AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Mountain West => Topic started by: andy3175 on May 20, 2017, 04:32:34 PM

Title: Utah
Post by: andy3175 on May 20, 2017, 04:32:34 PM
Recent update on Utah highway funding initiatives from the May 19th Salt Lake Tribune:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/5309728-155/1-billion-windfall-for-utah-highways

Article describes several highway and freeway initiatives in the Salt Lake City metro area, including:

- West Davis Corridor (possible extension of Utah 67?) (estimated cost: $610 million) - "sort of a northwestern extension of Legacy Parkway," this future freeway still in environmental review and has not yet received federal environmental approval, in part due to its proposed routing near Great Salt Lake wetlands and impact to existing residential areas

- Bangerter Highway (Utah 154) Freeway Conversion - article notes completion of freeway interchanges at 7800 South, Redwood Road (Utah 68), and 600 West; under construction interchanges in 2017 at a cost of $201 million for 5400 South, 7000 South, 9000 South, and 11400 South; 2019 freeway interchange construction at 6200 South ($64 million); and 2022 freeway interchange construction at 10400 South ($46 million) and 12600 South ($49 million).

- Interstate 15 Wasatch Front Improvements: continue project to widen and improve freeway between Lehi Main Street and Utah 92 (Thanksgiving Point) (overall cost of $450 million); widen freeway from Hill Field Road to the Davis-Weber County Line including new carpool lanes ($158 million); add new southbound lane between Utah 201 and 12300 South including I-15/215 interchange improvements and bridge widening at 7200 South ($169 million); and improve northbound I-15 merges by adding a long bridge to separate traffic between 9000 South, 7200 South, and I-215 ($130 million).
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Rover_0 on May 20, 2017, 07:42:14 PM
Recent update on Utah highway funding initiatives from the May 19th Salt Lake Tribune:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/5309728-155/1-billion-windfall-for-utah-highways

Article describes several highway and freeway initiatives in the Salt Lake City metro area, including:

- West Davis Corridor (possible extension of Utah 67?) (estimated cost: $610 million) - "sort of a northwestern extension of Legacy Parkway," this future freeway still in environmental review and has not yet received federal environmental approval, in part due to its proposed routing near Great Salt Lake wetlands and impact to existing residential areas

- Bangerter Highway (Utah 154) Freeway Conversion - article notes completion of freeway interchanges at 7800 South, Redwood Road (Utah 68), and 600 West; under construction interchanges in 2017 at a cost of $201 million for 5400 South, 7000 South, 9000 South, and 11400 South; 2019 freeway interchange construction at 6200 South ($64 million); and 2022 freeway interchange construction at 10400 South ($46 million) and 12600 South ($49 million).

- Interstate 15 Wasatch Front Improvements: continue project to widen and improve freeway between Lehi Main Street and Utah 92 (Thanksgiving Point) (overall cost of $450 million); widen freeway from Hill Field Road to the Davis-Weber County Line including new carpool lanes ($158 million); add new southbound lane between Utah 201 and 12300 South including I-15/215 interchange improvements and bridge widening at 7200 South ($169 million); and improve northbound I-15 merges by adding a long bridge to separate traffic between 9000 South, 7200 South, and I-215 ($130 million).

The Bangerter Highway conversion is long overdue and should've been a grade-separated freeway to begin with, but I'm glad it's coming along.

I recall from an email correspondence that the West Davis Corridor will indeed be a northern extension of SR-67, if it ever gets built.

The I-15, Lehi Main St to SR-92 construction project must be the project I a UDOT representative referred to when I floated the idea of re-aligning SR-73 onto Pioneer Crossing and renumbering the short eastern stub between 850 East (the first street west of I-15) to US-89. Recall that SR-73 is currently split into two different segments, the main SR-36 to the current Crossroads Blvd intersection with SR-73 and SR-145 and said short stub. UDOT generally prefers to re-sign BGS's during construction.

And now, for [a project] completely different: I'm told by UDOT's Engineering Manager that signs have been ordered for US-189 in Wasatch County (in Region 3) for its portion of the concurrency with US-40. Summit County (in Region 2), which has the rest of the 40/189 concurrency and the I-80/US-189 concurrency, is "still working on it."
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Plutonic Panda on May 21, 2017, 12:44:38 AM
These seem like good projects. Damn there is a lot of nimbys and anti-sprawl people posting comments on that article.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: sparker on May 21, 2017, 05:07:56 AM
I'm told by UDOT's Engineering Manager that signs have been ordered for US-189 in Wasatch County (in Region 3) for its portion of the concurrency with US-40. Summit County (in Region 2), which has the rest of the 40/189 concurrency and the I-80/US-189 concurrency, is "still working on it."

I suppose this means that US 189 will remain multiplexed (and actually signed) with US 40 all the way to the I-80 interchange that marks the western end of US 40 rather than departing from the US 40 alignment and subsuming UT 32 via Kamas, the original US 189 alignment.  IIRC, several years ago (after the completion of I-80 in the region) US 189 was actually re-routed and signed for a while over the UT 32 alignment; it would seem that by utilizing this routing US 189's status as a separate designation would be enhanced as opposed to being perceived as simply a series of multiplexes in the area. 
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Rover_0 on June 01, 2017, 12:07:29 AM
I'm told by UDOT's Engineering Manager that signs have been ordered for US-189 in Wasatch County (in Region 3) for its portion of the concurrency with US-40.

Unfortunately, as of today there is still an END 189 sign in Heber, and no 189 signs north of there. Hopefully UDOT gets going on that soon.

I suppose this means that US 189 will remain multiplexed (and actually signed) with US 40 all the way to the I-80 interchange that marks the western end of US 40 rather than departing from the US 40 alignment and subsuming UT 32 via Kamas, the original US 189 alignment.  IIRC, several years ago (after the completion of I-80 in the region) US 189 was actually re-routed and signed for a while over the UT 32 alignment; it would seem that by utilizing this routing US 189's status as a separate designation would be enhanced as opposed to being perceived as simply a series of multiplexes in the area. 

So does this mean that there will just be an END 189 sign next to the current END 40 sign? That doesn't seem like much of an improvement over the current situation.

And I agree, 189 should just be signed over the full route of today's SR-32.
These things take time...as someone with family in Kanab (and who regularly visits), I can attest that it took 3 years between the legislative restoration of US-89A (or decommissioning of SR-11) in 2008 and the posting of US-89A in Utah in 2011.

As far as "END US-189" being signed at END US-40, I don't see it happening. The I-80/US-189 concurrency is also entirely within Summit County (and hence Region 2). But I do agree with US-189 being (re-)re-routed along its old alignment (currently SR-32).

XT1585

Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on June 11, 2017, 07:31:18 PM
The recent project to make safety improvements along Old U.S. 91 between Shivwits and the Arizona line is complete. Nothing major was done to the roadway, but a full set of completely new signs has been installed ... including two never-before-seen "Washington County 91" shields, one at each end of the project:

(http://i.imgur.com/BG6ua8P.jpg)
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Rover_0 on June 11, 2017, 09:26:10 PM
The recent project to make safety improvements along Old U.S. 91 between Shivwits and the Arizona line is complete. Nothing major was done to the roadway, but a full set of completely new signs has been installed ... including two never-before-seen "Washington County 91" shields, one at each end of the project:

(http://i.imgur.com/BG6ua8P.jpg)
Those large blue pentagons might be a first in Utah.

Normally, federal aid routes, which are signed on tiny blue squares with the blue-n-yellow pentagon and a 4-digit number inside (Whose first 2 digits correspond to the county--Washington County's routes, I believe, are 30xx), have been Utah's version of county routes for decades. I've never seen a large pentagon with a 2-digit number in Utah until now.

XT1585

Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on June 11, 2017, 11:23:55 PM
The recent project to make safety improvements along Old U.S. 91 between Shivwits and the Arizona line is complete. Nothing major was done to the roadway, but a full set of completely new signs has been installed ... including two never-before-seen "Washington County 91" shields, one at each end of the project:

(http://i.imgur.com/BG6ua8P.jpg)

Wow! Now we just need some contractor to install US 91 shields...  :)

Normally, federal aid routes, which are signed on tiny blue squares with the blue-n-yellow pentagon and a 4-digit number inside (Whose first 2 digits correspond to the county--Washington County's routes, I believe, are 30xx), have been Utah's version of county routes for decades. I've never seen a large pentagon with a 2-digit number in Utah until now.
XT1585

I have never actually seen federal aid routes signed this way, except for the pictures on the shield gallery. The only reason I even knew these routes existed is that they are on some of the UDOT online maps. Are they similar to a secondary state highway system, like some states have?
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Rover_0 on June 11, 2017, 11:46:55 PM
The recent project to make safety improvements along Old U.S. 91 between Shivwits and the Arizona line is complete. Nothing major was done to the roadway, but a full set of completely new signs has been installed ... including two never-before-seen "Washington County 91" shields, one at each end of the project:

(http://i.imgur.com/BG6ua8P.jpg)

Wow! Now we just need some contractor to install US 91 shields...  :)

Normally, federal aid routes, which are signed on tiny blue squares with the blue-n-yellow pentagon and a 4-digit number inside (Whose first 2 digits correspond to the county--Washington County's routes, I believe, are 30xx), have been Utah's version of county routes for decades. I've never seen a large pentagon with a 2-digit number in Utah until now.
XT1585

I have never actually seen federal aid routes signed this way, except for the pictures on the shield gallery. The only reason I even knew these routes existed is that they are on some of the UDOT online maps. Are they similar to a secondary state highway system, like some states have?

That's what I mean by the federal aid/county routes signed as seen on the shield gallery. I believe these routes are technically county routes that are maintained/funded using some kind of federal aid, but don't quote me on that.

But I'm not sure. Kane County may have 2 distinct systems (unless they did a recent renumbering as well), where one system (presumed to be the older one) just used lower numbers (like County Rd 10), while the newer one is K-4400, marked by brown flaps. And that doesn't take into account the federal aid routes (the most-developed non-state-maintained roads, on the same level as Washington County's 30xx routes but numbered 18xx).

I'd love to see more shields and lower numbers like this, and perhaps on this particular stretch of road, an "Historic US 91" sign or two as well.

XT1585
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: andy3175 on June 12, 2017, 12:39:33 AM
Great find! While Historic US 91 would be my preference, Washington County Route 91 works for me. As Rover mentioned, I've never seen a regular-sized Utah county pentagon. I've only seen the smaller reference markers that often have mileage statistics attached to them. I'll have to head up that way next time I'm in the vicinity of Old 91.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: SD Mapman on June 18, 2017, 01:19:40 AM
I'm told by UDOT's Engineering Manager that signs have been ordered for US-189 in Wasatch County (in Region 3) for its portion of the concurrency with US-40.

Unfortunately, as of today there is still an END 189 sign in Heber, and no 189 signs north of there. Hopefully UDOT gets going on that soon.

I suppose this means that US 189 will remain multiplexed (and actually signed) with US 40 all the way to the I-80 interchange that marks the western end of US 40 rather than departing from the US 40 alignment and subsuming UT 32 via Kamas, the original US 189 alignment.  IIRC, several years ago (after the completion of I-80 in the region) US 189 was actually re-routed and signed for a while over the UT 32 alignment; it would seem that by utilizing this routing US 189's status as a separate designation would be enhanced as opposed to being perceived as simply a series of multiplexes in the area. 

So does this mean that there will just be an END 189 sign next to the current END 40 sign? That doesn't seem like much of an improvement over the current situation.

And I agree, 189 should just be signed over the full route of today's SR-32.
These things take time...as someone with family in Kanab (and who regularly visits), I can attest that it took 3 years between the legislative restoration of US-89A (or decommissioning of SR-11) in 2008 and the posting of US-89A in Utah in 2011.

As far as "END US-189" being signed at END US-40, I don't see it happening. The I-80/US-189 concurrency is also entirely within Summit County (and hence Region 2). But I do agree with US-189 being (re-)re-routed along its old alignment (currently SR-32).

XT1585

Well, apparently Google decided that US 189 was in fact re-routed: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6883639,-111.2896189,11z (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6883639,-111.2896189,11z)

Is this real or just Google being ignorant?
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on June 18, 2017, 10:06:21 AM
I'm told by UDOT's Engineering Manager that signs have been ordered for US-189 in Wasatch County (in Region 3) for its portion of the concurrency with US-40.

Unfortunately, as of today there is still an END 189 sign in Heber, and no 189 signs north of there. Hopefully UDOT gets going on that soon.

I suppose this means that US 189 will remain multiplexed (and actually signed) with US 40 all the way to the I-80 interchange that marks the western end of US 40 rather than departing from the US 40 alignment and subsuming UT 32 via Kamas, the original US 189 alignment.  IIRC, several years ago (after the completion of I-80 in the region) US 189 was actually re-routed and signed for a while over the UT 32 alignment; it would seem that by utilizing this routing US 189's status as a separate designation would be enhanced as opposed to being perceived as simply a series of multiplexes in the area. 

So does this mean that there will just be an END 189 sign next to the current END 40 sign? That doesn't seem like much of an improvement over the current situation.

And I agree, 189 should just be signed over the full route of today's SR-32.
These things take time...as someone with family in Kanab (and who regularly visits), I can attest that it took 3 years between the legislative restoration of US-89A (or decommissioning of SR-11) in 2008 and the posting of US-89A in Utah in 2011.

As far as "END US-189" being signed at END US-40, I don't see it happening. The I-80/US-189 concurrency is also entirely within Summit County (and hence Region 2). But I do agree with US-189 being (re-)re-routed along its old alignment (currently SR-32).

XT1585

Well, apparently Google decided that US 189 was in fact re-routed: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6883639,-111.2896189,11z (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6883639,-111.2896189,11z)

Is this real or just Google being ignorant?

That's Google being ignorant, pretty sure. I was up there a few weeks ago and nothing had changed in terms of signage.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Rover_0 on June 19, 2017, 02:04:59 AM
I'm told by UDOT's Engineering Manager that signs have been ordered for US-189 in Wasatch County (in Region 3) for its portion of the concurrency with US-40.

Unfortunately, as of today there is still an END 189 sign in Heber, and no 189 signs north of there. Hopefully UDOT gets going on that soon.

I suppose this means that US 189 will remain multiplexed (and actually signed) with US 40 all the way to the I-80 interchange that marks the western end of US 40 rather than departing from the US 40 alignment and subsuming UT 32 via Kamas, the original US 189 alignment.  IIRC, several years ago (after the completion of I-80 in the region) US 189 was actually re-routed and signed for a while over the UT 32 alignment; it would seem that by utilizing this routing US 189's status as a separate designation would be enhanced as opposed to being perceived as simply a series of multiplexes in the area. 

