AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules to ensure post quality. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: Utah  (Read 70524 times)

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4990
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City, UT
  • Last Login: Today at 12:03:54 AM
    • Utah Highways
Re: Utah
« Reply #275 on: February 03, 2022, 11:21:02 AM »

The actual bill text in the sections for 71 and 92, for those too lazy to click:

Quote
43          72-4-105.1. Future designations of state highways.
44          (1) Upon completion of construction to extend the western terminus of SR-71, the
45     department shall recommend to the Legislature an amendment to the description of SR-71 in
46     Section 72-4-113 to reflect the new western terminus.
47          (2) (a) The department shall perform an environmental analysis related to the proposed
48     extension of the western terminus of SR-92 with funds appropriated to the department for that
49     purpose.
50          (b) Upon completion of construction of the proposed extension of the western terminus
51     of SR-92, the department shall recommend to the Legislature an amendment to the description
52     of SR-92 in Section 72-4-115 to reflect the new western terminus.

Extending 71 west to Mountain View makes sense. There are surprisingly few state highway connections to the southern end of Mountain View - all the E/W routes down there end at Bangerter, which was sort of the western development limit when those designations went into place. Extending one seems like a good idea for network continuity purposes, and that mile or so of 126th South is pretty much state highway quality already. Arguably 134th South is an even higher quality road as is between those points, but seems better to keep things simple with which roads are state and which aren't.

The possibility of a 92 extension is fascinating as I have not heard any talk of this from UDOT or in the news at all. 194 can get pretty congested during afternoon rush hour, so another Jordan River bridge in the vicinity of Thanksgiving Point definitely isn't a bad idea... but I have no idea where you'd put it. If you extend 92 directly west from Ashton Blvd where it currently ends, you're cutting right through the golf course which seems like a non-starter.

Kniwt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 775
  • Last Login: Today at 03:45:14 AM
Re: Utah
« Reply #276 on: February 11, 2022, 10:48:05 AM »

The Salt Lake Tribune reports that some lawmakers are seeking funding for a $270 million bridge on UT 276 to replace the inactive Bullfrog-Hall's Landing ferry across Lake Powell.
https://www.sltrib.com/news/2022/02/11/does-utah-need-million/

Quote
No bridges cross Lake Powell for roughly 90 miles between the Glen Canyon Dam in Arizona and Hite at the upstream end of the reservoir.

For years, the Utah Department of Transportation operated a ferry between Hallís Crossing and Bullfrog in the middle of Lake Powell, but due to record low reservoir levels and other issues, the ferry is not operational.

Rep. Phil Lyman, R-Blanding, believes itís time to replace the ferry with a more reliable alternative. At a subcommittee hearing held at the Utah Capitol earlier this month, Lyman requested lawmakers approve $2 million for an engineering study of a large bridge to cross rugged canyon terrain near the ferry site.

... The Lake Powell bridge would shorten driving times between central and southeast Utah if another roads project moves forward that would connect Monument Valley with Highway 276 near Halls Crossing. The $30 million project would include a $10.5 million bridge across the San Juan River near Clay Hills Crossing.

The Legislature will decide whether or not to prioritize Lymanís $2 million request to fund the engineering study later this month.

Logged

Kniwt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 775
  • Last Login: Today at 03:45:14 AM
Re: Utah
« Reply #277 on: February 11, 2022, 11:59:17 AM »

St. George News reports on this year's Dixie Transportation Expo and updates several projects across southern Utah:
https://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2022/02/10/mgk-dixie-transportation-expo-highlights-projects-on-i-15-and-in-st-george-and-surrounding-municipalities/

Quote
... UDOT plans to add a third lane to (I-15) in either direction between mile markers 6 and 8 (the Dixie Drive interchange and St. George Boulevard interchange) in St. George and again between mile markers 10 and 13 (the Green Springs interchange and Washington Parkway interchange) in Washington City. The project between miles 6 and 8 will undergo an environmental study set to start soon, followed by design work in 2023 and construction possibly starting in 2024. ... Work to be done between miles 10 and 13 is further along, with construction expected to start in 2023. This includes the Exit 11 interchange that will connect to Main Street in Washington City.

(In Hurricane,) the 2800 West project will tie into the Southern Parkway where it intersects with state Route 9 and will run north to 600 North. This will be a two-lane roadway that will also feature a paved path along the roadside for pedestrian use. Work is set to begin in June and conclude by Thanksgiving.

