AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Utah  (Read 2272 times)

andy3175

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1212
  • Location: San Diego, California, USA
  • Last Login: September 19, 2017, 09:49:48 AM
    • AARoads
Utah
« on: May 20, 2017, 04:32:34 PM »

Recent update on Utah highway funding initiatives from the May 19th Salt Lake Tribune:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/5309728-155/1-billion-windfall-for-utah-highways

Article describes several highway and freeway initiatives in the Salt Lake City metro area, including:

- West Davis Corridor (possible extension of Utah 67?) (estimated cost: $610 million) - "sort of a northwestern extension of Legacy Parkway," this future freeway still in environmental review and has not yet received federal environmental approval, in part due to its proposed routing near Great Salt Lake wetlands and impact to existing residential areas

- Bangerter Highway (Utah 154) Freeway Conversion - article notes completion of freeway interchanges at 7800 South, Redwood Road (Utah 68), and 600 West; under construction interchanges in 2017 at a cost of $201 million for 5400 South, 7000 South, 9000 South, and 11400 South; 2019 freeway interchange construction at 6200 South ($64 million); and 2022 freeway interchange construction at 10400 South ($46 million) and 12600 South ($49 million).

- Interstate 15 Wasatch Front Improvements: continue project to widen and improve freeway between Lehi Main Street and Utah 92 (Thanksgiving Point) (overall cost of $450 million); widen freeway from Hill Field Road to the Davis-Weber County Line including new carpool lanes ($158 million); add new southbound lane between Utah 201 and 12300 South including I-15/215 interchange improvements and bridge widening at 7200 South ($169 million); and improve northbound I-15 merges by adding a long bridge to separate traffic between 9000 South, 7200 South, and I-215 ($130 million).
Logged
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

Rover_0

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 794
  • Why not?

  • Age: 32
  • Location: Utah
  • Last Login: Today at 07:00:27 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #1 on: May 20, 2017, 07:42:14 PM »

Recent update on Utah highway funding initiatives from the May 19th Salt Lake Tribune:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/5309728-155/1-billion-windfall-for-utah-highways

Article describes several highway and freeway initiatives in the Salt Lake City metro area, including:

- West Davis Corridor (possible extension of Utah 67?) (estimated cost: $610 million) - "sort of a northwestern extension of Legacy Parkway," this future freeway still in environmental review and has not yet received federal environmental approval, in part due to its proposed routing near Great Salt Lake wetlands and impact to existing residential areas

- Bangerter Highway (Utah 154) Freeway Conversion - article notes completion of freeway interchanges at 7800 South, Redwood Road (Utah 68), and 600 West; under construction interchanges in 2017 at a cost of $201 million for 5400 South, 7000 South, 9000 South, and 11400 South; 2019 freeway interchange construction at 6200 South ($64 million); and 2022 freeway interchange construction at 10400 South ($46 million) and 12600 South ($49 million).

- Interstate 15 Wasatch Front Improvements: continue project to widen and improve freeway between Lehi Main Street and Utah 92 (Thanksgiving Point) (overall cost of $450 million); widen freeway from Hill Field Road to the Davis-Weber County Line including new carpool lanes ($158 million); add new southbound lane between Utah 201 and 12300 South including I-15/215 interchange improvements and bridge widening at 7200 South ($169 million); and improve northbound I-15 merges by adding a long bridge to separate traffic between 9000 South, 7200 South, and I-215 ($130 million).

The Bangerter Highway conversion is long overdue and should've been a grade-separated freeway to begin with, but I'm glad it's coming along.

I recall from an email correspondence that the West Davis Corridor will indeed be a northern extension of SR-67, if it ever gets built.

The I-15, Lehi Main St to SR-92 construction project must be the project I a UDOT representative referred to when I floated the idea of re-aligning SR-73 onto Pioneer Crossing and renumbering the short eastern stub between 850 East (the first street west of I-15) to US-89. Recall that SR-73 is currently split into two different segments, the main SR-36 to the current Crossroads Blvd intersection with SR-73 and SR-145 and said short stub. UDOT generally prefers to re-sign BGS's during construction.

