News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Utah

Started by andy3175, May 20, 2017, 04:32:34 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

US 89

#25
Quote from: triplemultiplex 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.

Unless they put the last mile of today's UT 67 on a different number and extend 67 NW on West Davis. Results in a new number either way, though.


Rothman

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.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

US 89

Quote from: Rothman 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.

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.

Rothman

Quote from: roadguy2 on July 12, 2017, 07:03:09 PM
Quote from: Rothman 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.

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.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

i-215

#29
Quote from: roadguy2 on July 12, 2017, 07:03:09 PM
Quote from: Rothman 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.

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


US 89

Quote from: i-215 on July 31, 2017, 08:52:43 PM
Quote from: roadguy2 on July 12, 2017, 07:03:09 PM
Quote from: Rothman 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.

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.

roadfro

Quote from: i-215 on July 31, 2017, 08:52:43 PM
Quote from: roadguy2 on July 12, 2017, 07:03:09 PM
Quote from: Rothman 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.

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.
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

D-Dey65

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.




US 89

Quote from: D-Dey65 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.

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,

johndoe

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

andy3175

Quote from: roadguy2 on August 15, 2017, 10:33:40 PM
Quote from: D-Dey65 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.

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.
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

US 89

#36
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.

Rover_0

Quote from: roadguy2 on July 12, 2017, 02:21:56 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex 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.

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

US 89

Quote from: Rover_0 on August 21, 2017, 02:12:06 AM
Quote from: roadguy2 on July 12, 2017, 02:21:56 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex 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.

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.)

US 89

In Utah road news, the Mountain View Corridor extension from 5400 to 4100 South as well as the new Bangerter interchange at 7000 South both open today. Surprisingly, there has been no news coverage of either of these events, and I only found out about them on the UDOT website itself.

Also, I saw that there is apparently a plan to upgrade SR-73 to a freeway between Eagle Mountain and the future Mountain View Corridor. I was surprised to read this, as I have never heard of this plan, on this forum or elsewhere. It certainly sounds like a good idea, based on how fast that area is growing.

Desert Man

Knowing the Provo-Payson area due to my travels there to visit Mom's relatives, I recall a story on I-70 was supposed to end on I-15 between Spanish Fork and Springville, along US 6 (or 89) down to near Green River. It's still possible an interstate can be built, but it may be not a geologically stable area for it. Down US 6 is Thistle, a community destroyed by a landslide in 1983...the site is now a lake and US routes 6 and 89 along with a railroad were rerouted on higher elevations around the lake. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thistle,_Utah
Get your kicks...on Route 99! Like to turn 66 upside down. The other historic Main street of America.

Rover_0

#41
Quote from: roadguy2 on November 18, 2017, 07:52:49 PM
In Utah road news, the Mountain View Corridor extension from 5400 to 4100 South as well as the new Bangerter interchange at 7000 South both open today. Surprisingly, there has been no news coverage of either of these events, and I only found out about them on the UDOT website itself.

Also, I saw that there is apparently a plan to upgrade SR-73 to a freeway between Eagle Mountain and the future Mountain View Corridor. I was surprised to read this, as I have never heard of this plan, on this forum or elsewhere. It certainly sounds like a good idea, based on how fast that area is growing.

It doesn't surprise me all too much, given that there have been plans floating around for a freeway that connected into the Mountain View Corridor to be extended to Eagle Mountain for some time, but ending the western segment of SR-73 at the same point as SR-145 suddenly makes more sense (that eastern segment needs to be renumbered, though).
Fixing erroneous shields, one at a time...

US 89

Quote from: Rover_0 on November 18, 2017, 09:53:08 PM
It doesn't surprise me all too much, given that there have been plans floating around for a freeway that connected into the Mountain View Corridor to be extended to Eagle Mountain for some time, but ending the western segment of SR-73 at the same point as SR-145 suddenly makes more sense (that eastern segment needs to be renumbered, though).
Are they going to extend SR-73 up that stub of MVC south of 2100 North? That would certainly make sense, since it wouldn't be able to use the SR-85 number since that seems to be for 2100 N and north of there.

i-215

Quote from: roadguy2 on November 18, 2017, 11:02:43 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on November 18, 2017, 09:53:08 PM
It doesn't surprise me all too much, given that there have been plans floating around for a freeway that connected into the Mountain View Corridor to be extended to Eagle Mountain for some time, but ending the western segment of SR-73 at the same point as SR-145 suddenly makes more sense (that eastern segment needs to be renumbered, though).
Are they going to extend SR-73 up that stub of MVC south of 2100 North? That would certainly make sense, since it wouldn't be able to use the SR-85 number since that seems to be for 2100 N and north of there.

