US-89A Signs are now up in Utah!

[Rover_0]

Nearly 3 years after UT-11 was formally decommissioned, the signs for US-89A in Utah (Kanab) have gone up.  Funny thing is that not all the old UT-11 signs are taken down, but it looks like they will soon.  I'll have photos probably tomorrow.

[CL]

This is excellent news! Can't wait to see the photos.

[Rover_0]

Well, here are some of the photos from Kanab:

From Southbound US-89 in Kanab:


At the junction:




From NB US-89:


At junction:



From near the UT/AZ stateline:


And finally, the "END US-89A" sign:


All the signs (even the simple "North/South/End US-89A", "North/South US-89") are one single panel--the North/South placards and the arrows are on the same sheet of metal as the shields; that explains the extra black background on the sides of the US-89 signs.

[NE2]

Silly that they didn't just paste 'south' over 'to' on the existing signs...

[Rover_0]

Silly that they didn't just paste 'south' over 'to' on the existing signs...

Well, some of the old green signs were pretty beat up.  And what would've been done about the UT-11 parts of the signs?  Would they be greened out?

[NE2]

I'm talking about the sign on the second pole here:

[Rover_0]

I'm talking about the sign on the second pole here:

Oh, that...good question.

[xonhulu]

I'm talking about the sign on the second pole here:

Not to mention the third sign peeking out behind it.  Is that one of the older signs you mentioned?

Landry, good job pointing this out to UDOT and seeing it through.  It's great to see the route signed as it should be.

[CL]

What the one-piece? While I'm glad US-89A is being signed finally, I don't like that style of one-piece at all. The auxiliary banners just look distorted. If you're going to do a single panel, do the JCT signs and the arrows like this:





Oh well. Beggars can't be choosers. US-89A is signed in Utah, so all is well.

[Rover_0]

I'm talking about the sign on the second pole here:

Not to mention the third sign peeking out behind it.  Is that one of the older signs you mentioned?

Landry, good job pointing this out to UDOT and seeing it through.  It's great to see the route signed as it should be.

Yep, that green one in the background is the sole survivor of the re-signing.  I have a few more pics that I've sent to Andy and Alex, so they should be up in a while.  BTW, thanks, Xonhulu (Dave, right?).

What the one-piece? While I'm glad US-89A is being signed finally, I don't like that style of one-piece at all. The auxiliary banners just look distorted.

(Pics)

Oh well. Beggars can't be choosers. US-89A is signed in Utah, so all is well.

I agree with pretty much everything you've said here.

Though I prefer the single route signs (or at least something like the green signs that were once there with UT-11), I can understand the one-piece approach.
One-piece mile markers last much longer than the sectioned kind (and Utah switched over to them around 2004), so this might be a reasonable way to make a much longer-lasting sign.

This is also the first time I've seen the extra black background around the US-89 shield in Utah, so it comes across as unique, at least here.

[xonhulu]

Yep, that green one in the background is the sole survivor of the re-signing.  I have a few more pics that I've sent to Andy and Alex, so they should be up in a while.  BTW, thanks, Xonhulu (Dave, right?).

Chris, actually.

[Rover_0]

Chris, actually.

My bad.   

[CL]

One-piece mile markers last much longer than the sectioned kind (and Utah switched over to them around 2004), so this might be a reasonable way to make a much longer-lasting sign.

Actually, Utah's been sporadic with the one-piece assembly (well, I guess I can't speak for southern Utah). In Salt Lake, Provo, and Ogden at least, I'd say about 30 or 40 percent (that's a pretty liberal estimate) of new installations are one-piecers, and the rest the standard assemblies with the auxiliary banners and whatnot. The good thing about Utah's one-piecers are that they aren't hideous like Rhode Island.

P.S. I'm glad there's at least one other Utahn on the forums. We are pretty woefully underrepresented when it comes to roadgeekery.

[Rover_0]

And just when you thought all was well with US-89A, I get this from the current route numbering engineer (as per email exchange):

"We are in the process of looking into changing SR-11 back. US-89 and US-89A are confusing to the motoring public and now some people are going in the wrong direction. US-89A was in place as an alternative route when the dam was being built. The department made a conscious decision to change it to SR-11 in Utah in 1977 because it is not the US route anymore.As far as I am concerned SR-11 was not a problem. I think US-89A is now a problem. That is my opinion and I am working on getting it changed back to SR-11."

So, just after getting all the signing up and posted, they may just go back after all of this and stick with UT-11.  They say it's confusing, and that people are heading in the wrong direction.

So, what to do now?  I say, if they're just going to go back, I might be tempted to have all of US-89A renumbered to something like US-289 or US-589, or have a US-160 or US-64 extension along US-89A, AZ-389, UT-59 and UT-9 to I-15.  What should I tell this worker?

[mightyace]

"We are in the process of looking into changing SR-11 back. US-89 and US-89A are confusing to the motoring public and now some people are going in the wrong direction."

Things like 31 & 31A or 41 & 41A plus the various E-W (11, 19, 25, 31, 45) or N-S (70) have been signed in Tennessee for decades.

I'd ask the worker just how many complaints they've actually gotten about drivers being "confused."  His/her response would tell whether they think it's a legitimate reason or simply an excuse.

[Rover_0]

"We are in the process of looking into changing SR-11 back. US-89 and US-89A are confusing to the motoring public and now some people are going in the wrong direction."

Things like 31 & 31A or 41 & 41A plus the various E-W (11, 19, 25, 31, 45) or N-S (70) have been signed in Tennessee for decades.

I'd ask the worker just how many complaints they've actually gotten about drivers being "confused."  His/her response would tell whether they think it's a legitimate reason or simply an excuse.

