Meeting with UDOT Planners

[Rover_0]

In my email discussions with some Utah DOT employees, I've mentioned some ideas concerning route concurrencies (US-189's "End" in Heber City, US-50 along I-15, etc.), as well as some US Route re-routes/extensions (US-50 along UT-24, US-189 along UT-28, US-160 or US-64 extension to I-15, etc.).

The UDOT employee that I've talked with (based in Richfield or St. George) will be in Salt Lake this week, and he will arrange for some state planners to hear me on these ideas.  I called him yesterday, and according to him, "(I) have some really good ideas."  He didn't specify what was really good, though I'd guess that extending US-189 south to Gunnison and/or re-routing US-50 along UT-24 would be the best ideas, as another past UDOT employee thought about extending US-189 south to Gunnison, while the general consensus on re-routing US-50 through Wayne County and Captiol Reef (and staying away from I-70 until around Green River) is generally positive.

Of course, if we can solve the US-189 "End" sign in Heber City problem and get all the concurrent routes properly signed, then I'll be happy with that, though the employee mentioned "route numbering," which makes me wonder.

This UDOT employee will call me and give more detail about the meeting; it should happen sometime Thursday.  What are your thoughts, and should there be anything else to mention?

[3467]

You might ask if there are any plans for major projects(freeway,4 lane expressway,major widenings) outside of Salt Lake City Metro.

[texaskdog]

I like the US 50 idea.  I would love to see Utah 12 as some sort of spur of 50 as well.  Any chance 163 could get a new number but probably dreaming there.

[Rover_0]

Any chance 163 could get a new number but probably dreaming there.

Actually, one of the ideas I had was to either re-number US-163 and extend it down UT-162/CO-41 to US-160 in southwest Colorado (likely as US-164).  I got off the phone with this UDOT employee, and as he mentioned using maps, Arizona and Colorado were brought up.

[CL]

My thoughts?

Honestly. What is with all this inside access you have to the higher-ups at UDOT? I really wish I could set-up a meeting with UDOT officials. The fates have smiled upon you. Anyway... could you please mention some of the things we've discussed previously, like:

Getting one consistent design for state highway shields. Most preferably, this design (with accompanying three-digit variant):


And whatever else we talked about... I've forgotten already!

Make sure you report back, and really push for signing US-189 from Heber City to Evanston. I think that has the highest chance of happening, as it's the most practical* at this point and time.

And seriously, if they're interested in hearing another person's ideas for some UDOT policies, you'll know who to nominate. Good luck.

*in the eyes of cash-strapped UDOT.

[Rover_0]

Well, after talking with the employee, he mentioned the concurrency issue.  He said that things can get "sketchy" when other states are involved in US Route changes, and he also mentioned "when or if" (I think) route changes could be made.

I'm beginning to think that concurrency signage will be most likely to see any changes, but it didn't sound like he had much doubt in his voice.  The planners would be there on account of actual decision-making on these ideas floated around here (myself and other users).

CL,  I'll see what I can do, and while I don't think you'll object to it, I've gotta ask:  May I use those pictures (the SR-73 and SR-112)?  I don't know if there will be time to talk about the beehive signs, but I'll try to mention it if there's time.

Personally, I'd put a small white outline around the outside of the sign, but those are probably the best, most effective version of the Beehive I've seen.

[CL]

Well, after talking with the employee, he mentioned the concurrency issue.  He said that things can get "sketchy" when other states are involved in US Route changes, and he also mentioned "when or if" (I think) route changes could be made.

Uh, wouldn't there only be issues with Wyoming (the only other state that US-189 runs through) if Utah were trying to get rid of US-189 signs from Evanston to Heber City? We're trying to do the opposite, so there's no reason why there should be issues in that regard (for goodness' sake, Wyoming signs US-189 right after the state line).

CL,  I'll see what I can do, and while I don't think you'll object to it, I've gotta ask:  May I use those pictures (the SR-73 and SR-112)?  I don't know if there will be time to talk about the beehive signs, but I'll try to mention it if there's time.

Feel free. Use those photos, along with any others you'd want to use.

Personally, I'd put a small white outline around the outside of the sign, but those are probably the best, most effective version of the Beehive I've seen.

I'm not a fan of the outline at all, but that's a matter of personal taste.

[Rover_0]

All right...I've just got back and am at a computer to share the details.  There was the Region 4 employee, 3 state planners, the signage engineer (or "main" engineer), and an FHWA representative.*

US-50 along UT-24:  The US Route standards of UT-24 would need to be checked.  Region 4 Employee mentioned that the UT-24 routing would be like a giant business loop, to which one of the planners said it would be a "scenic loop."  The general feeling that I got was that they preferred the current routing of US-50 concurrent with I-70, being a much straighter path.

