Tooele Midvalley Highway

Started by Rover_0, May 13, 2014, 03:43:33 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Rover_0

#25
Quote from: Kniwt on May 31, 2018, 01:55:22 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on May 31, 2018, 01:42:29 PM
Yes, the Southern Parkway is supposed to return to I-15, but I'm not sure how built-up the SR-9 segment is supposed to be, whether it becomes the same standard of parkway that the current I-15/River Rd segment is or something less.

That part of UT 9 would, for the most part, be fairly easy to upgrade to limited access, with interchanges at Old 91, UT 318, and Sand Hollow Road / 3700 West (perhaps with a frontage road connecting to 3400 West rather than another interchange so close). (Coral Canyon Blvd. is already a full interchange.) The only tricky part would be the mobile home park at Quail Lake, where the speed limit drops to 50mph and there doesn't appear to be much room for expanding the current ROW.

Exactly. The only way I can see a full SR-9 freeway through the Quail Lake mobile park area is to tear down all or part of the park and/or relocate it nearby.

XT1710-02
Fixing erroneous shields, one at a time...


i-215

I get the vibe from UDOT's behavior that they are less concerned about forcing these freeway-ish highways (SR-9, Midvalley, Bangerter) into full freeway status, and more just making limited-access improvements where they are warranted.

Busy intersection?  Get an interchange on the TIP.
Freeway-to-freeway using a SPUI with a decent LOS?  Leave well enough alone.

I suspect Midvalley (and SR-9 for that matter) may be "expressway" (semi-signalized) for quite a long time, simply for the cost savings.

(The exception to this is MVC, which seems to be intended to be fully built to interstate standards from the base design).

Rover_0

Quote from: i-215 on June 06, 2018, 04:53:48 PM
I get the vibe from UDOT's behavior that they are less concerned about forcing these freeway-ish highways (SR-9, Midvalley, Bangerter) into full freeway status, and more just making limited-access improvements where they are warranted.

Busy intersection?  Get an interchange on the TIP.
Freeway-to-freeway using a SPUI with a decent LOS?  Leave well enough alone.

I suspect Midvalley (and SR-9 for that matter) may be "expressway" (semi-signalized) for quite a long time, simply for the cost savings.

(The exception to this is MVC, which seems to be intended to be fully built to interstate standards from the base design).
Actually, after seeing some diagrams, the Tooele Mid-Valley Highway (I'm calling it TMVH or SR-179 for short) is planned to be a freeway  south to about SR-112, then a substandard expressway from there south to it's end at SR-36. That doesn't mean that the majority will be built up to freeway standards from the get-go, a la SR-85, however.

XT1710-02

Fixing erroneous shields, one at a time...

US 89

Quote from: Rover_0 on June 08, 2018, 02:25:39 PM
Quote from: i-215 on June 06, 2018, 04:53:48 PM
I get the vibe from UDOT's behavior that they are less concerned about forcing these freeway-ish highways (SR-9, Midvalley, Bangerter) into full freeway status, and more just making limited-access improvements where they are warranted.

Busy intersection?  Get an interchange on the TIP.
Freeway-to-freeway using a SPUI with a decent LOS?  Leave well enough alone.

I suspect Midvalley (and SR-9 for that matter) may be "expressway" (semi-signalized) for quite a long time, simply for the cost savings.

(The exception to this is MVC, which seems to be intended to be fully built to interstate standards from the base design).
Actually, after seeing some diagrams, the Tooele Mid-Valley Highway (I'm calling it TMVH or SR-179 for short) is planned to be a freeway  south to about SR-112, then a substandard expressway from there south to it's end at SR-36. That doesn't mean that the majority will be built up to freeway standards from the get-go, a la SR-85, however.

The biggest victory for us roadgeeks is that it appears the interchange with I-80 will be constructed to freeway standards from the beginning. The classic UDOT thing to do would be to put in a SPUI, as was done with US-40, Bangerter, and the Southern Parkway.

What I can't tell from the diagrams is if there's going to be a loop ramp from northbound Midvalley to westbound 80, which I hope is the plan. I can picture UDOT deciding that traffic counts don't require that ramp, and that the existing Burmester Road/Exit 88 connection is enough.

No matter what, UDOT needs to preserve enough ROW so that it's easy to upgrade any substandard sections to a full freeway if/when that's warranted. They're finding that out the hard way with Bangerter right now.

i-215

#29
QuoteThe biggest victory for us roadgeeks is that it appears the interchange with I-80 will be constructed to freeway standards from the beginning. The classic UDOT thing to do would be to put in a SPUI, as was done with US-40, Bangerter, and the Southern Parkway.

