There are some plans by Tooele County to build a freeway/expressway from I-80 south to SR-36 acting as a bypass of downtown Tooele and to alleviate congestion on SR-36 in its approach to I-80. The portion north of SR-112 will be up to freeway standards, and south it will be an expressway. Concerning the north portion of the road, I asked some folks at UDOT if they would pursue an Interstate designation for the freeway portion. I proposed numbering the route I-380 (and SR-380 south of SR-112) as seen in this map:
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2906/13988788729_8527907714_o.png)
They replied saying that the road would not receive an Interstate designation without providing many details, and said at the time that the route may not even be a state route, having no funds from the state--the EIS and "various efforts" have been done by the county itself (and the number may as well). I replied after the Utah legislature and mentioned the Las Vegas Beltway, which is being built by Clark County but being maintained by NDOT (as I understand it). Next thing you know, I've been invited to visit with UDOT (and likely Tooele County) officials concerning the Midvalley Highway this Friday.
My main question is: Am I right to think that such a plan (county-built, state-maintained) would work?
That could be work good because of nearby Toole, UT have military faculty. I-380 could be good idea to place as future interstate which coming from I-80
Look more into how CC 215 came into being, and what understandings were in place at the beginning. It's possible that Tooele County would want UDOT to buy the road after it's constructed, and that may not be reasonable. Also figure out under what circumstances CC 215 can become I-215, since that will likely apply here.
Yes, CC-215 and I-215 is 3/4 loop around Las Vegas, Northeast side were never being built. It was first started construction around 1994 as part of Las Vegas International Airport expansion project. The original segment was from I-15 to Windmill Parkway. I-15 interchange at I-215 was very different in 1994-97 like I-15 South going underneath I-15 fwy then going to I-215 East, I-215 West to going I-15 North. Look like it was sort of "Tropicana Bypass" going to Airport Connector tunnel to Las Vegas Internation Airport.
Quote from: Alps on May 13, 2014, 08:54:32 PM
Look more into how CC 215 came into being, and what understandings were in place at the beginning. It's possible that Tooele County would want UDOT to buy the road after it's constructed, and that may not be reasonable. Also figure out under what circumstances CC 215 can become I-215, since that will likely apply here.
Would anyone know about the CC/I-215 situation? I also don't know exactly how it came into being or how Clark County agreed to build it, nor do I know how CC-215 can become I-215 aside from being built up to standards. There was a website showing the cross-section but not the ramps, but the site was bought out/hacked into. (Maybe I can raise awareness of the latter).
Quote from: Rover_0 on May 14, 2014, 08:48:19 PM
Would anyone know about the CC/I-215 situation? I also don't know exactly how it came into being or how Clark County agreed to build it, nor do I know how CC-215 can become I-215 aside from being built up to standards.
You just gotta ask the right person... ;-)
The Las Vegas Beltway is not "county built, state maintained". There are two, slightly more than 2-mile sections, that are NDOT maintained (I-515 to Stephanie St, and Windmill Ln to I-15). I presume NDOT maintains those two sections because they had some stake in design and construction of those two sections and the associated Interstate interchanges on either end (NDOT did build the I-515 to Stephanie section as part the I-515 interchange reconstruction). The rest of the 215, including the portions signed I-215 between the two NDOT maintained sections, is maintained by Clark County.
The need for a beltway in the Las Vegas area I believe was identified in the 1980s. My understanding of the situation was that NDOT recognized the need (perhaps funded or took part in initial studies), but was not going to be able to fund planning and construction on their budgets. If there was the typical north/south or Vegas/rest-of-state political climate at the time (as is usually typical in most state matters), there was likely not enough statewide will to increase taxes or divert funds from other areas to move forward on a state-funded beltway in Las Vegas when the area was already receiving a significant chunk of transportation funds–this time period was during the initial boom of Vegas' major growth.
One of the main reasons Clark County was able to build the beltway was that county voters passed the "Question 10" tax initiative in 1990, which levied various taxes for various transportation/infrastructure improvements–one of the specific purposes of the county gas tax increase portion of that initiative was to fund construction of the beltway. (A new "Question 10" initiative was approved in the mid 2000s which extended/increased this funding.) If I recall correctly, since there would be no state or federal money involved, the county was also able to take advantage of a less-intensive FHWA environmental impact/review process (which might not be an option anymore) that allowed them to get the ball rolling much sooner than the state would have been able to. Former County Commissioner and Regional Transportation Commissioner Bruce Woodbury (for whom the beltway is now officially named) championed the Question 10 initiative and efforts to accelerate the beltway's construction.
So thus far, nearly all of the existing beltway has been funded and constructed by Clark County. The decision to initially build frontage roads and interim facilities along significant chunks of the beltway (in order to get some road in place earlier than building each freeway section one by one) was also made by the county.
It was always planned that the beltway would eventually be constructed to Interstate freeway standards and eventually fully signed as such. AASHTO approved the I-215 designation along the southern segment way back in 1993, before any of it had opened. An article responding to a reader's question in the Las Vegas Sun a few years ago stated that once the beltway is fully constructed to Interstate freeway standards, the whole 50+ miles will be re-signed as I-215 and would be transferred to NDOT maintenance and control. (If I had to guess, NDOT will probably relinquish to Clark County some/most/all of the arterial roads that are state highways within the urban county jurisdiction as part of this transfer.) State ownership is not a prerequisite for an Interstate designation, as about 2/3 of what is currently signed I-215 is owned and maintained by the county.