And now, for [a project] completely different: I'm told by UDOT's Engineering Manager that signs have been ordered for US-189 in Wasatch County (in Region 3) for its portion of the concurrency with US-40. Summit County (in Region 2), which has the rest of the 40/189 concurrency and the I-80/US-189 concurrency, is "still working on it."
« Last Edit: May 20, 2017, 07:47:00 PM by Rover_0 »
Logged
Fixing erroneous shields, one at a time...

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 236
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: Today at 09:11:58 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #2 on: May 21, 2017, 12:44:38 AM »

These seem like good projects. Damn there is a lot of nimbys and anti-sprawl people posting comments on that article.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2310
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:04:49 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #3 on: May 21, 2017, 05:07:56 AM »

I'm told by UDOT's Engineering Manager that signs have been ordered for US-189 in Wasatch County (in Region 3) for its portion of the concurrency with US-40. Summit County (in Region 2), which has the rest of the 40/189 concurrency and the I-80/US-189 concurrency, is "still working on it."

I suppose this means that US 189 will remain multiplexed (and actually signed) with US 40 all the way to the I-80 interchange that marks the western end of US 40 rather than departing from the US 40 alignment and subsuming UT 32 via Kamas, the original US 189 alignment.  IIRC, several years ago (after the completion of I-80 in the region) US 189 was actually re-routed and signed for a while over the UT 32 alignment; it would seem that by utilizing this routing US 189's status as a separate designation would be enhanced as opposed to being perceived as simply a series of multiplexes in the area. 
Logged

Rover_0

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 794
  • Why not?

  • Age: 32
  • Location: Utah
  • Last Login: Today at 07:00:27 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #4 on: June 01, 2017, 12:07:29 AM »

I'm told by UDOT's Engineering Manager that signs have been ordered for US-189 in Wasatch County (in Region 3) for its portion of the concurrency with US-40.

Unfortunately, as of today there is still an END 189 sign in Heber, and no 189 signs north of there. Hopefully UDOT gets going on that soon.

I suppose this means that US 189 will remain multiplexed (and actually signed) with US 40 all the way to the I-80 interchange that marks the western end of US 40 rather than departing from the US 40 alignment and subsuming UT 32 via Kamas, the original US 189 alignment.  IIRC, several years ago (after the completion of I-80 in the region) US 189 was actually re-routed and signed for a while over the UT 32 alignment; it would seem that by utilizing this routing US 189's status as a separate designation would be enhanced as opposed to being perceived as simply a series of multiplexes in the area. 

So does this mean that there will just be an END 189 sign next to the current END 40 sign? That doesn't seem like much of an improvement over the current situation.

And I agree, 189 should just be signed over the full route of today's SR-32.
These things take time...as someone with family in Kanab (and who regularly visits), I can attest that it took 3 years between the legislative restoration of US-89A (or decommissioning of SR-11) in 2008 and the posting of US-89A in Utah in 2011.

As far as "END US-189" being signed at END US-40, I don't see it happening. The I-80/US-189 concurrency is also entirely within Summit County (and hence Region 2). But I do agree with US-189 being (re-)re-routed along its old alignment (currently SR-32).

XT1585

Logged
Fixing erroneous shields, one at a time...

Kniwt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 368
  • Last Login: Today at 07:14:50 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #5 on: June 11, 2017, 07:31:18 PM »

The recent project to make safety improvements along Old U.S. 91 between Shivwits and the Arizona line is complete. Nothing major was done to the roadway, but a full set of completely new signs has been installed ... including two never-before-seen "Washington County 91" shields, one at each end of the project:


Logged

Rover_0

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 794
  • Why not?

  • Age: 32
  • Location: Utah
  • Last Login: Today at 07:00:27 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #6 on: June 11, 2017, 09:26:10 PM »

The recent project to make safety improvements along Old U.S. 91 between Shivwits and the Arizona line is complete. Nothing major was done to the roadway, but a full set of completely new signs has been installed ... including two never-before-seen "Washington County 91" shields, one at each end of the project:


Those large blue pentagons might be a first in Utah.

Normally, federal aid routes, which are signed on tiny blue squares with the blue-n-yellow pentagon and a 4-digit number inside (Whose first 2 digits correspond to the county--Washington County's routes, I believe, are 30xx), have been Utah's version of county routes for decades. I've never seen a large pentagon with a 2-digit number in Utah until now.