(In Toquerville:) ... Now referred to as the Toquerville Parkway, the road will start at Anderson Junction off I-15 and run south on the west side of Toquerville where it will eventually connect with state Route 17 on the southern end of town. The primary goal is to divert traffic away from Toquervilleís downtown area. ... Work on the roadway started in January and is anticipated to conclude by mid to late December. Toquerville is hosting a groundbreaking for the new parkway on Feb. 24.

Logged

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4990
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City, UT
  • Last Login: Today at 12:03:54 AM
    • Utah Highways
Re: Utah
« Reply #278 on: February 11, 2022, 02:49:50 PM »

Widening I-15 through St George is long overdue. Good to see UDOT finally making steps in that direction.

I can't imagine there will be much political appetite to build a SR 276 bridge over Lake Powell, especially given that the state just spent a couple years and several million dollars to refurbish the ferry and extend the boat ramps...only for water levels to promptly fall below the level of the extended ramps this past summer. The old ramps were good as long as the lake's surface elevation was above 3610 feet. The new ones are good above 3575 feet. Current lake elevation? 3530 feet.

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2867
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 08:22:01 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #279 on: February 11, 2022, 04:41:14 PM »

I really am exciting for both of those proposals but especially the 276 bridges. Please please let that happen. I hate ferries with a passion and wish theyíd get rid of that.
Logged

kwellada

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 117
  • Location: Tucson, AZ
  • Last Login: Today at 04:34:54 PM
    • Robot Impurity Photography
Re: Utah
« Reply #280 on: February 11, 2022, 05:04:03 PM »

I really am exciting for both of those proposals but especially the 276 bridges. Please please let that happen. I hate ferries with a passion and wish theyíd get rid of that.

I don't mind ferries (lived in BC and WA state for years). However, I really want to drive that highway and don't want to be backtracking on either side of the river. And with the news that the Colorado high country snowpack isn't doing great in 2022, I have a feeling it'll be faster to build a bridge than to wait for the reservoir to fill up to previous levels. Besides, perhaps the bridge can be part of the future Glen Canyon National Park!
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2867
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 08:22:01 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #281 on: February 11, 2022, 05:17:44 PM »

I really am exciting for both of those proposals but especially the 276 bridges. Please please let that happen. I hate ferries with a passion and wish theyíd get rid of that.

I don't mind ferries (lived in BC and WA state for years). However, I really want to drive that highway and don't want to be backtracking on either side of the river. And with the news that the Colorado high country snowpack isn't doing great in 2022, I have a feeling it'll be faster to build a bridge than to wait for the reservoir to fill up to previous levels. Besides, perhaps the bridge can be part of the future Glen Canyon National Park!
I donít mind ferries either as I should worded that differently. I just donít like them where a bridge could be built instead. Of course in some cases there are exceptions where we might not need tons of bridges polluting an environment like the Puget Sound but here it is definitely needed.
Logged

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4990
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City, UT
  • Last Login: Today at 12:03:54 AM
    • Utah Highways
Re: Utah
« Reply #282 on: February 11, 2022, 05:49:08 PM »

I really am exciting for both of those proposals but especially the 276 bridges. Please please let that happen. I hate ferries with a passion and wish theyíd get rid of that.

I don't mind ferries (lived in BC and WA state for years). However, I really want to drive that highway and don't want to be backtracking on either side of the river. And with the news that the Colorado high country snowpack isn't doing great in 2022, I have a feeling it'll be faster to build a bridge than to wait for the reservoir to fill up to previous levels. Besides, perhaps the bridge can be part of the future Glen Canyon National Park!
I donít mind ferries either as I should worded that differently. I just donít like them where a bridge could be built instead. Of course in some cases there are exceptions where we might not need tons of bridges polluting an environment like the Puget Sound but here it is definitely needed.

Define "needed". The road from the north into Bullfrog has an AADT of less than 200. I just don't see how you justify spending $270 million - an amount greater than Utah's entire bridge allotment in the infrastructure bill - to replace a ferry that carries that few cars and only runs four months of the year even in times of high water. Seems to me it'd be far easier and cheaper to figure out a way to extend the ferry ramps further down or build new ramps or even buy a new, smaller-capacity ferry that can handle smaller depths.

zzcarp

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 386
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Westminster, CO
  • Last Login: Today at 05:45:10 AM
Re: Utah
« Reply #283 on: February 11, 2022, 05:51:45 PM »

And with the news that the Colorado high country snowpack isn't doing great in 2022

As of yesterday, the Colorado River basin snowpack was at 104% of average. It's not enough to fill the downstream deficits yet, and the snowpack situation improved significantly this winter.
Logged
So many miles and so many roads

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2867
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 08:22:01 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #284 on: February 11, 2022, 06:43:46 PM »

I really am exciting for both of those proposals but especially the 276 bridges. Please please let that happen. I hate ferries with a passion and wish theyíd get rid of that.