So does this mean that there will just be an END 189 sign next to the current END 40 sign? That doesn't seem like much of an improvement over the current situation.

And I agree, 189 should just be signed over the full route of today's SR-32.
These things take time...as someone with family in Kanab (and who regularly visits), I can attest that it took 3 years between the legislative restoration of US-89A (or decommissioning of SR-11) in 2008 and the posting of US-89A in Utah in 2011.

As far as "END US-189" being signed at END US-40, I don't see it happening. The I-80/US-189 concurrency is also entirely within Summit County (and hence Region 2). But I do agree with US-189 being (re-)re-routed along its old alignment (currently SR-32).

XT1585

Well, apparently Google decided that US 189 was in fact re-routed: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6883639,-111.2896189,11z (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6883639,-111.2896189,11z)

Is this real or just Google being ignorant?

That's Google being ignorant, pretty sure. I was up there a few weeks ago and nothing had changed in terms of signage.

Given that no changes to SR-32 or US-189 were noted in both the 2017 Utah State Legislative session or in the AASHTO SCOURN meeting, it's a pretty safe bet that it's Google being ignorant. Not that I don't disagree or anything, but it's a Google goof.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 19, 2017, 04:38:31 PM
What is the status for the SR-85 freeway project? That's the one I'm most interested in.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on June 19, 2017, 06:41:51 PM
What is the status for the SR-85 freeway project? That's the one I'm most interested in.

The phase they are working on now is the frontage roads or outside lanes of the future freeway. These are already built on the portion from Porter Rockwell Blvd (15000 S) north to 5400 S, as well as the Lehi 2100 North portion. They're going to open the part from 5400 S to 4100 S sometime in the next few months, and it's funded north to SR-201. In the near future, they will extend the future frontage roads north to I-80 and south to SR-73 and connect it with the 2100 N portion. This phase will function as a high-speed (55-65mph) expressway.

In the far future, they will build the freeway between the frontage roads.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: iBallasticwolf2 on June 19, 2017, 07:00:02 PM
What is the status for the SR-85 freeway project? That's the one I'm most interested in.

The phase they are working on now is the frontage roads or outside lanes of the future freeway. These are already built on the portion from Porter Rockwell Blvd (15000 S) north to 5400 S, as well as the Lehi 2100 North portion. They're going to open the part from 5400 S to 4100 S sometime in the next few months, and it's funded north to SR-201. In the near future, they will extend the future frontage roads north to I-80 and south to SR-73 and connect it with the 2100 N portion. This phase will function as a high-speed (55-65mph) expressway.

In the far future, they will build the freeway between the frontage roads.
I assume an extension to I-215 or Legacy Parkway is completely out of the question because of environmental issues?
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on June 19, 2017, 07:36:11 PM
What is the status for the SR-85 freeway project? That's the one I'm most interested in.

The phase they are working on now is the frontage roads or outside lanes of the future freeway. These are already built on the portion from Porter Rockwell Blvd (15000 S) north to 5400 S, as well as the Lehi 2100 North portion. They're going to open the part from 5400 S to 4100 S sometime in the next few months, and it's funded north to SR-201. In the near future, they will extend the future frontage roads north to I-80 and south to SR-73 and connect it with the 2100 N portion. This phase will function as a high-speed (55-65mph) expressway.

In the far future, they will build the freeway between the frontage roads.
I assume an extension to I-215 or Legacy Parkway is completely out of the question because of environmental issues?

Well, it would have to go north around the airport, and that area is all wetlands (just look at Google satellite view). There are also various nature preserves, bird refuges, and duck hunting clubs out that way. Also, lots of that land could actually be flooded by the Great Salt Lake if it rose to 1980s levels.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: i-215 on June 27, 2017, 12:13:26 AM
Quote
I assume an extension to I-215 or Legacy Parkway is completely out of the question because of environmental issues?

No way.  The reason being (1) cost and (2) the battle in the courts over wetlands.

We'll be lucky if UDOT can get through inevitable litigation over the West Davis Corridor, which is a very useful freeway.  Traffic on I-80 is fairly light and there's really no need for a freeway to wrap behind the airport (as cool as that would be). 
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: JKRhodes on July 02, 2017, 04:34:27 PM
- Bangerter Highway (Utah 154) Freeway Conversion - article notes completion of freeway interchanges at 7800 South, Redwood Road (Utah 68), and 600 West; under construction interchanges in 2017 at a cost of $201 million for 5400 South, 7000 South, 9000 South, and 11400 South; 2019 freeway interchange construction at 6200 South ($64 million); and 2022 freeway interchange construction at 10400 South ($46 million) and 12600 South ($49 million).

Good. I remember visiting some family that live along a street next to 154 and remarking to my wife that I was afraid I was gonna "bangerter up my car" driving along that highway. Being we were on vacation and not really pressed for time, I chose other streets to navigate around that part of the valley whenever I could.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on July 02, 2017, 09:09:49 PM
- Bangerter Highway (Utah 154) Freeway Conversion - article notes completion of freeway interchanges at 7800 South, Redwood Road (Utah 68), and 600 West; under construction interchanges in 2017 at a cost of $201 million for 5400 South, 7000 South, 9000 South, and 11400 South; 2019 freeway interchange construction at 6200 South ($64 million); and 2022 freeway interchange construction at 10400 South ($46 million) and 12600 South ($49 million).

Good. I remember visiting some family that live along a street next to 154 and remarking to my wife that I was afraid I was gonna "bangerter up my car" driving along that highway. Being we were on vacation and not really pressed for time, I chose other streets to navigate around that part of the valley whenever I could.

Eventually, UDOT plans to upgrade every intersection between I-15 and 201 on Bangerter to an interchange. See this link: http://www.bangerterprojects.com/schedule (http://www.bangerterprojects.com/schedule)
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: iBallasticwolf2 on July 02, 2017, 09:19:13 PM
- Bangerter Highway (Utah 154) Freeway Conversion - article notes completion of freeway interchanges at 7800 South, Redwood Road (Utah 68), and 600 West; under construction interchanges in 2017 at a cost of $201 million for 5400 South, 7000 South, 9000 South, and 11400 South; 2019 freeway interchange construction at 6200 South ($64 million); and 2022 freeway interchange construction at 10400 South ($46 million) and 12600 South ($49 million).

Good. I remember visiting some family that live along a street next to 154 and remarking to my wife that I was afraid I was gonna "bangerter up my car" driving along that highway. Being we were on vacation and not really pressed for time, I chose other streets to navigate around that part of the valley whenever I could.

Eventually, UDOT plans to upgrade every intersection between I-15 and 201 on Bangerter to an interchange. See this link: http://www.bangerterprojects.com/schedule (http://www.bangerterprojects.com/schedule)
If all the intersections on this road are being upgraded to interchanges, does that mean the 8 CFI intersections along the road are just stop gap solutions? Or were they built because of the interchanges being unfunded in the near future. Otherwise, it seems like its a good idea to upgrade these intersections even though the road is pretty close to I-15 and the Mountain View Corridor.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on July 03, 2017, 01:52:23 AM
- Bangerter Highway (Utah 154) Freeway Conversion - article notes completion of freeway interchanges at 7800 South, Redwood Road (Utah 68), and 600 West; under construction interchanges in 2017 at a cost of $201 million for 5400 South, 7000 South, 9000 South, and 11400 South; 2019 freeway interchange construction at 6200 South ($64 million); and 2022 freeway interchange construction at 10400 South ($46 million) and 12600 South ($49 million).

Good. I remember visiting some family that live along a street next to 154 and remarking to my wife that I was afraid I was gonna "bangerter up my car" driving along that highway. Being we were on vacation and not really pressed for time, I chose other streets to navigate around that part of the valley whenever I could.

Eventually, UDOT plans to upgrade every intersection between I-15 and 201 on Bangerter to an interchange. See this link: http://www.bangerterprojects.com/schedule (http://www.bangerterprojects.com/schedule)
If all the intersections on this road are being upgraded to interchanges, does that mean the 8 CFI intersections along the road are just stop gap solutions? Or were they built because of the interchanges being unfunded in the near future. Otherwise, it seems like its a good idea to upgrade these intersections even though the road is pretty close to I-15 and the West Davis Corridor.

I read an article somewhere (though I can't find it now) which basically said the CFIs were cheaper ways to alleviate congestion, and that full interchanges weren't necessary then. Basically, by the time they are all converted to interchanges, the CfIs will have served their purpose.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on July 04, 2017, 03:03:58 AM
There was an article in KSL News today describing a new transportation plan for the Wasatch Front. https://www.ksl.com/?sid=44883203 (https://www.ksl.com/?sid=44883203)

Among other things, it mentions funding allotted for the West Davis and Mountain View Corridors, as well as new interchanges on Bangerter and on I-15 at 1800 N in Sunset.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: andy3175 on July 08, 2017, 06:23:32 PM
Speaking about the West Davis Corridor, it is in the news due to the pending EIS and identification of a corridor. The EIS is available for review at http://www.udot.utah.gov/westdavis/. A press release is at http://blog.udot.utah.gov/2017/07/udot-releases-west-davis-corridor-final-environmental-impact-statement/.

A wide variety of media outlets covered this news. The following Salt Lake Tribune article (7/6/2017) has more details, including a planned corridor map: http://www.sltrib.com/home/5476891-155/final-proposal-west-davis-freeway-takes

Quote
The final route of the West Davis Corridor -- a 19-mile freeway heading northwest from Legacy Parkway through Davis and Weber counties -- will closely mirror the initial course proposed in 2013 that created years of delay and protest.

But state transportation leaders say they made numerous concessions after opposition from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and conservation groups that worried it would destroy too many Great Salt Lake wetlands, grass-roots groups that feared it would demolish their homes and transportation groups that said other options made more sense. ...

Unlike Legacy, the West Davis Corridor would allow semitrucks, would have a speed limit of 65 mph instead of 55 mph and would allow billboards (although cities in the area would have the option of banning them). ...

UDOT released a final environmental impact statement (EIS) on Thursday -- four years later than originally planned -- after the agency took time to work through initial opposition  and pleas to consider alternatives. It will take public comment through the end of August on the study. A final record of decision is expected in the fall. ...

The new freeway would connect with both Legacy Parkway and Interstate 15 at Glovers Lane in Farmington, and end at 1800 North at 4000 West in West Point.

UDOT estimates that route would force relocation of at least 25 homes, and perhaps nine more. It would also displace at least four businesses, and perhaps as many as nine.

Some residents who would lose homes around Glovers Lane had pushed for the route to begin farther north at Shephard Lane. Jefferies said the Shepard Lane option "did not meet federal safety and operations standards because it was too close to the U.S. 89-Legacy/I-15 interchange."
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: triplemultiplex on July 11, 2017, 09:26:30 PM
The West Davis doesn't seem like a logical extension of UT 67 like I assumed it would.  That would leave a gap on Legacy Parkway.  Looks like there's a new number on the horizon.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on July 12, 2017, 02:21:56 AM
The West Davis doesn't seem like a logical extension of UT 67 like I assumed it would.  That would leave a gap on Legacy Parkway.  Looks like there's a new number on the horizon.

Unless they put the last mile of today's UT 67 on a different number and extend 67 NW on West Davis. Results in a new number either way, though.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Rothman on July 12, 2017, 09:26:31 AM
Recently returned from a trip to SLC and saw some horrendous signage on I-215 south of I-80, where BGSes had option lane arrows in the bottom left corner rather than over the actual option lane (far right).  Couldn't believe it.

Also saw signage on I-15 north of I-215 with a font flub, where the official font was replaced with a monstrosity that had oversized first capitals and smalled lower-case lettering. Interestingly, this happened in NY as well -- same horrendous font -- on I-87 north of Albany; NYSDOT forced the contractor to correct the font.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on July 12, 2017, 07:03:09 PM
Recently returned from a trip to SLC and saw some horrendous signage on I-215 south of I-80, where BGSes had option lane arrows in the bottom left corner rather than over the actual option lane (far right).  Couldn't believe it.

If you are referring to the usage where the far right lane is a mandatory exit only lane and the second to right lane is an optional exit lane, but on the BGS the arrows for both lanes are in the yellow "exit only" section. That is actually the MUTCD signage for this situation. I think it is confusing at best and just plain wrong at worst.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Rothman on July 12, 2017, 07:19:35 PM
Recently returned from a trip to SLC and saw some horrendous signage on I-215 south of I-80, where BGSes had option lane arrows in the bottom left corner rather than over the actual option lane (far right).  Couldn't believe it.

If you are referring to the usage where the far right lane is a mandatory exit only lane and the second to right lane is an optional exit lane, but on the BGS the arrows for both lanes are in the yellow "exit only" section. That is actually the MUTCD signage for this situation. I think it is confusing at best and just plain wrong at worst.
Nope. 

The only arrow on the signs are the option lane arrow in white on green, bottom left corner.  Totally screwed up.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: i-215 on July 31, 2017, 08:52:43 PM
Recently returned from a trip to SLC and saw some horrendous signage on I-215 south of I-80, where BGSes had option lane arrows in the bottom left corner rather than over the actual option lane (far right).  Couldn't believe it.

If you are referring to the usage where the far right lane is a mandatory exit only lane and the second to right lane is an optional exit lane, but on the BGS the arrows for both lanes are in the yellow "exit only" section. That is actually the MUTCD signage for this situation. I think it is confusing at best and just plain wrong at worst.

Oh yes, I absolutely HATE those.  If I wasn't a local, I'd assume two lanes are trap lanes.

I was going to write into the local news to complain, when I looked in the MUTCD and saw it there.
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/fig2e_13_longdesc.htm

The wording is unclear, but by context, I really think it is only supposed to be used when two lanes are trapped -- and the UDOT contractor went ahead and used it wrong.  In the guidance sheet for another use of it (for a left exit) it is clearly used for two trap lanes, not just one.
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/fig2e_14_longdesc.htm

Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on August 01, 2017, 10:21:38 AM
Recently returned from a trip to SLC and saw some horrendous signage on I-215 south of I-80, where BGSes had option lane arrows in the bottom left corner rather than over the actual option lane (far right).  Couldn't believe it.

If you are referring to the usage where the far right lane is a mandatory exit only lane and the second to right lane is an optional exit lane, but on the BGS the arrows for both lanes are in the yellow "exit only" section. That is actually the MUTCD signage for this situation. I think it is confusing at best and just plain wrong at worst.

Oh yes, I absolutely HATE those.  If I wasn't a local, I'd assume two lanes are trap lanes.

