Has US-6 in Utah Ever Been Considered for Interstate Upgrade

Started by ethanhopkin14, February 26, 2022, 03:48:32 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

ethanhopkin14

Exactly that.  Has US-6 ever come up as a potential Interstate corridor in Utah?  It is the main jump off point for I-70 westbound traffic to get to Salt Lake City and then travel on I-80 beyond that, so it seems like it be a viable candidate.  The last time I was there I was amazed at how much truck traffic was entering/exiting I-70 at the US-6 junction.


Mapmikey

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on February 26, 2022, 03:48:32 PM
Exactly that.  Has US-6 ever come up as a potential Interstate corridor in Utah?  It is the main jump off point for I-70 westbound traffic to get to Salt Lake City and then travel on I-80 beyond that, so it seems like it be a viable candidate.  The last time I was there I was amazed at how much truck traffic was entering/exiting I-70 at the US-6 junction.

Yes.  Requested as part of the 1500 miles granted by Congress in 1968.

https://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/1970req.html


Bobby5280

I think US-6 between Green River (I-70) and Spanish Fork (I-15) should definitely be upgraded to full Interstate quality and even named as an Interstate.

SkyPesos

It was supposed to be part of the I-70 western extension, until new proposals rerouted it to head southwest towards Vegas and SoCal (via I-15)

US 89

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 26, 2022, 06:15:29 PM
I think US-6 between Green River (I-70) and Spanish Fork (I-15) should definitely be upgraded to full Interstate quality and even named as an Interstate.

I don't. I've driven it many times, and I definitely don't think we need to go that far on the whole thing between 15 and 70. I just want to see the whole thing four-laned. It would be nice if the expressway part in Spanish Fork were a full freeway from I-15 to the mountains, but that ship probably sailed for good 10 years ago with the I-15 interchange reconstruction.

That's not to say what we have on the more rural parts is good enough, because it isn't. UDOT has done a decent job of adding passing lanes in recent years, but it seems they haven't really considered the possibility of converting it to a 4-lane divided expressway. This road carries traffic levels comparable to many of Utah's rural interstates and a four-lane would work wonders. The problem is that the parts with more traffic that need widening most are also the parts in the mountains where the terrain makes it very difficult. It'd be far easier out in the Emery County deserts where it's flat and there's nothing for miles, but traffic counts over there are less than half of what they are on the US 89 overlap through the southern Wasatch range.


NE2

pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

rte66man

When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

ethanhopkin14


Mapmikey

Quote from: SkyPesos on February 26, 2022, 06:17:33 PM
It was supposed to be part of the I-70 western extension, until new proposals rerouted it to head southwest towards Vegas and SoCal (via I-15)

This is the sort of thing that should come with a source, similar to the (incorrect) assertion that Maryland didn't request I-470.

The I-70 to Salt Lake City was definitely proposed by CO and UT before being modified to Cove Fort.

AASHO database has documentation buried in there...

Go to the AASHO database - https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default

Search "interstate" and 1957 with no state selected.  Go to 2nd page of results, select "Correspondence_DC_1957__INTERSTATE (19)" and flie pgs. 4-5 have the citation

SkyPesos

Quote from: Mapmikey on February 27, 2022, 08:07:12 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 26, 2022, 06:17:33 PM
It was supposed to be part of the I-70 western extension, until new proposals rerouted it to head southwest towards Vegas and SoCal (via I-15)

This is the sort of thing that should come with a source, similar to the (incorrect) assertion that Maryland didn't request I-470.

The I-70 to Salt Lake City was definitely proposed by CO and UT before being modified to Cove Fort.

AASHO database has documentation buried in there...

Go to the AASHO database - https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default

Search "interstate" and 1957 with no state selected.  Go to 2nd page of results, select "Correspondence_DC_1957__INTERSTATE (19)" and flie pgs. 4-5 have the citation
You don't have to dig that deep to find that I-70 was proposed to SLC (or more accurately, Spanish Fork) instead of Cove Fort initially. It's mentioned in an official FHWA Rambler article about I-70's western terminus:

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/covefort.cfm

And interestingly, even earlier on, a US 40 routing via Craig was also an option for I-70 from Denver to SLC.
QuoteAs Colorado feared, the east-west Interstate into Colorado ended at Denver. State officials attributed Denver's "dead-end" status to the failure to reach agreement with Utah on whether to extend the route along a northern alignment via U.S. 40 west of Craig, Colorado, to Salt Lake City or a southern alignment via U.S. 6/50 west of Grand Junction, Colorado, to Spanish Fork south of Salt Lake City.