I don't mind ferries (lived in BC and WA state for years). However, I really want to drive that highway and don't want to be backtracking on either side of the river. And with the news that the Colorado high country snowpack isn't doing great in 2022, I have a feeling it'll be faster to build a bridge than to wait for the reservoir to fill up to previous levels. Besides, perhaps the bridge can be part of the future Glen Canyon National Park!
I donít mind ferries either as I should worded that differently. I just donít like them where a bridge could be built instead. Of course in some cases there are exceptions where we might not need tons of bridges polluting an environment like the Puget Sound but here it is definitely needed.

Define "needed". The road from the north into Bullfrog has an AADT of less than 200. I just don't see how you justify spending $270 million - an amount greater than Utah's entire bridge allotment in the infrastructure bill - to replace a ferry that carries that few cars and only runs four months of the year even in times of high water. Seems to me it'd be far easier and cheaper to figure out a way to extend the ferry ramps further down or build new ramps or even buy a new, smaller-capacity ferry that can handle smaller depths.
Maybes itís that low because there isnít a bridge.
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2867
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 08:22:01 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #285 on: February 11, 2022, 07:13:54 PM »

And with the news that the Colorado high country snowpack isn't doing great in 2022

As of yesterday, the Colorado River basin snowpack was at 104% of average. It's not enough to fill the downstream deficits yet, and the snowpack situation improved significantly this winter.
They need to work out a way to reduce the water output at the Glen Canyon Dam to boost lake levels. Same thing with the Hoover Dam.
Logged

Duke87

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5779
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Stamford, CT
  • Last Login: Today at 08:43:12 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #286 on: February 11, 2022, 10:39:51 PM »

Maybes itís that low because there isnít a bridge.

It's that low because aside from Bullfrog UT 276 is not the most direct route to anywhere. UT 95 (which has a bridge) is the faster thru route.
Logged
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4990
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City, UT
  • Last Login: Today at 12:03:54 AM
    • Utah Highways
Re: Utah
« Reply #287 on: February 11, 2022, 10:52:21 PM »

Maybes itís that low because there isnít a bridge.

It's that low because aside from Bullfrog UT 276 is not the most direct route to anywhere. UT 95 (which has a bridge) is the faster thru route.

And that bridge has only been around since 1966, when the dam was built - before that, 95 used a ferry across the Colorado a little south of the current bridge, near where the now-unusable Hite Marina is.

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2867
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 08:22:01 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #288 on: February 11, 2022, 10:56:02 PM »

Maybes itís that low because there isnít a bridge.

It's that low because aside from Bullfrog UT 276 is not the most direct route to anywhere. UT 95 (which has a bridge) is the faster thru route.
True but what they need to do is build a road to connect to AZ 98 near Shonto. That would greatly help reduce travel times going to Page and Iíd personally use that route many times a year.
Logged

kwellada

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 117
  • Location: Tucson, AZ
  • Last Login: Today at 04:34:54 PM
    • Robot Impurity Photography
Re: Utah
« Reply #289 on: February 12, 2022, 09:18:47 AM »

As of yesterday, the Colorado River basin snowpack was at 104% of average. It's not enough to fill the downstream deficits yet, and the snowpack situation improved significantly this winter.

Here's an article from a few days ago about the water forecast:
https://coloradosun.com/2022/02/08/colorado-river-basin-runoff-drought/

I am doing snow dances so that maybe March will be snowy up in Colorado but it's not sounding as though this winter will do much to change the overall drought situation.
Logged

Alex

  • Webmaster
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 5038
  • Location: Tampa, FL
  • Last Login: May 02, 2022, 07:34:52 AM
    • AARoads
Re: Utah
« Reply #290 on: February 12, 2022, 10:21:04 AM »

St. George News reports on this year's Dixie Transportation Expo and updates several projects across southern Utah:
https://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2022/02/10/mgk-dixie-transportation-expo-highlights-projects-on-i-15-and-in-st-george-and-surrounding-municipalities/

Quote
... UDOT plans to add a third lane to (I-15) in either direction between mile markers 6 and 8 (the Dixie Drive interchange and St. George Boulevard interchange) in St. George and again between mile markers 10 and 13 (the Green Springs interchange and Washington Parkway interchange) in Washington City. The project between miles 6 and 8 will undergo an environmental study set to start soon, followed by design work in 2023 and construction possibly starting in 2024. ... Work to be done between miles 10 and 13 is further along, with construction expected to start in 2023. This includes the Exit 11 interchange that will connect to Main Street in Washington City.