I was going to write into the local news to complain, when I looked in the MUTCD and saw it there.
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/fig2e_13_longdesc.htm

The wording is unclear, but by context, I really think it is only supposed to be used when two lanes are trapped -- and the UDOT contractor went ahead and used it wrong.  In the guidance sheet for another use of it (for a left exit) it is clearly used for two trap lanes, not just one.
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/fig2e_14_longdesc.htm

I would love to agree with you that they're only supposed to be used for 2 dropped lanes. The only problem with that is that the signs in question have been installed quite consistently and in different areas in the last 5 or so years. They seem just too widespread to be contractor errors.

As for the left exit example, I think they have to use the yellow bars for any left exit, even if it's not a dropped lane. It definitely is confusing.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: roadfro on August 02, 2017, 10:38:14 AM
Recently returned from a trip to SLC and saw some horrendous signage on I-215 south of I-80, where BGSes had option lane arrows in the bottom left corner rather than over the actual option lane (far right).  Couldn't believe it.

If you are referring to the usage where the far right lane is a mandatory exit only lane and the second to right lane is an optional exit lane, but on the BGS the arrows for both lanes are in the yellow "exit only" section. That is actually the MUTCD signage for this situation. I think it is confusing at best and just plain wrong at worst.

Oh yes, I absolutely HATE those.  If I wasn't a local, I'd assume two lanes are trap lanes.

I was going to write into the local news to complain, when I looked in the MUTCD and saw it there.
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/fig2e_13_longdesc.htm

The wording is unclear, but by context, I really think it is only supposed to be used when two lanes are trapped -- and the UDOT contractor went ahead and used it wrong.  In the guidance sheet for another use of it (for a left exit) it is clearly used for two trap lanes, not just one.
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part2/fig2e_14_longdesc.htm

The application of exit only arrows for the option lane is correct. A better example in the MUTCD is Figure 2E.11 (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/part2/fig2e_11_longdesc.htm).

Part of the justification, as I've interpreted it, is that the actual location of many overhead signs in the MUTCD figures has moved. In previous editions, this sign would be slightly upstream of the painted gore point, just where the exit lane starts to curve off. Now, signs are located at the actual painted gore, past where an option lane has already split—so at that point, the lane indicated is an exit only. Pavement arrows and lane use signs are supposed to help make this clear. (Compare final sign and placement for 2003 MUTCD Figure 2E.05 (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2003r1r2/part2/fig2e-05_longdesc.htm) versus 2009 MUTCD Figure 2E.10 (https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009r1r2/part2/fig2e_10_longdesc.htm), which both depict a mainline split with diagrammatic signs upstream but separate signs at the split.)

I agree, it is not intuitive. The signs are set off from the mainline, and introduces an extra "exit only" at the last minute. I think this arrangement causes more confusion than it solves.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: D-Dey65 on August 15, 2017, 09:44:00 PM
What are the auto trails along UT 65 (part of former BL-84) in Henefer? I spotted a GSV of them while doing research on the former Interstate Business Route.



Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on August 15, 2017, 10:33:40 PM
What are the auto trails along UT 65 (part of former BL-84) in Henefer? I spotted a GSV of them while doing research on the former Interstate Business Route.

Mormon Trail, and maybe the California or Pony Express trails (but don't quote me on that).

I didn't know that was ever an Interstate Business route, as far as I knew it was just a loop through Henefer on old US 30S. Henefer always seemed too small to have a BL,
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: johndoe on August 16, 2017, 07:01:49 AM
So fro...can they restripe the gore to open JUST after the truss rather than before it?  :)
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: andy3175 on August 16, 2017, 11:20:01 AM
What are the auto trails along UT 65 (part of former BL-84) in Henefer? I spotted a GSV of them while doing research on the former Interstate Business Route.

Mormon Trail, and maybe the California or Pony Express trails (but don't quote me on that).

I didn't know that was ever an Interstate Business route, as far as I knew it was just a loop through Henefer on old US 30S. Henefer always seemed too small to have a BL,

We have never found photographic evidence of a business loop in Henefer, but we did find the town listed in a very old article from Deseret News (1973) from back when 84 was 80N. The article states that several "cities which qualify for business loop signing" include Henefer. There's no proof such a route was actually signed. When you read the article, you'll find several cities and towns listed that currently have business loops/spurs as well as others that currently do not. It's possible Henefer met the stated criteria as related to route mileage and motorist services at the time, yet maybe does not today.  See http://www.interstate-guide.com/business-routes/bus84.html and the article itself at https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=336&dat=19730430&id=NMdSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=8H0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6773,7766904&hl=en.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on August 17, 2017, 12:35:34 AM
Very interesting, especially that some of those cities were never signed with BLs.

Also interesting that they didn't allow business routes if the town had 4 or more interchanges. This is unlike Denver, where US 40 on Colfax Ave was (still is?) signed BL-70.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Rover_0 on August 21, 2017, 02:12:06 AM
The West Davis doesn't seem like a logical extension of UT 67 like I assumed it would.  That would leave a gap on Legacy Parkway.  Looks like there's a new number on the horizon.

Unless they put the last mile of today's UT 67 on a different number and extend 67 NW on West Davis.

It's beginning to look like that more, given that West Davis and Legacy are going to intersect. Of course, a small part of me is thinking, with the upgrading of (a lot of) Bangerter Highway to freeway standards, that at some future date US-89 gets realigned onto UT-154 (Bangerter), (I-80), (I-215), and UT-67 (Legacy) to connect to the US-89 freeway at Lagoon/Farmington to about Fruit Heights relatively seamlessly. That gets rid of the goofy short UT-71 concurrency with the Michigan Left and the Bountiful-Farmington concurrency, but also leaves a small stub of 154 north of I-80 that leads to the airport (unless they hand-wave or use it as US-89 Spur or something).

Of course, that leaves the Salt Lake County and possibly the short North Salt Lake-Bountiful alignments needing new numbers (may be as good a place as any to put an SR-1, though it doesn't quite fit the Utah number-clustering theme).
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on August 29, 2017, 09:51:02 PM
The West Davis doesn't seem like a logical extension of UT 67 like I assumed it would.  That would leave a gap on Legacy Parkway.  Looks like there's a new number on the horizon.

Unless they put the last mile of today's UT 67 on a different number and extend 67 NW on West Davis.

It's beginning to look like that more, given that West Davis and Legacy are going to intersect. Of course, a small part of me is thinking, with the upgrading of (a lot of) Bangerter Highway to freeway standards, that at some future date US-89 gets realigned onto UT-154 (Bangerter), (I-80), (I-215), and UT-67 (Legacy) to connect to the US-89 freeway at Lagoon/Farmington to about Fruit Heights relatively seamlessly. That gets rid of the goofy short UT-71 concurrency with the Michigan Left and the Bountiful-Farmington concurrency, but also leaves a small stub of 154 north of I-80 that leads to the airport (unless they hand-wave or use it as US-89 Spur or something).

Of course, that leaves the Salt Lake County and possibly the short North Salt Lake-Bountiful alignments needing new numbers (may be as good a place as any to put an SR-1, though it doesn't quite fit the Utah number-clustering theme).

That would never get approved for the same reason the UT-248 routing of US-189 proposed in 1989 got rejected: it would cause the highway to travel several miles out of direction. (Incidentally, this rejection created the 40/189 concurrency and all the signage problems associated with it, which are only starting to be fixed this summer.)
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on November 18, 2017, 07:52:49 PM
In Utah road news, the Mountain View Corridor extension from 5400 to 4100 South (https://www.udot.utah.gov/mountainview/salt-lake-county.php) as well as the new Bangerter interchange at 7000 South (http://www.udot.utah.gov/bangerter7000south/) both open today. Surprisingly, there has been no news coverage of either of these events, and I only found out about them on the UDOT website itself.

Also, I saw that there is apparently a plan to upgrade SR-73 to a freeway between Eagle Mountain and the future Mountain View Corridor (https://www.udot.utah.gov/sr73/). I was surprised to read this, as I have never heard of this plan, on this forum or elsewhere. It certainly sounds like a good idea, based on how fast that area is growing.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Desert Man on November 18, 2017, 08:30:34 PM
Knowing the Provo-Payson area due to my travels there to visit Mom's relatives, I recall a story on I-70 was supposed to end on I-15 between Spanish Fork and Springville, along US 6 (or 89) down to near Green River. It's still possible an interstate can be built, but it may be not a geologically stable area for it. Down US 6 is Thistle, a community destroyed by a landslide in 1983...the site is now a lake and US routes 6 and 89 along with a railroad were rerouted on higher elevations around the lake. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thistle,_Utah
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Rover_0 on November 18, 2017, 09:53:08 PM
In Utah road news, the Mountain View Corridor extension from 5400 to 4100 South (https://www.udot.utah.gov/mountainview/salt-lake-county.php) as well as the new Bangerter interchange at 7000 South (http://www.udot.utah.gov/bangerter7000south/) both open today. Surprisingly, there has been no news coverage of either of these events, and I only found out about them on the UDOT website itself.

Also, I saw that there is apparently a plan to upgrade SR-73 to a freeway between Eagle Mountain and the future Mountain View Corridor (https://www.udot.utah.gov/sr73/). I was surprised to read this, as I have never heard of this plan, on this forum or elsewhere. It certainly sounds like a good idea, based on how fast that area is growing.

It doesn't surprise me all too much, given that there have been plans floating around for a freeway that connected into the Mountain View Corridor to be extended to Eagle Mountain for some time, but ending the western segment of SR-73 at the same point as SR-145 suddenly makes more sense (that eastern segment needs to be renumbered, though).
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on November 18, 2017, 11:02:43 PM
It doesn't surprise me all too much, given that there have been plans floating around for a freeway that connected into the Mountain View Corridor to be extended to Eagle Mountain for some time, but ending the western segment of SR-73 at the same point as SR-145 suddenly makes more sense (that eastern segment needs to be renumbered, though).
Are they going to extend SR-73 up that stub of MVC south of 2100 North? That would certainly make sense, since it wouldn’t be able to use the SR-85 number since that seems to be for 2100 N and north of there.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: i-215 on December 13, 2017, 09:14:26 PM
It doesn't surprise me all too much, given that there have been plans floating around for a freeway that connected into the Mountain View Corridor to be extended to Eagle Mountain for some time, but ending the western segment of SR-73 at the same point as SR-145 suddenly makes more sense (that eastern segment needs to be renumbered, though).
Are they going to extend SR-73 up that stub of MVC south of 2100 North? That would certainly make sense, since it wouldn’t be able to use the SR-85 number since that seems to be for 2100 N and north of there.

I've wondered that, too.  For now, SR-85 is the signage for the entire project, and in theory, we'll have two SR-85s south of 2100 North (one on 2100 North, the other running south to SR-73).  That cannot be sustainable long term.

Making 2100 North an extension of SR-73 makes perfect sense.  85 would go North/South and 73 would go East/West.  Pioneer would keep 145.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: andy3175 on March 17, 2018, 12:19:23 AM
http://www.sunad.com/news/highway-name-might-revert/article_926d2838-1ce4-11e8-9e50-e71df196a101.html

Highway name for U.S. Highway 6 in Utah might revert to Grand Army of the Republic Highway

by Rick Sherman, Sun Advocate Reporter Mar 1, 2018

Quote
State Rep. Christine Watkins said she “adores” former State Senator Mike Dmitrich, and has regarded him as a role model for many years. But she says it was an oversight to designate a section of U.S. Highway 6 as the Mike Dmitrich Highway because the entire route was already known as the Grand Army of the Republic (GAR) Highway.

    In 1949, the interstate highway was designated the Grand Army of the Republic Highway, in honor of the Union Army of the Civil War Era. The road spans 3,200 miles across the country from Provincetown, MA on the east coast to its western terminus in Bishop, CA.

    In 2009, the Utah State Legislature renamed the section of the highway between Interstate 15 and Interstate 70 the Mike Dmitrich Highway to honor the retired Price Legislator. State Sen. David Hinkins, R-Orangeville sponsored the bill to recognize Dmitrich for his 40 years of public service to the state, and his work to improve the highway. The Legislature did not allocate any money for new signs.

    But Rep. Watkins said the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War have been working tirelessly ever since to restore the Grand Army of the Republic Highway designation. Watkins is sponsoring a bipartisan bill this session to restore the honor for the GAR, while leaving other designations in place. House Bill 396 establishes the Grand Army of the Republic Highway, composed of the existing Route 6 within the state.

According to the language in the bill, the Utah Department of Transportation shall designate the highway as the Grand Army of the Republic Highway on future state highway maps.

    Watkins said the bill allows for multiple designations for the highway, which includes a section for the Mike Dmitrich Highway, and a portion of the highway that is known as the Dinosaur Diamond Prehistoric Highway. 

    The bill has been approved by the House of Representatives, and was passed out of a Senate Committee with a favorable recommendation on Wednesday. It now goes to the full Senate for consideration.

Title: Re: Utah
Post by: andy3175 on March 17, 2018, 12:24:43 AM
Projects planned in the St. George area...

https://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2018/02/15/mgk-this-is-your-annual-snapshot-of-projects-and-plans-for-dixies-roads-and-highways/#.WqyXmlNrzic

This is your annual snapshot of projects and plans for Dixie’s roads and highways
Written by Mori Kessler
February 15, 2018

Quote
State, regional and local transportation officials came together Tuesday to share current and future projects with the public at the annual Dixie Regional Transportation Expo in St. George. ...

Road planners like going to the expo because it helps them get input from the people who use the roads and interstate, Kitchen said. It gives the planners a “broad collection” of insights that can help direct the course of the project in both small and large ways, he said.
 
A current project public input had in impact on prior to its start is the Bluff Street corridor project. Comments gathered a few years ago helped redesign an original plan for the Bluff Street-Sunset Boulevard intersection, while also making way for pedestrian and bicycle facilities where none previously existed. ...

Another project UDOT is engaged in is the reconstruction of state Route 9 through Springdale. The overall project is in its second phase and is projected to wrap up by mid-April.

Read more: Work on SR-9 through Springdale set to begin – from October 2017

A stretch of SR-9 past LaVerkin and heading toward Springdale is also the site of a future passing lane, Kitchen said.

The next segment of state Route 7, better known as the Southern Parkway, will ultimately run on the eastern side of Sand Hollow Reservoir and connect to SR-9. UDOT is re-evaluating the original environmental study of the project to make sure it is up to date so it can move forward with construction.

Road planners are also meeting with a citizens committee in Washington City about the MP 11 Project. An environmental assessment of the area between Exits 10 and 13 of Interstate 15 is taking place to determine the best possible way to help alleviate congestion at the notorious Green Springs/Exit 10 interchange. ...

Thus far planners have looked at 40-plus concepts for the area, which will likely incorporate a multifaceted solution in the end, Kitchen said.

