The Wasatch Front Regional Council’s Regional Growth Committee on Jan. 16 reviewed a multi‑year schedule to develop a preferred scenario for the Wasatch Choice Vision and introduced a new “exploratory transportation concepts” layer intended to capture projects that are promising but not yet eligible for formal plan inclusion.

Committee members said the new approach is meant to strike a balance between being “aspirational” about future mobility and being pragmatic about costs and readiness. “We explored ideas, to test and vet for this preferred scenario,” said Ted Knowlton, deputy director at the Wasatch Front Regional Council, who led the committee discussion on the update process.

The preferred scenario work will proceed in stages: communities and stakeholders provided ideas in 2024; staff will refine those ideas into a draft preferred scenario in 2025; prioritization and phasing work follows in 2026; and the Council is expected to consider adoption in 2027, Andrew Gruber of WFRC said. Jory Johnner, WFRC’s long‑range planning director, outlined screening steps staff will use to evaluate concepts into three buckets — roadway, transit and active transportation — and described a two‑step process: a preliminary, flexible screening followed by a technical evaluation.

Why it matters: the preferred scenario will set a land‑use and transportation picture through 2055 that guides project testing, federal funding assumptions and local planning. “Where people live and work ... affects the mode that they pick,” Knowlton said, explaining why staff plan to lock a draft land‑use framework before running transportation tests.

Staff described the new exploratory category as a way to preserve visibility for concepts that have promise but do not yet meet the stricter criteria required for official plan projects. Andrew Gruber said the exploratory list will be visible on the Wasatch Choice map and will allow projects to be reconsidered if local land use changes, funding emerges or additional technical work improves a concept’s viability. “Rather than a concept being brought forward and then just sort of being pushed aside, … projects that have been given some real consideration will be captured and reflected in some way,” he said.

Committee members raised common trade‑offs and implementation questions: Carlton Christensen of the Utah Transit Authority asked that corridor and right‑of‑way preservation be considered alongside roadway criteria; Mayor Ben McAdams (commenting as an elected official) and other members argued local planning and long‑term arterial decisions need to be integrated so transit and local circulation are not disconnected; and Ari Breuning of Envision Utah noted the “chicken and egg” challenge where transit and transit‑supporting land use each rely on the other.

Technical screening details offered by Johnner include preliminary checks for whether a concept advances shared goals, has community support, reasonable technical viability and acceptable environmental impacts. For active transportation, the first test is whether a project is regional in nature (for example, part of the Beehive Bikeways or the Utah trails network) rather than purely local. Technical criteria will vary by mode and will include capacity thresholds, safety data, freight and preservation needs for roadways, and ridership and access‑to‑opportunity tests for transit.

Staff said they are pulling concepts from multiple sources — the current 2023 RTP, community workshop maps (roughly 60 workshop maps are under review), ongoing local studies and public comment — and that they expect to run the detailed technical screening through the summer of 2025. Johnner told the committee there are thousands of projects already in the adopted RTP and that staff will document why concepts move forward or do not, so stakeholders can trace decisions.

The committee will receive interim packages as the work progresses and will be asked for review before the preferred scenario is finalized and shown to the public at fall 2025 workshops. “Throughout this process, you will be — that information will come to you for review and guidance,” Knowlton said.

Ending: Staff asked committee members to provide project ideas early so they can be evaluated this summer. Several members asked for follow‑up briefings and one‑on‑one sessions with technical staff as the screening and phasing work proceeds.