Quote from: SimMoonXP on May 13, 2014, 09:02:15 PM
Yes, CC-215 and I-215 is 3/4 loop around Las Vegas, Northeast side were never being built. It was first started construction around 1994 as part of Las Vegas International Airport expansion project. The original segment was from I-15 to Windmill Parkway. I-15 interchange at I-215 was very different in 1994-97 like I-15 South going underneath I-15 fwy then going to I-215 East, I-215 West to going I-15 North. Look like it was sort of "Tropicana Bypass" going to Airport Connector tunnel to Las Vegas Internation Airport.
I'll try to interpret and expand on what this quote is saying...
The 215 is a 3/4 beltway, with the eastern segment not being planned or constructed (a feasibility study in the mid 2000s put a potential $1 billion price tag on an east leg, so the idea has been squashed).
The initial segment, I-15 to Windmill and including the airport connector/tunnel, opened in late 1994–I believe the airport connector project coincided with initial construction of the first two wings of the D-gate concourse at McCarran Airport (although I can't confirm). The general layout of the I-15 interchange hasn't changed much since original construction (aside from adding in 215 to the west and the recent I-15 widening), although the original segment did primarily just function as alternate access to the airport.
Quote from: roadfro on May 15, 2014, 04:19:10 AM
Quote from: Rover_0 on May 14, 2014, 08:48:19 PM
Would anyone know about the CC/I-215 situation? I also don't know exactly how it came into being or how Clark County agreed to build it, nor do I know how CC-215 can become I-215 aside from being built up to standards.
You just gotta ask the right person... ;-)
The Las Vegas Beltway is not "county built, state maintained". There are two, slightly more than 2-mile sections, that are NDOT maintained (I-515 to Stephanie St, and Windmill Ln to I-15). I presume NDOT maintains those two sections because they had some stake in design and construction of those two sections and the associated Interstate interchanges on either end (NDOT did build the I-515 to Stephanie section as part the I-515 interchange reconstruction). The rest of the 215, including the portions signed I-215 between the two NDOT maintained sections, is maintained by Clark County.
The need for a beltway in the Las Vegas area I believe was identified in the 1980s. My understanding of the situation was that NDOT recognized the need (perhaps funded or took part in initial studies), but was not going to be able to fund planning and construction on their budgets. If there was the typical north/south or Vegas/rest-of-state political climate at the time (as is usually typical in most state matters), there was likely not enough statewide will to increase taxes or divert funds from other areas to move forward on a state-funded beltway in Las Vegas when the area was already receiving a significant chunk of transportation funds–this time period was during the initial boom of Vegas' major growth.
One of the main reasons Clark County was able to build the beltway was that county voters passed the "Question 10" tax initiative in 1990, which levied various taxes for various transportation/infrastructure improvements–one of the specific purposes of the county gas tax increase portion of that initiative was to fund construction of the beltway. (A new "Question 10" initiative was approved in the mid 2000s which extended/increased this funding.) If I recall correctly, since there would be no state or federal money involved, the county was also able to take advantage of a less-intensive FHWA environmental impact/review process (which might not be an option anymore) that allowed them to get the ball rolling much sooner than the state would have been able to. Former County Commissioner and Regional Transportation Commissioner Bruce Woodbury (for whom the beltway is now officially named) championed the Question 10 initiative and efforts to accelerate the beltway's construction.
So thus far, nearly all of the existing beltway has been funded and constructed by Clark County. The decision to initially build frontage roads and interim facilities along significant chunks of the beltway (in order to get some road in place earlier than building each freeway section one by one) was also made by the county.
It was always planned that the beltway would eventually be constructed to Interstate freeway standards and eventually fully signed as such. AASHTO approved the I-215 designation along the southern segment way back in 1993, before any of it had opened. An article responding to a reader's question in the Las Vegas Sun a few years ago stated that once the beltway is fully constructed to Interstate freeway standards, the whole 50+ miles will be re-signed as I-215 and would be transferred to NDOT maintenance and control. (If I had to guess, NDOT will probably relinquish to Clark County some/most/all of the arterial roads that are state highways within the urban county jurisdiction as part of this transfer.) State ownership is not a prerequisite for an Interstate designation, as about 2/3 of what is currently signed I-215 is owned and maintained by the county.
Quote from: SimMoonXP on May 13, 2014, 09:02:15 PM
Yes, CC-215 and I-215 is 3/4 loop around Las Vegas, Northeast side were never being built. It was first started construction around 1994 as part of Las Vegas International Airport expansion project. The original segment was from I-15 to Windmill Parkway. I-15 interchange at I-215 was very different in 1994-97 like I-15 South going underneath I-15 fwy then going to I-215 East, I-215 West to going I-15 North. Look like it was sort of "Tropicana Bypass" going to Airport Connector tunnel to Las Vegas Internation Airport.
I'll try to interpret and expand on what this quote is saying...
The 215 is a 3/4 beltway, with the eastern segment not being planned or constructed (a feasibility study in the mid 2000s put a potential $1 billion price tag on an east leg, so the idea has been squashed).
The initial segment, I-15 to Windmill and including the airport connector/tunnel, opened in late 1994–I believe the airport connector project coincided with initial construction of the first two wings of the D-gate concourse at McCarran Airport (although I can't confirm). The general layout of the I-15 interchange hasn't changed much since original construction (aside from adding in 215 to the west and the recent I-15 widening), although the original segment did primarily just function as alternate access to the airport.