The idea of an interchange somewhere between Exits 10 and 13 has been floated in previous years and has met with sharp opposition from residents due to its potential location in the city’s residential downtown area.

Other future UDOT projects included widening I-15 to three lanes between both miles 6-8 and 22-28.

While engaged in the Bluff Street corridor project to a degree, the city [of St. George] has been repaving Bloomington Drive for around six months now and is nearing completion. ...

River Road in the area of Riverside Drive and 1450 South is projected to be widened, with more accessibility for left turns in order to move traffic more efficiently.

The city is also partnered with UDOT and Dixie State University to build a pedestrian underpass under I-15 at 400 South. The underpass will connect 400 South’s western and eastern halves and allow for easy access to the city’s eastern side. The $2.5 million project is seen as a way to provide university student with easier access between school, home and work, as off-campus housing and employment are also had on the city’s eastern side.

Among Washington City’s forthcoming projects is connecting Washington Parkway with Green Springs Drive. The $5 million project will connect Green Springs Drive to Exit 13, and will also tie Main Street into Washington Parkway at some future date. ...

There are also plans to connect Merrill Road to Washington Fields Road.

The city is also working with Hurricane and Washington County on the proposed Purgatory Road, which would connect to Washington Dam Road-Southern Parkway interchange as one end and connect to SR-9 at the other.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: andy3175 on March 17, 2018, 12:28:28 AM
New scenic route designation along Utah 66.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2017/12/11/utah-designates-a-new-scenic-byway-move-may-drive-up-tourism-in-morgan/

Quote
The scenic route between Interstate 84 and Interstate 80 is now Utah’s 28th official scenic byway.

The Utah State Scenic Byways Committee approved the new Morgan-Parleys Scenic Byway designation Monday. It will stretch from Interstate 84 in Morgan along State Route 66 to East Canyon Reservoir, and from there along State Route 66 to Interstate 80 at Mountain Dell Reservoir.

The designation will prevent billboards and some development to protect scenic views. It also will make the route eligible for funding that could lead to some widening to better accommodate bicyclists, runners and cars that now share the rural road. ...

A list and map of all of Utah’s scenic byways is available online at travel.utah.gov.

Other byways in the state range from Zion Park Scenic Byway in the south to Logan Canyon Scenic Byway in the north, and Trail of the Ancients National Scenic Byway in the east to Cedar Breaks Scenic Byway in the west.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on March 17, 2018, 01:50:27 AM
http://www.sunad.com/news/highway-name-might-revert/article_926d2838-1ce4-11e8-9e50-e71df196a101.html

Highway name for U.S. Highway 6 in Utah might revert to Grand Army of the Republic Highway
...

Interesting. IIRC, at each state line there is actually an older blue sign which designates US 6 as the Grand Army of the Republic Highway. The eastern one is the only mention of US 6 along its I-70 concurrency in Utah, except for a small sign at the US 191 interchange.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: epzik8 on May 16, 2018, 10:16:18 AM
I'm in Utah right now and have plenty of pictures from the Salt Lake-Provo corridor. It's going to be quite a while before I can post them.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: epzik8 on May 17, 2018, 10:35:51 AM
Why are streets in the Salt Lake City area called things like 500 West?
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on May 17, 2018, 11:32:26 AM
Why are streets in the Salt Lake City area called things like 500 West?

The history: https://history.lds.org/article/museum-treasures-meridian-marker?lang=eng
An explainer: http://www.exploreutah.com/GettingAround/Navigating_Utahs_Streets.shtml

That said, in the parts of Utah where it's not flat, the grid system sometimes breaks down in those communities that use it. Outside Hurricane, for example, I recently encountered the intersection of "1500 West" and "1600 West."
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: i-215 on May 17, 2018, 05:02:43 PM
Why are streets in the Salt Lake City area called things like 500 West?

Those other articles will go into more depth.  It's basically our version of "5th Avenue" or "W 5th Street."  Instead, we use house addresses for the street numbers.  It's weird at first, but once you get used to it, it works very well.

Back before GPS, in Salt Lake County, nobody ever bought Thomas Guides.  The grid told you exactly where you needed to go.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: nexus73 on May 18, 2018, 11:11:46 AM
I liked Utah's Cartesian coordinate system.  Also take note that when going away from the 0,0 point that the even numbered addresses will be on the right hand side.

SLC was laid out as an urban farm district originally, thus the big blocks and wide streets able to handle turning a team of oxen on.  The exception is the Avenues district, which is a traditional residential neighborhood. 

Rick
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on May 18, 2018, 06:36:37 PM
The Temple streets are also common sources of confusion. Many people think South Temple should run south from the temple, when it's actually the E/W street on the south side of the temple (as well as the zero axis for N/S streets).

The coordinate system is nice, especially in Salt Lake County, where all the cities use one unified numbering system based on the Salt Lake Temple. Originally Midvale and Sandy had their own systems, but they have since joined the Salt Lake City system. However, outside of Salt Lake County, many cities that have grown into each other still use their own grid origin. In Davis County, some smaller cities will share a grid with a larger city (for example, Clearfield's grid origin is also used by Syracuse, Clinton, Sunset, and West Point). But this doesn't happen in Utah County, where there are almost 20 separate grids in use despite the different cities growing together into one suburbia.

Most cities with a grid system have a Main Street and a Center Street that serve as the grid axes, but Main Street can be either the N/S axis or the E/W axis depending on the city. In most cities along the Wasatch Front, the Main Street is a N/S road, but the Main Streets in Lehi and American Fork run E/W.

Another thing to beware of is that blocks are different sizes in different cities. In downtown Salt Lake City, anywhere east of the Jordan River and north of 45th South, a mile is 6 2/3 blocks, so 20 blocks = 3 miles. But in Orem, for example, 8 blocks is a mile.

Also take note that when going away from the 0,0 point that the even numbered addresses will be on the right hand side.

That's true for most grids, but not all of them. IIRC, in Logan when going away from 0,0 even numbers are on the left the even addresses are always on the south or east side of the street.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: nexus73 on May 18, 2018, 07:52:48 PM
The Temple streets are also common sources of confusion. Many people think South Temple should run south from the temple, when it's actually the E/W street on the south side of the temple (as well as the zero axis for N/S streets).

The coordinate system is nice, especially in Salt Lake County, where all the cities use one unified numbering system based on the Salt Lake Temple. Originally Midvale and Sandy had their own systems, but they have since joined the Salt Lake City system. However, outside of Salt Lake County, many cities that have grown into each other still use their own grid origin. In Davis County, some smaller cities will share a grid with a larger city (for example, Clearfield's grid origin is also used by Syracuse, Clinton, Sunset, and West Point). But this doesn't happen in Utah County, where there are almost 20 separate grids in use despite the different cities growing together into one suburbia.

Most cities with a grid system have a Main Street and a Center Street that serve as the grid axes, but Main Street can be either the N/S axis or the E/W axis depending on the city. In most cities along the Wasatch Front, the Main Street is a N/S road, but the Main Streets in Lehi and American Fork run E/W.

Another thing to beware of is that blocks are different sizes in different cities. In downtown Salt Lake City, anywhere east of the Jordan River and north of 45th South, a mile is 6 2/3 blocks, so 20 blocks = 3 miles. But in Orem, for example, 8 blocks is a mile.

Also take note that when going away from the 0,0 point that the even numbered addresses will be on the right hand side.

That's true for most grids, but not all of them. IIRC, in Logan when going away from 0,0 even numbers are on the left.


Never did make it to Logan.  I wonder why they are different?  Maybe being north of SLC is the reason.

In Provo, 0,0 is where Center (E/W) meets University Avenue (N/S).  Orem has the usual Center/Main combination.

Rick

Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on May 19, 2018, 01:05:48 AM
Also take note that when going away from the 0,0 point that the even numbered addresses will be on the right hand side.
That's true for most grids, but not all of them. IIRC, in Logan when going away from 0,0 even numbers are on the left.
Never did make it to Logan.  I wonder why they are different?  Maybe being north of SLC is the reason.

Based on this full listing of all address grids in Utah, (https://gis.utah.gov/data/address/address-grids/) it appears to be strictly a Cache County thing. In Cache County, even addresses are always on the south and east sides, and odd addresses on the north and west sides. So if you’re going east or north, the numbering does follow the pattern in the rest of the state, but going south or west breaks the pattern.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Rover_0 on May 27, 2018, 01:08:28 AM
Also take note that when going away from the 0,0 point that the even numbered addresses will be on the right hand side.
That's true for most grids, but not all of them. IIRC, in Logan when going away from 0,0 even numbers are on the left.
Never did make it to Logan.  I wonder why they are different?  Maybe being north of SLC is the reason.

Based on this full listing of all address grids in Utah, (https://gis.utah.gov/data/address/address-grids/) it appears to be strictly a Cache County thing. In Cache County, even addresses are always on the south and east sides, and odd addresses on the north and west sides. So if you’re going east or north, the numbering does follow the pattern in the rest of the state, but going south or west breaks the pattern.
After having spent enough time in Downtown Salt Lake City, I've noticed that Main St is the 0 E/W line, but in the southern half of the valley, State St (which US-89 follows south of 400 S) is the 0 E/W line. At what point does the 0 E/W line switch from Main St to State St?

XT1710-02

Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on May 27, 2018, 01:41:02 AM
Also take note that when going away from the 0,0 point that the even numbered addresses will be on the right hand side.
That's true for most grids, but not all of them. IIRC, in Logan when going away from 0,0 even numbers are on the left.
Never did make it to Logan.  I wonder why they are different?  Maybe being north of SLC is the reason.

Based on this full listing of all address grids in Utah, (https://gis.utah.gov/data/address/address-grids/) it appears to be strictly a Cache County thing. In Cache County, even addresses are always on the south and east sides, and odd addresses on the north and west sides. So if you’re going east or north, the numbering does follow the pattern in the rest of the state, but going south or west breaks the pattern.
After having spent enough time in Downtown Salt Lake City, I've noticed that Main St is the 0 E/W line, but in the southern half of the valley, State St (which US-89 follows south of 400 S) is the 0 E/W line. At what point does the 0 E/W line switch from Main St to State St?
XT1710-02

It’s a gradual shift that happens between Murray (5300 S) and Midvale (7200 S). As you head south from downtown, Main is 0 E/W and State is 100 E. Main St ends just past 45th South. At 53rd, State begins to veer slightly west of south. By the time you get to 72nd it straightens out again and follows the 0 E/W line.

My guess for why that happens is because the northeast quarter of the valley (north of 48th South, east of the Jordan River) is laid out based on the downtown SLC grid, but most arterials in the rest of the valley are placed on PLSS section lines. The section-line road that ran along the 0 E/W line in the south valley probably was built separately from State Street in the north valley, which was the major road heading south from downtown. Early planners probably figured it best to connect those two roads into one major road, which became US 91 (now US 89).

It’s similar to how 3300 South, a street based on the downtown grid, bends to the south to line up with the section-line road 3500 South. The same happens with 39th/41st and 45th/47th South as well.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: i-215 on June 06, 2018, 04:50:19 PM
Quote
It’s a gradual shift that happens between Murray (5300 S) and Midvale (7200 S). As you head south from downtown, Main is 0 E/W and State is 100 E. Main St ends just past 45th South. At 53rd, State begins to veer slightly west of south. By the time you get to 72nd it straightens out again and follows the 0 E/W line.

Aha!  I knew State Street was ZERO.

So I grew up traveling around the suburbs and always treated State as the east-west centerline.  But as I've talked with young urbanites, they condescendingly roll their eyes to remind me that State is "actually 100 East."  lol

Turns out we were both right!
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on June 06, 2018, 07:26:26 PM
I love that Utah is into building more freeways, but what I don't like is when they keep at-grade intersections where they intersect other freeways, or don't plan for future interchanges like this. For example:

I-15/SR-7: when the Southern Parkway was built, UDOT could have done whatever the hell they wanted to connect it with I-15, since there was absolutely nothing down there. They could have even done a cloverleaf. But they built a SPUI. And if they wait long enough, there's going to be too much development close to the interchange to do anything. If nothing else, they need to build a direct ramp from southbound I-15 to SR-7 east, and vice versa.

I-15/SR-154: There was plenty of room to do something good with this back when it was first built. But instead they built a SPUI, and now there's been so much development close to the interchange that I don't see much room for improvement.

SR-201/SR-154: UDOT definitely didn't plan for this one. This DDI is congested every single time I drive through it. Supposedly an interchange upgrade is coming in the 2025-2034 time period, but I don't see how they can do a full system interchange without taking out a lot of industrial developments.

I-84/US-89: To be fair, this partial cloverleaf (not sure what exactly to call it) dates back to when I-84 was first constructed. But now that 89 is a freeway from 84 south through SR-193, this really should be upgraded. Upgrading it to a full cloverleaf looks unlikely, but maybe they can work a flyover ramp or something in there.

US-40/I-80: I'm glad they have direct ramps for the highest-traffic movements, but why the rest of it was converted to a SPUI is beyond me. There's plenty of room to add cloverleaf ramps for the remaining movements.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: i-215 on June 07, 2018, 02:46:28 PM
I really think it is (was) just a cost savings thing.

These regular interchanges "get the job done" and are just starting to fail under rush hour conditions.  If the state had built the full system interchange 20 years ago, it would be 1/2-to-3/4 through its usable life and time for replacement soon.  The cost would have been more than just paying to build it later when we'll need it.

That said, UDOT made a big mistake not purchasing ROW for full system interchanges when they had the chance.  Sure, SR-201 at Bangerter probably has enough room.  US-40 at I-80 is good.  But Bangerter and I-15?  Eeeks!  When it comes time to put in that EB to NB flyover, that'll be a very expensive buyout to acquire the land.

I'm pleased to see that MVC has all the system interchanges planned and the land acquired from day one.  The initial interchanges won't have all the flyovers, but it'll be easy to add in later because they are already designed and even partially graded for them.  The only major oversight on MVC was not planning a direct connection to the east-west Bangerter Hwy section.  It may be too late now, with all the homes going in between the two facilities.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on June 07, 2018, 03:08:50 PM
Sure, SR-201 at Bangerter probably has enough room.

Really? The south side looks OK (mostly because of that frontage road) but I don’t see how you could upgrade the interchange without taking out at least some of the industrial development to the north.

The only major oversight on MVC was not planning a direct connection to the east-west Bangerter Hwy section.  It may be too late now, with all the homes going in between the two facilities.