US-189 along UT-28:  Found the routing interesting, as UT-28 is on the NHS, whereas US-89 between Gunnison and Thistle is not.

US-160/US-64 Extension:  Involving other states seems to be the biggest hurdle for this one; they compared to the US-89A/UT-11 change, and said that it would be easy compared to this.

US-163 Renumbering/Extension:  Region 4 Employee, while discussing the US Route changes, mentioned the benefits to making US Route changes, and he saw that renumbering US-163 as US-164 (at least off the map I've sent to UDOT) was an "additional benefit."  Again, involving separate states would be add a challenge to doing so, and I mentioned an AzDOT employee who said that AzDOT "does not intend to renumber US-163" when I asked him a couple of years ago.

US-89A/UT-11:  The UDOT employee that mentioned switching back to UT-11 "spoke for himself."  One idea of mine was to treat US-89A like an Interstate business loop, and sign it as US-89A (to match up with AASHTO and be consistent with Arizona) and UT-11 (for the Utah law books/reference).  State databases didn't like alphanumeric routes, though they were able to work through it when the restoration of US-89A in Utah was done (on paper). The US-89A designation is correct and consistent with Arizona and AASHTO logs.  I don't think we'll need to worry about this one anymore.

Concurrencies:  This was the meat of the discussion.  The cost vs. confusion was brought up, as was whose responsibility it was to make sure all routes are signed.  They weren't sure on if there was a UDOT policy on concurrencies, besides US and Interstate routes having concurrencies, and state routes not having concurrencies.  The UT-30 question was brought up, and I mentioned the "SR-30 Traffic--Use I-84 to I-15, I-15 to Riverside" sign.  In general, I also mentioned the "US-89 Traffic--Use I-70 to Salina" sign and using them.  Also briefly mentioned the I-15/US-50 sign in Scipio.

Other:  The FHWA Rep mentioned "route consolidation," such as making UT-14 and UT-56 into a single route.  He seemed to be the highest authority in the room, and mentioned that everyone in the room (except me) look into that .  I tried to bridge this with my US-160/US-64 idea, but the separate state thing was again brought up.  After the meeting, the Sign Engineer also thought that UT-72 and UT-10 should be consolidated (think UT-10 from Price to Loa), and that UT-45 (NE Utah) has no reason to exist and can become a county road.

After the meeting:  The Sign Engineer and I talked some more.  He said that the whole "UDOT is cash-strapped" idea is basically BS and that they have a $100 Million+ budget.  He also is in the budget department and said that he'd allocate money towards properly signing all concurrencies (the main discussion was about US-189).  He seems to share the same opinion that most of us do concerning concurrencies.

He also called the Heber City "End" US-189 issue a "mess," and wasn't even pleased with the I-15/US-6 concurrency, as the US-6 signs are considerably smaller than the I-15 signs.  We talked about the I-70/US-6/50/191 Quadraplex, and I suggested the signing for each end of it, based off of the I-15/US-50 sign in Scipio and corresponding control points.  Logan signing concerning UT-30 was also talked about, as was US-91 being signed solo at the US-89/91/UT-252 junction.

He also mentioned referencing UT-30 along US-89 (occasional "TO UT-30" signs on US-89 in Logan Canyon) between Logan and Garden City, and considered re-routing UT-30 off of I-84 and I-15 into Tremonton (likely along UT-83, UT-102, and UT-38).

He also showed me the standard beehive (you're welcome, CL ), and I got a picture of it.  It is the outlined beehive, to your dismay.  I'll post the photos later.  He wasn't too happy about the contractors and their poor signing procedures.

He also mentioned getting some people together to keep UDOT in line with concurrent siging and the like, and he also mentioned getting familiar with the Road Commissioners about the US Route changes, as it's easier to contact them and get them to send down the changes than contacting UDOT employees and essentially going the other way around.  The Sign Engineer said that he "can't fix the routes, but he can fix the signs," and that it's my right to see to it that my tax dollars are going toward properly signing the concurrencies.

That's what's fresh in my mind, and I'll state what I can remember in more detail; I'm tired right now.

[agentsteel53]

any possibility of putting the state name back on interstate shields?

I'd threaten to do it myself!

[xonhulu]

A few thoughts:

Good news on US 89A being left alone.

I kinda figured you'd get the answer you did on the US 50/UT 24 and US 64/160 ideas.  Once again, I've driven the entire length of UT 24, and there is nothing wrong with its condition.  There are probably US Highways already in Utah in worse condition.  But if they sign the 50/70 duplex, then that would be a good consolation prize.  However, there probably wouldn't be a lot of cost difference between signing US 50 along UT 24 versus signing it along I-70.  Did they give any weight to the argument that Capitol Reef NP would be better served by a US Highway, or did you bring that up?