So, most of what is I-215 now is actually maintained by Clark County and once complete, NDOT will do a transfer of state-maintained city streets for the beltway? Makes sense to me. I'll keep that in mind when I talk with them.
So if Vegas is the gambling capital of the world, why, then, would NDOT want to build the east leg? All these casinos on the Strip could chip in and finance the thing themselves, and if it becomes a toll road, so be it. Just a thought...
Quote from: Henry on May 16, 2014, 02:49:10 PM
So if Vegas is the gambling capital of the world, why, then, would NDOT want to build the east leg? All these casinos on the Strip could chip in and finance the thing themselves, and if it becomes a toll road, so be it. Just a thought...
Actually, I can see how the Strip casinos would NOT want the eastern beltway built because it could cost them visitors. The eastern beltway would essential provide through traffic with a
bypass around downtown Las Vegas and The Strip. Taking the beltway may be longer, distance-wise, but it may be faster given how bad traffic on I-15 can get.
Quote from: Rover_0 on May 16, 2014, 01:02:51 PM
So, most of what is I-215 now is actually maintained by Clark County and once complete, NDOT will do a transfer of state-maintained city streets for the beltway? Makes sense to me. I'll keep that in mind when I talk with them.
I don't know for sure whether NDOT will transfer state-maintained county arterial streets in exchange for the beltway or not–that was speculation on my part. NDOT owning arterial streets just adds a layer of regulation where NDOT ultimately may not have major interest.
In an example, the state actually used to own most of Las Vegas Blvd (the Strip), but relinquished it to the County because it just became easier for the County to manage all the access–the state maintained the road and access while the county regulated everything else including median landscaping (which they had to get an NDOT permit for every time).
There is pseudo-precedent for transfer of roads in this way: NDOT transferred city streets in Carson City in exchange for building the Carson City Freeway. However, NDOT actually built that freeway and I believe that was a concession from the city in order to get parts of the freeway built faster.
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 17, 2014, 02:02:31 PM
Quote from: Henry on May 16, 2014, 02:49:10 PM
So if Vegas is the gambling capital of the world, why, then, would NDOT want to build the east leg? All these casinos on the Strip could chip in and finance the thing themselves, and if it becomes a toll road, so be it. Just a thought...
Actually, I can see how the Strip casinos would NOT want the eastern beltway built because it could cost them visitors. The eastern beltway would essential provide through traffic with a bypass around downtown Las Vegas and The Strip. Taking the beltway may be longer, distance-wise, but it may be faster given how bad traffic on I-15 can get.
The casinos didn't really have anything to do with that eastern beltway decision. The eastern beltway wouldn't necessarily have cost visitors due to where it would have connected–that would mean people coming from Phoenix heading toward Salt Lake, which doesn't really make a difference for the Strip because that traffic already bypasses the Strip.
Quote from: roadfro on May 17, 2014, 03:14:09 PM
The casinos didn't really have anything to do with that eastern beltway decision. The eastern beltway wouldn't necessarily have cost visitors due to where it would have connected–that would mean people coming from Phoenix heading toward Salt Lake, which doesn't really make a difference for the Strip because that traffic already bypasses the Strip.
Agreed that traffic headed to and from Phoenix wouldn't impact the casinos.
I was actually referring to drivers headed to and from Los Angeles. If the eastern beltway is built, I think it would provide those drivers with an alternative to the often congested I-15. Perhaps I'm reaching a bit?
Quote from: myosh_tino on May 17, 2014, 04:37:24 PM
Quote from: roadfro on May 17, 2014, 03:14:09 PM
The casinos didn't really have anything to do with that eastern beltway decision. The eastern beltway wouldn't necessarily have cost visitors due to where it would have connected–that would mean people coming from Phoenix heading toward Salt Lake, which doesn't really make a difference for the Strip because that traffic already bypasses the Strip.
Agreed that traffic headed to and from Phoenix wouldn't impact the casinos.
I was actually referring to drivers headed to and from Los Angeles. If the eastern beltway is built, I think it would provide those drivers with an alternative to the often congested I-15. Perhaps I'm reaching a bit?
Theoretically, it could. However, that'd be a decent bit out of the way that it would probably negate any time savings. It's akin to driving the two sides of a right triangle versus driving its hypotenuse.
Quote from: roadfro on May 15, 2014, 04:19:10 AM
One of the main reasons Clark County was able to build the beltway was that county voters passed the "Question 10" tax initiative in 1990, which levied various taxes for various transportation/infrastructure improvements–one of the specific purposes of the county gas tax increase portion of that initiative was to fund construction of the beltway. (A new "Question 10" initiative was approved in the mid 2000s which extended/increased this funding.) If I recall correctly, since there would be no state or federal money involved, the county was also able to take advantage of a less-intensive FHWA environmental impact/review process (which might not be an option anymore) that allowed them to get the ball rolling much sooner than the state would have been able to.