I hope so.  But with design-build project delivery, nothing is a sure bet until construction begins.  Remember, the original plan for I-15 CORE in Utah County showed the I-15/US-6 interchange in Spanish Fork as a full flyover interchange.  It got watered down into that horribly unsafe abortion disappointment that even I in a regular car have have almost skidded off the road (and sooooo many big rig trucks have).   

QuoteI can picture UDOT deciding that traffic counts don't require that ramp, and that the existing Burmester Road/Exit 88 connection is enough.

Doesn't FHWA insist that all new interchanges allow all movements?

US 89

Quote from: i-215 on June 13, 2018, 10:16:51 PM
I hope so.  But with design-build project delivery, nothing is a sure bet until construction begins.  Remember, the original plan for I-15 CORE in Utah County showed the I-15/US-6 interchange in Spanish Fork as a full flyover interchange.  It got watered down into that horribly unsafe abortion disappointment that even I in a regular car have have almost skidded off the road (and sooooo many big rig trucks have).   

It looks like that interchange ended up the way it did because UDOT didn't want to take any property at all along 200 West. What that project did do was add a direct ramp from I-15 north to US-6 east and eliminate the weaving section on I-15 south. But the new light at westbound US-6 and southbound exit 257B is stupid, and access from SR-156 to US-6 and vice versa was eliminated. I wonder if it might not be such a bad idea to bring back the trumpet loop ramp, or if adding slip ramps to bring back SR-156/US-6 access is possible.

skluth

Quote from: i-215 on June 13, 2018, 10:16:51 PM
Remember, the original plan for I-15 CORE in Utah County showed the I-15/US-6 interchange in Spanish Fork as a full flyover interchange.  It got watered down into that horribly unsafe abortion disappointment that even I in a regular car have have almost skidded off the road (and sooooo many big rig trucks have).   


I don't disagree that the exit ramp should have been a flyover and even without one the design could be better. I'd rather have a trumpet with the cloverleaf ramp being the WB US 6 to SB I-15, even though it would be a 20 mph ramp, than this.  I'm surprised US 6 isn't a four-lane limited access road or at least a Super-2 bypass of Spanish Fork from I-15 to the canyon entrance.

However, if so many cars are going off the road, how much is drivers not heeding the massive 30 mph sign that is clearly visible in GSV (and an earlier 40 mph sign)? Perhaps some rumble strips on the ramp might help? I'd get rid of that "Prepare to stop when flashing" warning light which probably encourages drivers to speed up at the end of the ramp to beat the light. Or replace it with a constantly flashing "Prepare to stop" warning so drivers prepare and may be pleasantly surprised when they make the light. These measures could at least make the exit safer.

US 89

#32
According to the UDOT page, Ames Construction has recently been awarded the contract for the first phase of the Midvalley Highway. This will consist of a 4.5 mile super-two freeway running from I-80 southwest to SR 138, with a new intersection built at Sheep Lane. Construction should begin before the end of this year, with crews placing fill dirt at the location of the future I-80 interchange. However, major work can't begin until this dirt has had time to properly settle, and that process likely will last through 2020. Phase 1 construction should be wrapped up by the end of 2021.

In the future, the highway will be extended to SR 36 south of Tooele and widened to four lanes.

UDOT has also recently created some new maps illustrating phase 1 (left) and 2/3 (right):



New UDOT Midvalley website

US 89

New update from UDOT:

Quote

  • A temporary traffic signal is being installed on S.R. 138 for the Midvalley Highway project. The signal will improve safety for all vehicles, providing safe access for haul trucks crossing and turning off S.R. 138. The green light will be steady for vehicles traveling on S.R. 138, and the red light will only be triggered by vehicles on Sheep Lane or those coming from the work site. Crews expect to activate the signal in early February, and it will be in place until the work in the area is complete.
  • Construction crews are hauling material during the evenings from Grantsville and Stansbury between 6pm and 4am, Monday thru Friday. Crews will also be hauling materials during the day from 7am to 5pm, Monday thru Saturday. Please be aware of these haul trucks and drive with caution.
  • Drivers can expect shoulder and periodic lane closures over the next several months between mileposts 94 — 96 on east and westbound I-80. Construction traffic will be entering and exiting work areas during the business hours of 7:00am — 5:30pm. Drivers with oversized loads are advised to use caution in this area.
  • Shoulder and lane closures are being put into place to provide safe access for vehicles hauling roadway material.
  • Crews have begun placing fill dirt along I-80 where the new interchange will be built. This will need to settle – along with the ground beneath it – to provide a solid foundation for new interchange bridges. This settlement process will likely last through 2020, so most new construction work will take place in 2021 when the interchange work can begin in earnest.

