News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Utah

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

Previous topic - Next topic

US 89

Quote from: JKRhodes on August 05, 2023, 01:53:56 PM
Now I'm curious to know if SR 92's 2010s DDI was a retrofit to an old, tired underpass and a good enough solution at the time while a better solution was in the works/awaiting funding. Any insights on the background of that one?

It was indeed. The bridges that were there before the most recent reconstruction dated back to 1975 - check out the historic street view. At one point, there was talk of a flyover ramp from southbound 15 to SR 92 east. Obviously that never happened.

The South Cedar interchange is deceiving because the configuration changed substantially in 2014 when the DDI opened (previously Main Street tied directly into I-15 to the south), and the bridges over Cross Hollow have been repainted so that they look newer. But they are the same 1967 structures that were on original I-15.


brad2971

#326
Quote from: JKRhodes on August 05, 2023, 01:53:56 PM
Quote from: US 89 on August 01, 2023, 09:03:31 AM
Apparently UDOT is looking into "improvements" for the South Cedar interchange (exit 57, SR 130). This was just converted to a DDI not quite ten years ago, back in 2014.

https://www.udot.utah.gov/connect/2023/07/19/udot-evaluates-potential-changes-to-i-15-south-cedar-interchange/

No details yet on what they're thinking, but if the current DDI were to be scrapped for some other design, it would be the second DDI removed in Utah after I-15/SR 92 in Utah County.

Something interesting, with multiple DDI revisions taking place in the state of Utah, I learned today and thought I should share with others who were out of the loop as I was. I admit I have to give UDOT credit for something I previously scoffed about:

Upon first read, I assumed South Cedar was constructed this way in 2014. I did not realize until I studied Goggle Earth's historical imagery that this was retrofit to an underpass that has been there for a very long time(at least 1993), of which which UDOT has been able to squeeze out an extra decade of service amid growing traffic.

Now I'm curious to know if SR 92's 2010s DDI was a retrofit to an old, tired underpass and a good enough solution at the time while a better solution was in the works/awaiting funding. Any insights on the background of that one?

Judging by the Historical Aerials website, the underpass at Exit 57 dates back to the original 1960s construction of I-15. UDOT did a very good job of shoehorning a DDI under that underpass on the cheap. Problem is, even with the efficiencies inherent in DDI design, that's a tight squeeze. So I'm guessing the EA is for rebuilding the underpass and adding some room for those four lanes and shared use path. All while keeping the DDI design.


Judging by the July 2015 Google Street View of SR 92 at I-15, it does appear that they did squeeze a DDI under the old overpass. Bear in mind that the widening of I-15 from about SR 194 to the Salt Lake County line only happened in the last 3 years.

JKRhodes

Quote from: brad2971 on August 05, 2023, 08:18:36 PM
Quote from: JKRhodes on August 05, 2023, 01:53:56 PM
Quote from: US 89 on August 01, 2023, 09:03:31 AM
Apparently UDOT is looking into "improvements" for the South Cedar interchange (exit 57, SR 130). This was just converted to a DDI not quite ten years ago, back in 2014.

https://www.udot.utah.gov/connect/2023/07/19/udot-evaluates-potential-changes-to-i-15-south-cedar-interchange/

No details yet on what they're thinking, but if the current DDI were to be scrapped for some other design, it would be the second DDI removed in Utah after I-15/SR 92 in Utah County.

Something interesting, with multiple DDI revisions taking place in the state of Utah, I learned today and thought I should share with others who were out of the loop as I was. I admit I have to give UDOT credit for something I previously scoffed about:

Upon first read, I assumed South Cedar was constructed this way in 2014. I did not realize until I studied Goggle Earth's historical imagery that this was retrofit to an underpass that has been there for a very long time(at least 1993), of which which UDOT has been able to squeeze out an extra decade of service amid growing traffic.