I don’t know how official this is, but KSL ran an article (https://www.ksl.com/?nid=968&sid=46244154) a few months ago describing the Point of the Mountain Commission’s plan for the area. Their map showed the Bangerter-MVC connector you mention, as well as a freeway connector between I-15 and MVC north of Thanksgiving Point (in addition to 2100 North):

(https://img.ksl.com/slc/2652/265252/26525255.jpg)
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: i-215 on June 07, 2018, 09:21:43 PM
Okay, so I used mapfrappe to compare a California stack interchange (at scale) with SR201/Bangerter and I-15/Bangerter:

(https://i.imgur.com/HnovD1o.jpg?1)
(https://i.imgur.com/IE3LncT.jpg?1)

I certainly see your point.

Quote
Their map showed the Bangerter-MVC connector you mention

I pray that could be the case.  But I just don't see it showing up on WFRC's regional transportation plan.  I think it did once about 10 years ago but then was deleted.  It's a shame because all the possible routes, including double-tracking 13400 South, are quickly becoming developed and landlocked.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on June 28, 2018, 10:45:32 AM
On a recent trip to southern Utah, I noticed the US 89/UT 12 intersection has had some serious safety upgrades since I was there last. First of all, when GSV went through in 2014, it was essentially an unsignalized seagull intersection (https://goo.gl/maps/9owoV6sBATx). But since then, they have added sensors that detect when vehicles are approaching the intersection. On US 89, there are "watch for entering traffic when flashing" signs, and there are "oncoming traffic when flashing" type signs on UT 12.

I've never seen anything like this done in Utah before. Makes me wonder why UDOT didn't just build an interchange, if it really needed that much safety improvement.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: i-215 on June 30, 2018, 01:29:44 AM
If it doesn't yet warrant signalization, I can't see UDOT paying money to grade separate it (as much as I would approve grade separation, personally).
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: epzik8 on July 14, 2018, 11:16:30 PM
Today I went from Provo to Big Cottonwood and back, and got some more of I-215, and part of UT-190.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on July 19, 2018, 01:03:45 PM
If UDOT keeps this up, I may have to change my personal text.

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/934/43510530721_7b7e10ceff_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/29hSQUa)
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Rover_0 on July 19, 2018, 01:04:02 PM
I don't think this needs any description:

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/934/43510530721_7b7e10ceff_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/29hSQUa)
It's good to see US-189 signed along US-40, but this and the EB 40/SB 189 signage at SR-32 could afford to be cleaned up a tad.

XT1710-02

Title: Re: Utah
Post by: andy3175 on July 23, 2018, 11:52:12 PM
If UDOT keeps this up, I may have to change my personal text.

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/934/43510530721_7b7e10ceff_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/29hSQUa)

When passing through there earlier this month, I did not see any US 189 signs from I-80 westbound. I was hoping there would be at least a US 189 trailblazer pointing from I-80 west to US 40-189 southeast.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Rover_0 on July 28, 2018, 02:08:39 PM
I don't think this needs any description:

(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/934/43510530721_7b7e10ceff_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/29hSQUa)
It's good to see US-189 signed along US-40, but this and the EB 40/SB 189 signage at SR-32 could afford to be cleaned up a tad.

XT1710-02
Of course, an "East I-80" shield and a new assembly for US-40 and WB I-80 would make this assembly look a lot cleaner.

XT1710-02

Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on July 30, 2018, 04:42:36 PM
I-80 in Parleys Canyon to close two nights this week — to build Utah’s first-ever bridge just for wildlife

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2018/07/30/i-parleys-canyon-close/

Quote
The closures could add 90 minutes for drivers between Salt Lake City and Park City — who would need to detour to Interstate 84 through Morgan Canyon, or U.S. 189 through Provo Canyon and then U.S. 40 back to Park City.

But wildlife may appreciate the sacrifice. “After all, we are in the animal’s habitat up here,” said UDOT spokesman John Gleason.

How does UDOT know that wildlife will use the bridge at the top of 7,028-foot Parleys Summit?

“They won’t have much choice,” Gleason said. He explains that 8-foot-tall wildlife fences have been placed on both sides of the bridge for 3.5 miles, on both sides of the freeway.

(https://i.imgur.com/QX3q1gl.png)
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on August 09, 2018, 05:21:59 PM
UDOT unveiled six possible alternatives for improving I-15 (and surrounding streets) between Exits 10 and 13 in Washington City, near St. George.
http://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2018/08/09/mgk-city-council-gets-preview-of-options-for-i-15-milepost-11-interchange-project/

(http://www.stgeorgenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/mgk-mp-11-study-proposals-preview-stgnews-1a.jpg)
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on August 11, 2018, 09:38:22 PM
Apropos of nothing, we're currently having quite a storm here in southern Utah -- and the mapping software at KUTV has somehow decided to show ghost route UT 300 (the Snow Canyon scenic drive), even though it's not posted as such anywhere at all.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DkXL4p4UcAEFTrd.jpg)
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on August 12, 2018, 12:58:34 AM
Apropos of nothing, we're currently having quite a storm here in southern Utah -- and the mapping software at KUTV has somehow decided to show ghost route UT 300 (the Snow Canyon scenic drive), even though it's not posted as such anywhere at all.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DkXL4p4UcAEFTrd.jpg)

As it turns out, SR 300 hasn’t existed since 1996, when it became a separate segment of SR 8 (which interestingly appears to be the only state route not shown). Plus, the Snow Canyon road was completely removed from the state system in 1999.

Also, there’s no such thing as a “Flash Flood Advisory”. It’s an “urban and small stream flood advisory” or if that’s too long, “areal flood advisory” or “flood advisory” work too.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: johndoe on September 03, 2018, 10:00:55 AM
Kniwt, your link led to this very nice website showing the alternatives at MP 11:
https://www.mp11.org/public-input-1
Check out how detailed all the alternatives are and how they allow public comment, cool!
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: epzik8 on September 30, 2018, 06:23:19 PM
The UTA/UVX construction in Provo and Orem sucks! I'm been stuck in traffic from it on University Avenue (U.S. 189) in both directions in downtown Provo and eastbound on University Parkway (UT-265) from I-15 to State Street (U.S. 89).
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: nexus73 on September 30, 2018, 08:10:59 PM
The UTA/UVX construction in Provo and Orem sucks! I'm been stuck in traffic from it on University Avenue (U.S. 189) in both directions in downtown Provo and eastbound on University Parkway (UT-265) from I-15 to State Street (U.S. 89).

Is this the light rail project?

Rick
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on September 30, 2018, 08:50:13 PM
The UTA/UVX construction in Provo and Orem sucks! I'm been stuck in traffic from it on University Avenue (U.S. 189) in both directions in downtown Provo and eastbound on University Parkway (UT-265) from I-15 to State Street (U.S. 89).

Is this the light rail project?

Rick

This is a bus rapid transit (BRT) project. Basically a lamer, cheaper alternative to light rail. I'm shocked this is still going on -- I swear construction for this started two years ago.

Here's the project website (https://www.rideuta.com/Services/Bus-Rapid-Transit/Utah-Valley-Express) on the UTA website. I suppose I'm just spoiled by the information level that the UDOT website has, but there is very little to be found on this project. I guess that's UTA for you...
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: nexus73 on October 01, 2018, 09:58:56 AM
The UTA/UVX construction in Provo and Orem sucks! I'm been stuck in traffic from it on University Avenue (U.S. 189) in both directions in downtown Provo and eastbound on University Parkway (UT-265) from I-15 to State Street (U.S. 89).

Is this the light rail project?

Rick

This is a bus rapid transit (BRT) project. Basically a lamer, cheaper alternative to light rail. I'm shocked this is still going on -- I swear construction for this started two years ago.

Here's the project website (https://www.rideuta.com/Services/Bus-Rapid-Transit/Utah-Valley-Express) on the UTA website. I suppose I'm just spoiled by the information level that the UDOT website has, but there is very little to be found on this project. I guess that's UTA for you...

Eugene/Springfield got this kind of setup too.  It sure took a long time to build!  How much of University Parkway was used?  Is it still a 4-lane facility? 

Rick
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on October 01, 2018, 01:54:45 PM
The UTA/UVX construction in Provo and Orem sucks! I'm been stuck in traffic from it on University Avenue (U.S. 189) in both directions in downtown Provo and eastbound on University Parkway (UT-265) from I-15 to State Street (U.S. 89).

Is this the light rail project?

Rick

This is a bus rapid transit (BRT) project. Basically a lamer, cheaper alternative to light rail. I'm shocked this is still going on -- I swear construction for this started two years ago.

Here's the project website (https://www.rideuta.com/Services/Bus-Rapid-Transit/Utah-Valley-Express) on the UTA website. I suppose I'm just spoiled by the information level that the UDOT website has, but there is very little to be found on this project. I guess that's UTA for you...

Eugene/Springfield got this kind of setup too.  It sure took a long time to build!  How much of University Parkway was used?  Is it still a 4-lane facility? 

Rick

Epzik8 could tell you better, but it looks like it’s even a 6-lane facility now, if the picture on this Herald Extra article (https://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/central/orem/final-university-parkway-paving-for-utah-valley-express-this-week/article_be87f5b0-9d3c-595d-bb1d-b48063029508.html) is any indication. As for the routing, it has exclusive lanes in the middle of University Parkway from 400 West in Orem (by Utah Valley University) all the way to University Ave in Provo (US 189).

Here’s a map of the routing from Wikipedia:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/ProvoOremBrt_Concept2.svg)

Depending on weather and other factors, I may be down in that area this weekend; if that happens I might have to check this out in person.



Unrelated: the agenda for the October Utah Transportation Commission meeting includes the addition of a new SR-231 to the state highway system. Stay tuned...
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on October 01, 2018, 02:22:17 PM
When I-15 was widened between Exit 4 and Exit 5, some of the signage was replaced. And one of the new signs incorrectly labels Bluff Street as SR 8 instead of SR 18. I'm surprised I didn't notice this until now!

(https://i.imgur.com/yDehOQe.jpg)

Reported to UDOT; we'll see whether they do anything about it. (I could imagine them rationalizing that it's really "TO" SR 8, but that would be a big stretch.)
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: roadfro on October 01, 2018, 04:35:04 PM
When I-15 was widened between Exit 4 and Exit 5, some of the signage was replaced. And one of the new signs incorrectly labels Bluff Street as SR 8 instead of SR 18. I'm surprised I didn't notice this until now!

(https://i.imgur.com/yDehOQe.jpg)

Reported to UDOT; we'll see whether they do anything about it. (I could imagine them rationalizing that it's really "TO" SR 8, but that would be a big stretch.)
SR error and APL error... It always amazes me that a simple APL layout can get messed up like this.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: nexus73 on October 01, 2018, 06:51:29 PM
The UTA/UVX construction in Provo and Orem sucks! I'm been stuck in traffic from it on University Avenue (U.S. 189) in both directions in downtown Provo and eastbound on University Parkway (UT-265) from I-15 to State Street (U.S. 89).

Is this the light rail project?

Rick

This is a bus rapid transit (BRT) project. Basically a lamer, cheaper alternative to light rail. I'm shocked this is still going on -- I swear construction for this started two years ago.

Here's the project website (https://www.rideuta.com/Services/Bus-Rapid-Transit/Utah-Valley-Express) on the UTA website. I suppose I'm just spoiled by the information level that the UDOT website has, but there is very little to be found on this project. I guess that's UTA for you...

Eugene/Springfield got this kind of setup too.  It sure took a long time to build!  How much of University Parkway was used?  Is it still a 4-lane facility? 

Rick

Epzik8 could tell you better, but it looks like it’s even a 6-lane facility now, if the picture on this Herald Extra article (https://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/central/orem/final-university-parkway-paving-for-utah-valley-express-this-week/article_be87f5b0-9d3c-595d-bb1d-b48063029508.html) is any indication. As for the routing, it has exclusive lanes in the middle of University Parkway from 400 West in Orem (by Utah Valley University) all the way to University Ave in Provo (US 189).

Here’s a map of the routing from Wikipedia:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/ProvoOremBrt_Concept2.svg)

Depending on weather and other factors, I may be down in that area this weekend; if that happens I might have to check this out in person.



Unrelated: the agenda for the October Utah Transportation Commission meeting includes the addition of a new SR-231 to the state highway system. Stay tuned...

Thanks for the info!  University Parkway has been upgraded significantly since I lived there over 20 years ago.  Seeing the photo you linked to was a real "wow" moment!

Rick
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: epzik8 on October 02, 2018, 08:48:00 PM
My favorite odd route in Utah is UT-319, a stub connecting U.S. 40/189 to Jordanelle State Park in between Heber City and Park City.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Rover_0 on October 05, 2018, 01:53:20 AM
When I-15 was widened between Exit 4 and Exit 5, some of the signage was replaced. And one of the new signs incorrectly labels Bluff Street as SR 8 instead of SR 18. I'm surprised I didn't notice this until now!

(https://i.imgur.com/yDehOQe.jpg)

Reported to UDOT; we'll see whether they do anything about it. (I could imagine them rationalizing that it's really "TO" SR 8, but that would be a big stretch.)

Of course, it's funny to think of some routes  that come about from sign errors. Extending SR-8 south along Sunset Blve down Bluff St to I-15 wouldn't be a terrible idea, though I don't think that it would be as good an idea to route it down St. George Blvd and replace SR-34 (with the overlay on SR-18 between Sunset and St. George Blvds.)
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on October 05, 2018, 09:25:20 AM
When I-15 was widened between Exit 4 and Exit 5, some of the signage was replaced. And one of the new signs incorrectly labels Bluff Street as SR 8 instead of SR 18. I'm surprised I didn't notice this until now!

(https://i.imgur.com/yDehOQe.jpg)

Reported to UDOT; we'll see whether they do anything about it. (I could imagine them rationalizing that it's really "TO" SR 8, but that would be a big stretch.)

Of course, it's funny to think of some routes  that come about from sign errors. Extending SR-8 south along Sunset Blve down Bluff St to I-15 wouldn't be a terrible idea, though I don't think that it would be as good an idea to route it down St. George Blvd and replace SR-34 (with the overlay on SR-18 between Sunset and St. George Blvds.)

I almost wonder if there's something behind this error, because the current SR-8/18 intersection is getting realigned to make Sunset and Bluff southbound the through road (in other words, continuing south through the intersection on Bluff will now require a left turn).  Maybe UDOT is considering truncating 18 to that intersection and extending 8 south along Bluff to I-15. Not that I'd support that, but it's a possibility.

Combining 8 and 34 with an overlap on 18 also has the added benefit of giving a single number to the state-maintained parts of old US 91 in that area. Unfortunately, given UDOT's treatment of existing state route concurrencies, I don't see it happening.

