As Provo continues to grow, so do our transportation and infrastructure needs. Planning for the future is about developing innovative, fiscally responsible, and sustainable solutions to keep our city moving in the right direction. We cannot keep widening roads, especially if we are destroying neighborhoods to do it. Studies show that wider roads 1. do not solve congestion or transportation issues, 2. Increase costs to the city for maintenance in perpetuity, and 3. require space that cities often don’t have. We need to be smart, look at the data and transportation patterns, and figure out the best ways for people to get where they need to go.
Provo’s transportation master plan is long overdue for a fresh vision. We need to update it to improve east-west connectivity and to create safer, more accessible options for active transportation. By aligning the City Master Plan with the Transportation Master Plan—and guiding both with strong leadership and community input—we can reduce congestion, promote responsible growth, strengthen neighborhoods, and enhance the quality of life for all residents.
For many in our community—especially seniors and those with disabilities—public transportation is more than convenience, it’s a necessity.
As a legislator, I worked with UTA to get UTA on Demand in west Provo. This can be compared to Uber or Lyft, but only costs the price of a bus fare. I would like to expand this service throughout Provo and neighboring cities. Something else I would like to explore is a collaborative partnership between Provo, the School District, and UTA to increase public transportation routes and bus students to school while saving money.
Andy Olsen says:
What are you thoughts about the 820 North widening project? Those of us that live here don’t want it, don’t want to lose our friends, family’s and neighbors, and the increased traffic to suit people that don’t live here. We really don’t care if workers for BYU and the hospital will have saved 5-10 minutes on their commute. If they want to have a quickly commute to work, they can live here and contribute.
Marsha Judkins says:
Andy,
I have lived in Harbor Park for almost 40 years and completely agree with you on 820 N. As a legislator, I tried to work with the city to help them see alternative solutions to east/west traffic flow that are less expensive, will better address connectivity, and will keep our neighborhoods intact. These interactions I have had with the city are one of the reasons I am running for mayor.
Diane Zaugg says:
In another post you mentioned 610 N as an alternative to widening 820 N. I am not sure what you are proposing because it doesn’t make sense to me. Any East/West corridor has to involve crossing railroads and I-15. I also don’t see any area that would not involve removing houses. Could you clarify what some of your ideas are because improvements to 820 N seems the easiest.
Marsha Judkins says:
Diane, you are correct that any east/west street would have to contend with the railroad and the freeway. Completing 620 N to Independence Ave. would not involve removing any houses, but it would have to go under the freeway and have a stop at the RR tracks or go over or under them. 1680 N could also be completed to Sandhill Rd without involving homes.
Widening 820 N to five lanes (I don’t think of this as an improvement) will be very expensive and will destroy a neighborhood. If 820 remains our only option for going east/west, we have not really solved any issues even if it is wider, and we will have spent a lot of money. There will still be holdups at the railroad crossing, and if something happens to block the road–an accident or construction, for example–we will still have to take Center Street or 2000 North, neither very convenient or good options. However, if we had a couple of other streets that gave us access, 620 N for example, we would other options under these circumstances. I don’t have access at this time to a cost comparison, so I can’t give any information on this. However, I think it is very worthwhile to figure it out.
Diane Zaugg says:
Thank you for the clarification.
John Salzman says:
Marsha,
The idea of connecting 1680 North to Sandhill should not be an option. The traffic on 1720-1700 North is already nuts. I have complained to the traffic engineer for 35 years about the problems on this road. I was ALWAYS told that it is more important that traffic flow be considered rather than neighborhood safety! The best we ever got was a stop sign removed and just in the last few days some striping. Like this is going to curb the 40-60 mph traffic on our street which mostly has to do with commuters from outside our neighborhood. It is my experience that planners and engineers are only thinking about what they think is best and not the people who live in the neighborhood think is best. The wages of a police officer in our neighbor could be paid just from the tickets that could be written! The same goes for 1460 North.
Those of us on Grandview Hill know of your support for an off ramp at Sandhill through 1720-1700 North and support from here will be slim. The only reason 820 is reasonable to some is that it is partially businesses already. As far as I am concerned NONE of your options are reasonable as they only increase problems in other neighborhoods. I also understand your wanting to preserve your neighborhood. But don’t go interfering with mine!
By far the least expensive way to solve the issue is to enforce existing traffic laws! Just because taking what you think is an “inconvenient” route that takes you 3 whole minutes longer to get wherever you are going only means you have a serious personal problem.
Solve the real issue…and it is not how to get somewhere faster or more conveniently. It is a people problem NOT a traffic problem.
Marsha Judkins says:
John, I do not support an off-ramp anywhere between University Parkway and Center Street. I am not sure where you got the idea that I did. I feel like we agree on almost everything, from traffic safety–enforcing existing traffic laws–, to preserving neighborhoods. My ideas for better east/west access are ideas–I welcome any and all input from neighbors, planners, etc.
Doug says:
I am looking for your thoughts on Provo City’s street widening plan for 2200/2230 North despite their promise to the neighborhood who lobbied to change the language in the Transportation Master Plan from “street widening” to “safety improvement.” Every time a city official is asked about it, they state that the plan is to widen the street and they glibly call it “growing pains.”
Marsha Judkins says:
Transportation and road congestion are issues I care deeply about —especially when they directly affect neighborhoods like those near 2200 North. I know residents are frustrated, and rightly so, and I also believe that widening roads is not the only—or always the best—solution.
There is always more than one way to address congestion. Studies show that widening roads often leads to more traffic, not less. It’s a cycle we’ve seen in city after city: bigger roads attract more cars and faster driving, and before long, we’re back where we started—but with less walkability, more noise, and lost neighborhood character.
When it comes to 2200 North, we need a thoughtful and forward-looking approach. Here are some ideas:
Improve the roads we already have — maintenance, timing of lights, turn lanes, and visibility can all make a difference.
Create new routes and connections so we aren’t funneling all traffic through the same few streets.
Look at public transportation—especially with the MTC, BYU, and UVU nearby. If students and young residents don’t need to bring cars to Provo, that relieves pressure across the entire system.
Bring smart people to the table: residents, planners, engineers, and business owners. We need collaboration and to look at best practice and evidenced-based solutions. I am always willing to listen to and consider ideas.
Once you tear out homes or widen roads, it’s almost impossible to reverse. We need a vision of the kind of city are we building for our kids and grandkids. We need to be careful not to pursue the easiest or most obvious solution without examining alternatives.
I don’t want to see Provo neighborhoods replaced by wide roads—we lose our charm, our neighborhoods, and our long-term sustainability.
Every road we build or widen becomes a financial and social commitment. Roads require maintenance and pull money away from other needs. And when we eliminate single-family homes to make space for traffic, we chip away at the community.
If I become mayor, I will bring people together to explore real, workable options—because there are always options. And I’ll ensure that whatever we do is based on solid research, public input, and a long-term vision that puts Provo residents and neighborhoods first.
David Campbell says:
Absolutely agreed! wider roads and higher speeds will actually cause more congestion (think University Avenue and University Parkway). We need to look at lower speeds, narrower lanes, reduced lights and added pedestrian bridges. The city is wasting money (buying houses) it doesn’t have on this widening project which lacks creativity, ruins residential neighborhoods, and won’t solve the problems. 2200n/Timpview already sees excessive speeding, high number of wrecks, lots of school children traffic for local schools, etc.