Now I'm curious to know if SR 92's 2010s DDI was a retrofit to an old, tired underpass and a good enough solution at the time while a better solution was in the works/awaiting funding. Any insights on the background of that one?

Judging by the Historical Aerials website, the underpass at Exit 57 dates back to the original 1960s construction of I-15. UDOT did a very good job of shoehorning a DDI under that underpass on the cheap. Problem is, even with the efficiencies inherent in DDI design, that's a tight squeeze. So I'm guessing the EA is for rebuilding the underpass and adding some room for those four lanes and shared use path. All while keeping the DDI design.


Judging by the July 2015 Google Street View of SR 92 at I-15, it does appear that they did squeeze a DDI under the old overpass. Bear in mind that the widening of I-15 from about SR 194 to the Salt Lake County line only happened in the last 3 years.

Lived in Midvale from August to December of 2018 while I-15 was torn up between American Fork and Draper; clinched work zone in a U-Haul once in each direction.  :D :D

End result looks nice, no shortage of capacity between beefed up interchange at 92 and new interchange at Triumph, and groundwork laid at 2100N for future freeway-to-freeway connection.

jakeroot

Quote from: JKRhodes on August 05, 2023, 01:53:56 PM
Quote from: US 89 on August 01, 2023, 09:03:31 AM
Apparently UDOT is looking into "improvements" for the South Cedar interchange (exit 57, SR 130). This was just converted to a DDI not quite ten years ago, back in 2014.

https://www.udot.utah.gov/connect/2023/07/19/udot-evaluates-potential-changes-to-i-15-south-cedar-interchange/

No details yet on what they're thinking, but if the current DDI were to be scrapped for some other design, it would be the second DDI removed in Utah after I-15/SR 92 in Utah County.

Something interesting, with multiple DDI revisions taking place in the state of Utah, I learned today and thought I should share with others who were out of the loop as I was. I admit I have to give UDOT credit for something I previously scoffed about:

Upon first read, I assumed South Cedar was constructed this way in 2014. I did not realize until I studied Goggle Earth's historical imagery that this was retrofit to an underpass that has been there for a very long time(at least 1993), of which which UDOT has been able to squeeze out an extra decade of service amid growing traffic.

Now I'm curious to know if SR 92's 2010s DDI was a retrofit to an old, tired underpass and a good enough solution at the time while a better solution was in the works/awaiting funding. Any insights on the background of that one?

I'm more curious to know what UDOT thinks is better than a DDI that isn't just a free-flowing interchange.

It's not that I don't think there are better options than DDIs out there; I definitely do. I see a lot of DOT's replacing everything, from diamonds to partial cloverleafs, with DDIs, as though they are the best interchange ever made. But here we are, talking about Utah potentially replacing a DDI.

I think more likely there is going to be additional turn or through lanes installed, but we will have to see.

US 89

So, Utah has built a total of 10 permanent DDIs. They are:

I-15 and Main St in American Fork
I-15 and SR 92 in Lehi (now removed)
SR 201 and Bangerter in West Valley City
I-15 and 500 East in American Fork
I-15 and St George Blvd in St George
I-15 and Cross Hollow Rd in Cedar City
I-15 and US 91 in Brigham City
I-15 and 500 South in Bountiful
I-215 and Redwood Rd in North Salt Lake
I-80 and 5600 West in Salt Lake City

Of those, only the four in bold kept all the original bridge structures without adding any new bridge capacity. One has been replaced already, and one is in the works to be replaced in the near future (201/Bangerter). The existing bridge at the 56th West DDI was quite a bit newer (dating to 1980) and already had a five-lane cross section of 56th West crossing over I-80, so it wasn't hard to convert that into four lanes of DDI at an interchange that has a pretty good size footprint to begin with. So in that sense, it's no surprise that something should be done to the one in Cedar City in the near future, especially as the existing interchange has a rather small footprint and two original 1967 construction bridges that carry I-15 over Cross Hollow.

