New Utah Freeways

[roundabout]

I have a question?

Why aren't any of the new freeways in Utah apart of Interstate freeway system? Does the federal government even make/designate new Interstates anymore? Ive often wondered why the Mountain view corridor and Legacy Parkway Freeways are not given Interstate routes? anyone know why? 

[roadfro]

Not every freeway needs to be an Interstate. There are many possible reasons that a DOT may not pursue an I-designation...

[Rover_0]

Not every freeway needs to be an Interstate. There are many possible reasons that a DOT may not pursue an I-designation...

That said, however, I think that UT-201 will become an Interstate (likely I-x80) someday, and that if a freeway is built from the new UT-85 south along UT-68 towards Payson, it could become an I-x15 as well.

I think that part of the deal is that the roads can be built right away and not up to freeway standards (think of portions of UT-7 and UT-85), then as time goes on, traffic justifies a freeway, and then UDOT can go ahead and upgrade the road. There's also a little more wiggle room in design than if the road was an Interstate.

[Alps]

Not every freeway needs to be an Interstate. There are many possible reasons that a DOT may not pursue an I-designation...

There's also a little more wiggle room in design than if the road was an Interstate.

By which he means, you can basically design the roadway however you want, to whatever standards you're trying to meet, with full context sensitivity appropriate to a Parkway setting.


Oh, and no Federal interaction means far fewer hoops to jump through.

[CL]

So, if SR-201 (or any other non-Interstate freeway in the state) were to become an Interstate, what exactly would change? This is assuming that SR-201's been upgraded to a freeway from terminus to terminus beforehand.

[roundabout]

Does anyone have any factual info to answer the question? LOL Also, Does the federal government even make/designate new Interstates anymore?

[corco]

The federal government isn't the front end of interstate designation, usually. States want an interstate and ask the feds if they can use the designation.  But yes, the interstate system is still very active. See North Carolina.

Other posters have already answered the question- if you're building the Legacy Parkway through an environmentally sensitive area, it's way easier not to also have to jump through federal loopholes to get the funding necessary to put up the shield. Since you can usually get federal funding for highway construction without having to commit to calling a road an interstate, it's often deemed to the benefit of states to not bother with shooting for the shield.

[J N Winkler]

Some facts about federal funding and regulatory requirements:

*  A road on the NHS (including, for example, most if not all of the Loops in Phoenix) attracts federal funding at an 80-20 ratio.  But this does not mean that funding split has to be used.  The Phoenix Loops, for example, are entirely state-funded.

*  If federal funding is used, even if the road is not an Interstate, the whole NEPA process has to be gone through.  If construction of the road entails a federal action, such as issuance of a Section 404 permit in relation to waterways and wetlands over which the USACE has jurisdiction, then the NEPA process has to be gone through for the aspects which pertain specifically to the federal action, even if the highway is entirely state-funded.  In the case of a major highway, like the proposed South Lawrence Trafficway in Kansas, that can entail consideration of the purpose and need of the project, Section 4(f) and 6(f) impacts, and all the rest of it.  Arizona DOT has had to compile federally required environmental assessments in relation to various parts of the Loops, including the SuperRedTan TI.  "We pay for it" does not allow a state to sidestep federal regulation altogether.

*  In practice the total federal funding a state gets is capped, so spending federal money on a given project can entail sacrificing federal funding for another project.

*  Interstates built since 2003 (not using Interstate Construction funds) are not eligible for Interstate Maintenance funds.  This means that decisions to put up Interstate signs on a brand-new freeway tend to be driven by routing and economic development considerations, not ensuring eligibility for IM funding (which can in any case be done without actually signing an Interstate designation, provided it was in place before 2003).

Utah is one example of a state where not pursuing an Interstate designation has opened the door to relaxed standards through an environmentally sensitive area, but in Arizona and many other states, Interstate designations are not pursued for new freeways because there is simply no point--there are plenty of other places where federal money can be spent without going to the trouble of creating new eligibility for IM funding (which in any case has ceased to be possible for brand-new freeways since 2003).  An Interstate designation, regardless of whether it leads to IM eligibility, also demands compliance with Interstate design standards, which can accommodate environmentally sensitive areas, but in general require a level of provision that is too expansive for roads which cannot be economically justified as full freeways throughout their entire corridors.  A typical example might be an expressway like US 29 in Virginia, where construction to full freeway standard is necessary only for short lengths around towns like the Lynchburg Bypass.

[Alps]

So, if SR-201 (or any other non-Interstate freeway in the state) were to become an Interstate, what exactly would change? This is assuming that SR-201's been upgraded to a freeway from terminus to terminus beforehand.

Shoulder widths, superelevation around curves, median width if no barrier, types of guide rail/barrier if there is barrier. Length of accel/decel lanes, ramp geometry and width. Pavement section width, vertical and horizontal curvature. Oh, I can go on.

[CL]

So, if SR-201 (or any other non-Interstate freeway in the state) were to become an Interstate, what exactly would change? This is assuming that SR-201's been upgraded to a freeway from terminus to terminus beforehand.

