AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Utah  (Read 2291 times)

roadguy2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 458
  • Location: Someplace in Utah
  • Last Login: September 16, 2017, 12:03:42 AM
Re: Utah
« Reply #25 on: July 12, 2017, 02:21:56 AM »

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.

Unless they put the last mile of today's UT 67 on a different number and extend 67 NW on West Davis.
Logged
189 to Evanston!

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2897
  • Last Login: September 19, 2017, 10:09:45 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #26 on: July 12, 2017, 09:26:31 AM »

Recently returned from a trip to SLC and saw some horrendous signage on I-215 south of I-80, where BGSes had option lane arrows in the bottom left corner rather than over the actual option lane (far right).  Couldn't believe it.

Also saw signage on I-15 north of I-215 with a font flub, where the official font was replaced with a monstrosity that had oversized first capitals and smalled lower-case lettering. Interestingly, this happened in NY as well -- same horrendous font -- on I-87 north of Albany; NYSDOT forced the contractor to correct the font.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

roadguy2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 458
  • Location: Someplace in Utah
  • Last Login: September 16, 2017, 12:03:42 AM
Re: Utah
« Reply #27 on: July 12, 2017, 07:03:09 PM »

Recently returned from a trip to SLC and saw some horrendous signage on I-215 south of I-80, where BGSes had option lane arrows in the bottom left corner rather than over the actual option lane (far right).  Couldn't believe it.

If you are referring to the usage where the far right lane is a mandatory exit only lane and the second to right lane is an optional exit lane, but on the BGS the arrows for both lanes are in the yellow "exit only" section. That is actually the MUTCD signage for this situation. I think it is confusing at best and just plain wrong at worst.
Logged
189 to Evanston!

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2897
  • Last Login: September 19, 2017, 10:09:45 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #28 on: July 12, 2017, 07:19:35 PM »

Recently returned from a trip to SLC and saw some horrendous signage on I-215 south of I-80, where BGSes had option lane arrows in the bottom left corner rather than over the actual option lane (far right).  Couldn't believe it.

If you are referring to the usage where the far right lane is a mandatory exit only lane and the second to right lane is an optional exit lane, but on the BGS the arrows for both lanes are in the yellow "exit only" section. That is actually the MUTCD signage for this situation. I think it is confusing at best and just plain wrong at worst.
Nope. 

The only arrow on the signs are the option lane arrow in white on green, bottom left corner.  Totally screwed up.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

i-215

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12
  • Location: SLC, UT and OC/IE, CA
  • Last Login: September 22, 2017, 05:20:08 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #29 on: July 31, 2017, 08:52:43 PM »

Recently returned from a trip to SLC and saw some horrendous signage on I-215 south of I-80, where BGSes had option lane arrows in the bottom left corner rather than over the actual option lane (far right).  Couldn't believe it.

If you are referring to the usage where the far right lane is a mandatory exit only lane and the second to right lane is an optional exit lane, but on the BGS the arrows for both lanes are in the yellow "exit only" section. That is actually the MUTCD signage for this situation. I think it is confusing at best and just plain wrong at worst.

Oh yes, I absolutely HATE those.  If I wasn't a local, I'd assume two lanes are trap lanes.

I was going to write into the local news to complain, when I looked in the MUTCD and saw it there.
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/fig2e_13_longdesc.htm

The wording is unclear, but by context, I really think it is only supposed to be used when two lanes are trapped -- and the UDOT contractor went ahead and used it wrong.  In the guidance sheet for another use of it (for a left exit) it is clearly used for two trap lanes, not just one.
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/fig2e_14_longdesc.htm

« Last Edit: July 31, 2017, 08:55:26 PM by i-215 »
Logged

roadguy2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 458
  • Location: Someplace in Utah
  • Last Login: September 16, 2017, 12:03:42 AM
Re: Utah
« Reply #30 on: August 01, 2017, 10:21:38 AM »

Recently returned from a trip to SLC and saw some horrendous signage on I-215 south of I-80, where BGSes had option lane arrows in the bottom left corner rather than over the actual option lane (far right).  Couldn't believe it.