Quote from: jakeroot on August 05, 2023, 09:43:32 PM
I see a lot of DOT's replacing everything, from diamonds to partial cloverleafs, with DDIs, as though they are the best interchange ever made.

In my own experience, I've noticed Georgia is guilty of this. Their DDIs suck. The one at I-85 and Jimmy Carter in particular is horrendous.

JKRhodes

#330
Quote from: US 89 on August 05, 2023, 11:27:41 PM
So, Utah has built a total of 10 permanent DDIs. They are:

I-15 and Main St in American Fork
I-15 and SR 92 in Lehi (now removed)
SR 201 and Bangerter in West Valley City
I-15 and 500 East in American Fork
I-15 and St George Blvd in St George
I-15 and Cross Hollow Rd in Cedar City
I-15 and US 91 in Brigham City
I-15 and 500 South in Bountiful
I-215 and Redwood Rd in North Salt Lake
I-80 and 5600 West in Salt Lake City

Of those, only the four in bold kept all the original bridge structures without adding any new bridge capacity. One has been replaced already, and one is in the works to be replaced in the near future (201/Bangerter). The existing bridge at the 56th West DDI was quite a bit newer (dating to 1980) and already had a five-lane cross section of 56th West crossing over I-80, so it wasn't hard to convert that into four lanes of DDI at an interchange that has a pretty good size footprint to begin with. So in that sense, it's no surprise that something should be done to the one in Cedar City in the near future, especially as the existing interchange has a rather small footprint and two original 1967 construction bridges that carry I-15 over Cross Hollow.

Quote from: jakeroot on August 05, 2023, 09:43:32 PM
I see a lot of DOT's replacing everything, from diamonds to partial cloverleafs, with DDIs, as though they are the best interchange ever made.

In my own experience, I've noticed Georgia is guilty of this. Their DDIs suck. The one at I-85 and Jimmy Carter in particular is horrendous.

I can certainly respect the idea of a DDI being retrofitted  on the cheap to existing infrastructure to buy time and capacity before major spot and regional upgrades, as was done with SR 92.

Given rapid growth of southern Utah, would not be surprised if whatever lies in store for Cross Hollow is ultimately executed alongside upgrades to I-15 there.

Arizona did roundabouts at I-17 and Happy Valley as a stopgap back when the road was out in the sticks. It was long since swallowed by development and went thru revisions as frontage roads were updated to one way. Flanked by high capacity diamonds, Happy Valley Finally got upgraded a couple of years ago... to a DDI. They say you can't run frontage roads through a DDI, but ADOT's engineers said Challenge Accepted and designed one that does. Haven't made it out there but I hear it's a monstrosity. Why it can't just be a normal high capacity diamond... I don't know. There's also plenty of room for a parclo if added turning capacity is needed.  :hmmm:

US 89

With SR 92, probably the main issue was that I-15 through Lehi (Lehi Main to 92) was the last to get a full reconstruction and expansion this century. The CORE project reconstructed I-15 from Spanish Fork up through Lehi Main St in the early 2010s, and the Point project did the same from southern Salt Lake County down to just before the 92 interchange in the mid-2010s.

If I had to guess, that last section in northern Utah County probably had to wait until enough had been determined as to how the Mountain View Corridor project (i.e. 2100 North) was going to connect with I-15. When that DDI was built in 2011, the Mountain View project overall was in its infancy - there was no road in Salt Lake County yet, 2100 North had just barely opened, and likely a lot of ideas for what the ultimate plan would look like were still up in the air. No sense in spending a bunch of money on a full I-15 reconstruction if you're going to have to tear up half of it for whatever you ultimately decide to do with the 2100 North connections. This way, after some more detailed plans had more or less fallen into place by the late 2010s, UDOT could kill two birds with one stone and reconstruct 15 in a futureproof way that allows for easily upgrading 2100 North when that time rolls around.