Shoulder widths, superelevation around curves, median width if no barrier, types of guide rail/barrier if there is barrier. Length of accel/decel lanes, ramp geometry and width. Pavement section width, vertical and horizontal curvature. Oh, I can go on.

I suppose I mean what would change assuming all that was already in place. Would funding change at all, or would it stay the same? If so, then I wouldn't see a point in converting the road from a state route to an Interstate.

[Alps]

Nope, funding would stay the same. It's just a pretty shield.

[Bickendan]

Does anyone have any factual info to answer the question? LOL

Pet peeve. You wouldn't laugh if you asked the question aloud; don't type it out. It distracts and detracts from the flow of the post and makes zero grammatical sense.

Also, Does the federal government even make/designate new Interstates anymore?

That depends on what you mean by the federal government. If you mean AASHTO/FHWA, not really. If you mean Congress, look at I-99 and attempts to bring I-3 to Georgia.

[sandiaman]

For  you  Utahans:  What  is  the  story  with  Utah's only  turnpike?  That  is  the  short  Adams  Avenue  Parkway  that  is  tolled  from  exit  85  on  I  84  to  Ogden.  It  seems  like  an  oddity.  Is  it  privately owned?

[Rover_0]

For  you  Utahans:  What  is  the  story  with  Utah's only  turnpike?  That  is  the  short  Adams  Avenue  Parkway  that  is  tolled  from  exit  85  on  I  84  to  Ogden.  It  seems  like  an  oddity.  Is  it  privately owned?

Yes. All routes maintained by the state receive a route number, and the Adams Avenue Parkway does not carry a number.

[Rover_0]

While I'm here--I've heard that UT-201's freeway sections are substandard. Is this true? How badly are these sections substandard? Is this for the entire length of the freeway section?

I've heard something like ramp length, but not much after that.

[NE2]

For  you  Utahans:  What  is  the  story  with  Utah's only  turnpike?  That  is  the  short  Adams  Avenue  Parkway  that  is  tolled  from  exit  85  on  I  84  to  Ogden.  It  seems  like  an  oddity.  Is  it  privately owned?

Wikipedia                 actually                                       has                 a                         decent                                             article    :              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adams_Avenue_Parkway

[StogieGuy7]

While I'm here--I've heard that UT-201's freeway sections are substandard. Is this true? How badly are these sections substandard? Is this for the entire length of the freeway section?

I've heard something like ramp length, but not much after that.

U-201 has long been substandard if you're comparing with what is expected of an IH.  Yes, various improvements have been made over the years - especially when the interchange configuration with I-15/I-80 was rebuilt - but there are still quite a few issues remaining.  Things such as inconsistent signage, shoulder and median width, exit ramps/configurations, etc. have historically plagued U-201.   Admittedly, those "substandard" segments are now limited to areas west of Bangerter Highway, thanks to the reconstruction of the freeway's eastern portions over the past 10-15 years.  The eastern end is pretty much up to snuff and would only require minor adjustments, IMO. 

That said, the short segment from I-15 to Bangerter is really not long enough to make it worth bothering with obtaining IH status.  And, west of there, things get ugly, starting with the at-grade intersection with 7200 West.  Then the other at-grade intersections (and driveways) through the Magna area.  Not to mention that the road narrows (lanes, shoulders, median) once it travels through Kennecott's complex.  It would be VERY expensive and troublesome to widen and improve it through there, yet the only reason you'd even consider adding IH status to this road would be if it connected I-80 at/near Saltair with I-15/I-80 in South Salt Lake.  Doing so would require a significant financial investment that is difficult to justify right now.    So, I personally don't see it happening in the foreseeable future. 

[NE2]

Bumping for what this thread should be about: new freeways in Utah, not bitching about them not being Interstates.

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.433164,-111.82198&spn=0.013311,0.028346&t=k&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.433257,-111.822034&panoid=0LTn7T5RO-ZvbJoQm6_yCA&cbp=12,186.38,,0,4.61
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.431465,-111.887512&spn=0.013312,0.028346&t=k&z=16&layer=c&cbll=40.431454,-111.887674&panoid=0vitdK9WL8Jyo4Ta-dg6fA&cbp=12,113.98,,1,2.01
UDOT built a parallel freeway to SR-92. But instead of calling it SR-92, signs say "Commuter Lane". And that "RIGHT EXIT" tab? Yeah.

[KEK Inc.]

Oooo.  Another diverging diamond interchange.   Utah seems to like these.

[Rover_0]

Oooo.  Another diverging diamond interchange.   Utah seems to like these.

Now in St. George (UT-34/St. George Blvd. and I-15) and coming soon to Brigham City (US-91 and I-15/84)!!

[andy3175]

There is also the West Davis Corridor:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/56322000-90/alternative-davis-freeway-glovers.html.csp

The Utah Department of Transportation on Thursday (May 16, 2013) unveiled its preferred route for the new West Davis Corridor freeway — the northwestern extension of Legacy Parkway — that it says will best reduce congestion, be least expensive and have fewer impacts to existing homes, farms and wetlands.