So if Exit 11 is being added at Main Street in Washington, does the blank entry on the succeeding interchange sequence sign beyond Exit 13 / Washington Parkway imply another future exit?

Kniwt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 775
  • Last Login: Today at 03:45:14 AM
Re: Utah
« Reply #291 on: February 12, 2022, 11:28:15 AM »

So if Exit 11 is being added at Main Street in Washington, does the blank entry on the succeeding interchange sequence sign beyond Exit 13 / Washington Parkway imply another future exit?

Seems highly unlikely. The only road that even crosses the highway between Exits 16 and 22 is the access road into a low-use section of the Red Cliffs National Recreation Area. (That narrow one-lane road under the freeway.)

I suppose, in theory, they could add another interchange at the north end of the industrial zone along Old US 91, so trucks heading north wouldn't have to double back to UT 9 to enter I-15, but I've never heard any talk of such a thing.
Logged

pderocco

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 223
  • Two wrongs don't make a right--but three lefts do.

  • Age: 69
  • Location: El Cajon, CA
  • Last Login: June 25, 2022, 06:33:22 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #292 on: February 15, 2022, 12:51:02 AM »

Maybes itís that low because there isnít a bridge.

It's that low because aside from Bullfrog UT 276 is not the most direct route to anywhere. UT 95 (which has a bridge) is the faster thru route.

The ferry has been on my bucket list for a few years. On Jan 2, I took 95 over Hite Crossing, but I might have chosen 276 had the ferry been running. A bridge doesn't seem practical, though, because it would have to be about twice the length of the US-89 bridge, and while it would attract some traffic, it wouldn't attract much unless they built a paved road along Capitol Reef.

By the way, why is the Mokee Dugway unpaved? It was an easy drive, but it's really peculiar.
Logged
Ciao,
Paul

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4990
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City, UT
  • Last Login: Today at 12:03:54 AM
    • Utah Highways
Re: Utah
« Reply #293 on: March 16, 2022, 11:38:16 AM »

Significant reconstruction is coming to the US 40 freeway in Wasatch County this spring and summer, including pavement rehab and a full deck replacement on the Provo River bridges. Looks like they are going to try to fit three lanes onto one of those bridges during the construction, which seems like it will be a very tight squeeze.

https://www.udot.utah.gov/connect/2022/03/03/major-construction-to-begin-on-u-s-40-north-of-heber-city/
https://udotinput.utah.gov/us40improved


Kniwt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 775
  • Last Login: Today at 03:45:14 AM
Re: Utah
« Reply #294 on: March 23, 2022, 07:48:41 PM »

Not the most spectacular pics, but work has begun on the UT 17 bypass of Toquerville. Photos taken 23-Mar-2022.

Seen from the south side of Toquerville, grading of the bypass is visible in the distance:


From the north side, the end of the bypass:


UDOT project page: https://maps.udot.utah.gov/wadocuments/Apps/ProgramBriefing/4/18214.pdf
Logged

TheGrassGuy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1077
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: June 26, 2022, 05:06:15 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #295 on: April 05, 2022, 09:53:12 PM »

I was today years old when I realized that there was a long rail causeway bisecting Great Salt Lake. And that that causeway had no gaps until 2016. And that Great Salt Lake is shriveling up so much that Antelope Island is no longer an island anymore.
Logged
If you ever feel useless, remember that CR 504 exists.

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10255
  • Last Login: Today at 07:03:37 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #296 on: April 05, 2022, 10:41:39 PM »

I was today years old when I realized that there was a long rail causeway bisecting Great Salt Lake. And that that causeway had no gaps until 2016. And that Great Salt Lake is shriveling up so much that Antelope Island is no longer an island anymore.
...and the causeway changes the water chemistry north and south of it...