Well, I asked where they were getting that bit of information--from the Utah Transportation Commission, or from UDOT workers in Kanab.  Hopefully, I'll have my answer soon.

[xonhulu]

And just when you thought all was well with US-89A, I get this from the current route numbering engineer (as per email exchange):

"We are in the process of looking into changing SR-11 back. US-89 and US-89A are confusing to the motoring public and now some people are going in the wrong direction. US-89A was in place as an alternative route when the dam was being built. The department made a conscious decision to change it to SR-11 in Utah in 1977 because it is not the US route anymore.As far as I am concerned SR-11 was not a problem. I think US-89A is now a problem. That is my opinion and I am working on getting it changed back to SR-11."

So, just after getting all the signing up and posted, they may just go back after all of this and stick with UT-11.  They say it's confusing, and that people are heading in the wrong direction.

So, what to do now?  I say, if they're just going to go back, I might be tempted to have all of US-89A renumbered to something like US-289 or US-589, or have a US-160 or US-64 extension along US-89A, AZ-389, UT-59 and UT-9 to I-15.  What should I tell this worker?

Maybe it should be signed as "ALT 89" instead of 89A?

[xonhulu]

Another thought: didn't the old signs read "UT 11 TO 89A?"  Wouldn't that have been just as confusing?

[Rover_0]

Another thought: didn't the old signs read "UT 11 TO 89A?"  Wouldn't that have been just as confusing?

Yep.  That's what started the return to US-89A thing in the first place--an unnecessary "middle man" route.

[Rover_0]

Just a minor update:  The hanging signs in Kanab have been replaced with stoplight-like bars with control points.  I'll get pictures soon.

EDIT:  Switched to Panoramio, from Flickr; the pictures should still be there, however.

[CL]

Of course drivers will be confused at first with signing changes. UDOT does not need to jump the gun and go back to SR-11. First, that's a horrendous waste of money. Second, you'd go back to the problems that the existence of SR-11 presented. I wholeheartedly hope UDOT sticks with US-89A.

PS: Whoever you emailed at UDOT who is working to vanquish US-89A from Utah is a ninny.

[corco]

Of course drivers will be confused at first with signing changes. UDOT does not need to jump the gun and go back to SR-11. First, that's a horrendous waste of money. Second, you'd go back to the problems that the existence of SR-11 presented. I wholeheartedly hope UDOT sticks with US-89A.

PS: Whoever you emailed at UDOT who is working to vanquish US-89A from Utah is a ninny.

As I drove the Arizona 95 and US-95 in California corridors today, I thought about this situation and wondered how drivers in that area don't get completely lost. Either drivers on the west coast of Arizona are really that much smarter (I highly doubt this) or it's really not a big deal, because the dual 95s are way, way more confusing, especially around Needles.

I'd say it's a matter of newness just like you said.

[Rover_0]

All right, here's what happened since the Return-to-UT-11 email:

I've been redirected to another engineer at UDOT.  He said that the two of us would talk about any deficiencies UDOT has (including the US-189 "End" sign, among others).  I mentioned the need to notify AASHTO if UDOT pursued the renumbering/decertification of US-89A in Utah, making sure to involve AASHTO and AzDOT should they planned to do so.  I also mentioned the possibility of renumber US-89A to US-289, 489, or 589, if Arizona and AASHTO wanted to get on board.  He replied:

"Some items may be easy to resolve, others make (may) take more discussion with other UDOT staff.  It sounds as if you are widely traveled around the state and have observed some problems."

After another couple weeks or so* without a reply, I was referred to another UDOT employee who was "asked to coordinate with [me] on [my] requests/communication with [Region 4 employee #2] and UDOT."  I've sent an email concerning US-89A, US-189, rerouting US-50 along UT-24, renumbering/extending US-163 (as more of an east-west route), the possible extension of US-160 or US-64 through southern Utah/northern Arizona, and the future Jackson Flat Reservoir/Kane County Jail road (in the Kanab area, I'll post a thread about that).  The latest message from Region 4 Employee #1 went as such:

"Thanks for the response.  I will keep [Region 4 employee #2] involved in the process, and our planning department which will review the route numbering recommendations."

He even mentioned that going to multiple UDOT employees might seem as a "put-off," but that they are listening.

*I remember such a long "silence" when I asked the initial question that returned US-89A to Utah (Which was essentially the question, "Why just Utah? Why not Arizona, too?" when they mentioned that Alternate routes were to be phased out, like N-S/E-W splits).  I'm not too concerned about that, either.  My guess is that the planning department has talked to some degree about this.


But, I'm not opposed to decommissioning US-89A, as long as AzDOT and AASHTO are involved with the process.  I also wouldn't mind a renumbering to US-x89, either.  The reason I mentioned the US-160 extension is that it could also be a "solution" for UDOT concerning US-89A, and if UDOT, AzDOT, and AASHTO are really discussing the renumbering of US-89A and will make major changes in the near future, then they could consider that.

However, I don't think we'd need to get rid of US-89A if US-160 or US-64 were extended west through the southern Utah/northern Arizona region, and any confusion would be from the newness of the signs. Not to mention I said, as one who grew up in Kanab, that the UT-11/TO US-89A signs still caused confusion as well.

All in all, what would you guys say is going on here?  I hope that I made things clear enough.

[NE2]

Watch AASHTO rubber-stamp them [US 89A ending at the state line and US 189 having a gap] (like they did for an unfollowable routing of US 85 in Colorado Springs).

[Rover_0]

who what? I'm anxious to hear!

Watch AASHTO rubber-stamp them (like they did for an unfollowable routing of US 85 in Colorado Springs).

I edited my post on accident, but it should be done now.  I'll also post the pictures of the new control cities/mileage sign posts as soon as I can get them uploaded.