As for the APL, I'm not sure there's a better solution than what UDOT did here. If you put a curved arrow on the far right of the Exit 6 APL, you run into the potential for confusion with Exit 5, which is immediately before Exit 6.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on October 06, 2018, 02:41:00 AM
Also, update regarding the proposed SR-231:

It’s actually a pretty lame route, but I agree that it needs to be state maintained. It’s going to be in Fairview, on the one block of Main Street between 300 and 400 North, serving as a connector between US-89 and SR-31. Here’s the resolution with a map (http://utahdot.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&event_id=172&meta_id=25030). If this passes the commission as proposed (which is likely), SR-231 is going to be 455 feet long, which would tie the unsigned SR-304 for the shortest state route in Utah.

I wonder why UDOT couldn’t just designate this block as a short additional stub of 31. I don’t think any examples of such exist today, but there is precedent for that. And in addition, I wonder if UDOT will just sign 231 as “TO East 31” or “TO South 89” depending on direction.

Also, the number choice here is quite interesting. “231” is obviously based on 31, which is very unusual for Utah.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: roadfro on October 06, 2018, 11:35:14 AM
When I-15 was widened between Exit 4 and Exit 5, some of the signage was replaced. And one of the new signs incorrectly labels Bluff Street as SR 8 instead of SR 18. I'm surprised I didn't notice this until now!

(https://i.imgur.com/yDehOQe.jpg)

Reported to UDOT; we'll see whether they do anything about it. (I could imagine them rationalizing that it's really "TO" SR 8, but that would be a big stretch.)

As for the APL, I'm not sure there's a better solution than what UDOT did here. If you put a curved arrow on the far right of the Exit 6 APL, you run into the potential for confusion with Exit 5, which is immediately before Exit 6.

You cannot have a straight arrow to the right of a curved arrow, as that's a serious error that could lead to something more serious than confusion. In this case, both signs include distances to the respective exits, which should remove any potential confusion between the interchanges.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: andy3175 on October 10, 2018, 11:56:46 PM
When I-15 was widened between Exit 4 and Exit 5, some of the signage was replaced. And one of the new signs incorrectly labels Bluff Street as SR 8 instead of SR 18. I'm surprised I didn't notice this until now!

(https://i.imgur.com/yDehOQe.jpg)

Reported to UDOT; we'll see whether they do anything about it. (I could imagine them rationalizing that it's really "TO" SR 8, but that would be a big stretch.)

Of course, it's funny to think of some routes  that come about from sign errors. Extending SR-8 south along Sunset Blve down Bluff St to I-15 wouldn't be a terrible idea, though I don't think that it would be as good an idea to route it down St. George Blvd and replace SR-34 (with the overlay on SR-18 between Sunset and St. George Blvds.)

Both this sign and its predecessor fail to mention Business Loop 15, which follows SR 18 north along Bluff Street. Hopefully that can be reinstated as well, since the business route is still signed in St. George.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on October 12, 2018, 01:22:25 PM
Also, update regarding the proposed SR-231:

It’s actually a pretty lame route, but I agree that it needs to be state maintained. It’s going to be in Fairview, on the one block of Main Street between 300 and 400 North, serving as a connector between US-89 and SR-31. Here’s the resolution with a map (http://utahdot.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&event_id=172&meta_id=25030). If this passes the commission as proposed (which is likely), SR-231 is going to be 455 feet long, which would tie the unsigned SR-304 for the shortest state route in Utah.

I wonder why UDOT couldn’t just designate this block as a short additional stub of 31. I don’t think any examples of such exist today, but there is precedent for that. And in addition, I wonder if UDOT will just sign 231 as “TO East 31” or “TO South 89” depending on direction.

Also, the number choice here is quite interesting. “231” is obviously based on 31, which is very unusual for Utah.

The transportation commission approved this just this morning. Depending on exactly how this thing is referenced, we probably have a new winner for the shortest state highway in Utah. It remains to be seen whether this will actually be fully signed.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on October 12, 2018, 09:23:29 PM
When I-15 was widened between Exit 4 and Exit 5, some of the signage was replaced. And one of the new signs incorrectly labels Bluff Street as SR 8 instead of SR 18. I'm surprised I didn't notice this until now!

UDOT replies:
"The replacement route decal has been ordered, and will be installed on the existing sign shortly after receipt. The route will be identified correctly as 18. Thank you for bringing this to our attention."
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: JKRhodes on October 14, 2018, 11:15:23 AM
When I-15 was widened between Exit 4 and Exit 5, some of the signage was replaced. And one of the new signs incorrectly labels Bluff Street as SR 8 instead of SR 18. I'm surprised I didn't notice this until now!

(https://i.imgur.com/yDehOQe.jpg)

Reported to UDOT; we'll see whether they do anything about it. (I could imagine them rationalizing that it's really "TO" SR 8, but that would be a big stretch.)

I saw this about a month ago while I was driving through the area. Aside from the route number issue which has been discussed, I'm not a fan of the "exit only" lane being marked with a straight arrow, especially with the way the arrows over the adjacent lane are displayed.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: epzik8 on October 31, 2018, 11:40:21 AM
I’ve got some photos from the Wasatch Front coming really soon.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on November 06, 2018, 11:48:32 PM
When I-15 was widened between Exit 4 and Exit 5, some of the signage was replaced. And one of the new signs incorrectly labels Bluff Street as SR 8 instead of SR 18. I'm surprised I didn't notice this until now!

Fixed with a sticker:
(https://i.imgur.com/1M8k8mJ.jpg)
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: roadfro on November 07, 2018, 10:22:14 AM
When I-15 was widened between Exit 4 and Exit 5, some of the signage was replaced. And one of the new signs incorrectly labels Bluff Street as SR 8 instead of SR 18. I'm surprised I didn't notice this until now!

Fixed with a sticker:
(https://i.imgur.com/1M8k8mJ.jpg)

Now they need a big sticker for the incorrect arrow  :pan:
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on November 18, 2018, 06:22:11 PM
In St. George, the UT 18 Bluff Street project is nearing completion, and a "Utah classic" BGS has been replaced. The specs on that "WEST" just aren't right. Also, the sign now gives less information than its predecessor.

The new sign:
(https://i.imgur.com/3FVZCG7.jpg)

The old sign (from the AARoads gallery):
(https://www.aaroads.com/west/ut-000/ut-018-n-at-ut-008-4.jpg)
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on November 19, 2018, 10:16:07 AM
^^Classic example of UDOT "progress". I wouldn't have objected to keeping Santa Clara as a control city for SR-8, but I guess just Sunset Blvd is fine. I'll miss that "3-left turn lanes" sign though; I don't think there are any others like it.



Unrelated: the new SR-231 is now officially referenced, and it is the new shortest state highway in Utah -- by 0.001 miles. The previous winner was SR-304 in Hyrum State Park at 0.086 miles; SR-231 is 0.085 miles.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: i-215 on January 11, 2019, 12:18:15 AM
^^I'll miss that "3-left turn lanes" sign though; I don't think there are any others like it.

Grammatically, shouldn't it be "3 left-turn lanes"?

Not that it matters now.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: MNHighwayMan on January 11, 2019, 02:31:39 AM
Grammatically, shouldn't it be "3 left-turn lanes"?

Yes, that is correct.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on January 16, 2019, 11:06:08 PM
The ban on trucks along Legacy Parkway (UT 67) is due to expire January 1 of next year, as is the ban on expanding the freeway beyond four lanes. Those prospects have upset a lot of area residents (although the agreement -- and its expiration date -- are well documented), and The Salt Lake Tribune reports on a meeting attended by about 250 people.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2019/01/17/standing-room-only-crowd/

Quote
... Controversy over Legacy threatens to end a 15-year truce among many adversaries. Its special rules were implemented as a limited-time compromise to allow building the freeway after lawsuits by environmental groups had halted it by arguing early plans did not adequately protect Great Salt Lake wetlands and wildlife.

Many residents now especially worry that the new inland port being planned west of Salt Lake City International Airport could turn Legacy into a busy freeway full of big rigs at all hours, increasing noise and air pollution in their neighborhoods.

... Sen. Todd Weiler, R-Woods Cross, said he plans to introduce legislation to extend the truck ban for 2.5 years. He doubts he can pass a permanent ban because of the need to handle extra traffic from the inland port. Even with just pushing a temporary ban, “I can’t tell you with a lot of certainty that I can get it done.”

Title: Re: Utah
Post by: triplemultiplex on January 17, 2019, 02:47:22 PM
Inland Port?  The hell is that?
Do they mean like a distribution warehouse?
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on January 17, 2019, 02:56:59 PM
Oh, it's been a major issue in Salt Lake City politics in the past year.

Their website: https://utahinlandport.org/

And here are some more links which state a little bit of the controversy surrounding it:

https://www.ksl.com/article/46280718
https://fox13now.com/2018/07/16/deal-struck-over-inland-port-the-largest-economic-development-project-in-state-history/
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: triplemultiplex on January 17, 2019, 03:23:49 PM
Okay, so it's a bunch of distribution facilities.
They should really take another whack at the name, though.  When I hear "inland port", it sounds like an oxymoron.  Or worse, it sounds like they expect ships to be driving around on Great Salt Lake.  Because when I hear "port" I think "boats".  I doubt I'm alone.

I would think our Great Lakes ports would better fit the phrase "inland port".  Or any navigable river.  It should at least involve water.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on January 29, 2019, 01:19:50 PM
As the 2019 legislative session gets under way, the annual changes to the state highway system have been proposed in HB 0157 (https://le.utah.gov/~2019/bills/static/HB0157.html) as follows:

Quote
SR-85. From Route 15 westerly on 2100 North in Lehi to Route 68; then beginning again at Route 68 westerly on Porter Rockwell Boulevard; then northerly on Mountain View Corridor Highway to Route 173 4100 South in West Valley City.

Quote
SR-103. From Route 126 in Clearfield easterly on 650 North Street in Clearfield to Hill Air Force Base main gate the on and off access ramps on the east side of Route 15.

Quote
SR-193. From Route 108 in Clearfield east through 3000 West easterly through Syracuse, Clearfield, and Layton, past the south entrance to Hill Air Force Base to Route 89.

Quote
SR-194. From Route 15 westerly on 2100 North Street in Lehi to Route 68.

Quote
SR-231. From Route 89 in Fairview northerly via Main Street to Route 31.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Rover_0 on January 29, 2019, 04:09:09 PM
So SR-85 will go south and end at SR-73 in Saratoga Springs, with 2100 North becoming something new altogether (SR-194). I’m still not sure what, if anything, UDOT has planned for SR-73, it’s not going to follow the 2100 North route, because there’s no way such a major route be split up the way SR-73 has been.

Also, I’m not sure why we have SR-231, which is literally a block long (the planned legislative description for it might be longer than the actual route lol), and SR-137 which has a 0.5-mile sure that also carries the 137 number. Be more consistent, UDOT!
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on February 05, 2019, 09:13:18 PM
Work is scheduled to begin February 11 on I-15 between Exit 13 (Washington Parkway) and Exit 16 (UT 9), and on the short segment of UT 9 before Exit 1:
https://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2019/02/05/mgk-udot-set-to-add-lanes-expand-bridges-at-exit-16-interchange-on-i-15/

Quote
- Addition of a second lane to the I-15 northbound exit ramp to eastbound SR-9.
- Addition of a second lane to the SR-9 westbound entrance ramp to southbound I-15.
- Addition of another lane on westbound SR-9 between Coral Canyon interchange and I-15 entrance ramp.
- Addition of a third southbound lane on I-15 between SR-9 and Exit 13.
- Improvement of curves and speeds on all ramps.
- Reconstruction to widen and lengthen bridges on I-15 over SR-9.
- Extension of northbound I-15 truck lane through the interchange.

UDOT project page: https://www.udot.utah.gov/projectpages/f?p=250:2007:0::NO::P2007_EPM_PROJ_XREF_NO,P2007_PROJECT_TYPE_IND_FLAG:9192,A
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on February 26, 2019, 04:21:04 AM
The ban on trucks along Legacy Parkway (UT 67) is due to expire January 1 of next year, as is the ban on expanding the freeway beyond four lanes. Those prospects have upset a lot of area residents (although the agreement -- and its expiration date -- are well documented), and The Salt Lake Tribune reports on a meeting attended by about 250 people.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2019/01/17/standing-room-only-crowd/

Quote
... Controversy over Legacy threatens to end a 15-year truce among many adversaries. Its special rules were implemented as a limited-time compromise to allow building the freeway after lawsuits by environmental groups had halted it by arguing early plans did not adequately protect Great Salt Lake wetlands and wildlife.

Many residents now especially worry that the new inland port being planned west of Salt Lake City International Airport could turn Legacy into a busy freeway full of big rigs at all hours, increasing noise and air pollution in their neighborhoods.

... Sen. Todd Weiler, R-Woods Cross, said he plans to introduce legislation to extend the truck ban for 2.5 years. He doubts he can pass a permanent ban because of the need to handle extra traffic from the inland port. Even with just pushing a temporary ban, “I can’t tell you with a lot of certainty that I can get it done.”

It's not going to happen for now... push it down for another five years...

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2019/02/26/committee-kills-second/
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: sparker on February 28, 2019, 05:28:32 AM
Okay, so it's a bunch of distribution facilities.
They should really take another whack at the name, though.  When I hear "inland port", it sounds like an oxymoron.  Or worse, it sounds like they expect ships to be driving around on Great Salt Lake.  Because when I hear "port" I think "boats".  I doubt I'm alone.

I would think our Great Lakes ports would better fit the phrase "inland port".  Or any navigable river.  It should at least involve water.

If it's in the Wasatch Valley -- and it's a major project proposal -- you can bet your bottom dollar that UP, the sole major RR serving the state, is lobbying hard for this to happen, if only to relieve pressure on their major west-to-east artery via Tucson and El Paso; the collection point for that company's "trident" to the ports of Los Angeles, Oakland, and Portland/Tacoma/Seattle is the Valley. 
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on February 28, 2019, 05:58:15 PM
On UT 9 between La Verkin and Zion National Park, UDOT has recently added (they all have "19" stickers on them) "MPH" plates to all the Speed Limit 65 signs ... but only to the 65 signs, not any of the others.

I'm assuming this is for the benefit of the growing number of international visitors to Zion, but it seems like a strange way to do it.

(https://i.imgur.com/Bge9zBG.jpg)
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on March 07, 2019, 02:47:52 PM
Speaking of SR 9 and Zion: (https://www.nps.gov/zion/learn/news/zion-mount-carmel-highway-closed-due-to-road-damage-from-storms.htm)

Quote from: Zion-Mount Carmel Highway (State Rt. 9 connector) closed until further notice
(https://www.nps.gov/zion/learn/news/images/Zion-Mt-Carmel-Hwy-030319-NPS-photo.jpeg)

SPRINGDALE, UT – The Zion-Mount Carmel Highway was closed the evening of March 2, 2019, after reports of an active rockslide on the switchbacks below the tunnel. The area was assessed in the morning of March 3, 2019. A retaining wall failed and eight feet of the road is severely undercut east of the 1st switchback. The Zion-Mount Carmel Highway and Tunnel from the East Entrance to Canyon Junction, is closed until further notice.
 