...and the railroad had named places along the causeway that online map services picked up and caused funny things to happen with directions.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4990
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City, UT
  • Last Login: Today at 12:03:54 AM
    • Utah Highways
Re: Utah
« Reply #297 on: April 05, 2022, 11:40:00 PM »

And that that causeway had no gaps until 2016.

No, the full causeway as originally constructed in the 1960s had a pair of culverts to allow some water exchange. Then in the wet years of the early 1980s, the south half of the lake rose so high that it threatened to flood some of the outlying areas of SLC, and the existing culverts weren't doing enough to equalize the lake levels, so the causeway was breached near the west end in 1984 (that's what this is). The issue was that in the early 2010s both of those culverts had to be closed I think because of issues with subsidence, and then a multi-year drought dropped the lake below the level of the 1984 breach. So for a few years, there wasn't any water exchange until the causeway was breached again in 2016.

And that Great Salt Lake is shriveling up so much that Antelope Island is no longer an island anymore.

Antelope Island hasn't been an island since 2001 and actually requires a higher-than-average lake level (average is 4200 feet elevation) to be isolated from the mainland. The more noteworthy stat there is that there are currently no permanent islands beyond temporary sandbars or minor stuff like that. The last ones to go are Gunnison Island (4193 ft) and Fremont Island (4195 ft), and have been islands as recently as a couple years ago... but the lake currently stands at about 4191 feet.

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4990
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City, UT
  • Last Login: Today at 12:03:54 AM
    • Utah Highways
Re: Utah
« Reply #298 on: April 08, 2022, 03:44:12 PM »

Published in KSL today: Is this I-15 section about to get a makeover? UDOT eyes changes to aging freeway

Quote
SALT LAKE CITY — An aging section of I-15 from Salt Lake City to Farmington may soon receive a makeover.

Utah transportation officials said Thursday they are set to open an initial scoping phase to find the current problems and potential ideas people who drive on the freeway from 400 South in Salt Lake City and Shepard Lane in Farmington have. The stretch of I-15 covers 13 total exits in Salt Lake City, North Salt Lake, Bountiful, Centerville and Farmington, but also impacts the communities of Woods Cross and West Bountiful.

"We're looking to identify the transportation needs in this area and work to find potential solutions to address those needs," said Tiffany Pocock, the I-15 project manager for the Utah Department of Transportation. "Hearing from those who live and travel here is a key part of that process."

In a video about the project, Pocock explained that the concrete and asphalt pavement in the selected area is about 50 years old and needs to be swapped out. It isn't alone; nine of the 35 bridges along the stretch are recommended for replacement, while one is recommended for a deck replacement and another 19 are recommended for preservation work.

That's a problem as the population within the Wasatch Front continues to expand. It limits the types of projects needed to help out with the region's growth.

"Most existing structures do not have clearance to accommodate any additional lining of I-15 in areas if needed," Pocock said.

In addition, she said there are "several areas" along the stretch of the freeway that don't drain properly, meaning pipes and culverts in the area need to be replaced. Other possible changes include reducing sharp curves and widening shoulders to improve visibility and reduce crashes in the corridor, Pocock said.

And without any major reconfiguring, UDOT estimates the time to travel the section of freeway will jump from 18 to 19 minutes in recent years to 55 to 66 minutes by 2050, based on population growth trends. Engineers believe that would end up spilling out onto local streets as people look for alternative routes.

That's why UDOT is also looking at ways to improve sidewalks, crosswalks, bike paths and trails to help people get across the freeway's entrances and exits.

"Moving people includes not just those in cars but people walking safely on sidewalks, riding bicycles and using public transit," Pocock said. "The system should provide good health for individuals and communities."

But before any changes are made, UDOT starts the process with a scoping to understand the challenges of the stretch of the freeway and what people who use it on a regular basis need from it. This helps engineers craft projects that offer solutions to the problem.

The current scoping phase aims to study everything from land use to air quality, noise, economics, equity, environmental justice and more. The public comment period for this phase opens Monday and will continue through May 13. People will be able to submit comments either through UDOT's project website, by email to i15eis@utah.gov, or by mail to 392 E. Winchester Street Ste. 300 / Salt Lake City, UT 84107.

Once that's completed, the agency follows a series of steps in drafting an environmental impact statement before finalizing that document and issuing a record of decision. This process, which is projected to continue through 2024, is when project designs and details become more concrete. There are a few other public comment periods along the way.

From there, it's up to funding, planning and construction before a makeover of I-15 from Salt Lake City to Farmington becomes a reality.