XT1585

Logged
Fixing erroneous shields, one at a time...

roadguy2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 458
  • Location: Someplace in Utah
  • Last Login: September 16, 2017, 12:03:42 AM
Re: Utah
« Reply #7 on: June 11, 2017, 11:23:55 PM »

The recent project to make safety improvements along Old U.S. 91 between Shivwits and the Arizona line is complete. Nothing major was done to the roadway, but a full set of completely new signs has been installed ... including two never-before-seen "Washington County 91" shields, one at each end of the project:



Wow! Now we just need some contractor to install US 91 shields...  :)

Normally, federal aid routes, which are signed on tiny blue squares with the blue-n-yellow pentagon and a 4-digit number inside (Whose first 2 digits correspond to the county--Washington County's routes, I believe, are 30xx), have been Utah's version of county routes for decades. I've never seen a large pentagon with a 2-digit number in Utah until now.
XT1585

I have never actually seen federal aid routes signed this way, except for the pictures on the shield gallery. The only reason I even knew these routes existed is that they are on some of the UDOT online maps. Are they similar to a secondary state highway system, like some states have?
Logged
189 to Evanston!

Rover_0

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 794
  • Why not?

  • Age: 32
  • Location: Utah
  • Last Login: Today at 07:00:27 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #8 on: June 11, 2017, 11:46:55 PM »

The recent project to make safety improvements along Old U.S. 91 between Shivwits and the Arizona line is complete. Nothing major was done to the roadway, but a full set of completely new signs has been installed ... including two never-before-seen "Washington County 91" shields, one at each end of the project:



Wow! Now we just need some contractor to install US 91 shields...  :)

Normally, federal aid routes, which are signed on tiny blue squares with the blue-n-yellow pentagon and a 4-digit number inside (Whose first 2 digits correspond to the county--Washington County's routes, I believe, are 30xx), have been Utah's version of county routes for decades. I've never seen a large pentagon with a 2-digit number in Utah until now.
XT1585

I have never actually seen federal aid routes signed this way, except for the pictures on the shield gallery. The only reason I even knew these routes existed is that they are on some of the UDOT online maps. Are they similar to a secondary state highway system, like some states have?

That's what I mean by the federal aid/county routes signed as seen on the shield gallery. I believe these routes are technically county routes that are maintained/funded using some kind of federal aid, but don't quote me on that.

But I'm not sure. Kane County may have 2 distinct systems (unless they did a recent renumbering as well), where one system (presumed to be the older one) just used lower numbers (like County Rd 10), while the newer one is K-4400, marked by brown flaps. And that doesn't take into account the federal aid routes (the most-developed non-state-maintained roads, on the same level as Washington County's 30xx routes but numbered 18xx).

I'd love to see more shields and lower numbers like this, and perhaps on this particular stretch of road, an "Historic US 91" sign or two as well.

XT1585
« Last Edit: June 11, 2017, 11:55:02 PM by Rover_0 »
Logged
Fixing erroneous shields, one at a time...

andy3175

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1212
  • Location: San Diego, California, USA
  • Last Login: September 19, 2017, 09:49:48 AM
    • AARoads
Re: Utah
« Reply #9 on: June 12, 2017, 12:39:33 AM »

Great find! While Historic US 91 would be my preference, Washington County Route 91 works for me. As Rover mentioned, I've never seen a regular-sized Utah county pentagon. I've only seen the smaller reference markers that often have mileage statistics attached to them. I'll have to head up that way next time I'm in the vicinity of Old 91.
Logged
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

SD Mapman

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 891
  • The best pace is a pace, and today is a good day.

  • Location: Running somewhere in Lawrence County
  • Last Login: Today at 08:39:24 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #10 on: June 18, 2017, 01:19:40 AM »

I'm told by UDOT's Engineering Manager that signs have been ordered for US-189 in Wasatch County (in Region 3) for its portion of the concurrency with US-40.

Unfortunately, as of today there is still an END 189 sign in Heber, and no 189 signs north of there. Hopefully UDOT gets going on that soon.

I suppose this means that US 189 will remain multiplexed (and actually signed) with US 40 all the way to the I-80 interchange that marks the western end of US 40 rather than departing from the US 40 alignment and subsuming UT 32 via Kamas, the original US 189 alignment.  IIRC, several years ago (after the completion of I-80 in the region) US 189 was actually re-routed and signed for a while over the UT 32 alignment; it would seem that by utilizing this routing US 189's status as a separate designation would be enhanced as opposed to being perceived as simply a series of multiplexes in the area. 