For what it's worth, certain segments of the western beltway -- while constructed as a county-maintained freeway using the funding source roadfro described -- were accelerated to full freeway configuration rather than interim expressway configuration as a result of developer contributions in addition to the local tax revenues.
http://www.clarkcountynv.gov/Depts/public_works/PW_Projects/Pages/215Beltway.aspx
An example of this was from 2005, but I recall there being others (I can't seem to locate the other examples, but I think there was additional funding for the beltway segment near Summerlin)
QuoteConstruction was completed on Town Center Interchange, a $10 million single-point urban interchange, and the Alta Drive Bridge over the Beltway, a $2.2 million project primarily funded with contributions from the Coast Casinos. /quote]
Also this page alludes to other funding for the beltway:
http://www.rtcsnv.com/mpo/plansstudies/nmamp/Supporting%20Materials/Funding%20Sources.pdf (note the "development tax" noted for "upgrading the Las Vegas Beltway to full freeway standard improvements in resort corridors").
Quote from: andy3175 on May 18, 2014, 01:14:08 AM
Quote from: roadfro on May 15, 2014, 04:19:10 AM
One of the main reasons Clark County was able to build the beltway was that county voters passed the "Question 10" tax initiative in 1990, which levied various taxes for various transportation/infrastructure improvements–one of the specific purposes of the county gas tax increase portion of that initiative was to fund construction of the beltway. (A new "Question 10" initiative was approved in the mid 2000s which extended/increased this funding.) If I recall correctly, since there would be no state or federal money involved, the county was also able to take advantage of a less-intensive FHWA environmental impact/review process (which might not be an option anymore) that allowed them to get the ball rolling much sooner than the state would have been able to.
For what it's worth, certain segments of the western beltway -- while constructed as a county-maintained freeway using the funding source roadfro described -- were accelerated to full freeway configuration rather than interim expressway configuration as a result of developer contributions in addition to the local tax revenues.
http://www.clarkcountynv.gov/Depts/public_works/PW_Projects/Pages/215Beltway.aspx
An example of this was from 2005, but I recall there being others (I can't seem to locate the other examples, but I think there was additional funding for the beltway segment near Summerlin)
Other examples of private funding contributions would be the segment between just south of Sahara Ave and just north of Charleston Blvd (built circa 2000-2001, if memory serves). This section was originally constructed as freeway (instead of a frontage or expressway setup) due to contributions from Howard Hughes Corp. / Summerlin. It was the first section of beltway outside of the I-215 portion to be initially constructed as freeway.
Quote
QuoteConstruction was completed on Town Center Interchange, a $10 million single-point urban interchange, and the Alta Drive Bridge over the Beltway, a $2.2 million project primarily funded with contributions from the Coast Casinos.
Also this page alludes to other funding for the beltway:
http://www.rtcsnv.com/mpo/plansstudies/nmamp/Supporting%20Materials/Funding%20Sources.pdf (note the "development tax" noted for "upgrading the Las Vegas Beltway to full freeway standard improvements in resort corridors").
I was mistaken earlier when stating the Question 10 gas tax was specifically for the beltway–although some of this tax may have been used for that purpose. The development tax referred to above was the Question 10 tax implemented specifically for continuing construction of the beltway.
Quote from: roadfro on May 19, 2014, 01:12:25 AM
I was mistaken earlier when stating the Question 10 gas tax was specifically for the beltway–although some of this tax may have been used for that purpose. The development tax referred to above was the Question 10 tax implemented specifically for continuing construction of the beltway.
So I'm clear, the development tax is also a gas tax? It seems like those would be two different things, but perhaps there was an added gas tax related to specific development?
^ No. The development tax is a tax on brand new construction of homes and buildings within the county, based on some set valuation measure (i.e. gross square footage).
Question 10 provided a variety of new taxes derived from a variety of different transportation and non-transportation sources: the county's extra bump in the gas tax, jet fuel tax, hotel room taxes, development taxes, sales taxes, etc. Each of these tax revenue sources were put towards different transportation improvement initiatives within Clark County. The development tax was specifically and fully allocated towards beltway construction.
Quote from: roadfro on May 19, 2014, 02:01:45 AM
^ No. The development tax is a tax on brand new construction of homes and buildings within the county, based on some set valuation measure (i.e. gross square footage).
Question 10 provided a variety of new taxes derived from a variety of different transportation and non-transportation sources: the county's extra bump in the gas tax, jet fuel tax, hotel room taxes, development taxes, sales taxes, etc. Each of these tax revenue sources were put towards different transportation improvement initiatives within Clark County. The development tax was specifically and fully allocated towards beltway construction.
Thanks for clarifying!
Major bump:
In the May 2018 Utah Transportation Commission meeting, a jurisdictional transfer of a portion of SR-138 to Tooele County was approved as part of the Midvalley Highway project. Here's a link to the PDF (http://utahdot.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=286&meta_id=24289) (and despite being only 6 pages, it took about 3 minutes to load on my computer).
Contrary to earlier proposals which had the Midvalley Highway as a county road, it is going to be a state route, and it will be numbered SR-179.
The eastern terminus of SR-138 will be truncated to the new SR-179. The portion of 138 between 179 and SR-36 will become a Tooele County road, which will be designated as Federal Aid Route 2708. Although these designations aren’t usually signed, there are a few signs of this type on Sheep Lane nearby, so it’s a possibility that it will continue to be a signed, numbered route.
SR-179 will be a freeway from I-80 to SR-138, where it will end for the time being. This means that for a time, SR-179 and SR-138 will end at the same place. Future plans call for 179 to be extended south as an expressway around the west side of Tooele, ending at SR-36.