If you are referring to the usage where the far right lane is a mandatory exit only lane and the second to right lane is an optional exit lane, but on the BGS the arrows for both lanes are in the yellow "exit only" section. That is actually the MUTCD signage for this situation. I think it is confusing at best and just plain wrong at worst.

Oh yes, I absolutely HATE those.  If I wasn't a local, I'd assume two lanes are trap lanes.

I was going to write into the local news to complain, when I looked in the MUTCD and saw it there.
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/fig2e_13_longdesc.htm

The wording is unclear, but by context, I really think it is only supposed to be used when two lanes are trapped -- and the UDOT contractor went ahead and used it wrong.  In the guidance sheet for another use of it (for a left exit) it is clearly used for two trap lanes, not just one.
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/fig2e_14_longdesc.htm

I would love to agree with you that they're only supposed to be used for 2 dropped lanes. The only problem with that is that the signs in question have been installed quite consistently and in different areas in the last 5 or so years. They seem just too widespread to be contractor errors.

As for the left exit example, I think they have to use the yellow bars for any left exit, even if it's not a dropped lane. It definitely is confusing.
Logged
189 to Evanston!

roadfro

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3124
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Reno, NV
  • Last Login: September 22, 2017, 06:05:36 AM
Re: Utah
« Reply #31 on: August 02, 2017, 10:38:14 AM »

Recently returned from a trip to SLC and saw some horrendous signage on I-215 south of I-80, where BGSes had option lane arrows in the bottom left corner rather than over the actual option lane (far right).  Couldn't believe it.

If you are referring to the usage where the far right lane is a mandatory exit only lane and the second to right lane is an optional exit lane, but on the BGS the arrows for both lanes are in the yellow "exit only" section. That is actually the MUTCD signage for this situation. I think it is confusing at best and just plain wrong at worst.

Oh yes, I absolutely HATE those.  If I wasn't a local, I'd assume two lanes are trap lanes.

I was going to write into the local news to complain, when I looked in the MUTCD and saw it there.
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/fig2e_13_longdesc.htm

The wording is unclear, but by context, I really think it is only supposed to be used when two lanes are trapped -- and the UDOT contractor went ahead and used it wrong.  In the guidance sheet for another use of it (for a left exit) it is clearly used for two trap lanes, not just one.
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/fig2e_14_longdesc.htm

The application of exit only arrows for the option lane is correct. A better example in the MUTCD is Figure 2E.11.

Part of the justification, as I've interpreted it, is that the actual location of many overhead signs in the MUTCD figures has moved. In previous editions, this sign would be slightly upstream of the painted gore point, just where the exit lane starts to curve off. Now, signs are located at the actual painted gore, past where an option lane has already split—so at that point, the lane indicated is an exit only. Pavement arrows and lane use signs are supposed to help make this clear. (Compare final sign and placement for 2003 MUTCD Figure 2E.05 versus 2009 MUTCD Figure 2E.10, which both depict a mainline split with diagrammatic signs upstream but separate signs at the split.)

I agree, it is not intuitive. The signs are set off from the mainline, and introduces an extra "exit only" at the last minute. I think this arrangement causes more confusion than it solves.
Logged
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

D-Dey65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1514
  • Age: 51
  • Last Login: September 15, 2017, 05:13:03 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #32 on: August 15, 2017, 09:44:00 PM »

What are the auto trails along UT 65 (part of former BL-84) in Henefer? I spotted a GSV of them while doing research on the former Interstate Business Route.



Logged

roadguy2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 458
  • Location: Someplace in Utah
  • Last Login: September 16, 2017, 12:03:42 AM
Re: Utah
« Reply #33 on: August 15, 2017, 10:33:40 PM »

What are the auto trails along UT 65 (part of former BL-84) in Henefer? I spotted a GSV of them while doing research on the former Interstate Business Route.

Mormon Trail, and maybe the California or Pony Express trails (but don't quote me on that).

I didn't know that was ever an Interstate Business route, as far as I knew it was just a loop through Henefer on old US 30S. Henefer always seemed too small to have a BL,
Logged
189 to Evanston!

johndoe

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 155
  • Last Login: September 21, 2017, 06:38:59 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #34 on: August 16, 2017, 07:01:49 AM »

So fro...can they restripe the gore to open JUST after the truss rather than before it?  :)
Logged

andy3175

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1212
  • Location: San Diego, California, USA
  • Last Login: September 19, 2017, 09:49:48 AM
    • AARoads
Re: Utah
« Reply #35 on: August 16, 2017, 11:20:01 AM »

What are the auto trails along UT 65 (part of former BL-84) in Henefer? I spotted a GSV of them while doing research on the former Interstate Business Route.