Interestingly, over half of this segment of I-15 has actually been reconstructed in the last 20 years - the segment from 600 North to I-215 in the late 2000s, and I-215 to Centerville in the mid 2010s - and all the bridges on those segments were replaced in those projects. The part from Centerville to Farmington does have some original bridges and pavement from the early 1970s, though.

The biggest thing I'd like to see is a fourth GP lane in both directions from Salt Lake City north to I-215, to match the segments on either side of this one. Originally there were 3 lanes each way there, and the late 2000s reconstruction only added the HOV lane. That stretch is a reliable choke point during rush hour in my experience.

BigManFromAFRICA88

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 120
  • Just roads being dudes.

  • Age: 23
  • Location: Utah/California
  • Last Login: June 26, 2022, 09:45:10 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #299 on: April 14, 2022, 04:05:06 PM »

Published in KSL today: Is this I-15 section about to get a makeover? UDOT eyes changes to aging freeway

Quote
SALT LAKE CITY ó An aging section of I-15 from Salt Lake City to Farmington may soon receive a makeover.

Utah transportation officials said Thursday they are set to open an initial scoping phase to find the current problems and potential ideas people who drive on the freeway from 400 South in Salt Lake City and Shepard Lane in Farmington have. The stretch of I-15 covers 13 total exits in Salt Lake City, North Salt Lake, Bountiful, Centerville and Farmington, but also impacts the communities of Woods Cross and West Bountiful.

"We're looking to identify the transportation needs in this area and work to find potential solutions to address those needs," said Tiffany Pocock, the I-15 project manager for the Utah Department of Transportation. "Hearing from those who live and travel here is a key part of that process."

In a video about the project, Pocock explained that the concrete and asphalt pavement in the selected area is about 50 years old and needs to be swapped out. It isn't alone; nine of the 35 bridges along the stretch are recommended for replacement, while one is recommended for a deck replacement and another 19 are recommended for preservation work.

That's a problem as the population within the Wasatch Front continues to expand. It limits the types of projects needed to help out with the region's growth.

"Most existing structures do not have clearance to accommodate any additional lining of I-15 in areas if needed," Pocock said.

In addition, she said there are "several areas" along the stretch of the freeway that don't drain properly, meaning pipes and culverts in the area need to be replaced. Other possible changes include reducing sharp curves and widening shoulders to improve visibility and reduce crashes in the corridor, Pocock said.

And without any major reconfiguring, UDOT estimates the time to travel the section of freeway will jump from 18 to 19 minutes in recent years to 55 to 66 minutes by 2050, based on population growth trends. Engineers believe that would end up spilling out onto local streets as people look for alternative routes.

That's why UDOT is also looking at ways to improve sidewalks, crosswalks, bike paths and trails to help people get across the freeway's entrances and exits.

"Moving people includes not just those in cars but people walking safely on sidewalks, riding bicycles and using public transit," Pocock said. "The system should provide good health for individuals and communities."

But before any changes are made, UDOT starts the process with a scoping to understand the challenges of the stretch of the freeway and what people who use it on a regular basis need from it. This helps engineers craft projects that offer solutions to the problem.

The current scoping phase aims to study everything from land use to air quality, noise, economics, equity, environmental justice and more. The public comment period for this phase opens Monday and will continue through May 13. People will be able to submit comments either through UDOT's project website, by email to i15eis@utah.gov, or by mail to 392 E. Winchester Street Ste. 300 / Salt Lake City, UT 84107.

Once that's completed, the agency follows a series of steps in drafting an environmental impact statement before finalizing that document and issuing a record of decision. This process, which is projected to continue through 2024, is when project designs and details become more concrete. There are a few other public comment periods along the way.

From there, it's up to funding, planning and construction before a makeover of I-15 from Salt Lake City to Farmington becomes a reality.

Interestingly, over half of this segment of I-15 has actually been reconstructed in the last 20 years - the segment from 600 North to I-215 in the late 2000s, and I-215 to Centerville in the mid 2010s - and all the bridges on those segments were replaced in those projects. The part from Centerville to Farmington does have some original bridges and pavement from the early 1970s, though.

The biggest thing I'd like to see is a fourth GP lane in both directions from Salt Lake City north to I-215, to match the segments on either side of this one. Originally there were 3 lanes each way there, and the late 2000s reconstruction only added the HOV lane. That stretch is a reliable choke point during rush hour in my experience.

Any phasing of the Wesd Devis interchange in Farmington included?
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.