© 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

Residents offer criticism, measured praise of UDOT’s Kimball Junction plan

Cars traverse Kimball Junction.
An Errant Knight
/
Wikimedia Commons
Cars traverse Kimball Junction.

Little more than a dozen residents turned out for a public hearing about the future of Kimball Junction traffic.

After years of planning and debate over development, turnout for the first public comment hearing on a chosen fix seemed lackluster to resident and area business owner Dean Tutor.

“I want to clarify, though, are we talking about solutions? Solving our problems?” he said at the April 8 public hearing. “Or, mitigating our problems.” 

Tutor told the Utah Department of Transportation he doesn’t think their proposal will unstick traffic long-term. The plan, which may be finalized this year, prioritizes additional turn lanes and pedestrian routes through the area.

Click here to read in depth about UDOT's Kimball Junction study and proposed project.

"Alternative C" focuses on adding lanes to Kimball Junction to ease traffic. UDOT finally chose it from a field of 30 options in March 2025.
Utah Department of Transportation
"Alternative C" focuses on adding lanes to Kimball Junction to ease traffic. UDOT finally chose it from a field of 30 options in March 2025.

UDOT was picking between one of three final options it whittled from a field of 30. Intersection improvements won out over adding an extra exit from Interstate 80 to Landmark Drive or sinking state Route 224 underground and under the stoplights.

The agency says the intersection improvements it’s proposing are cheaper and get traffic off I-80 more quickly than the extra exit idea. But it doesn’t foreclose adding exits in the future.

Longtime resident Duncan Silver agreed with Tutor. He said he wishes UDOT’s plan was more innovative.

“This solution is the best of the alternatives that were presented. But it's 10 years late,” Silver said during public comment. “The only solution that will work in this area is to have two interchanges. We have moved from a rural community to an urban one. We need to put an urban I-80 through here.”

Dakota Cherne was among the commentators who expressed appreciation for parts of the proposal. He liked the additional pedestrian tunnel planned under state Route 224.

But even Cherne said he’d prefer to somehow eliminate state Route 224’s two main traffic lights rather than add turn lanes to them.

Just eight people spoke at the hearing that wrapped up half an hour early.

But those who missed it still have chances to weigh in at an online public hearing Thursday, April 10, at 6 p.m.

UDOT will also accept written comments until April 28.

After that, project manager Becky Stromness said the agency will respond to all the comments and make its final decision later this year.

Related Content