UDOT proposes to start the new freeway at Glover Lane in Farmington, where it would have an interchange both with Legacy Parkway and Interstate 15. That is a couple miles south of the existing northern end of Legacy where it connects with I-15 and U.S. 89.

A different alternative would have started the freeway farther north at Shepard Lane and avoided routing the new freeway through western Farmington near the Great Salt Lake. But UDOT says the Shepard Lane alternative would have required removing more homes and was more complicated and expensive.

The preferred alternative also will follow closely Bluff Road as it travels northwest through Syracuse, instead of an alternative farther west nearer the Great Salt Lake. It will turn straight north and follow roughly 4100 West through West Point and Clinton to about 5500 South in Hooper.

A new four-volume, 1,444-page draft environmental impact statement predicts the route will cost $587 million (in 2012 dollars, including land acquisition), be 19.7 miles long, force relocating 26 homes and five businesses; and directly impact 52 acres of wetlands and 110 acres of prime farmland.

While UDOT hopes to make a final decision on routing next year, no funding sources have been identified for the freeway. However, long-range plans envision construction of the first section from Glover Lane to Antelope Drive by 2020, and completion of the rest by 2030.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/57598171-90/conservation-easements-environmental-farmington.html.csp

Farmington is serving notice that it may sue to block the proposed route of the West Davis Corridor freeway and force the Utah Department of Transportation to redo the project's environmental-impact statement.

The city says it will do so unless UDOT removes three "conservation easements" the city owns near the Great Salt Lake from the freeway's route, which it contends is required by federal law and rule.

"Farmington City will be required to protect its interests if these problems are not rectified by complete avoidance by the West Davis Corridor of these conservation easements," wrote Jeffrey W. Appel, an attorney hired by Farmington.

His seven-page letter, dated Feb. 21, 2014, was sent to UDOT and the Federal Highway Administration.

The freeway would be the northwest extension of the Legacy Parkway — which itself was built after a four-year legal battle over potential damage to wetlands.

Appel wrote that Farmington believes UDOT and the Federal Highway Administration decided first where they wanted the freeway to go, and then their environmental review "and conclusions were reverse-engineered to support that preconceived result" to take advantage of the empty fields in the conservation easements.

He contends that federal rules require giving deference to local officials to identify significant public lands that should be excluded from such routes, and said Farmington told federal and state officials in the process that the easements "must be preserved for such things as parks, recreation areas or wildlife/waterfowl refuges."

UDOT has said it hopes to issue a final environmental impact statement by this summer, and hopes for a confirming final record of decision by the Federal Highway Administration by the end of the year.

UDOT slowed that process after receiving a flood of 1,600 comments last year on its draft environmental impact statement, including one from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that threatened to deny permits needed for construction because of potential damage to Great Salt Lake wetlands.

Regards,
Andy

[triplemultiplex]

Work has brought me to the Salt Lake area and I am generally impressed with the freeways around here.  I-15 is a monster south of the belt.  I love being able to use the HOT lane all the way to Spanish Fork.  There are SPUI's and DDI's everywhere!  Then there are these superstreet intersections on the Bangarter Highway.

The concrete pavement on I-80 in the eastern foothills looks really old; is that original?

I've had a chance to check out the Mountain View Corridor.  On a map, it seems like they should have just built the freeway right away, but having driven it, I can see that won't be necessary for some time.  Nice to have the option for expansion in the future, though.
(And it will take you right past the NSA "freedom center".)

Seems I've come to the SLC at the start of a big rebuild project for I-15 between here and Ogden.
http://www.udot.utah.gov/i15southdavis/
More HOT lanes ahoy!

[Rover_0]

Work has brought me to the Salt Lake area and I am generally impressed with the freeways around here.  I-15 is a monster south of the belt.  I love being able to use the HOT lane all the way to Spanish Fork.  There are SPUI's and DDI's everywhere!  Then there are these superstreet intersections on the Bangarter Highway.

The concrete pavement on I-80 in the eastern foothills looks really old; is that original?

I've had a chance to check out the Mountain View Corridor.  On a map, it seems like they should have just built the freeway right away, but having driven it, I can see that won't be necessary for some time.  Nice to have the option for expansion in the future, though.
(And it will take you right past the NSA "freedom center".)

Seems I've come to the SLC at the start of a big rebuild project for I-15 between here and Ogden.
http://www.udot.utah.gov/i15southdavis/
More HOT lanes ahoy!

Glad to hear your compliments about Utah!

As one who has regularly driven it, it seems like I-15 through the greater Wasatch Front is a perpetual project, but at least you're far more likely to be moving than having to stop or take a detour.

BTW How long are you in Utah for?

[agentsteel53]

The concrete pavement on I-80 in the eastern foothills looks really old; is that original?

probably.  there is some very old button copy signage in that area.

[triplemultiplex]

BTW How long are you in Utah for?

Probably another month or so.