The most interesting part is that the transfer of SR-138 to Tooele County is contingent on the Midvalley Highway being built. Right now it is completely unbuilt, so I’m not sure whether the transfer of 138 would happen immediately, or if it would only occur once SR-179 has been completed to 138. Discussion during the meeting suggested the change wouldn't go through until 179 was constructed, but the language in the resolution seems to indicate "effective immediately".
Here's the map from the PDF:
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/944/42269478671_d007b90c9e_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/27pd8n2)
Quote from: US 89 on May 21, 2018, 11:25:17 PM
Major bump:
In the May 2018 Utah Transportation Commission meeting, a jurisdictional transfer of a portion of SR-138 to Tooele County was approved as part of the Midvalley Highway project. Here's a link to the PDF (http://utahdot.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=286&meta_id=24289) (and despite being only 6 pages, it took about 3 minutes to load on my computer).
Contrary to earlier proposals which had the Midvalley Highway as a county road, it is going to be a state route, and it will be numbered SR-179.
The eastern terminus of SR-138 will be truncated to the new SR-179. The portion of 138 between 179 and SR-36 will become a Tooele County road, which will be designated as Federal Aid Route 2708. Although these designations aren't usually signed, there are a few signs of this type on Sheep Lane nearby, so it's a possibility that it will continue to be a signed, numbered route.
SR-179 will be a freeway from I-80 to SR-138, where it will end for the time being. This means that for a time, SR-179 and SR-138 will end at the same place. Future plans call for 179 to be extended south as an expressway around the west side of Tooele, ending at SR-36.
The most interesting part is that the transfer of SR-138 to Tooele County is contingent on the Midvalley Highway being built. Right now it is completely unbuilt, so I'm not sure whether the transfer of 138 would happen immediately, or if it would only occur once SR-179 has been completed to 138. Discussion during the meeting suggested the change wouldn't go through until 179 was constructed, but the language in the resolution seems to indicate "effective immediately".
Here's the map from the PDF:
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/944/42269478671_d007b90c9e_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/27pd8n2)
I didn't think that they'd have a number ready for the Mid-Valley Highway yet.
I'm kind of bummed that they didn't go for an I-x80 designation for the freeway portion of the route. I'm also kind of surprised that they didnt go with an available two-digit number like 27 or 33 or for that matter an available 20x number (to compliment either SR-36 or SR-201).
XT1710-02
Quote from: Rover_0 on May 22, 2018, 07:59:59 PM
I'm kind of bummed that they didn't go for an I-x80 designation for the freeway portion of the route.
UDOT sure doesn't seem to do that.
Route 201 could be 280. Bangerter (154) could be 415. The St. George beltway (7) could be 615.
Quote from: i-215 on May 30, 2018, 12:55:21 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on May 22, 2018, 07:59:59 PM
I'm kind of bummed that they didn't go for an I-x80 designation for the freeway portion of the route.
UDOT sure doesn't seem to do that.
Route 201 could be 280. Bangerter (154) could be 415. The St. George beltway (7) could be 615.
Well, once those highways are up to standard. I'd use 715 for the Southern Parkway as at this point it's more of a spur.
XT1710-02
Quote from: Rover_0 on May 30, 2018, 02:35:08 PM
Quote from: i-215 on May 30, 2018, 12:55:21 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on May 22, 2018, 07:59:59 PM
I'm kind of bummed that they didn't go for an I-x80 designation for the freeway portion of the route.
UDOT sure doesn't seem to do that.
Route 201 could be 280. Bangerter (154) could be 415. The St. George beltway (7) could be 615.
Well, once those highways are up to standard. I'd use 715 for the Southern Parkway as at this point it's more of a spur.
XT1710-02
Is the Southern Parkway ever supposed to come back to I-15? I thought they were going to be done with it once they get it up to SR-9 near Hurricane.
They could have numbered all of the new freeways/expressways with interstate numbers but as state highways (example: SR-7 could have been numbered SR-715), which would leave the door open to a future upgrade. Of course, state highway numbers 180, 280, and 315 are already in use, which pretty much takes them out of consideration for route numbers given the way things move these days. Not to mention the cost of changing existing signage which the state would have to swallow for a seemingly useless purpose.
Plus, interstate designation requires a whole lot of extra design standards to meet (ramp length, shoulder width, etc...), as well as stricter environmental standards. If UDOT doesn't bother with the interstate designation, they get a lot more freedom in how they design and build the road. I'm sure there are other reasons as well.
Quote from: US 89 on May 31, 2018, 01:45:17 AM
Is the Southern Parkway ever supposed to come back to I-15? I thought they were going to be done with it once they get it up to SR-9 near Hurricane.
This page from UDOT shows the Southern Parkway continuing along existing UT 9 from Hurricane to I-15 and "in design":
https://www.udot.utah.gov/projectpages/f?p=250:2008:0::NO::P2008_EPM_PROJ_XREF_NO,P2008_EPM_MASTER_PROJ_XREF_NO,P2008_PROJECT_TYPE_IND_FLAG:5527,5527,s
(https://i.imgur.com/vgC8FPz.png)
Quote from: Kniwt on May 31, 2018, 07:40:20 AM
Quote from: US 89 on May 31, 2018, 01:45:17 AM
Is the Southern Parkway ever supposed to come back to I-15? I thought they were going to be done with it once they get it up to SR-9 near Hurricane.