Due to this storm, access to Canyon Overlook Trail, near the Zion-Mount Carmel Tunnel, is closed. Several canyonneering routes have also been closed because they are normally accessed from the closed road. These include Keyhole, Canyon Overlook, Pine Creek, Spry, Clear Creek, Fat Man’s Misery, and Lodge Canyons. The East Rim Trail head is accessible from Zion’s East Entrance. Staff are currently checking trail conditions on the remaining trails.
 
Alternate east and west driving routes are available via Highway 59 from Hurricane, Utah to Fredonia, Arizona and Highway 14 from Cedar City, Utah to Long Valley Junction and Highway 89. People coming from Interstate 15 to the Park may access the Park as usual by traveling east on State Route 9 through Springdale.

This looks like it's going to be a medium to long-term closure.

Also, earlier this week there was a story about boulders the size of motor homes falling onto SR 128 east of Moab (https://kutv.com/news/local/rockslide-with-boulders-the-size-of-motor-homes-block-sr-128-near-moab).

Clearly, this has been quite a wet winter for this area, and I'm wondering if more spring flooding will be an issue once some of the snow in the higher terrain starts melting off. St. George had a flash flood warning yesterday, which is exceptionally rare this time of year (much more common during monsoon season). In addition, the Santa Clara River exceeded flood stage, and the Virgin got quite close.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on March 14, 2019, 01:13:55 PM
The good news is that SR 9 is now partially re-opened through Zion (https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/2019/03/partial-opening-entire-zion-mount-carmel-highway-zion-national-park).

The bad news is that it's currently one lane only, controlled by a traffic signal. Oversize vehicles (greater than 7 ft 10 in width or 11 ft 4 in height) must still use a detour, and the entire road will likely have periodic closures for further repairs for a while longer.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Rover_0 on March 14, 2019, 07:30:23 PM
The good news is that SR 9 is now partially re-opened through Zion (https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/2019/03/partial-opening-entire-zion-mount-carmel-highway-zion-national-park).

The bad news is that it's currently one lane only, controlled by a traffic signal. Oversize vehicles (greater than 7 ft 10 in width or 11 ft 4 in height) must still use a detour, and the entire road will likely have periodic closures for further repairs for a while longer.

Still, the important thing is that progress is being made.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on March 27, 2019, 01:29:53 PM
A recent article in the Salt Lake Tribune discussed an extra $371 million available for transportation projects and where it will be spent. The money comes from both recent sales tax increases and from other projects that wound up under the original budgeted amount.

Utah transportation leaders gets an unexpected gift: an extra $371 million to spend on some big projects
 (https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2019/03/22/utah-transportation/)
The money is likely to be divided up between the following projects:

- $200 million for the US 89 freeway upgrade in Davis County
- $140 million for the West Davis Corridor
- $17 million for a new bridge over the Jordan River on Porter Rockwell Blvd
- $10 million for improvements to SR 30 in western Cache County
- $3.35 million to build a bridge over the railroad tracks on 5600 West/SR 172 (hopefully that comes with a widening as well)
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Rothman on March 27, 2019, 01:36:16 PM
Where'd the money come from?  If it was NY, it would be borrowed bonds.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on March 27, 2019, 07:36:57 PM
UDOT is holding a public meeting this week (March 28) in Hurricane to get input on the upcoming upgrade of UT 9 to possibly become a freeway or expressway from I-15 to the new extension of UT 7.

Quote
The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) is preparing a State Environmental Study (SES) to evaluate long-term transportation needs for a 6.5-mile-long section of SR-9 in Washington County, Utah between I-15 and the future Southern Parkway connection (approximately 2800 West). Improvements will evaluate converting the existing arterial roadway to a grade-separated facility that would provide a free-flowing movement for traffic commuting through the corridor as well as maintain accessibility to local roads. In preparing the SES, UDOT will evaluate the environmental and social impacts of the proposed SR-9 improvements.

UDOT project website: https://www.udot.utah.gov/sr9improved/

(https://www.udot.utah.gov/sr9improved/img/studyarea.png)

Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on March 28, 2019, 02:27:02 PM
I had a look through that website. Looks like they've identified six locations for potential interchanges: Telegraph Rd, 5300 West, the Quail Lake development (with a new road coming up to connect to it from the south), Sand Hollow Rd, 3400 West, and the future Southern Parkway.

Also, here's a graphic with the potential alternatives to be studied for upgrading the road, which I found fascinating:

(https://www.udot.utah.gov/sr9improved/img/mtg%20bds/SR-9%20Scoping%20Boards%20v4_Page_7.png)

All I can say is, I really hope they don't go with the Express Lanes format, since from my experience there's quite a bit of traffic that gets on and off that road at various points. Installing a full C/D along the entire length looks costly but may work better than traditional interchanges in some areas, such as the closely spaced proposed interchanges at Sand Hollow and 3400 West.

I also hope they build the SR 7/9 interchange as a free-flowing system from the beginning, instead of a SPUI like at the other end of SR 7. Or if it doesn't warrant that kind of money right now, they better preserve space for that. Just ask I-15 and Bangerter.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: pdx-wanderer on March 31, 2019, 04:52:45 PM
On UT 9 between La Verkin and Zion National Park, UDOT has recently added (they all have "19" stickers on them) "MPH" plates to all the Speed Limit 65 signs ... but only to the 65 signs, not any of the others.

I'm assuming this is for the benefit of the growing number of international visitors to Zion, but it seems like a strange way to do it.

(https://i.imgur.com/Bge9zBG.jpg)

That's good and all, but I wonder how anybody could manage to drive themselves all the way there from say, any international airport, while still thinking the speed limits were posted in km/h.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on May 03, 2019, 02:45:49 PM
UDOT has now announced its top 10 construction projects for this year, some of which already have their own threads on this forum:

Quote
1. Mountain View Corridor — Salt Lake County, $335 million: This project will connect Mountain View Corridor to S.R. 201, linking this important north-south highway to an existing freeway and greatly improving access for drivers in western Salt Lake County. The extension of Mountain View Corridor from 4100 South to S.R. 201 includes four lanes (two in each direction) and 13 new bridges. Construction in April, and is scheduled to continue through summer 2021. Another segment of the Mountain View Corridor is also under construction this year from Redwood Road to S.R. 73 in Utah County.

2. I-15 Express Lanes — Davis and Weber counties, $169 million: This project will widen I-15 to four lanes in both directions by adding Express Lanes between Hill Field Road and Riverdale Road. Once complete, UDOT’s Express Lanes will be 80 miles long – the longest continuous Express Lanes in the country. Construction starts in May and will extend through 2020.

3. I-15 Northbound — Salt Lake County, $165 million: A new collector/distributor ramp system (similar to the ones from 900 South to 2100 South in Salt Lake City) will be added to northbound I-15 from 9400 South to I-215. In addition, a new northbound travel lane will be added from Bangerter Highway to 9400 South. Major construction starts later this year, with the project scheduled for completion in 2020.

4. I-15 Technology Corridor — Utah County, $415 million: UDOT is in the second year of this three-year project to widen I-15 from S.R. 92 to Main Street in Lehi. The freeway is being expanded to six lanes in both directions, and the interchanges at S.R. 92 and 2100 North are being reconstructed. A new bridge over I-15 at Triumph Boulevard, and new one-way frontage roads east and west of I-15, are already open. This project is scheduled to wrap up in late 2020.

5. I-15 Southbound — Salt Lake County, $180 million: Work continues on the I-15 Southbound widening project. Crews have already opened a new southbound lane on I-15 from 7800 South to 12300 South. This year, crews are extending the new lane from 2100 South to 12300 South, and reconstructing southbound ramps at the I-15/I-215 interchange in Murray to reduce delays and help traffic flow more efficiently between the two freeways. Construction is scheduled through 2020
.
6. U.S. 40 — Wasatch County, $37 million: UDOT is extending the westbound passing lane on U.S. 40 by five miles near Strawberry Reservoir, and repaving an 18-mile section of the highway from Daniel’s Summit to Soldier Creek. Crews will also add a wildlife crossing to reduce collisions between vehicles and animals. Work begins this month and is scheduled for completion in summer 2020.

7. I-80/S.R. 36 Bridge Replacements —Tooele County, $37 million: This project is replacing the S.R. 36 ramp bridge over I-80, and two I-80 bridges over the Union Pacific railroad tracks near the S.R. 201 junction. Work continues from last year and is scheduled to be complete in 2020.

8. Southern Parkway (S.R. 7) — Washington County, $75 million: The final segment of the Southern Parkway will extend from Sand Hollow to S.R. 9. Once this new section is complete, Southern Parkway will run 27 miles from I-15 south of St. George to S.R. 9 near Hurricane. Crews will be working on this project starting this summer and continuing through 2020.

9. I-15 Exit 16 — Washington County, $29 million: UDOT is rebuilding the I-15 interchange at S.R. 9, including widening I-15 and S.R. 9, as well as the on- and off-ramps, to improve access to northern Washington County and Zion National Park. Construction started in February and will be finished this fall.

10. I-80 Joint Repairs — Salt Lake County, $3 million: This bridge maintenance project will repair and replace bridge joints at several locations along I-80 between State Street and 1300 East. Drivers should plan for moderate to heavy delays during nights and weekends, as several lanes will be closed on I-80 while work is underway. Construction starts later this spring and will wrap up in late summer.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on June 07, 2019, 12:41:55 AM
UDOT is building yet another CFI, this time in Saratoga Springs on Pioneer Crossing (SR 145) at the intersection with Redwood Road (SR 68). Construction is ongoing and should be done by this fall. I guess it sort of replaces the ones on Bangerter that got removed for interchanges.

Unlike many of the existing CFIs in the state, this one will have right-turn lanes on the outside of the CFI ramps, bypassing the traffic signal. The bike lane design in this intersection is also something I haven't seen before.

Project website (https://projects.horrocks.com/UDOTMirror/Redwoodsaratoga.html)


Link to video if the one above doesn't work (https://youtu.be/V6iL0cIQyBk)
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on September 20, 2019, 05:03:11 PM
KSTU Salt Lake City reports today on the upcoming closure of UT 92 at I-15 to remove the DDI that was installed in 2012.
https://fox13now.com/2019/09/19/drivers-frustrated-over-upcoming-weekend-closure-of-s-r-92-at-i-15/

Quote
UDOT is continuing projects along the I-15 tech corridor with a full closure of SR-92 at I-15 to undo the Diverging Diamond Interchange — leaving some drivers feeling frustrated.

“It’s crazy, bumper to bumper!” exclaimed Tom Smith as he filled up his tank at the local gas station. “We’re all here and stuck in the middle of it, it’s not good!”

... UDOT said the project is part of their efforts to increase traffic flow and give drivers more options.

On top of reconstructing the interchange, they will also be adding a new off-ramp from southbound I-15 to the frontage road, alongside a free-flowing U-turn lane on the Triumph Boulevard bridge to help drivers get from the southbound to northbound frontage road.

(https://i.imgur.com/Xcbe09x.png)
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on September 22, 2019, 03:08:28 PM
St. George News has this in-depth look at early transportation history in southwest Utah and northwest Arizona, including photos of the Bigelow Tunnel and I-15 under construction in the Virgin River Gorge:
https://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2019/09/22/raw-washington-county-transportation-history-day-turning-desperate-pieces-of-road-into-smooth-thoroughfares/

Quote
... Old-timers will remember that one of the ways that was accomplished was blasting a tunnel through a hill northeast of St. George to allow Highway 91 to run directly between St. George and Washington. Before the tunnel’s completion, residents had to travel along the base of Foremaster Hill to travel between the two cities.

The tunnel, known as the Bigelow Tunnel and by other names, including “Middleton Tunnel” and “Washington Tunnel” was just less than 500 feet long, 21 feet wide and 13.5 feet high. On the main thoroughfare from the late 1920s to the early 1950s, the tunnel was busy. The WCHS website reports that in 1948, the average hourly traffic was 585 vehicles.

... The completion of I-15 through Utah’s Dixie in 1973 truly linked the region to the world. Local leaders knew that deciding where the freeway would be was an important decision and would have a huge impact on the county’s future. County commissioners and St. George Mayor Clinton Snow met with Utah Department of Transportation planners to stress the need for offramps leading to Hurricane, Washington City, and both the north and south entrances to St. George.

(https://www.stgeorgeutah.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/WashCo-Transportation-Bigelow-Tunnel-historic-St-George-News.jpg)

(https://www.stgeorgeutah.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/WashCo-Transportation-I-15-under-construction-Virgin-River-Gorge-St-George-News-400x533.jpg)
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on October 01, 2019, 06:40:35 PM
From KSL: Gas hybrids no longer qualify for express lane (https://www.ksl.com/article/46648406/gas-hybrids-no-longer-qualify-for-express-lane)

Quote
A law expired Sept. 29 that allowed gasoline-powered hybrid vehicles to qualify for the Clean Vehicle Program. Moving forward, single-occupant gas hybrid cars with Clean Vehicle Pass stickers will no longer be able to travel in the Express Lane on the freeways, and drivers could face a hefty fine if caught doing so.

“Low emission and energy-efficient vehicles are generally hybrid vehicles that achieve a 50% or better in-city fuel economy or a 25% or better city/highway fuel economy compared to a similar gasoline-fueled vehicle,” according to the Utah Department of Transportation’s website. “There are 4,895 current low emission and energy-efficient vehicles with Clean Vehicle Permits and 1,078 on the waitlist. These vehicles will no longer qualify.”

“Back in 2005 when this law was enacted, hybrid vehicles were much less common than they are right now,” said UDOT Spokesperson John Gleason.

Despite what the first paragraph says, these vehicles are still allowed in the express lanes; they just have to pay like any other car -- they aren't eligible for the C Decal license plate anymore.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on October 18, 2019, 07:15:12 PM
The Salt Lake Tribune reports today that, effective January 1, the 15-year agreement banning trucks from Legacy Parkway, imposing a 55mph speed limit, and preventing expansion beyond four lanes, will expire.
https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2019/10/18/legacy-parkway-will-see/

Quote
Neighbors of Legacy Parkway lost a last-ditch attempt Friday to extend a 15-year deal designed to protect adjacent Great Salt Lake nature preserves by banning big-rig trucks and allowing just a 55 mph speed limit and only two lanes in each direction.

