would severely limit Salt Lake City’s efforts towards their goal of zero traffic deaths and serious injuries by 2035, which the City had plans to shift into full gear in 2026.
The new language for parking does not address where parking structures are already plentiful (think 200 South between State Street and 200 East), as it only considers when new parking structures replace removed street parking. And since when do street projects build parking structures? That would be a significant budget item if included in a project.
We need clarification on the language targeting the “mitigation” of traffic calming. The language in the substitute bill appears to leave open the possibility of “mitigation” on any street. It’s unclear if the new wording was intentional. We cannot have a bill that is ambiguous and may allow any street to be at risk of “mitigation”
While the reduction in minimum lane width requirements are welcome, they overall are simply unnecessary. The city already follows standards and accounts for buses and trucks by providing a wider right-most lane. Minimum lane width requirements should simply be struck from the bill.
There remains a significant cost to the added bureaucracy of this process, and it’s important to remember that many projects have already been delayed or paused indefinitely by last year’s SB 195 and the threat of the current bill. Safety improvements are needed now, not in 5 years with additional cost burden (if they even get approved)
A more robust public feedback process is generally a good thing, but not when there isn’t clarity on how comments are weighted from different stakeholders. Resident safety should not be second to minor inconveniences. We need to remind legislators and UDOT that “safety is our number one priority” means actions to support this statement, not just empty words
Other points to emphasize:
You’re just a regular person who likes to walk, bike, or use public transit to get around, or a driver who likes streets being safer. If you have good photos of yourself, friends, or family getting around by transit or biking, it doesn’t hurt to include one at the end of your email
Multimodal infrastructure is good for business. Use the 9 Line as an example of an extremely successful corridor
Individual projects are part of comprehensive plans that have existed sometimes for more than a decade. Pulling back on specific projects or even blocks of street harms the vision laid out in those plans, hindering long-term quality of life improvements
Construction was one of the instigators of the legislation. It’s important to remind legislators that we can target improvements to the construction process without harming the actual outcome. And much of the delay in construction was due to public utilities, not due to the street infrastructure itself
What does safety mean for you? We’re not talking about drivers perceived comfort, instead we’re focused on death and injury. When we walk and bike, we see firsthand the dangers of poor street design, but it’s even apparent when driving on certain routes.
Traffic calming protects those outside and inside a car. Street design that makes it difficult to speed means reduced aggressive driving behavior, and therefore less exposure to dangerous situations on the road. And, as a driver, traffic calming reduces the chance that you will accidentally strike a person, something many of us would have difficulty living with.
Here’s an example.
Note your language may change depending on who you’re sending it to (your rep, or the committee, or the sponsor), or if you’re following up:
“Hello [Rep./Sen.],
I’m writing to express my opposition to SB 242 - Transportation Amendments, particularly the addition of Section 72-20-101, Local Highway Mobility Plans, which targets traffic safety infrastructure in Salt Lake City.
I would like to see a substitute bill removing Section 72-20-101. [Concise statement why, make it personal].
I’m a constituent and my address is…
Thank you for your time and consideration.
[Your name]”
We’ll do our best to keep you updated on the bill’s progress, but things move fast at the Capitol so don’t wait to contact your legislators. It’s always best we act as soon as possible.
Make sure your voice is heard!