This page from UDOT shows the Southern Parkway continuing along existing UT 9 from Hurricane to I-15 and "in design":
https://www.udot.utah.gov/projectpages/f?p=250:2008:0::NO::P2008_EPM_PROJ_XREF_NO,P2008_EPM_MASTER_PROJ_XREF_NO,P2008_PROJECT_TYPE_IND_FLAG:5527,5527,s
(https://i.imgur.com/vgC8FPz.png)
Yes, the Southern Parkway is supposed to return to I-15, but I'm not sure how built-up the SR-9 segment is supposed to be, whether it becomes the same standard of parkway that the current I-15/River Rd segment is or something less.
But if the full Southern Parkway is supposed to be up to freeway standards at some point, an even I-x15 designation would work just fine. I even recall hearing someone from UDOT who mentioned numbering it SR-415 or SR-615 when the number was still up in the air.
XT1710-02
Quote from: Rover_0 on May 31, 2018, 01:42:29 PM
Yes, the Southern Parkway is supposed to return to I-15, but I'm not sure how built-up the SR-9 segment is supposed to be, whether it becomes the same standard of parkway that the current I-15/River Rd segment is or something less.
That part of UT 9 would, for the most part, be fairly easy to upgrade to limited access, with interchanges at Old 91, UT 318, and Sand Hollow Road / 3700 West (perhaps with a frontage road connecting to 3400 West rather than another interchange so close). (Coral Canyon Blvd. is already a full interchange.) The only tricky part would be the mobile home park at Quail Lake, where the speed limit drops to 50mph and there doesn't appear to be much room for expanding the current ROW.
Quote from: Kniwt on May 31, 2018, 01:55:22 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on May 31, 2018, 01:42:29 PM
Yes, the Southern Parkway is supposed to return to I-15, but I'm not sure how built-up the SR-9 segment is supposed to be, whether it becomes the same standard of parkway that the current I-15/River Rd segment is or something less.
That part of UT 9 would, for the most part, be fairly easy to upgrade to limited access, with interchanges at Old 91, UT 318, and Sand Hollow Road / 3700 West (perhaps with a frontage road connecting to 3400 West rather than another interchange so close). (Coral Canyon Blvd. is already a full interchange.) The only tricky part would be the mobile home park at Quail Lake, where the speed limit drops to 50mph and there doesn't appear to be much room for expanding the current ROW.
Exactly. The only way I can see a full SR-9 freeway through the Quail Lake mobile park area is to tear down all or part of the park and/or relocate it nearby.
XT1710-02
I get the vibe from UDOT's behavior that they are less concerned about forcing these freeway-ish highways (SR-9, Midvalley, Bangerter) into full freeway status, and more just making limited-access improvements where they are warranted.
Busy intersection? Get an interchange on the TIP.
Freeway-to-freeway using a SPUI with a decent LOS? Leave well enough alone.
I suspect Midvalley (and SR-9 for that matter) may be "expressway" (semi-signalized) for quite a long time, simply for the cost savings.
(The exception to this is MVC, which seems to be intended to be fully built to interstate standards from the base design).
Quote from: i-215 on June 06, 2018, 04:53:48 PM
I get the vibe from UDOT's behavior that they are less concerned about forcing these freeway-ish highways (SR-9, Midvalley, Bangerter) into full freeway status, and more just making limited-access improvements where they are warranted.
Busy intersection? Get an interchange on the TIP.
Freeway-to-freeway using a SPUI with a decent LOS? Leave well enough alone.
I suspect Midvalley (and SR-9 for that matter) may be "expressway" (semi-signalized) for quite a long time, simply for the cost savings.
(The exception to this is MVC, which seems to be intended to be fully built to interstate standards from the base design).
Actually, after seeing some diagrams, the Tooele Mid-Valley Highway (I'm calling it TMVH or SR-179 for short) is planned to be a freeway south to about SR-112, then a substandard expressway from there south to it's end at SR-36. That doesn't mean that the majority will be built up to freeway standards from the get-go, a la SR-85, however.
XT1710-02
Quote from: Rover_0 on June 08, 2018, 02:25:39 PM
Quote from: i-215 on June 06, 2018, 04:53:48 PM
I get the vibe from UDOT's behavior that they are less concerned about forcing these freeway-ish highways (SR-9, Midvalley, Bangerter) into full freeway status, and more just making limited-access improvements where they are warranted.
Busy intersection? Get an interchange on the TIP.
Freeway-to-freeway using a SPUI with a decent LOS? Leave well enough alone.
I suspect Midvalley (and SR-9 for that matter) may be "expressway" (semi-signalized) for quite a long time, simply for the cost savings.
(The exception to this is MVC, which seems to be intended to be fully built to interstate standards from the base design).
Actually, after seeing some diagrams, the Tooele Mid-Valley Highway (I'm calling it TMVH or SR-179 for short) is planned to be a freeway south to about SR-112, then a substandard expressway from there south to it's end at SR-36. That doesn't mean that the majority will be built up to freeway standards from the get-go, a la SR-85, however.
The biggest victory for us roadgeeks is that it appears the interchange with I-80 will be constructed to freeway standards from the beginning. The classic UDOT thing to do would be to put in a SPUI, as was done with US-40, Bangerter, and the Southern Parkway.
What I can't tell from the diagrams is if there's going to be a loop ramp from northbound Midvalley to westbound 80, which I hope is the plan. I can picture UDOT deciding that traffic counts don't require that ramp, and that the existing Burmester Road/Exit 88 connection is enough.