Of course, by the early 2010s, that area around the SR 92 interchange was already growing by leaps and bounds, and the farms and cows that used to dominate that area were rapidly being replaced with new Silicon Slopes development and offices and subdivisions. Something was needed that didn't involve spending a bunch of money on a bridge that might have to be replaced again in 10 years. Hence the DDI - which, I'll give it credit, was better than the earlier diamond.

JKRhodes

Quote from: US 89 on August 06, 2023, 12:58:50 AM

Of course, by the early 2010s, that area around the SR 92 interchange was already growing by leaps and bounds, and the farms and cows that used to dominate that area were rapidly being replaced with new Silicon Slopes development and offices and subdivisions. Something was needed that didn't involve spending a bunch of money on a bridge that might have to be replaced again in 10 years. Hence the DDI - which, I'll give it credit, was better than the earlier diamond.

I'd never done a hay bale ride and corn maze with a view of surrounding hotels and office buildings until I took my family to Cornbelly's in 2018. The juxtaposition made it a unique experience for sure.

Though I see they added a second location in Spanish Fork in 2021, if I were a betting man, I'd wager the original Thanksgiving Point location is living on borrowed time. Until the right developer offers the right price...

US 89

From UDOT News: Governor Cox Announces Next Phase of Upgrades to Lane Striping on Utah Freeways

QuoteWork to replace striping in Utah County wrapping up soon; Salt Lake, Davis, Tooele and Summit to start in September

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox announced the next phase of the Utah Department of Transportation's (UDOT) effort to upgrade freeway lane striping along the Wasatch Front with wider markings designed to last longer and be more visible to drivers.

The Enhanced Freeway Striping project is replacing lane markings on Wasatch Front freeways with new, wider lines designed for high visibility and reflectivity and using contrast striping, which includes a white line followed by a black line (known as a "tiger tail"  and helpful for autonomous vehicle sensors and cameras), for the lines in between lanes. Construction began on the Utah County segment of I-15 earlier this spring and is scheduled to be complete by early fall. Another phase in Salt Lake, Davis, Tooele and Summit counties is scheduled to start in September, and will include sections of I-15, I-215, I-80 and SR-201.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cv7eQf0v1VY/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=da60f2ed-4254-4a3d-8cec-89ada4ed16f5

For years, Utah has been using simple white lines on asphalt highways and white lines with small black borders on concrete highways, which are really hard to see when it rains. I've seen the new "tiger tail" striping on some of I-15 through central Salt Lake County, where a new lane was just added, and am really excited to see it expanded. Contrary to what some of the instagram commenters state, in my experience it does in fact make a difference.

The Ghostbuster

I prefer solid lane markings to chalked lane markings. While the strips may deteriorate and eventually need replacement, at least they don't fade like chalked lane markings can. Of course, if the roads are covered in ice and snow, neither chalk nor strips are much of an advantage.

roadfro

Quote from: US 89 on August 25, 2023, 12:51:40 AM
From UDOT News: Governor Cox Announces Next Phase of Upgrades to Lane Striping on Utah Freeways

QuoteWork to replace striping in Utah County wrapping up soon; Salt Lake, Davis, Tooele and Summit to start in September

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox announced the next phase of the Utah Department of Transportation's (UDOT) effort to upgrade freeway lane striping along the Wasatch Front with wider markings designed to last longer and be more visible to drivers.

The Enhanced Freeway Striping project is replacing lane markings on Wasatch Front freeways with new, wider lines designed for high visibility and reflectivity and using contrast striping, which includes a white line followed by a black line (known as a "tiger tail"  and helpful for autonomous vehicle sensors and cameras), for the lines in between lanes. Construction began on the Utah County segment of I-15 earlier this spring and is scheduled to be complete by early fall. Another phase in Salt Lake, Davis, Tooele and Summit counties is scheduled to start in September, and will include sections of I-15, I-215, I-80 and SR-201.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cv7eQf0v1VY/?utm_source=ig_embed&ig_rid=da60f2ed-4254-4a3d-8cec-89ada4ed16f5

For years, Utah has been using simple white lines on asphalt highways and white lines with small black borders on concrete highways, which are really hard to see when it rains. I've seen the new "tiger tail" striping on some of I-15 through central Salt Lake County, where a new lane was just added, and am really excited to see it expanded. Contrary to what some of the instagram commenters state, in my experience it does in fact make a difference.

