Consolidation/Concurrencies for Utah SRs

[Rover_0]

During the meeting I had with UDOT employees and planners, an FHWA representative mentioned route consolidation, or essentially taking two separate route numbers and making them into one. One pair of routes often mentioned for consolidation is UT-14 and UT-56, where UT-14's west end is only 2 city blocks from UT-56's eastern end. There are a number of similar junction pairs, such as UT-150/248 in Kamas and UT-21/153* in Beaver.

In order to consolidate UT-14/56 and the like and not realign the routes, you would need to have a short concurrency with routes like UT-130, UT-32, and UT-160.

I called Lynn Bernhard**, about state route concurrencies and rerouting UT-30 along the route below to make it easier to follow:



( Using UT-83 south from I-84 to the Faust Valley Road, a county road near the ATK facility, the FVR from there east to UT-102, and UT-102 from there east to UT-38 in Dewyville, and UT-38 from Deweyville north to current UT-30 at Collinston. Independant portions of UT-30 is in green, concurrent parts with I-84 and US-89 are in dark gray.)

He said that the county road is a better through route than UT-102, as it has all that "stair-stepping," whereas the county road is much straighter and would make a good commute road from Tremonton out to ATK.  A simple swap of UT-102 and the Faust Valley Road could be done between Box Elder County and UDOT, as both roads are similar in length.


Getting back to consolidation and concurrencies, I suggested that there's only 3-4 concurrencies strictly involving state routes (I-84, I-15/UT-30, US-89/UT-30, UT-68/48, and UT-118/120), and suggested that every one except UT-30 are no more than 3 miles, so they could be easily signed and some kind of policy could be made.

One consolidation and concurrency that could make sense is to make UT-130 and UT-257 into a single route, with a 13 or so mile concurrency with UT-21 between Minersville and Milford.

What are your thoughts on Utah state routes having properly signed concurrencies?  What about the consolidation idea, as well?

*I'd prefer that UT-21 and UT-153 separate routes, as UT-153 is one of the only, if not the only, state route that has unpaved portions.

**AKA the "Sign Engineer;" he said that it's public record for UDOT employees and their contact info (in getting his email for CL), so as open and friendly as he's been, I don't think he'd mind me giving his name out.

[xonhulu]

I said earlier, it would actually make more sense to break up UT 30 into 3 or so separate routes.  One can keep the 30 designation, but find new numbers for the others.  However, your idea for it is pretty good, as long as UDOT is willing to properly signpost the concurrencies.

Consolidation of routes makes sense in Utah, which has a lot of state routes.  And your example of UT 130 and UT 257 is maybe the best example of a corridor that would benefit from being united under a single number; in fact, it might make more sense for it to be a single route than UT 21!

I found it interesting the FHWA guy brought this up.  While I agree with him, there are a lot of DOT's that seem to have the opposite philosophy, even to the point of actively breaking up single routes into multiple routes.  Off the top of my head, I'd put NM and NV in that category, while CA and WA tend to favor extended routes with the same number.  In fact, that would make a good strand on here, comparing state's differing philosophies. 

[NE2]

I found it interesting the FHWA guy brought this up.  While I agree with him, there are a lot of DOT's that seem to have the opposite philosophy, even to the point of actively breaking up single routes into multiple routes.  Off the top of my head, I'd put NM and NV in that category, while CA and WA tend to favor extended routes with the same number.  In fact, that would make a good strand on here, comparing state's differing philosophies. 

New Mexico, period. They eliminated all state road overlaps in the late 1980s.

[agentsteel53]

New Mexico, period. They eliminated all state road overlaps in the late 1980s.

I know of precisely one surviving multiplex.

NM-9 at NM-338 in Animas.

http://maps.google.com/?ll=31.949067,-108.804517&spn=0.015549,0.026736&z=15&vpsrc=6

that said, 338 heading south out of town is shown as a county route, but I definitely know that both ends of the 9/338 multiplex are signed correctly at the intersections, when one drives along 9.  there is no 9/338 reassurance, though.

[Rover_0]

Another thing I forgot is that Mr. Bernhard mentioned that some route consolidation is already taking place; UT-146 and UT-180 in the Pleasant Grove/American Fork area.

There's quite a distance between the two, but I wonder if some roads that are currently part of UT-146 and UT-180 will be swapped for, say, AF's 600 E., its 700 N. (and whatever it's called in PG), and PG's 900 W. (I don't know where that "4000 W." comes from...thanks, Google Maps!).

As for the number, I'd retain the UT-146 designation, because UT-145 is also in the area as well. This is me thinking into the future, but if/when the day comes that UT-201 is upgraded to full Interstate standard, you could use the number 180 for a possible I-180 designation (even if 280 might be a more reasonable number, coming back to connect to I-80).