Henry

Quote from: SkyPesos on February 27, 2022, 08:11:40 PM
Quote from: Mapmikey on February 27, 2022, 08:07:12 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on February 26, 2022, 06:17:33 PM
It was supposed to be part of the I-70 western extension, until new proposals rerouted it to head southwest towards Vegas and SoCal (via I-15)

This is the sort of thing that should come with a source, similar to the (incorrect) assertion that Maryland didn't request I-470.

The I-70 to Salt Lake City was definitely proposed by CO and UT before being modified to Cove Fort.

AASHO database has documentation buried in there...

Go to the AASHO database - https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default

Search "interstate" and 1957 with no state selected.  Go to 2nd page of results, select "Correspondence_DC_1957__INTERSTATE (19)" and flie pgs. 4-5 have the citation
You don't have to dig that deep to find that I-70 was proposed to SLC (or more accurately, Spanish Fork) instead of Cove Fort initially. It's mentioned in an official FHWA Rambler article about I-70's western terminus:

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/covefort.cfm

And interestingly, even earlier on, a US 40 routing via Craig was also an option for I-70 from Denver to SLC.
QuoteAs Colorado feared, the east-west Interstate into Colorado ended at Denver. State officials attributed Denver's "dead-end" status to the failure to reach agreement with Utah on whether to extend the route along a northern alignment via U.S. 40 west of Craig, Colorado, to Salt Lake City or a southern alignment via U.S. 6/50 west of Grand Junction, Colorado, to Spanish Fork south of Salt Lake City.
In addition, I-70 was to have ended in Sacramento after stretching across NV along US 6 and US 50. Given the low traffic volumes on those parts, that would've been the loneliest Interstate in America!
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

The Ghostbuster

Was it logical to reroute US 50 off of US 6 between Delta and Green River? I would have left 50 co-designated with 6 like it was prior to 1976.

Mark68

Quote from: US 89 on February 26, 2022, 06:46:50 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 26, 2022, 06:15:29 PM
I think US-6 between Green River (I-70) and Spanish Fork (I-15) should definitely be upgraded to full Interstate quality and even named as an Interstate.

I don't. I've driven it many times, and I definitely don't think we need to go that far on the whole thing between 15 and 70. I just want to see the whole thing four-laned. It would be nice if the expressway part in Spanish Fork were a full freeway from I-15 to the mountains, but that ship probably sailed for good 10 years ago with the I-15 interchange reconstruction.

That's not to say what we have on the more rural parts is good enough, because it isn't. UDOT has done a decent job of adding passing lanes in recent years, but it seems they haven't really considered the possibility of converting it to a 4-lane divided expressway. This road carries traffic levels comparable to many of Utah's rural interstates and a four-lane would work wonders. The problem is that the parts with more traffic that need widening most are also the parts in the mountains where the terrain makes it very difficult. It'd be far easier out in the Emery County deserts where it's flat and there's nothing for miles, but traffic counts over there are less than half of what they are on the US 89 overlap through the southern Wasatch range.



After having driven it twice (once each way) in the last week & a half, UDOT has done a pretty good job four-laning the top of the Wasatch Plateau (much of it with passing lanes in both directions), but both Spanish Fork Canyon & Price Canyon might be a bit too narrow to have full interstate status (even though there are four lanes for stretches in both). However, due to truck traffic (had to pass many trucks on the two-lane sections), I believe that I-70 to Helper needs to have four lanes--with a Wellington bypass.

And I agree that I-115 (or whatever 3di designation UDOT wants on the Spanish Fork section) should be freeway standard from I-15 to US 89 North. Doesn't actually need to be a 3di, but it does need to be a freeway.
"When you come to a fork in the road, take it."~Yogi Berra

US 89

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 28, 2022, 05:32:48 PM
Was it logical to reroute US 50 off of US 6 between Delta and Green River? I would have left 50 co-designated with 6 like it was prior to 1976.

Absolutely.

Delta to Green River...
...via Holden/Scipio/Salina (US 50): 2h 39m, 179 miles.
...via Eureka/Spanish Fork/Price (US 6): 3h 45m, 229 miles.

Since you have two designations to play with, might as well use one of them on the better route.

Mapmikey

Quote from: US 89 on February 28, 2022, 08:56:41 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 28, 2022, 05:32:48 PM
Was it logical to reroute US 50 off of US 6 between Delta and Green River? I would have left 50 co-designated with 6 like it was prior to 1976.

Absolutely.

Delta to Green River...
...via Holden/Scipio/Salina (US 50): 2h 39m, 179 miles.
...via Eureka/Spanish Fork/Price (US 6): 3h 45m, 229 miles.

Since you have two designations to play with, might as well use one of them on the better route.