I wish Nevada DOT would go this route with the lane lines on cement freeways here in northwestern Nevada. Several years ago, they did the 'white paint stripe with thin black paint stripe borders' as an experiment–it was helpful, but I think they really only painted that down once or twice and haven't refreshed the black in a few years. There's a lot of areas where the paint hasn't been refreshed this year and lane lines are worn if not gone. Slightly recessed thermoplastic like this would seem like it has a lot of long-term benefits.

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 25, 2023, 01:01:33 PM
I prefer solid lane markings to chalked lane markings. While the strips may deteriorate and eventually need replacement, at least they don't fade like chalked lane markings can. Of course, if the roads are covered in ice and snow, neither chalk nor strips are much of an advantage.

I'm assuming you mean "taped" lane markings versus "painted" lane markings. Nobody is out there using chalk for lane lines, which would wash away the first time it rains...
Roadfro - AARoads Pacific Southwest moderator since 2010, Nevada roadgeek since 1983.

US 89

Looks like UDOT is in the early stages of an environmental study for general transportation in the northern Lehi/Thanksgiving Point area. It looks like a lot of things are being considered here, but most interesting is a potential extension of SR 92 west over the Jordan River:



It's early in the process, so there aren't any alignments or even endpoints proposed. Given that such an extension would probably have to pass directly through the Thanksgiving Point golf course, as well as the large areas of federal and military bases west of the river in that area, I personally would be shocked if this were to ever actually happen. Also, this is the first I've heard of this "Planned POM Connector" that's on the map.

Looking at the Unified Transportation Plan, it looks like this 92 extension is supposed to connect to the point where 3600 West and the planned POM Connector meet next to the Jordan River. That Connector is supposed to extend to an intersection with Porter Rockwell Blvd in Salt Lake County, with a connection east to I-15 about halfway between the county line and SR 92.

andy3175

Sixty years ago, in September 1963, the Flaming Gorge Dam was completed, which later enabled the routing of Utah Highway 260 over the dam and the early 1980s-extension of U.S. Highway 191 over the dam and the nearby Cart Creek Bridge.

https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/10/09/its-been-60-years-since-president-kennedy-turned-on-the-power-at-flaming-gorge-dam/







QuotePresident John F. Kennedy made a profound statement Sept. 27, 1963, when he pressed a switch that opened the penstocks at Flaming Gorge Dam and started a system that has produced hydroelectric power for six decades. "The important thing to remember is for 50 years men have been talking about this project," Kennedy said. "It is now a reality. What are we going to do now so that 50 years from now the people who live in Utah and the United States will feel that in the early '60s we made the proper decision for the management of our resources?" ...

But the presidential connection with Flaming Gorge goes back to 1956, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower made a telephone call to a man overlooking the dam site. On the president's command the man fired a rifle that signaled workers at the dam site to set off the first explosion that began construction on the dam. A photo of President Eisenhower smiling with his Secretary of the Interior Fred A. Seaton as they trigger the explosion are part of the exhibit. President Eisenhower also initiated construction of the Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River in northern Arizona that same day. Glen Canyon Dam construction was completed in 1966.

Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas, on Nov. 22, 1963, about two months after he initiated power production at Flaming Gorge. Lady Bird Johnson, wife of Kennedy's successor, President Lyndon B. Johnson, dedicated the visitor center at Flaming Gorge Dam on Aug. 17, 1964.
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

Rover_0

To no one's surprise, SR-287, which was a short connector between SR-140 and the old prison site at Point of the Mountain in Draper, was officially returned to local jurisdiction. Pages 86-91 of this document (hopefully the link works):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jacs4Lr7wvMCNf6NARTuj9zS9XhR6uae/view?usp=drivesdk

I was able to snap a picture of the only SR-287 sign that I'm aware has existed:



Nothing yet on 287's replacement SR-283, which connects I-80 to the new prison site west of Salt Lake City.
Fixing erroneous shields, one at a time...