Maybe he was referring to UT-74 and UT-180, as that's a more straight shot north from I-15, but a swap could take place; UT-237, UT-238, and UT-239 were all swapped for UT-252 in the Logan vicinity.

[CL]

Unfortunately, he never replied to my inquiry.

[Rover_0]

Unfortunately, he never replied to my inquiry.

Well, he hasn't replied to my emails, either.  Thing is, he seems to be busy right now. He mentioned that it's the time of the year for doing asphalt (some kind of portioning for the winter), as he's also the cold-weather guy.  Perhaps I can give his phone number to you? You could refresh his memory.

[roadfro]

I found it interesting the FHWA guy brought this up.  While I agree with him, there are a lot of DOT's that seem to have the opposite philosophy, even to the point of actively breaking up single routes into multiple routes.  Off the top of my head, I'd put NM and NV in that category, while CA and WA tend to favor extended routes with the same number.  In fact, that would make a good strand on here, comparing state's differing philosophies. 

Nevada isn't really in to breaking up a route into multiple routes. I know of only one instance of this in the past 10 or so years (SR 146 split into 146 and SR 564, due to construction of I-215 in between). NDOT merged two routes into one a couple years ago (SR 650 and SR 651, part of the same road, are now SR 659). If anything, NDOT has been more focused on eliminating state highways (or portions thereof) which don't make sense to keep in the state highway system.

[xonhulu]

Nevada isn't really in to breaking up a route into multiple routes. I know of only one instance of this in the past 10 or so years (SR 146 split into 146 and SR 564, due to construction of I-215 in between). NDOT merged two routes into one a couple years ago (SR 650 and SR 651, part of the same road, are now SR 659). If anything, NDOT has been more focused on eliminating state highways (or portions thereof) which don't make sense to keep in the state highway system.

I'm referring to the big renumbering in 1976, where the majority of 2-digit routes were reestablished as 3-digit routes and a number of those were divided up into 2 or more different routes.  There was no judgement in the statement: it was an improvement, IMO.

It's good they're looking to eliminate some state routes, as there are some that seem pretty pointless or only have local usefulness.

[roadfro]

^ Ah, didn't think you were talking about that far back. I agree it was a good transition, as a lot of the old NV routes made no sense.

[xonhulu]

Yeah, I'm old.  Doesn't seem that long ago to me.

[Rover_0]

A big bump and an update...

I've conversed via email with UDOT employees about SR-30 and its concurrencies, as well as the decrepit signing situation in Logan, and there have been updates made to the signing in some spots. Of most notice, at the NB US-89/EB SR-30/NB US-91 split, SR-30 is signed with US-89!* Hopefully, SR-30 will be fully (or nearly so) signed with US-89 from Logan to Bear Lake soon.

I still think UDOT is still listening to me, but I don't think all the signing will be taken care of at once; going south on US-89/91 (west on SR-30), the signs there have been replaced in the last month or so, with (South US-89/91, JCT SR-30), while the split signage was taken care of in the last week or so.

I'll get photos of the signs soon.

[national highway 1]

New Mexico, period. They eliminated all state road overlaps in the late 1980s.

I know of precisely one surviving multiplex.

NM-9 at NM-338 in Animas.

http://maps.google.com/?ll=31.949067,-108.804517&spn=0.015549,0.026736&z=15&vpsrc=6

that said, 338 heading south out of town is shown as a county route, but I definitely know that both ends of the 9/338 multiplex are signed correctly at the intersections, when one drives along 9.  there is no 9/338 reassurance, though.

However, NM 188 and NM 185 intersect at the same four-way intersection at US 70 in Las Cruces. I reckon that 185 and 188 be combined into one route.

[Rover_0]

All right, some of the signs at the US-89/US-91/UT-30 split in Logan (Main St. at 400 N) have been updated. Instead of a single US-89 sign with faded numerals, this is the signage just before the US-91/89/UT-30 split (going North):



Yep, a UT-30 shield is shown right under US-89's!! There's nothing updated along the route (as far as I can see), but it's a start. I like how they found an older UT-30 sign and put it up...the contractors haven't quite been able to put Series D numerals in the newer 2-digit sign.

And instead of the "South US-89/91/UT-30" sign going SB after the US-91/US-89/UT-30 junction, this sign is now seen:



this is on par with other Utah concurrencies where one of the concurrent routes involved is shown under the "JCT (Route ##)."

[Scott5114]

A big bump and an update...

I've conversed via email with UDOT employees about SR-30 and its concurrencies, as well as the decrepit signing situation in Logan, and there have been updates made to the signing in some spots. Of most notice, at the NB US-89/EB SR-30/NB US-91 split, SR-30 is signed with US-89!* Hopefully, SR-30 will be fully (or nearly so) signed with US-89 from Logan to Bear Lake soon.