Interestingly, Utah asked for this at the request of the National Highway 50 Federation

Plutonic Panda

Quote from: US 89 on February 26, 2022, 06:46:50 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 26, 2022, 06:15:29 PM
I think US-6 between Green River (I-70) and Spanish Fork (I-15) should definitely be upgraded to full Interstate quality and even named as an Interstate.

I don't. I've driven it many times, and I definitely don't think we need to go that far on the whole thing between 15 and 70. I just want to see the whole thing four-laned. It would be nice if the expressway part in Spanish Fork were a full freeway from I-15 to the mountains, but that ship probably sailed for good 10 years ago with the I-15 interchange reconstruction.
I'm on that road at least once every two months and every time I'm on it I feel like it would be much better if it were at least interstate quality. I don't care if it gets numbered or not but if I'm playing sim city then it's an extension of I-17. Easier to get this stretch upgraded the I-70 to Flagstaff. I say do it.

Of course, I will say UDOT has more pressing needs. This would probably cost 10 billion dollars at minimum.

thenetwork

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 07, 2022, 10:40:46 AM
Quote from: US 89 on February 26, 2022, 06:46:50 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 26, 2022, 06:15:29 PM
I think US-6 between Green River (I-70) and Spanish Fork (I-15) should definitely be upgraded to full Interstate quality and even named as an Interstate.

I don't. I've driven it many times, and I definitely don't think we need to go that far on the whole thing between 15 and 70. I just want to see the whole thing four-laned. It would be nice if the expressway part in Spanish Fork were a full freeway from I-15 to the mountains, but that ship probably sailed for good 10 years ago with the I-15 interchange reconstruction.
I'm on that road at least once every two months and every time I'm on it I feel like it would be much better if it were at least interstate quality. I don't care if it gets numbered or not but if I'm playing sim city then it's an extension of I-17. Easier to get this stretch upgraded the I-70 to Flagstaff. I say do it.

Of course, I will say UDOT has more pressing needs. This would probably cost 10 billion dollars at minimum.

There's a few 2-lane stretches of US-6 between Spanish Fork and Helper that have an unnecessary center turn lane that could either be easily widened to add at least one additional lane to create additional passing zones, or 2 additional lanes so each direction could have 2 lanes.

It would be nice to add at least short passing lanes in each direction through the canyons on each end.   Some of those semis and RVs will go just as slow downhill as they do uphill and getting stuck behind one for miles downhill while the other side has a passing lane on the uphill grade and that would make the drive much better.

But making it at least 2 lanes in each direction all the way between I-70 and I-15 Is all it really needs.

US 89

Quote from: thenetwork on July 15, 2022, 06:42:49 PM
There's a few 2-lane stretches of US-6 between Spanish Fork and Helper that have an unnecessary center turn lane that could either be easily widened to add at least one additional lane to create additional passing zones, or 2 additional lanes so each direction could have 2 lanes.

Where are these? I just drove this again a month ago and to my memory, the only places with a center turn lane are those that already have 2 lanes each direction. Most of the rest of the highway is 2 lanes or 2+1 configuration.

thenetwork

Quote from: US 89 on July 15, 2022, 08:10:30 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on July 15, 2022, 06:42:49 PM
There's a few 2-lane stretches of US-6 between Spanish Fork and Helper that have an unnecessary center turn lane that could either be easily widened to add at least one additional lane to create additional passing zones, or 2 additional lanes so each direction could have 2 lanes.

Where are these? I just drove this again a month ago and to my memory, the only places with a center turn lane are those that already have 2 lanes each direction. Most of the rest of the highway is 2 lanes or 2+1 configuration.

Off the top of my head, one on either side of the Tie Fork Rest Area east of the US-89 split.

Might have felt longer than what it was as I was caught in a s-l-o-w semi parade in that stretch the last time.

https://goo.gl/maps/gowtNsoTwJFc5yUb6

US 89

Quote from: thenetwork on July 16, 2022, 10:44:37 AM
Quote from: US 89 on July 15, 2022, 08:10:30 PM
Quote from: thenetwork on July 15, 2022, 06:42:49 PM
There's a few 2-lane stretches of US-6 between Spanish Fork and Helper that have an unnecessary center turn lane that could either be easily widened to add at least one additional lane to create additional passing zones, or 2 additional lanes so each direction could have 2 lanes.

Where are these? I just drove this again a month ago and to my memory, the only places with a center turn lane are those that already have 2 lanes each direction. Most of the rest of the highway is 2 lanes or 2+1 configuration.

Off the top of my head, one on either side of the Tie Fork Rest Area east of the US-89 split.

Might have felt longer than what it was as I was caught in a s-l-o-w semi parade in that stretch the last time.

https://goo.gl/maps/gowtNsoTwJFc5yUb6

Heh, sure enough. I think I've just never noticed or thought about it because I'm always focused on when the next passing zone is.



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.