Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[US 89]

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]

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]

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. 

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]

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.

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]

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.

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. 

[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]

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

Work 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]

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

Work 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.

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...