© 2025 KPCW

KPCW
Spencer F. Eccles Broadcast Center
PO Box 1372 | 460 Swede Alley
Park City | UT | 84060
Office: (435) 649-9004 | Studio: (435) 655-8255

Music & Artist Inquiries: music@kpcw.org
News Tips & Press Releases: news@kpcw.org
Volunteer Opportunities
General Inquiries: info@kpcw.org
Listen Like a Local Park City & Heber City Summit & Wasatch counties, Utah
Play Live Radio
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
0:00 0:00
Available On Air Stations

Heber leaders call for transparency from UDOT about bypass

UDOT is reviewing five routes for a U.S. Highway 40 bypass around Heber City. Two of those, pictured right and labeled WB-3 in orange and WB-4 in blue, have drawn the ire of residents who say they would damage one of the Heber Valley's cherished open-space areas.
UDOT
UDOT is reviewing five routes for a U.S. Highway 40 bypass around Heber City. Two of those, pictured right and labeled WB-3 in orange and WB-4 in blue, have drawn the ire of residents who say they would damage one of the Heber Valley's cherished open-space areas.

As Wasatch County awaits news on a bypass road to draw traffic away from Heber’s Main Street, some Heber leaders are calling for more public communication from the state’s transportation department.

The Utah Department of Transportation originally planned to announce where it will build the Heber Valley bypass by winter 2023, then by the following spring, then by the end of 2024. Now the agency says the soonest it will choose a route is sometime next year.

That’s left some building and conservation plans on hold, most recently a development envisioned for the intersection of U.S. 40 and River Road. It would create hundreds of condos and hotel rooms, plus outdoor amenities. The developer has applied to annex the land into Heber City.

But city leaders haven’t determined how to move forward because the land sits where two possible bypass routes could go.

At a Heber City Council meeting Tuesday, Sept. 17, Council Members Scott Phillips and Sid Ostergaard reported they and the developer had met with UDOT the day before.

“All of my fears were put at ease,” Phillips said. “They don’t really say much, but they did say that approving this project would not hinder or impede their current studies at all.”

But Council Member Aaron Cheatwood was less reassured.

“Why aren’t they here tonight?” he asked. “Why aren’t they here saying this is not going to cause these problems? Because I worry that when it comes back to the council again, that they’re going to, I’m sorry for this, but that they’re going to change their story again tomorrow.”

He and other city leaders, including Mayor Heidi Franco and Council Member Yvonne Barney, said while they trusted the council members who attended the meeting, they wanted UDOT officials to speak publicly and transparently about the process, instead of in closed meetings.

Franco noted while UDOT’s studies might not be affected, that didn’t rule out problems down the road.

“Their studies are separate from the actual routes,” she said.

And Barney asked why UDOT was responding to a potential development much differently than it did to a potential conservation easement.

“You have a great project,” she told the developer. “But at the same time, people who are saying, ‘this is my land, I would like to continue farming it, my family wants to farm it’ – that suddenly is the biggest, ‘oh my gosh, UDOT can’t do anything,’ and that really bothers me.”

The next step in the annexation process is a public hearing. That’s likely to happen during a city council meeting in October.

Related Content