I am a little surprised they showed some interest in extending US 189 over UT 28, but it sounds almost like they were thinking of rerouting US 89 over it instead.  I'll still be a little surprised if it happens, but this extension of US 189 could actually happen.

I like US 163 as it is, so I'm not unhappy they were cold to this idea.  Now attend an AzDOT meeting and convince them to renumber US 160 to US 64; break out an old map to show them it used to be AZ 64.

I wonder why UT 30 is even kept as a single route.  It would be pretty simple just to renumber the disconnected segments with different route numbers.

The best news is the interest shown in properly signing the concurrencies.  If you accomplished nothing else, this would make it all worthwhile.  Good job!

[corco]

That's great news. From the concurrency standpoint- I'm glad to hear they're open to thoughts. Certainly US-189 should at least be signed to I-80- there's really no reason why US-40 gets that route all to itself. If you're going from Provo to Wyoming you've got to take 189 north to 40 west to 80 east, which just sounds confusing (I have to go west to get from Provo to Wyoming? Why?) and possibly deters people from using what is almost certainly the best route from Provo to Wyoming.

Same with the UT-30 signage. No reason that can't happen tomorrow.

Good job though. While the rest of us sit and whine about things, you're taking active steps to make things happen. Nice.

[texaskdog]

If only they'd build a new stretch of 191 north from I-70 to connect the goofy angle

[Scott5114]

He also showed me the standard beehive (you're welcome, CL ), and I got a picture of it.  It is the outlined beehive, to your dismay.  I'll post the photos later.  He wasn't too happy about the contractors and their poor signing procedures.

Looking forward to seeing this.

I'm glad you had a successful meeting with UDOT. Can you share how you got to this point with them? I would like to hold a similar meeting with ODOT to talk about the quality of freeway guide signage...

[NE2]

If only they'd build a new stretch of 191 north from I-70 to connect the goofy angle

Only if you want goofy vertical angles.

[CL]

If, by 2020, I can drive from Provo to Evanston and see US-189 shields all the way through, I will die a happier man. Well done, Rover!

[xonhulu]

If only they'd build a new stretch of 191 north from I-70 to connect the goofy angle

IIRC, there was a proposed road somewhere through there at one time.  I think at this point that'd probably be a tough sell; I doubt current 191 gets enough through traffic to justify the expense.

[texaskdog]

If only they'd build a new stretch of 191 north from I-70 to connect the goofy angle

IIRC, there was a proposed road somewhere through there at one time.  I think at this point that'd probably be a tough sell; I doubt current 191 gets enough through traffic to justify the expense.

Well, I went from Moab to Yellowstone in 2004 and just made more sense to go through SLC than Flaming Gorge.  Brendal to Ouray straight shot (depending on the canyons in the area)

[Rover_0]

All right, here's the standard 3-digit Beehive design:

With white outer border:


Without white outer border (apologies for it being blurry):



The 2-digit is the more narrow, but I wouldn't think that "squashing" this into a square would cause it to be so narrow.  Perhaps they are working on it.

[texaskdog]

We all think way too much about this stuff

[CL]

Here's the thing. Let's pretend that three-digit design was the most aesthetically pleasing thing in the world, designed by Pininfarina or something. Now, let's review why three-digit variants of route shields exist... to accommodate wider numerals, right? This is UDOT's current practice with three-digit state highway shields (at least with the outline beehive):



That's just asinine to me. Why make a three-digit variant if you're just going to use series B numerals anyway?

[texaskdog]

If, by 2020, I can drive from Provo to Evanston and see US-189 shields all the way through, I will die a happier man. Well done, Rover!

Okay what is with the "189 to Evanston" movement I keep seeing?

[corco]

189 is a pretty important connector route between the south Wasatch Front and Yellowstone/the Grand Tetons. It makes sense to have it signed all the way through, if only to encourage people from Provo to drive to Yellowstone that way instead of via downtown Salt Lake.

The road is divided highway for basically its entire Utah length, and then it's a good road through Wyoming. It's stupid that it's cut in half.

[Rover_0]

Here's the thing. Let's pretend that three-digit design was the most aesthetically pleasing thing in the world, designed by Pininfarina or something. Now, let's review why three-digit variants of route shields exist... to accommodate wider numerals, right? This is UDOT's current practice with three-digit state highway shields (at least with the outline beehive):



That's just asinine to me. Why make a three-digit variant if you're just going to use series B numerals anyway?

I talked with the Sign Engineer, and I mentioned this with him, and he wasn't too happy with this, either...the thing is, is that it's the contractors' fault for all these different beehive designs, and it's also their fault for the B series numerals.  I'll be giving his address to you shortly (provided he's OK with it, but I don't think that'll be a problem).

[NE2]

Perhaps you could suggest that they work together with Colorado and New Mexico on signing the best SLC-Albuquerque route, not necessarily with a single number but with guide signs pointing the way.