I've wondered that, too.  For now, SR-85 is the signage for the entire project, and in theory, we'll have two SR-85s south of 2100 North (one on 2100 North, the other running south to SR-73).  That cannot be sustainable long term.

Making 2100 North an extension of SR-73 makes perfect sense.  85 would go North/South and 73 would go East/West.  Pioneer would keep 145.

andy3175

http://www.sunad.com/news/highway-name-might-revert/article_926d2838-1ce4-11e8-9e50-e71df196a101.html

Highway name for U.S. Highway 6 in Utah might revert to Grand Army of the Republic Highway

by Rick Sherman, Sun Advocate Reporter Mar 1, 2018

QuoteState Rep. Christine Watkins said she “adores” former State Senator Mike Dmitrich, and has regarded him as a role model for many years. But she says it was an oversight to designate a section of U.S. Highway 6 as the Mike Dmitrich Highway because the entire route was already known as the Grand Army of the Republic (GAR) Highway.

    In 1949, the interstate highway was designated the Grand Army of the Republic Highway, in honor of the Union Army of the Civil War Era. The road spans 3,200 miles across the country from Provincetown, MA on the east coast to its western terminus in Bishop, CA.

    In 2009, the Utah State Legislature renamed the section of the highway between Interstate 15 and Interstate 70 the Mike Dmitrich Highway to honor the retired Price Legislator. State Sen. David Hinkins, R-Orangeville sponsored the bill to recognize Dmitrich for his 40 years of public service to the state, and his work to improve the highway. The Legislature did not allocate any money for new signs.

    But Rep. Watkins said the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War have been working tirelessly ever since to restore the Grand Army of the Republic Highway designation. Watkins is sponsoring a bipartisan bill this session to restore the honor for the GAR, while leaving other designations in place. House Bill 396 establishes the Grand Army of the Republic Highway, composed of the existing Route 6 within the state.

According to the language in the bill, the Utah Department of Transportation shall designate the highway as the Grand Army of the Republic Highway on future state highway maps.

    Watkins said the bill allows for multiple designations for the highway, which includes a section for the Mike Dmitrich Highway, and a portion of the highway that is known as the Dinosaur Diamond Prehistoric Highway. 

    The bill has been approved by the House of Representatives, and was passed out of a Senate Committee with a favorable recommendation on Wednesday. It now goes to the full Senate for consideration.

Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

andy3175

Projects planned in the St. George area...

https://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2018/02/15/mgk-this-is-your-annual-snapshot-of-projects-and-plans-for-dixies-roads-and-highways/#.WqyXmlNrzic

This is your annual snapshot of projects and plans for Dixie's roads and highways
Written by Mori Kessler
February 15, 2018

QuoteState, regional and local transportation officials came together Tuesday to share current and future projects with the public at the annual Dixie Regional Transportation Expo in St. George. ...

Road planners like going to the expo because it helps them get input from the people who use the roads and interstate, Kitchen said. It gives the planners a "broad collection"  of insights that can help direct the course of the project in both small and large ways, he said.

A current project public input had in impact on prior to its start is the Bluff Street corridor project. Comments gathered a few years ago helped redesign an original plan for the Bluff Street-Sunset Boulevard intersection, while also making way for pedestrian and bicycle facilities where none previously existed. ...

Another project UDOT is engaged in is the reconstruction of state Route 9 through Springdale. The overall project is in its second phase and is projected to wrap up by mid-April.

Read more: Work on SR-9 through Springdale set to begin — from October 2017

A stretch of SR-9 past LaVerkin and heading toward Springdale is also the site of a future passing lane, Kitchen said.