US 89

Big bump: I drove out to Tooele County for the first time in over a year to see how the Midvalley Highway is progressing. Construction appears to be delayed a bit from the original timeline due to covid and a longer-than-expected settlement period for the fill dirt at the I-80 interchange, so less bridge work has happened there than I had expected. At the south end, a new unsignalized seagull intersection has been constructed at Sheep Lane, and 138 has now been realigned to proceed directly into the future Midvalley (i.e. continuing eastward on 138 now requires a sharp right followed by a quick left turn).

A few pictures from I-80 west and SR 138 east:








In addition, it appears the entirety of 138 between Midvalley and SR 36 is getting a repave - the east half of that segment was brand new pavement, while the west half was milled presumably in preparation for laying down new asphalt on top. This is likely in preparation for the transfer of this stretch of 138 to Tooele County once the first Midvalley phase is done.

Kniwt

Kicking to note that the highway opens tomorrow (30 October):
https://www.ksl.com/article/50272473/its-a-big-day-new-utah-highway-expected-to-cut-congestion-in-growing-tooele-county-

QuoteThe Midvalley Highway, or state Route 179, is a 4.5-mile highway that connects state Route 138 with I-80, providing a new access point to Tooele County communities from I-80. It allows motorists to reach places in the Tooele Valley like Erda and Grantsville without having to use state Route 36.

The new highway is set to officially open at 5 a.m. Saturday.

"It's a big day for Tooele County," said Rep. Merrill Nelson, R-Grantsville. "The Midvalley Highway provides a gateway into the Tooele Valley. Most importantly, it improves motorist safety and mobility. It takes us away from that dangerous bottleneck over at Lake Point (on S.R. 36)."

Tooele County is no exception to Utah's nation-leading percentage growth over the past decade. It was the fifth-fastest growing county based on percentage increase, according to the 2020 census; its 25% growth from 2010 exceeded the state's rate of 18.4%. Its growth has led to a growing demand for all sorts of resources, including roads.


US 89

#36
I got a chance to drive the new Midvalley Highway yesterday. Here are some photos:









The divided super-two with a wide median is a fascinating concept. I don't think I've ever seen anything like it anywhere else.

Also, it looks the like the east half of SR 138 has indeed been deleted as indicated in UDOT's online highway reference. All shield references to 138 east of Midvalley have been removed - the only remnants of a numbered highway on that road are street signs, which have not been changed. I'd be curious to see if those get changed to a named road, "Old Highway 138", or maybe even "Old Highway 40" in coming months/years.

The signs on the ground conflict with the highway reference on exactly where SR 138 becomes SR 179 now. The highway reference has the transition point at Parachute Park Lane (the short road connecting Midvalley to the old 138 alignment), but those END/BEGIN signs above are posted at the intersection with Sheep Lane.

Sub-Urbanite

Quote from: Kniwt on May 31, 2018, 07:40:20 AM
Quote from: US 89 on May 31, 2018, 01:45:17 AM
Is the Southern Parkway ever supposed to come back to I-15? I thought they were going to be done with it once they get it up to SR-9 near Hurricane.

This page from UDOT shows the Southern Parkway continuing along existing UT 9 from Hurricane to I-15 and "in design":
https://www.udot.utah.gov/projectpages/f?p=250:2008:0::NO::P2008_EPM_PROJ_XREF_NO,P2008_EPM_MASTER_PROJ_XREF_NO,P2008_PROJECT_TYPE_IND_FLAG:5527,5527,s



The area between Quail Creek Reservoir and La Verkin is all part of a National Conservation Area, so it's act-of-Congress level work to extend Southern Parkway back up to I-15 north of SR 9.

US 89

UDOT is now conducting an Environmental Assessment to identify a route for the future Midvalley Highway connection from SR 138 southward to SR 36. This extension is not funded and probably not needed yet so we won't be seeing construction anytime soon, but nice to see some planning being done.



QuoteThe first phase was constructed and opened in October 2021, providing a direct connection from I-80 to S.R. 138. That section includes a single lane in each direction and was built to provide a long-term transportation solution that can scale as future capacity needs and funding are identified.

UDOT is now conducting an Environmental Assessment (EA) to determine a recommended future road alignment that would extend the Midvalley Highway (S.R. 179) and connect S.R. 138 to S.R. 36.

Even though an alternative to connect S.R. 138 and S.R. 36 was identified in the original EIS, conditions have changed over the past 10 years and an EA is necessary to find an alternative that would better minimize environmental and community impacts while still addressing long-term transportation needs in the area.

The EA kicked off in early 2022, and the study team will analyze the previously identified alternative as well as other potential alternatives over the course of approximately 12 months.

If a build alternative is selected, the future extension is not yet funded for design and construction.



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.