Print

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

[Kniwt]

http://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2017/08/24/udot-seeks-to-convert-us-89-into-a-freeway-in-davis-county/

The Utah Department of Transportation is proposing to convert U.S. 89 into a full freeway in Davis County to connect Interstates 15 and 84.

That preferred alternative in a new draft environmental study released Thursday is designed to relieve severe and worsening congestion on the 10-mile corridor, as well as to improve safety and even speed up east-west traffic that crosses it.

But an opposition group says putting a freeway in what is now almost an entirely residential area will attract commercialization that will ruin communities. Neighbors prefer widening nearby Interstate 15 instead — similar to what happened in Utah County.

UDOT project website: http://www.udot.utah.gov/us89/

[Henry]

Isn't that a little too close to I-15? If anything, I'd rather see the Interstate widened instead.

[froggie]

^ It's largely urban/suburban area and 89 is already an arterial.  Traffic volumes generally justify a freeway.  Plus that segment of I-15 is already 6+ lanes and the southern part of it would be tricky to widen further.

History tidbit:  UDOT requested Interstate mileage for this segment of 89 when the 1968 highway act added 1,500 miles to the Interstate system.

[sparker]

History tidbit:  UDOT requested Interstate mileage for this segment of 89 when the 1968 highway act added 1,500 miles to the Interstate system.

And those were the last chargeable additions to the system; the '73 Title 23 revisions essentially put a stop to further funded additions (although "Howard-Cramer" mileage shifts and adjustments were able to avail themselves of funding).  It's not likely that there will be a similar push today re this segment of US 89 -- there's just no point!

[The Ghostbuster]

What would the right-of-way impacts be if UDOT went this route? How many homes and businesses would have to be demolished in order to complete the upgrades to the corridor?

[i-215]

28 houses, 3 businesses.  This does not count other adjacent properties which UDOT already owns.

Adding interchanges on US-89 has been sitting on the RTP for decades, so it's hardly a surprise.

[Rover_0]

History tidbit:  UDOT requested Interstate mileage for this segment of 89 when the 1968 highway act added 1,500 miles to the Interstate system.

 
And those were the last chargeable additions to the system; the '73 Title 23 revisions essentially put a stop to further funded additions (although "Howard-Cramer" mileage shifts and adjustments were able to avail themselves of funding).  It's not likely that there will be a similar push today re this segment of US 89 -- there's just no point!

Most likely, UDOT will just keep this US-89 (familiarity and no need to build to 100% standards), but if they did apply for an I designation, I'd suggest I-x84 (probably odd and I-184) as a lot of traffic is from WB I-84 headed south to I-15 and back, but that's me.

[Quillz]

"will attract commercialization that will ruin communities"

I would say, prove it. Find evidence of another freeway construction in Utah that ruined a community. Otherwise, this is just NIMBY speak.

[Rothman]

I hear a lot of moaning about the sprawl in the valley and how it indeed turned small, agricultural towns into suburban hell.

[US 89]

I notice this plan does not include an upgrade of the I-84/US-89 interchange to full freeway standards. I hope that's the next step (and maybe they can renumber the exit from SB 89 to WB 84 from 87 to 406, like it should be).

As for the NIMBYs wanting to widen I-15 instead and referencing Utah County, those projects actually didn't eliminate congestion. They just allowed more cars to get through the same bottlenecks at the same speeds as before. If 15 is widened instead of upgrading 89, it won't do much good.

That said, I-15 should probably be widened north of Hill Field Rd anyway. It's a 6 lane section with 8 or 10 lane sections on either side of it, and I've never been on that stretch when traffic isn't heavy.

[BigManFromAFRICA88]

Honestly it was bound to happen considering how dangerous those at-grade intersections are. US-89 and Bangerter are always welcome upgrades to me.

[Sub-Urbanite]

"will attract commercialization that will ruin communities"

I would say, prove it. Find evidence of another freeway construction in Utah that ruined a community. Otherwise, this is just NIMBY speak.

I mean, anyone who enjoyed living in a small town like Farr West or Spanish Fork or Bluffdale before I-15 made suburban sprawl a reality could make a legitimate argument that freeway construction ruined their communities.

It's silly to pretend freeways don't have impacts. Diesel exhaust kills, and fewer stops = more trucks = more exhaust. I'm not saying freeways should never be built, but don't dismiss the very real impacts out of hand.

[US 89]

"will attract commercialization that will ruin communities"

I would say, prove it. Find evidence of another freeway construction in Utah that ruined a community. Otherwise, this is just NIMBY speak.

I mean, anyone who enjoyed living in a small town like Farr West or Spanish Fork or Bluffdale before I-15 made suburban sprawl a reality could make a legitimate argument that freeway construction ruined their communities.

It's silly to pretend freeways don't have impacts. Diesel exhaust kills, and fewer stops = more trucks = more exhaust. I'm not saying freeways should never be built, but don't dismiss the very real impacts out of hand.

The difference between your Farr West/Spanish Fork example and the Layton east bench is that suburban sprawl has already occurred today. This area is almost completely urbanized, with what little new development there is replacing agriculture on the west side near the lake.

US-89 is already a major expressway running through this area, and it's inadequate for current/projected traffic volumes, which is the primary reason for the upgrade. Aside from the 28 homes which have to be torn down, US-89 in its current state has already "ruined" those communities.

[i-215]

Perhaps sprawl would be a valid argument if this was a community sandwiched right in the middle of the metro (between Ogden and SLC).