No matter what, UDOT needs to preserve enough ROW so that it's easy to upgrade any substandard sections to a full freeway if/when that's warranted. They're finding that out the hard way with Bangerter right now.
QuoteThe biggest victory for us roadgeeks is that it appears the interchange with I-80 will be constructed to freeway standards from the beginning. The classic UDOT thing to do would be to put in a SPUI, as was done with US-40, Bangerter, and the Southern Parkway.
I
hope so. But with design-build project delivery, nothing is a sure bet until construction begins. Remember, the original plan for I-15 CORE in Utah County showed the I-15/US-6 interchange in Spanish Fork as a full flyover interchange. It got watered down into that horribly unsafe
abortion disappointment that even I in a regular car have have almost skidded off the road (and sooooo many big rig trucks have).
QuoteI can picture UDOT deciding that traffic counts don't require that ramp, and that the existing Burmester Road/Exit 88 connection is enough.
Doesn't FHWA insist that all new interchanges allow all movements?
Quote from: i-215 on June 13, 2018, 10:16:51 PM
I hope so. But with design-build project delivery, nothing is a sure bet until construction begins. Remember, the original plan for I-15 CORE in Utah County showed the I-15/US-6 interchange in Spanish Fork as a full flyover interchange. It got watered down into that horribly unsafe abortion disappointment that even I in a regular car have have almost skidded off the road (and sooooo many big rig trucks have).
It looks like that interchange ended up the way it did because UDOT didn't want to take any property at all along 200 West. What that project did do was add a direct ramp from I-15 north to US-6 east and eliminate the weaving section on I-15 south. But the new light at westbound US-6 and southbound exit 257B is stupid, and access from SR-156 to US-6 and vice versa was eliminated. I wonder if it might not be such a bad idea to bring back the trumpet loop ramp, or if adding slip ramps to bring back SR-156/US-6 access is possible.
Quote from: i-215 on June 13, 2018, 10:16:51 PM
Remember, the original plan for I-15 CORE in Utah County showed the I-15/US-6 interchange in Spanish Fork as a full flyover interchange. It got watered down into that horribly unsafe abortion disappointment that even I in a regular car have have almost skidded off the road (and sooooo many big rig trucks have).
I don't disagree that the exit ramp should have been a flyover and even without one the design could be better. I'd rather have a trumpet with the cloverleaf ramp being the WB US 6 to SB I-15, even though it would be a 20 mph ramp, than this. I'm surprised US 6 isn't a four-lane limited access road or at least a Super-2 bypass of Spanish Fork from I-15 to the canyon entrance.
However, if so many cars are going off the road, how much is drivers not heeding the massive 30 mph sign that is clearly visible in GSV (and an earlier 40 mph sign)? Perhaps some rumble strips on the ramp might help? I'd get rid of that "Prepare to stop when flashing" warning light which probably encourages drivers to speed up at the end of the ramp to beat the light. Or replace it with a constantly flashing "Prepare to stop" warning so drivers prepare and may be pleasantly surprised when they make the light. These measures could at least make the exit safer.
According to the UDOT page, Ames Construction has recently been awarded the contract for the first phase of the Midvalley Highway. This will consist of a 4.5 mile super-two freeway running from I-80 southwest to SR 138, with a new intersection built at Sheep Lane. Construction should begin before the end of this year, with crews placing fill dirt at the location of the future I-80 interchange. However, major work can't begin until this dirt has had time to properly settle, and that process likely will last through 2020. Phase 1 construction should be wrapped up by the end of 2021.
In the future, the highway will be extended to SR 36 south of Tooele and widened to four lanes.
UDOT has also recently created some new maps illustrating phase 1 (left) and 2/3 (right):
(https://www.udot.utah.gov/midvalley/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Map_Phase_1_v2-1030x1027.jpg) (https://www.udot.utah.gov/midvalley/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Map_Phase_2_3_v2-1030x1027.jpg)
New UDOT Midvalley website (https://www.udot.utah.gov/midvalley/)
New update from UDOT:
Quote
- A temporary traffic signal is being installed on S.R. 138 for the Midvalley Highway project. The signal will improve safety for all vehicles, providing safe access for haul trucks crossing and turning off S.R. 138. The green light will be steady for vehicles traveling on S.R. 138, and the red light will only be triggered by vehicles on Sheep Lane or those coming from the work site. Crews expect to activate the signal in early February, and it will be in place until the work in the area is complete.
- Construction crews are hauling material during the evenings from Grantsville and Stansbury between 6pm and 4am, Monday thru Friday. Crews will also be hauling materials during the day from 7am to 5pm, Monday thru Saturday. Please be aware of these haul trucks and drive with caution.
- Drivers can expect shoulder and periodic lane closures over the next several months between mileposts 94 — 96 on east and westbound I-80. Construction traffic will be entering and exiting work areas during the business hours of 7:00am — 5:30pm. Drivers with oversized loads are advised to use caution in this area.
- Shoulder and lane closures are being put into place to provide safe access for vehicles hauling roadway material.
- Crews have begun placing fill dirt along I-80 where the new interchange will be built. This will need to settle – along with the ground beneath it – to provide a solid foundation for new interchange bridges. This settlement process will likely last through 2020, so most new construction work will take place in 2021 when the interchange work can begin in earnest.