Mormon Trail, and maybe the California or Pony Express trails (but don't quote me on that).

I didn't know that was ever an Interstate Business route, as far as I knew it was just a loop through Henefer on old US 30S. Henefer always seemed too small to have a BL,

We have never found photographic evidence of a business loop in Henefer, but we did find the town listed in a very old article from Deseret News (1973) from back when 84 was 80N. The article states that several "cities which qualify for business loop signing" include Henefer. There's no proof such a route was actually signed. When you read the article, you'll find several cities and towns listed that currently have business loops/spurs as well as others that currently do not. It's possible Henefer met the stated criteria as related to route mileage and motorist services at the time, yet maybe does not today.  See http://www.interstate-guide.com/business-routes/bus84.html and the article itself at https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=336&dat=19730430&id=NMdSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=8H0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6773,7766904&hl=en.
Logged
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

roadguy2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 458
  • Location: Someplace in Utah
  • Last Login: September 16, 2017, 12:03:42 AM
Re: Utah
« Reply #36 on: August 17, 2017, 12:35:34 AM »

Very interesting, especially that some of those cities were never signed with BLs.

Also interesting that they didn't allow business routes if the town had 4 or more interchanges. This is unlike Denver, where US 40 on Colfax Ave was (still is?) signed BL-70.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2017, 01:17:05 AM by roadguy2 »
Logged
189 to Evanston!

Rover_0

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 794
  • Why not?

  • Age: 32
  • Location: Utah
  • Last Login: September 22, 2017, 02:42:57 AM
Re: Utah
« Reply #37 on: August 21, 2017, 02:12:06 AM »

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.

Unless they put the last mile of today's UT 67 on a different number and extend 67 NW on West Davis.

It's beginning to look like that more, given that West Davis and Legacy are going to intersect. Of course, a small part of me is thinking, with the upgrading of (a lot of) Bangerter Highway to freeway standards, that at some future date US-89 gets realigned onto UT-154 (Bangerter), (I-80), (I-215), and UT-67 (Legacy) to connect to the US-89 freeway at Lagoon/Farmington to about Fruit Heights relatively seamlessly. That gets rid of the goofy short UT-71 concurrency with the Michigan Left and the Bountiful-Farmington concurrency, but also leaves a small stub of 154 north of I-80 that leads to the airport (unless they hand-wave or use it as US-89 Spur or something).

Of course, that leaves the Salt Lake County and possibly the short North Salt Lake-Bountiful alignments needing new numbers (may be as good a place as any to put an SR-1, though it doesn't quite fit the Utah number-clustering theme).
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 #38 on: August 29, 2017, 09:51:02 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.

Unless they put the last mile of today's UT 67 on a different number and extend 67 NW on West Davis.

It's beginning to look like that more, given that West Davis and Legacy are going to intersect. Of course, a small part of me is thinking, with the upgrading of (a lot of) Bangerter Highway to freeway standards, that at some future date US-89 gets realigned onto UT-154 (Bangerter), (I-80), (I-215), and UT-67 (Legacy) to connect to the US-89 freeway at Lagoon/Farmington to about Fruit Heights relatively seamlessly. That gets rid of the goofy short UT-71 concurrency with the Michigan Left and the Bountiful-Farmington concurrency, but also leaves a small stub of 154 north of I-80 that leads to the airport (unless they hand-wave or use it as US-89 Spur or something).

Of course, that leaves the Salt Lake County and possibly the short North Salt Lake-Bountiful alignments needing new numbers (may be as good a place as any to put an SR-1, though it doesn't quite fit the Utah number-clustering theme).

That would never get approved for the same reason the UT-248 routing of US-189 proposed in 1989 got rejected: it would cause the highway to travel several miles out of direction. (Incidentally, this rejection created the 40/189 concurrency and all the signage problems associated with it, which are only starting to be fixed this summer.)
Logged
189 to Evanston!

 


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.