AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Tooele Midvalley Highway  (Read 9686 times)

Rover_0

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 828
  • Why not?

  • Age: 32
  • Location: Utah
  • Last Login: June 24, 2018, 11:40:40 PM
Re: Tooele Midvalley Highway
« Reply #25 on: May 31, 2018, 02:44:50 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
« Last Edit: May 31, 2018, 02:48:47 PM by Rover_0 »
Logged
Fixing erroneous shields, one at a time...

i-215

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 55
  • Location: SoCal and Salt Lake City
  • Last Login: June 22, 2018, 05:58:22 PM
Re: Tooele Midvalley Highway
« Reply #26 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).
Logged

Rover_0

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 828
  • Why not?

  • Age: 32
  • Location: Utah
  • Last Login: June 24, 2018, 11:40:40 PM
Re: Tooele Midvalley Highway
« Reply #27 on: June 08, 2018, 02:25:39 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

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

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1257
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City, UT
  • Last Login: June 24, 2018, 11:04:35 PM
Re: Tooele Midvalley Highway
« Reply #28 on: June 09, 2018, 11:16:08 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.
Logged
Interstate clinches: 14, 82, 215 (UT), 225, 345, 444
US clinches: 491, 550

Flickr

i-215

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 55
  • Location: SoCal and Salt Lake City
  • Last Login: June 22, 2018, 05:58:22 PM
Re: Tooele Midvalley Highway
« Reply #29 on: June 13, 2018, 10:16:51 PM »

Quote
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.

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).   

Quote
I 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?
« Last Edit: June 13, 2018, 10:19:01 PM by i-215 »
Logged

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1257
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City, UT
  • Last Login: June 24, 2018, 11:04:35 PM
Re: Tooele Midvalley Highway
« Reply #30 on: June 13, 2018, 11:11:50 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.
Logged
Interstate clinches: 14, 82, 215 (UT), 225, 345, 444
US clinches: 491, 550

Flickr

skluth

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 406
  • Age: 62
  • Location: Oakville, MO
  • Last Login: June 24, 2018, 11:11:31 PM
Re: Tooele Midvalley Highway
« Reply #31 on: June 16, 2018, 11:18:59 AM »

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.
Logged

 


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.