So does this mean that there will just be an END 189 sign next to the current END 40 sign? That doesn't seem like much of an improvement over the current situation.

And I agree, 189 should just be signed over the full route of today's SR-32.
These things take time...as someone with family in Kanab (and who regularly visits), I can attest that it took 3 years between the legislative restoration of US-89A (or decommissioning of SR-11) in 2008 and the posting of US-89A in Utah in 2011.

As far as "END US-189" being signed at END US-40, I don't see it happening. The I-80/US-189 concurrency is also entirely within Summit County (and hence Region 2). But I do agree with US-189 being (re-)re-routed along its old alignment (currently SR-32).

XT1585

Well, apparently Google decided that US 189 was in fact re-routed: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6883639,-111.2896189,11z

Is this real or just Google being ignorant?
Logged
The traveler sees what he sees, the tourist sees what he has come to see. - G.K. Chesterton

roadguy2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 458
  • Location: Someplace in Utah
  • Last Login: September 16, 2017, 12:03:42 AM
Re: Utah
« Reply #11 on: June 18, 2017, 10:06:21 AM »

I'm told by UDOT's Engineering Manager that signs have been ordered for US-189 in Wasatch County (in Region 3) for its portion of the concurrency with US-40.

Unfortunately, as of today there is still an END 189 sign in Heber, and no 189 signs north of there. Hopefully UDOT gets going on that soon.

I suppose this means that US 189 will remain multiplexed (and actually signed) with US 40 all the way to the I-80 interchange that marks the western end of US 40 rather than departing from the US 40 alignment and subsuming UT 32 via Kamas, the original US 189 alignment.  IIRC, several years ago (after the completion of I-80 in the region) US 189 was actually re-routed and signed for a while over the UT 32 alignment; it would seem that by utilizing this routing US 189's status as a separate designation would be enhanced as opposed to being perceived as simply a series of multiplexes in the area. 

So does this mean that there will just be an END 189 sign next to the current END 40 sign? That doesn't seem like much of an improvement over the current situation.

And I agree, 189 should just be signed over the full route of today's SR-32.
These things take time...as someone with family in Kanab (and who regularly visits), I can attest that it took 3 years between the legislative restoration of US-89A (or decommissioning of SR-11) in 2008 and the posting of US-89A in Utah in 2011.

As far as "END US-189" being signed at END US-40, I don't see it happening. The I-80/US-189 concurrency is also entirely within Summit County (and hence Region 2). But I do agree with US-189 being (re-)re-routed along its old alignment (currently SR-32).

XT1585

Well, apparently Google decided that US 189 was in fact re-routed: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6883639,-111.2896189,11z

Is this real or just Google being ignorant?

That's Google being ignorant, pretty sure. I was up there a few weeks ago and nothing had changed in terms of signage.
Logged
189 to Evanston!

Rover_0

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 794
  • Why not?

  • Age: 32
  • Location: Utah
  • Last Login: Today at 07:00:27 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #12 on: June 19, 2017, 02:04:59 AM »

I'm told by UDOT's Engineering Manager that signs have been ordered for US-189 in Wasatch County (in Region 3) for its portion of the concurrency with US-40.

Unfortunately, as of today there is still an END 189 sign in Heber, and no 189 signs north of there. Hopefully UDOT gets going on that soon.

I suppose this means that US 189 will remain multiplexed (and actually signed) with US 40 all the way to the I-80 interchange that marks the western end of US 40 rather than departing from the US 40 alignment and subsuming UT 32 via Kamas, the original US 189 alignment.  IIRC, several years ago (after the completion of I-80 in the region) US 189 was actually re-routed and signed for a while over the UT 32 alignment; it would seem that by utilizing this routing US 189's status as a separate designation would be enhanced as opposed to being perceived as simply a series of multiplexes in the area. 

So does this mean that there will just be an END 189 sign next to the current END 40 sign? That doesn't seem like much of an improvement over the current situation.

And I agree, 189 should just be signed over the full route of today's SR-32.
These things take time...as someone with family in Kanab (and who regularly visits), I can attest that it took 3 years between the legislative restoration of US-89A (or decommissioning of SR-11) in 2008 and the posting of US-89A in Utah in 2011.