I still think UDOT is still listening to me, but I don't think all the signing will be taken care of at once; going south on US-89/91 (west on SR-30), the signs there have been replaced in the last month or so, with (South US-89/91, JCT SR-30), while the split signage was taken care of in the last week or so.

I'll get photos of the signs soon.

Rover, how did you begin your contact with UDOT? I've never been successful in eliciting a reply out of Oklahoma DOT... emails sent to their main email address were never answered. Any tricks? Maybe sending it to the appropriate district/division?

[Rover_0]

A big bump and an update...

I've conversed via email with UDOT employees about SR-30 and its concurrencies, as well as the decrepit signing situation in Logan, and there have been updates made to the signing in some spots. Of most notice, at the NB US-89/EB SR-30/NB US-91 split, SR-30 is signed with US-89!* Hopefully, SR-30 will be fully (or nearly so) signed with US-89 from Logan to Bear Lake soon.

I still think UDOT is still listening to me, but I don't think all the signing will be taken care of at once; going south on US-89/91 (west on SR-30), the signs there have been replaced in the last month or so, with (South US-89/91, JCT SR-30), while the split signage was taken care of in the last week or so.

I'll get photos of the signs soon.

Rover, how did you begin your contact with UDOT? I've never been successful in eliciting a reply out of Oklahoma DOT... emails sent to their main email address were never answered. Any tricks? Maybe sending it to the appropriate district/division?

Yes, you might want to find the right division or region...they're usually far more willing to listen than the higher-ups. Generally, the lower the division, the more likely they're going to listen--at least that's been my experience with UDOT and occasionally AzDOT and others.

I started talks with UDOT over the US-89A/UT-11 situation. They were initially adamant that it not be restored. According to them, AASHTO wanted to phase out alternate/bannered routes and that people got confused between 89 and 89A. I then asked why Arizona didn't do the same, and that question was asked between UDOT, AzDOT, and AASHTO, and US-89A was eventually restored.

[roundabout]

WAY TO GO ROVER_O!! I just noticed the change a week or so ago! And yeah, noticed the UT-30 sign they used was old too! not sure why they did that but hey, its a start I guess.  Nice work! glad you were able to get ahold of UDOT and cause some change! I think the public sometimes forgets the power they have to get things fixed. Glad you stood up! Now If they'll get the route to Bear lake signed with US 89 we'll be good! I also hope things work out with removing UT 30 from 2nd North and making it continuous on 400 North. UDOT is in the planning stages to see if this is plausible. It would be easier to drive straight from Bear Lake and not have to turn off 400 north just to drive 2 blocks and connect with 2nd North and go straight again.   
I tried to add this map I made but don't know how to. How do you do it?

[The High Plains Traveler]

New Mexico, period. They eliminated all state road overlaps in the late 1980s.

I know of precisely one surviving multiplex.

NM-9 at NM-338 in Animas.

http://maps.google.com/?ll=31.949067,-108.804517&spn=0.015549,0.026736&z=15&vpsrc=6

that said, 338 heading south out of town is shown as a county route, but I definitely know that both ends of the 9/338 multiplex are signed correctly at the intersections, when one drives along 9.  there is no 9/338 reassurance, though.

However, NM 188 and NM 185 intersect at the same four-way intersection at US 70 in Las Cruces. I reckon that 185 and 188 be combined into one route.

There are several locations in New Mexico where a staight-ahead route at a junction has a different number. In the case of 185 and 188, I suspect it was for one of two reasons: first, before the renumbering, when U.S. 85 was moved to I-25 and rendered invisible through the state, 188 was Bypass 85 and 185 was U.S. 85 heading north. The other possible reason (which might be related to the first) may be that eventually 188 will be turned over to the city of Las Cruces. 185 is still a good connecting road for the agricultural traffic up the Rio Grande valley, and so is likely to remain a state highway.

[Alps]

New Mexico, period. They eliminated all state road overlaps in the late 1980s.

I know of precisely one surviving multiplex.

NM-9 at NM-338 in Animas.

http://maps.google.com/?ll=31.949067,-108.804517&spn=0.015549,0.026736&z=15&vpsrc=6

that said, 338 heading south out of town is shown as a county route, but I definitely know that both ends of the 9/338 multiplex are signed correctly at the intersections, when one drives along 9.  there is no 9/338 reassurance, though.

However, NM 188 and NM 185 intersect at the same four-way intersection at US 70 in Las Cruces. I reckon that 185 and 188 be combined into one route.

There are several locations in New Mexico where a staight-ahead route at a junction has a different number.

I noticed that while following the I-25/old US 85 corridor, where there are three or four different route numbers for what was once continuous. It most likely reflects each time the route was bypassed by the freeway, which goes with your first theory regarding US 85 mainline and bypass.