Salt Lake City is currently undergoing a significant transformation with many streets closed for resurfacing, rehabilitation, or reconstruction.
The aim of these projects is to shift the urban landscape from being auto-dominated to one that is more walkable, bikeable, livable, and sustainable.
Since before 1990, roadway projects were primarily assessed in terms of roadway level of service, focusing on maximizing vehicle throughput as quickly as possible.
Following the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, cities—including Portland, Seattle, Austin, Boulder, Cambridge, Arlington, and West Palm Beach—began to adopt more expansive goals that align with the current initiatives of Salt Lake City.
However, recent legislative action has put a considerable damper on these efforts.
During the last session, the Utah Legislature enacted legislation that halts Salt Lake City’s Livable Streets program, which aims to reduce speeding traffic.
While the law encompasses many complexities, its essence restricts the city from implementing several crucial strategies, including lane narrowing, the installation of raised crosswalks or traffic circles, and road diets that convert four lanes of traffic into three.
These strategies are crucial for mitigating traffic speeds and enhancing safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists alike.
The implications of this law are severe, affecting not just the aforementioned goals of walkability and sustainability but also undermining the city’s Vision Zero program—which aims to eliminate fatal traffic accidents.
High-speed traffic typically correlates with increased risks, reducing the ability of drivers to react in time to stop for pedestrians and other road users, which raises the likelihood of fatal accidents.
To substantiate these claims, three studies from the Department of City and Metropolitan Planning at the University of Utah are notable.
The first study, conducted for the New York Department of Transportation, found that traffic calming measures, such as road diets, significantly enhanced safety in New York City.
The second study, focused on Salt Lake City’s Transportation Division, demonstrated that existing traffic calming measures like speed humps effectively reduced vehicle speeds—not only at the devices but also in surrounding areas.
The third study, aimed at state-owned urban arterials in Utah, revealed that narrower lanes were associated with lower speeds and crash rates.
Perhaps surprisingly, research shows that reducing traffic speeds from 40 to 30 mph on surface streets does not compromise throughput.
This is primarily because vehicle headway—which is the spacing between vehicles—also decreases, maintaining overall traffic capacity.
Yet, an anti-Livable Streets piece authored by two professors at the University of Utah, which was circulated among legislators but not made public, contested this view.
Titled “Roadblocks to Quality of Life,” this piece persists in using outdated perspectives reminiscent of the pre-1990 era, despite the authors not being transportation planners or engineers.
Unfortunately, the influence of their arguments has been significant, affecting legislative thought and action adversely, undermining the broader values that Salt Lake City seeks to promote.
During the House Transportation Committee meeting on Feb. 27, Rep. Kristen Chevrier voiced her concerns about the bill’s potential negative impact on bike and pedestrian safety, a sentiment that is well-founded.
For this reason, residents are urged to remain patient as the city undergoes its transformation, and it is vital to advocate for local priorities to be determined by the city itself rather than by state-level legislation.
Reid Ewing, a distinguished professor of city and metropolitan planning at the University of Utah, has expressed these concerns and emphasized the importance of local governance in this matter.
image source from：https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2025/06/13/voices-utah-lawmakers-shouldnt-get/