As far as "END US-189" being signed at END US-40, I don't see it happening. The I-80/US-189 concurrency is also entirely within Summit County (and hence Region 2). But I do agree with US-189 being (re-)re-routed along its old alignment (currently SR-32).

XT1585

Well, apparently Google decided that US 189 was in fact re-routed: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6883639,-111.2896189,11z

Is this real or just Google being ignorant?

That's Google being ignorant, pretty sure. I was up there a few weeks ago and nothing had changed in terms of signage.

Given that no changes to SR-32 or US-189 were noted in both the 2017 Utah State Legislative session or in the AASHTO SCOURN meeting, it's a pretty safe bet that it's Google being ignorant. Not that I don't disagree or anything, but it's a Google goof.
Logged
Fixing erroneous shields, one at a time...

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1672
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: September 18, 2017, 05:35:19 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #13 on: June 19, 2017, 04:38:31 PM »

What is the status for the SR-85 freeway project? That's the one I'm most interested in.
Logged

roadguy2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 458
  • Location: Someplace in Utah
  • Last Login: September 16, 2017, 12:03:42 AM
Re: Utah
« Reply #14 on: June 19, 2017, 06:41:51 PM »

What is the status for the SR-85 freeway project? That's the one I'm most interested in.

The phase they are working on now is the frontage roads or outside lanes of the future freeway. These are already built on the portion from Porter Rockwell Blvd (15000 S) north to 5400 S, as well as the Lehi 2100 North portion. They're going to open the part from 5400 S to 4100 S sometime in the next few months, and it's funded north to SR-201. In the near future, they will extend the future frontage roads north to I-80 and south to SR-73 and connect it with the 2100 N portion. This phase will function as a high-speed (55-65mph) expressway.

In the far future, they will build the freeway between the frontage roads.
Logged
189 to Evanston!

iBallasticwolf2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 951
  • :/

  • Location: Kenton County, KY
  • Last Login: Today at 09:09:44 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #15 on: June 19, 2017, 07:00:02 PM »

What is the status for the SR-85 freeway project? That's the one I'm most interested in.

The phase they are working on now is the frontage roads or outside lanes of the future freeway. These are already built on the portion from Porter Rockwell Blvd (15000 S) north to 5400 S, as well as the Lehi 2100 North portion. They're going to open the part from 5400 S to 4100 S sometime in the next few months, and it's funded north to SR-201. In the near future, they will extend the future frontage roads north to I-80 and south to SR-73 and connect it with the 2100 N portion. This phase will function as a high-speed (55-65mph) expressway.

In the far future, they will build the freeway between the frontage roads.
I assume an extension to I-215 or Legacy Parkway is completely out of the question because of environmental issues?
Logged
Only two things are infinite in this world, stupidity, and I-75 construction

roadguy2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 458
  • Location: Someplace in Utah
  • Last Login: September 16, 2017, 12:03:42 AM
Re: Utah
« Reply #16 on: June 19, 2017, 07:36:11 PM »

What is the status for the SR-85 freeway project? That's the one I'm most interested in.

The phase they are working on now is the frontage roads or outside lanes of the future freeway. These are already built on the portion from Porter Rockwell Blvd (15000 S) north to 5400 S, as well as the Lehi 2100 North portion. They're going to open the part from 5400 S to 4100 S sometime in the next few months, and it's funded north to SR-201. In the near future, they will extend the future frontage roads north to I-80 and south to SR-73 and connect it with the 2100 N portion. This phase will function as a high-speed (55-65mph) expressway.

In the far future, they will build the freeway between the frontage roads.
I assume an extension to I-215 or Legacy Parkway is completely out of the question because of environmental issues?

Well, it would have to go north around the airport, and that area is all wetlands (just look at Google satellite view). There are also various nature preserves, bird refuges, and duck hunting clubs out that way. Also, lots of that land could actually be flooded by the Great Salt Lake if it rose to 1980s levels.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2017, 12:17:10 AM by roadguy2 »
Logged
189 to Evanston!

i-215

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12
  • Location: SLC, UT and OC/IE, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:01:10 AM
Re: Utah
« Reply #17 on: June 27, 2017, 12:13:26 AM »

Quote
I assume an extension to I-215 or Legacy Parkway is completely out of the question because of environmental issues?