The next segment of state Route 7, better known as the Southern Parkway, will ultimately run on the eastern side of Sand Hollow Reservoir and connect to SR-9. UDOT is re-evaluating the original environmental study of the project to make sure it is up to date so it can move forward with construction.

Road planners are also meeting with a citizens committee in Washington City about the MP 11 Project. An environmental assessment of the area between Exits 10 and 13 of Interstate 15 is taking place to determine the best possible way to help alleviate congestion at the notorious Green Springs/Exit 10 interchange. ...

Thus far planners have looked at 40-plus concepts for the area, which will likely incorporate a multifaceted solution in the end, Kitchen said.

The idea of an interchange somewhere between Exits 10 and 13 has been floated in previous years and has met with sharp opposition from residents due to its potential location in the city's residential downtown area.

Other future UDOT projects included widening I-15 to three lanes between both miles 6-8 and 22-28.

While engaged in the Bluff Street corridor project to a degree, the city [of St. George] has been repaving Bloomington Drive for around six months now and is nearing completion. ...

River Road in the area of Riverside Drive and 1450 South is projected to be widened, with more accessibility for left turns in order to move traffic more efficiently.

The city is also partnered with UDOT and Dixie State University to build a pedestrian underpass under I-15 at 400 South. The underpass will connect 400 South's western and eastern halves and allow for easy access to the city's eastern side. The $2.5 million project is seen as a way to provide university student with easier access between school, home and work, as off-campus housing and employment are also had on the city's eastern side.

Among Washington City's forthcoming projects is connecting Washington Parkway with Green Springs Drive. The $5 million project will connect Green Springs Drive to Exit 13, and will also tie Main Street into Washington Parkway at some future date. ...

There are also plans to connect Merrill Road to Washington Fields Road.

The city is also working with Hurricane and Washington County on the proposed Purgatory Road, which would connect to Washington Dam Road-Southern Parkway interchange as one end and connect to SR-9 at the other.
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

andy3175

New scenic route designation along Utah 66.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2017/12/11/utah-designates-a-new-scenic-byway-move-may-drive-up-tourism-in-morgan/

QuoteThe scenic route between Interstate 84 and Interstate 80 is now Utah's 28th official scenic byway.

The Utah State Scenic Byways Committee approved the new Morgan-Parleys Scenic Byway designation Monday. It will stretch from Interstate 84 in Morgan along State Route 66 to East Canyon Reservoir, and from there along State Route 66 to Interstate 80 at Mountain Dell Reservoir.

The designation will prevent billboards and some development to protect scenic views. It also will make the route eligible for funding that could lead to some widening to better accommodate bicyclists, runners and cars that now share the rural road. ...

A list and map of all of Utah's scenic byways is available online at travel.utah.gov.

Other byways in the state range from Zion Park Scenic Byway in the south to Logan Canyon Scenic Byway in the north, and Trail of the Ancients National Scenic Byway in the east to Cedar Breaks Scenic Byway in the west.
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

US 89

Quote from: andy3175 on March 17, 2018, 12:19:23 AM
http://www.sunad.com/news/highway-name-might-revert/article_926d2838-1ce4-11e8-9e50-e71df196a101.html

Highway name for U.S. Highway 6 in Utah might revert to Grand Army of the Republic Highway
...

Interesting. IIRC, at each state line there is actually an older blue sign which designates US 6 as the Grand Army of the Republic Highway. The eastern one is the only mention of US 6 along its I-70 concurrency in Utah, except for a small sign at the US 191 interchange.

epzik8

I'm in Utah right now and have plenty of pictures from the Salt Lake-Provo corridor. It's going to be quite a while before I can post them.
From the land of red, white, yellow and black.
____________________________

My clinched highways: http://tm.teresco.org/user/?u=epzik8
My clinched counties: http://mob-rule.com/user-gifs/USA/epzik8.gif

epzik8

Why are streets in the Salt Lake City area called things like 500 West?
From the land of red, white, yellow and black.
____________________________

My clinched highways: http://tm.teresco.org/user/?u=epzik8
My clinched counties: http://mob-rule.com/user-gifs/USA/epzik8.gif



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.