Big bump: I drove out to Tooele County for the first time in over a year to see how the Midvalley Highway is progressing. Construction appears to be delayed a bit from the original timeline due to covid and a longer-than-expected settlement period for the fill dirt at the I-80 interchange, so less bridge work has happened there than I had expected. At the south end, a new unsignalized seagull intersection has been constructed at Sheep Lane, and 138 has now been realigned to proceed directly into the future Midvalley (i.e. continuing eastward on 138 now requires a sharp right followed by a quick left turn).
A few pictures from I-80 west and SR 138 east:
(https://i.imgur.com/oUM0Ic9.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/4oxjNqk.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/xfrCXuZ.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/SjE8Orf.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/7gMzDyR.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/IsyIzId.jpg)
In addition, it appears the entirety of 138 between Midvalley and SR 36 is getting a repave - the east half of that segment was brand new pavement, while the west half was milled presumably in preparation for laying down new asphalt on top. This is likely in preparation for the transfer of this stretch of 138 to Tooele County once the first Midvalley phase is done.
Kicking to note that the highway opens tomorrow (30 October):
https://www.ksl.com/article/50272473/its-a-big-day-new-utah-highway-expected-to-cut-congestion-in-growing-tooele-county-
QuoteThe Midvalley Highway, or state Route 179, is a 4.5-mile highway that connects state Route 138 with I-80, providing a new access point to Tooele County communities from I-80. It allows motorists to reach places in the Tooele Valley like Erda and Grantsville without having to use state Route 36.
The new highway is set to officially open at 5 a.m. Saturday.
"It's a big day for Tooele County," said Rep. Merrill Nelson, R-Grantsville. "The Midvalley Highway provides a gateway into the Tooele Valley. Most importantly, it improves motorist safety and mobility. It takes us away from that dangerous bottleneck over at Lake Point (on S.R. 36)."
Tooele County is no exception to Utah's nation-leading percentage growth over the past decade. It was the fifth-fastest growing county based on percentage increase, according to the 2020 census; its 25% growth from 2010 exceeded the state's rate of 18.4%. Its growth has led to a growing demand for all sorts of resources, including roads.
(https://img.ksl.com/slc/2848/284827/28482740.jpeg)
I got a chance to drive the new Midvalley Highway yesterday. Here are some photos:
(https://i.imgur.com/v2b8VvH.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/l0lYcdw.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/BJerJwn.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/F2v0gf4.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/CByD52r.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/uOTNkVm.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/MPsFCEk.jpg)
The divided super-two with a wide median is a fascinating concept. I don't think I've ever seen anything like it anywhere else.
Also, it looks the like the east half of SR 138 has indeed been deleted as indicated in UDOT's online highway reference. All shield references to 138 east of Midvalley have been removed - the only remnants of a numbered highway on that road are street signs, which have not been changed. I'd be curious to see if those get changed to a named road, "Old Highway 138", or maybe even "Old Highway 40" in coming months/years.
The signs on the ground conflict with the highway reference on exactly where SR 138 becomes SR 179 now. The highway reference has the transition point at Parachute Park Lane (the short road connecting Midvalley to the old 138 alignment), but those END/BEGIN signs above are posted at the intersection with Sheep Lane.
Quote from: Kniwt on May 31, 2018, 07:40:20 AM
Quote from: US 89 on May 31, 2018, 01:45:17 AM
Is the Southern Parkway ever supposed to come back to I-15? I thought they were going to be done with it once they get it up to SR-9 near Hurricane.
This page from UDOT shows the Southern Parkway continuing along existing UT 9 from Hurricane to I-15 and "in design":
https://www.udot.utah.gov/projectpages/f?p=250:2008:0::NO::P2008_EPM_PROJ_XREF_NO,P2008_EPM_MASTER_PROJ_XREF_NO,P2008_PROJECT_TYPE_IND_FLAG:5527,5527,s
(https://i.imgur.com/vgC8FPz.png)
The area between Quail Creek Reservoir and La Verkin is all part of a National Conservation Area, so it's act-of-Congress level work to extend Southern Parkway back up to I-15 north of SR 9.
UDOT is now conducting an Environmental Assessment to identify a route for the future Midvalley Highway connection from SR 138 southward to SR 36. This extension is not funded and probably not needed yet so we won't be seeing construction anytime soon, but nice to see some planning being done.
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/94874d_a86c4d5af70e4733816bdbc3c7695a30~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_1000,h_1000,al_c,q_85,enc_auto/19500_map_Phase-2-3.jpg)
QuoteThe first phase was constructed and opened in October 2021, providing a direct connection from I-80 to S.R. 138. That section includes a single lane in each direction and was built to provide a long-term transportation solution that can scale as future capacity needs and funding are identified.
UDOT is now conducting an Environmental Assessment (EA) to determine a recommended future road alignment that would extend the Midvalley Highway (S.R. 179) and connect S.R. 138 to S.R. 36.
Even though an alternative to connect S.R. 138 and S.R. 36 was identified in the original EIS, conditions have changed over the past 10 years and an EA is necessary to find an alternative that would better minimize environmental and community impacts while still addressing long-term transportation needs in the area.
The EA kicked off in early 2022, and the study team will analyze the previously identified alternative as well as other potential alternatives over the course of approximately 12 months.
If a build alternative is selected, the future extension is not yet funded for design and construction.