No way.  The reason being (1) cost and (2) the battle in the courts over wetlands.

We'll be lucky if UDOT can get through inevitable litigation over the West Davis Corridor, which is a very useful freeway.  Traffic on I-80 is fairly light and there's really no need for a freeway to wrap behind the airport (as cool as that would be). 
Logged

roadiejay

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 121
  • Life is a Divided Highway

  • Age: 34
  • Location: Arizona
  • Last Login: September 19, 2017, 12:24:30 AM
Re: Utah
« Reply #18 on: July 02, 2017, 04:34:27 PM »

- Bangerter Highway (Utah 154) Freeway Conversion - article notes completion of freeway interchanges at 7800 South, Redwood Road (Utah 68), and 600 West; under construction interchanges in 2017 at a cost of $201 million for 5400 South, 7000 South, 9000 South, and 11400 South; 2019 freeway interchange construction at 6200 South ($64 million); and 2022 freeway interchange construction at 10400 South ($46 million) and 12600 South ($49 million).

Good. I remember visiting some family that live along a street next to 154 and remarking to my wife that I was afraid I was gonna "bangerter up my car" driving along that highway. Being we were on vacation and not really pressed for time, I chose other streets to navigate around that part of the valley whenever I could.
Logged

roadguy2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 458
  • Location: Someplace in Utah
  • Last Login: September 16, 2017, 12:03:42 AM
Re: Utah
« Reply #19 on: July 02, 2017, 09:09:49 PM »

- Bangerter Highway (Utah 154) Freeway Conversion - article notes completion of freeway interchanges at 7800 South, Redwood Road (Utah 68), and 600 West; under construction interchanges in 2017 at a cost of $201 million for 5400 South, 7000 South, 9000 South, and 11400 South; 2019 freeway interchange construction at 6200 South ($64 million); and 2022 freeway interchange construction at 10400 South ($46 million) and 12600 South ($49 million).

Good. I remember visiting some family that live along a street next to 154 and remarking to my wife that I was afraid I was gonna "bangerter up my car" driving along that highway. Being we were on vacation and not really pressed for time, I chose other streets to navigate around that part of the valley whenever I could.

Eventually, UDOT plans to upgrade every intersection between I-15 and 201 on Bangerter to an interchange. See this link: http://www.bangerterprojects.com/schedule
Logged
189 to Evanston!

iBallasticwolf2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 951
  • :/

  • Location: Kenton County, KY
  • Last Login: Today at 09:09:44 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #20 on: July 02, 2017, 09:19:13 PM »

- Bangerter Highway (Utah 154) Freeway Conversion - article notes completion of freeway interchanges at 7800 South, Redwood Road (Utah 68), and 600 West; under construction interchanges in 2017 at a cost of $201 million for 5400 South, 7000 South, 9000 South, and 11400 South; 2019 freeway interchange construction at 6200 South ($64 million); and 2022 freeway interchange construction at 10400 South ($46 million) and 12600 South ($49 million).

Good. I remember visiting some family that live along a street next to 154 and remarking to my wife that I was afraid I was gonna "bangerter up my car" driving along that highway. Being we were on vacation and not really pressed for time, I chose other streets to navigate around that part of the valley whenever I could.

Eventually, UDOT plans to upgrade every intersection between I-15 and 201 on Bangerter to an interchange. See this link: http://www.bangerterprojects.com/schedule
If all the intersections on this road are being upgraded to interchanges, does that mean the 8 CFI intersections along the road are just stop gap solutions? Or were they built because of the interchanges being unfunded in the near future. Otherwise, it seems like its a good idea to upgrade these intersections even though the road is pretty close to I-15 and the Mountain View Corridor.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2017, 01:08:08 AM by iBallasticwolf2 »
Logged
Only two things are infinite in this world, stupidity, and I-75 construction

roadguy2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 458
  • Location: Someplace in Utah
  • Last Login: September 16, 2017, 12:03:42 AM
Re: Utah
« Reply #21 on: July 03, 2017, 01:52:23 AM »

- Bangerter Highway (Utah 154) Freeway Conversion - article notes completion of freeway interchanges at 7800 South, Redwood Road (Utah 68), and 600 West; under construction interchanges in 2017 at a cost of $201 million for 5400 South, 7000 South, 9000 South, and 11400 South; 2019 freeway interchange construction at 6200 South ($64 million); and 2022 freeway interchange construction at 10400 South ($46 million) and 12600 South ($49 million).