Is this were Perry or Payson, perhaps you'd have a valid argument.

[US 89]

From KSL: 6 lanes still planned for US 89 through Davis, Weber counties.

Although keeping the highway at four lanes was considered, the change was not included in newly released revisions to a draft state environmental study for the $275 million project expected to be completed in 2021.

"This has become a major thoroughfare and changes are needed," UDOT Region One spokesman Vic Saunders said, including adding a lane in each direction to accommodate projected increases in traffic.

Concerns about widening the highway were raised after the initial draft statement was released in October, so Saunders said UDOT is planning to use quieter, noise-dampening pavement and erect sound walls to reduce the impact.

Saunders said a new connection to the expressway will be at Gordon Avenue in Layton, which has been realigned to help property owners in the area as well as to conform with plans by the city.

Another change from the initial draft is a new northbound ramp at state Route 193 connecting with Valley View Drive in Layton to provide access to residents living east of the expressway.

Saunders said UDOT is hoping for final approval for the project by early summer, with construction planned to be underway in the fall of 2019. He said it should take two years to finish.

Here's a PDF with maps.

[sparker]

Gauging from those maps and illustrations, it appears what isn't being considered within the scope of these plans is a freeway-to-freeway interchange with I-84 (plans for the southern terminus at I-15 seem to be MIA).  I'd guess that UDOT would rather maintain the status of I-15 as the primary through route between SLC and Ogden; the US 89 upgrade would be simply for safety/efficiency to local traffic. 

[US 89]

Gauging from those maps and illustrations, it appears what isn't being considered within the scope of these plans is a freeway-to-freeway interchange with I-84 (plans for the southern terminus at I-15 seem to be MIA).  I'd guess that UDOT would rather maintain the status of I-15 as the primary through route between SLC and Ogden; the US 89 upgrade would be simply for safety/efficiency to local traffic.

South of SR-273, US 89 is already built up to freeway standards, so UDOT didn't include that part of US 89 in this study.

I agree with your point about the I-84 interchange. I feel like I remember hearing that something was to be done there around 2025, but I can’t remember where.

[Hurricane Rex]

This doesn't seem like a terrible plan to me. Impacts I expected to be higher here. It should only be done if the I84 interchange it would intersect gets upgraded. $275 million isn't too bad for a freeway here.

[Bobby5280]

I don't see a problem with building the freeway upgrade of US-89 between S Main Street and I-84 and putting off building a new US-89/I-84 freeway to freeway interchange at a later date. Build what you can afford to get built now rather than waiting later when it costs a lot more. It looks like there's already enough ROW at the existing US-89/I-84 partial cloverleaf interchange to build direct connect fly-over ramps in a T-configuration between I-84 and US-89. Meanwhile, some properties will have to be taken for the US-89 freeway upgrade. It's going to be a lot cheaper to buy up and clear the affected properties now rather than wait until both the freeway and US-89/I-84 interchange can be done at the same time.

[i-215]

Traffic report on the radio this morning:  I-15 southbound (inbound) had a couple of crashes through Kaysville, so everyone was jumping over to US-89.  Sounds like they broke it.  Signals all failed with people having to wait 2-3 cycles to get through.

The day has arrived.  Time for the US-89 freeway.

[US 89]

Article in KSL today: Citizens’ group asks UDOT to address community needs in US 89 expansion

The group is called Residents’ Voices United on 89, or ReVU89.

Realizing they couldn't bring the project to a complete halt due to ongoing traffic concerns, a citizens' group calling themselves Residents Voices United on 89, or ReVU89, is pushing the Utah Department Of Transportation to keep the road's nearest neighbors in mind.

"UDOT has said they'll use noise-reducing asphalt rather than concrete," Groberg said. "We're promised to have a policy of no billboards."

She said recent changes also include so-called "dark-sky" lighting, which will focus lights at intersections rather than adding to light pollution in the area.

While ReVU89 has made some progress, Groberg said their focus now is on aesthetic improvements to the road, hopefully making it look in the end more like Legacy Parkway than I-15.

Among other things, they want the speed limit to be 55 or 60 rather than 65, as well as truck restrictions and a scenic byway status for the freeway.

[triplemultiplex]

"Scenic Byway?" 
That's rich.

"If you look real quickly between the McMansions you can glimpse Great Salt Lake.  And that's not just any old airport down there; that's Hill Air Force Base."

[Bobby5280]

I think the vehicle restriction idea is ridiculous. Moving trucks, delivery trucks, etc still have to move through areas like this.  The idea of "Dark Sky" lighting is certainly do-able. One example is the I-25 re-build in Trinidad, CO. Instead of installing the usual overhead lighting on posts CDOT installed recessed, directional lighting into the concrete retaining walls. It just lights up the road without lighting up a bunch of other stuff around it.

[froggie]

Either a "No Trucks Except Local Deliveries" or a "No Trucks Over 6 Wheels", would address Bobby's truck issue, prohibiting the big semis that the residents are probably worried about while allowing box truck access (which is the bulk of moving/delivery trucks).  There's basically zero industry and little commercial/retail along the corridor so delivery-via-18-wheeler is not a major thing.

[i-215]

Semi trucks are already allowed on US-89.

Perhaps on a greenfield new build project, the restriction makes sense.  But I'm not sure it is even legally possible to restrict truck traffic on a US trunk network highway (US-89), let alone to restrict it after nearly a century of use.