US 89

Quote from: Rover_0 on March 30, 2024, 12:37:48 PMTo no one's surprise, SR-287, which was a short connector between SR-140 and the old prison site at Point of the Mountain in Draper, was officially returned to local jurisdiction. Pages 86-91 of this document (hopefully the link works):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jacs4Lr7wvMCNf6NARTuj9zS9XhR6uae/view?usp=drivesdk

I was able to snap a picture of the only SR-287 sign that I'm aware has existed:



Nothing yet on 287's replacement SR-283, which connects I-80 to the new prison site west of Salt Lake City.

Look more closely though and you'll see all of the maps only show the section on Bitterbrush Lane being deleted. There's some conflicting info there - I think whoever wrote some parts of the resolution may not realize the Pony Express segment exists. There's nothing in here about a jurisdictional transfer of Pony Express - only that Bitterbrush is simply being abandoned.

Also, SR 283 does not even appear in the online highway reference map anymore and has not for some time. Is that signed or mileposted? It was not last time I was out there, so my understanding was that those roads would be locally maintained.

Rover_0

Quote from: US 89 on March 30, 2024, 02:37:12 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on March 30, 2024, 12:37:48 PMTo no one's surprise, SR-287, which was a short connector between SR-140 and the old prison site at Point of the Mountain in Draper, was officially returned to local jurisdiction. Pages 86-91 of this document (hopefully the link works):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jacs4Lr7wvMCNf6NARTuj9zS9XhR6uae/view?usp=drivesdk

I was able to snap a picture of the only SR-287 sign that I'm aware has existed:



Nothing yet on 287's replacement SR-283, which connects I-80 to the new prison site west of Salt Lake City.

Look more closely though and you'll see all of the maps only show the section on Bitterbrush Lane being deleted. There's some conflicting info there - I think whoever wrote some parts of the resolution may not realize the Pony Express segment exists. There's nothing in here about a jurisdictional transfer of Pony Express - only that Bitterbrush is simply being abandoned.

Also, SR 283 does not even appear in the online highway reference map anymore and has not for some time. Is that signed or mileposted? It was not last time I was out there, so my understanding was that those roads would be locally maintained.

I checked on the hypothetical SR-283 and found no mileposts (or poles of that size), though there were some newer, unsigned poles that would hold speed limit-sized signs, with a "Speed Limit 40" sign lying face-down by it. With the bridge of 7200 West over I-80 being closed for maintenance, I had to take the frontage road and got this low-quality picture from my car of this "Begin SR-172" sign:


Fixing erroneous shields, one at a time...

roadman65

https://maps.app.goo.gl/7LGybDzBhP2ZL2bF8
UT 279 along the Colorado River capturing rock climbers scaling the sheer cliffs.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

Kniwt

#342
The newest interchange on the Super-2 part of SR 7 (Southern Parkway) is about to open: Exit 12 at George Washington Blvd. (aka Washington 3650 South and St. George 1450 South). The BGSs are going up. After St. George finishes its last section (still in planning), this will be a middle-of-the-metro connector between SR 7 and I-15.


Kniwt


brad2971

Quote from: Kniwt on June 14, 2024, 07:00:14 PMSome info on the St. George part of the George Washington Blvd. project:
https://www.sgcityutah.gov/departments/public_works/engineering/george_washington_boulevard_environmental_study.php



Considering where the majority of future homes are going to be built in St George and Washington County, this project is certainly more needed, and more forward-thinking, than the Northern Corridor is. One has to appreciate how much work both St George and Washington County have done to make its surface street network what it is today.



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.