Good. I remember visiting some family that live along a street next to 154 and remarking to my wife that I was afraid I was gonna "bangerter up my car" driving along that highway. Being we were on vacation and not really pressed for time, I chose other streets to navigate around that part of the valley whenever I could.

Eventually, UDOT plans to upgrade every intersection between I-15 and 201 on Bangerter to an interchange. See this link: http://www.bangerterprojects.com/schedule
If all the intersections on this road are being upgraded to interchanges, does that mean the 8 CFI intersections along the road are just stop gap solutions? Or were they built because of the interchanges being unfunded in the near future. Otherwise, it seems like its a good idea to upgrade these intersections even though the road is pretty close to I-15 and the West Davis Corridor.

I read an article somewhere (though I can't find it now) which basically said the CFIs were cheaper ways to alleviate congestion, and that full interchanges weren't necessary then. Basically, by the time they are all converted to interchanges, the CfIs will have served their purpose.
Logged
189 to Evanston!

roadguy2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 458
  • Location: Someplace in Utah
  • Last Login: September 16, 2017, 12:03:42 AM
Re: Utah
« Reply #22 on: July 04, 2017, 03:03:58 AM »

There was an article in KSL News today describing a new transportation plan for the Wasatch Front. https://www.ksl.com/?sid=44883203

Among other things, it mentions funding allotted for the West Davis and Mountain View Corridors, as well as new interchanges on Bangerter and on I-15 at 1800 N in Sunset.
Logged
189 to Evanston!

andy3175

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1212
  • Location: San Diego, California, USA
  • Last Login: September 19, 2017, 09:49:48 AM
    • AARoads
Re: Utah
« Reply #23 on: July 08, 2017, 06:23:32 PM »

Speaking about the West Davis Corridor, it is in the news due to the pending EIS and identification of a corridor. The EIS is available for review at http://www.udot.utah.gov/westdavis/. A press release is at http://blog.udot.utah.gov/2017/07/udot-releases-west-davis-corridor-final-environmental-impact-statement/.

A wide variety of media outlets covered this news. The following Salt Lake Tribune article (7/6/2017) has more details, including a planned corridor map: http://www.sltrib.com/home/5476891-155/final-proposal-west-davis-freeway-takes

Quote
The final route of the West Davis Corridor -- a 19-mile freeway heading northwest from Legacy Parkway through Davis and Weber counties -- will closely mirror the initial course proposed in 2013 that created years of delay and protest.

But state transportation leaders say they made numerous concessions after opposition from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and conservation groups that worried it would destroy too many Great Salt Lake wetlands, grass-roots groups that feared it would demolish their homes and transportation groups that said other options made more sense. ...

Unlike Legacy, the West Davis Corridor would allow semitrucks, would have a speed limit of 65 mph instead of 55 mph and would allow billboards (although cities in the area would have the option of banning them). ...

UDOT released a final environmental impact statement (EIS) on Thursday -- four years later than originally planned -- after the agency took time to work through initial opposition  and pleas to consider alternatives. It will take public comment through the end of August on the study. A final record of decision is expected in the fall. ...

The new freeway would connect with both Legacy Parkway and Interstate 15 at Glovers Lane in Farmington, and end at 1800 North at 4000 West in West Point.

UDOT estimates that route would force relocation of at least 25 homes, and perhaps nine more. It would also displace at least four businesses, and perhaps as many as nine.

Some residents who would lose homes around Glovers Lane had pushed for the route to begin farther north at Shephard Lane. Jefferies said the Shepard Lane option "did not meet federal safety and operations standards because it was too close to the U.S. 89-Legacy/I-15 interchange."
« Last Edit: July 08, 2017, 06:35:04 PM by andy3175 »
Logged
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

triplemultiplex

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1742
  • "You read it; you can't unread it!"

  • Location: inside the beltline
  • Last Login: Today at 05:27:31 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #24 on: July 11, 2017, 09:26:30 PM »

The West Davis doesn't seem like a logical extension of UT 67 like I assumed it would.  That would leave a gap on Legacy Parkway.  Looks like there's a new number on the horizon.
Logged
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.