As they made pleas to the Utah Transportation Commission, the Utah Department of Transportation announced that it has legal power over that decision — not the commission — and said the truck ban will disappear Jan. 1 and, at the same time, the speed limit will rise to 65 mph.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Revive 755 on October 18, 2019, 10:58:53 PM
KSTU Salt Lake City reports today on the upcoming closure of UT 92 at I-15 to remove the DDI that was installed in 2012.

First DDI removed in the US?

Really curious how this is the best design.  Seems there would be a way to keep the DDI while getting the one way frontage roads in.  Or it seems they should have switched to a SPUI.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: BigManFromAFRICA88 on October 28, 2019, 01:31:06 PM
KSTU Salt Lake City reports today on the upcoming closure of UT 92 at I-15 to remove the DDI that was installed in 2012.

First DDI removed in the US?

Really curious how this is the best design.  Seems there would be a way to keep the DDI while getting the one way frontage roads in.  Or it seems they should have switched to a SPUI.

I'm thinking something along the lines of one of the Phoenix SPUIs with frontage roads along I-17 (like at Camelback Rd) would work?
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Rover_0 on November 11, 2019, 02:40:57 PM
According to the next UDOT Transportation Commission meeting agenda (http://utahdot.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=2&event_id=202), SR-241 (AKA 1600 N in Orem/600 S in Lindon between SR-114 and I-15) is either getting the axe or is being extended (the link seems to be having issues). Either way, that’s more of a good thing, as its one of those super-short routes. I guess we’ll find out soon enough.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on November 12, 2019, 11:23:28 AM
It's getting extended east to US 89. Although I normally question having so many urban arterial state highways, this seems like a good move. 1600 North/600 South functions as an alternative to the increasing congestion on SR 52 and isn't in amazing shape. From reading the resolutions (https://utahdot.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&event_id=202&meta_id=27725), it looks like the plan is to four-lane this which is probably a good idea given its AADT of 28,000.

It also simplifies maintenance responsibilities, since it's located right on the Orem-Lindon boundary and the current switchover from Orem to Lindon jurisdiction occurs at a minor residential street.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on November 15, 2019, 09:30:47 PM
The resolution passed today, so SR 241 is now officially a mile longer (pending legislature approval, of course). But perhaps more interesting were the remarks made by UDOT's executive director at the meeting:

Quote from: Carlos Braceras
When you have a road that’s mostly owned and managed by local governments, it tends to be more for accessing properties. State roads tend to be more regional movements, and we tend to look at it that way, as moving the vehicles over a longer distance. And so I think that compromise, that recognition of where those accesses are is a really important part of it, but we do work towards trying to have an access management plan, and limiting access and spacing out accesses because it improves mobility and it improves safety. That’s a big part of what we do when we manage the state highway system.

I would also add that it has felt to me over the last so many years that we kind of get these [jurisdictional transfers] thrown at us and we react…and so we’ve initiated a statewide study. And we’re looking at what are the right facilities we need on a state system and maybe what are those where there’s opportunities to move. And I know the regions have been working…and so we would have hope to have something ready here, I don’t know, end of the year…so that maybe we can be more strategically informed.

So it sounds like UDOT is doing a significant re-evaluation of the state highway system, and I would not be surprised to see some significant changes to state routes in the next few years.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Rover_0 on November 15, 2019, 10:57:48 PM
The resolution passed today, so SR 241 is now officially a mile longer (pending legislature approval, of course). But perhaps more interesting were the remarks made by UDOT's executive director at the meeting:

Quote from: Carlos Braceras
When you have a road that’s mostly owned and managed by local governments, it tends to be more for accessing properties. State roads tend to be more regional movements, and we tend to look at it that way, as moving the vehicles over a longer distance. And so I think that compromise, that recognition of where those accesses are is a really important part of it, but we do work towards trying to have an access management plan, and limiting access and spacing out accesses because it improves mobility and it improves safety. That’s a big part of what we do when we manage the state highway system.

I would also add that it has felt to me over the last so many years that we kind of get these [jurisdictional transfers] thrown at us and we react…and so we’ve initiated a statewide study. And we’re looking at what are the right facilities we need on a state system and maybe what are those where there’s opportunities to move. And I know the regions have been working…and so we would have hope to have something ready here, I don’t know, end of the year…so that maybe we can be more strategically informed.

So it sounds like UDOT is doing a significant re-evaluation of the state highway system, and I would not be surprised to see some significant changes to state routes in the next few years.

Interesting. So maybe this means that we see the end of some of these apparent roads to nowhere (SRs 42, 45, 74, 88, 174, etc.) in favor of some more efficient connections (extending SR-8 west and south to the Arizona state line, re-extending SR-22 south and SR-29 west, among others), as well as some consolidations (14-56, 130-257, 21-153, 10-72, 150-248, etc.), though I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on November 16, 2019, 12:08:21 AM
re-extending SR-29 west

I don't know about that - Ephraim Canyon Road is a narrow, winding, unpaved mountain road (https://goo.gl/maps/4xrf7kPvU8HminCE6) that closes in winter, topping out at about 10,300 feet. Even today the route is already well-served by SR 31 and I-70 even if those are a bit indirect. It might be a different story if they wanted to pave it, but I just can't picture today's UDOT taking over a random mountain road in Sanpete County.

If I could pick another road to add to the state system, I'd bring back the former SR 196 on Browns Canyon Road, though obviously under a different number.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Rover_0 on November 16, 2019, 02:49:50 AM
re-extending SR-29 west

I don't know about that - Ephraim Canyon Road is a narrow, winding, unpaved mountain road (https://goo.gl/maps/4xrf7kPvU8HminCE6) that closes in winter, topping out at about 10,300 feet. Even today the route is already well-served by SR 31 and I-70 even if those are a bit indirect. It might be a different story if they wanted to pave it, but I just can't picture today's UDOT taking over a random mountain road in Sanpete County.

If I could pick another road to add to the state system, I'd bring back the former SR 196 on Br9owns Canyon Road, though obviously under a different number.

Yea, I don’t see much happening with SR-29, but I still stand by the others—why John’s Valley Road and Old US-91 (and Brown’s Canyon Road) aren’t on the state highway system—local politics aside—is beyond me.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: jakeroot on November 16, 2019, 05:32:47 AM
KSTU Salt Lake City reports today on the upcoming closure of UT 92 at I-15 to remove the DDI that was installed in 2012.

First DDI removed in the US?

Really curious how this is the best design.  Seems there would be a way to keep the DDI while getting the one way frontage roads in.  Or it seems they should have switched to a SPUI.

I'm thinking something along the lines of one of the Phoenix SPUIs with frontage roads along I-17 (like at Camelback Rd) would work?

There's been some studies done on diamonds vs SPUIs. From one study out of Oregon (https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=cengin_gradprojects), depending on proximity to adjacent intersections, SPUIs can sometimes work too well; nearby intersections can't handle the number of cars being "flushed" through the SPUI, and the backup quickly stretches through the SPUI. The average delay at a diamond is slightly longer than at a SPUI, but the delay at a SPUI quickly begins to outpace the delay of a diamond interchange if there are substantial changes in volume (enough to overwhelm the junction).

In this case, I think the I-15 bridges over UT-92 would have needed replacing with a SPUI, whereas a diamond could be squeezed into the existing ROW. Combined with the immediate need for through movements, this is likely why there is a diamond there now.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on November 16, 2019, 08:55:31 AM
In this case, I think the I-15 bridges over UT-92 would have needed replacing with a SPUI, whereas a diamond could be squeezed into the existing ROW. Combined with the immediate need for through movements, this is likely why there is a diamond there now.

But the bridges are getting replaced anyway as part of the project, since 6 lanes each direction don’t fit on two four-lane bridges that were built back in 1975.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: BigManFromAFRICA88 on November 16, 2019, 07:18:44 PM
In this case, I think the I-15 bridges over UT-92 would have needed replacing with a SPUI, whereas a diamond could be squeezed into the existing ROW. Combined with the immediate need for through movements, this is likely why there is a diamond there now.

But the bridges are getting replaced anyway as part of the project, since 6 lanes each direction don’t fit on two four-lane bridges that were built back in 1975.

On top of that, the design I'm thinking about is basically a SPUI + diamond since the frontage roads still handle through traffic north and south, but Jake, you raise some good points about the hyperefficiency of SPUIs, especially since I-15 through Salt Lake County (and now increasingly, Bangerter Highway) is SPUI-heaven; I've noticed that many busy South Valley SPUIs (like at 9000 South or Bangerter Highway) back up east and west to a pretty strong degree.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: jakeroot on November 16, 2019, 09:01:23 PM
In this case, I think the I-15 bridges over UT-92 would have needed replacing with a SPUI, whereas a diamond could be squeezed into the existing ROW. Combined with the immediate need for through movements, this is likely why there is a diamond there now.

But the bridges are getting replaced anyway as part of the project, since 6 lanes each direction don’t fit on two four-lane bridges that were built back in 1975.

Ahh, missed that. Although SPUIs typically require longer bridges, so there's still some potential cost savings in using a diamond.

but Jake, you raise some good points about the hyperefficiency of SPUIs, especially since I-15 through Salt Lake County (and now increasingly, Bangerter Highway) is SPUI-heaven; I've noticed that many busy South Valley SPUIs (like at 9000 South or Bangerter Highway) back up east and west to a pretty strong degree.

SPUIs are an interesting interchange. I think they work really well when far from other intersections, and when there is relatively equal movements for the left turns. Otherwise, I think DDIs and regular diamonds are better (in terms of four-ramp interchanges).
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on December 03, 2019, 11:56:41 PM
Near St. George, the rebuild of the I-15 and SR-9 interchange (Exit 16) is complete. Here's a before (GSV) and after shot from SR-9. What was a one-lane ramp to I-15 south is now three lanes (and the offramp from I-15 north to SR-9 was one lane and is now two):

(https://i.imgur.com/xHPcZus.jpg)

PS: The tabbed sign facing the other direction is a new exit sign for Coral Canyon Drive, with just "EXIT" (no number, and no space for a number) on the tab.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: triplemultiplex on December 04, 2019, 02:18:48 PM
PS: The tabbed sign facing the other direction is a new exit sign for Coral Canyon Drive, with just "EXIT" (no number, and no space for a number) on the tab.

As one might suspect, it is Exit 1.  UDOT route ID's show as much.  I suspect they would only sign it if more interchanges popped up between there and Hurricane.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on December 05, 2019, 01:06:20 AM
PS: The tabbed sign facing the other direction is a new exit sign for Coral Canyon Drive, with just "EXIT" (no number, and no space for a number) on the tab.

As one might suspect, it is Exit 1.  UDOT route ID's show as much.  I suspect they would only sign it if more interchanges popped up between there and Hurricane.

In fact, UDOT has internal documentation numbering almost every single exit in the state, and it can be found in the PDFs linked on this page (https://www.udot.utah.gov/main/f?p=100:pg:0:::1:T,V:4299,). The weird thing is that the decision to sign them doesn't necessarily appear to be based on having multiple interchanges close together. The one interchange on SR 10 is signed in the field as exit 34, but neither of the interchanges on SR 18 (4 and 9) have their internal numbers posted even though there's very little between them.

That said, as mentioned earlier in this thread, UDOT is indeed studying upgrading SR 9 to a freeway from I-15 to Hurricane (https://www.udot.utah.gov/sr9improved/), in which case exit numbers would almost certainly be used.

Edit: apparently it’s not all interchanges - there are a couple that didn’t make it into those files
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on December 05, 2019, 02:08:28 PM
UDOT is indeed studying upgrading SR 9 to a freeway from I-15 to Hurricane (https://www.udot.utah.gov/sr9improved/)

Although, if that happens and when the Southern Parkway is finally complete, the SR-7/SR-9 combination would form a continuous ring route and, therefore, could potentially get the same set of exit numbers the entire way, which would make Coral Canyon Blvd. (not "Drive" as I wrongly called it above) the last exit on the route, not the first. Perhaps UDOT was just thinking ahead (hey, there's gotta be a first time).
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: cl94 on December 05, 2019, 05:52:31 PM
What I'm curious about is how long the 3 lane section lasts. How many lanes now merge onto I-15 there? And I doubt they widened I-15 south of there, so it's still feeding into 2 lanes of I-15...
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on December 05, 2019, 06:37:03 PM
What I'm curious about is how long the 3 lane section lasts. How many lanes now merge onto I-15 there? And I doubt they widened I-15 south of there, so it's still feeding into 2 lanes of I-15...

I-15 south has been widened to three lanes from SR 9 almost all the way (but not quite, oddly) to Washington Parkway. Then there's that short gap of just two lanes to Green Springs Drive (Exit 10), then three lanes again to St. George Blvd.

The gap between exits 13 and 10 presumably isn't being addressed yet because of the plans to add another exit somewhere in between, and there's still local disagreement (some of it quite passionate) on where that exit can/should be.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on December 05, 2019, 08:09:42 PM
St George has grown enough at this point that I-15 should probably be six lanes from SR 9 all the way down to the SR 7/Southern Parkway interchange.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on December 06, 2019, 01:45:45 AM
St George has grown enough at this point that I-15 should probably be six lanes from SR 9 all the way down to the SR 7/Southern Parkway interchange.

It's already in the UDOT plans (and about halfway done), but like so many other things that aren't in Salt Lake County or Utah County, it's taking for-freakin'-ever.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on January 02, 2020, 07:34:47 PM
The annual legislative state highway changes have been officially proposed in SB 0025 (https://le.utah.gov/~2020/bills/static/SB0025.html):

Quote
SR-6. From the Utah-Nevada state line easterly through Delta and Tintic Junction to the northbound ramps of the North Santaquin Interchange of Route 15; then beginning again at the Moark Connection Interchange of Route 15 easterly through Spanish Fork Canyon and Price to Route 70 west of Green River.
From the Utah-Nevada state line easterly through Delta and Tinic Junction through the North Santaquin Interchange of Route 15 continuing northerly through the Spanish Fork Interchange of Route 15 including the bridge eastbound intersecting Route 15 from southbound exit 257 of Route 15 at the Spanish Fork Interchange, continuing easterly through the Moark Junction, through Spanish Fork Canyon and Price to Route 70 west of Green River, returning along the same route including the bridge intersecting Route 15 at the Spanish Fork Interchange returning to the Utah-Nevada state line.

Quote
SR-85. From Route 68 From Route 73 in Saratoga Springs northerly on 800 West to Route 68 in Lehi; then beginning again at Route 68 in Bluffdale westerly on Porter Rockwell Boulevard; then northerly on Mountain View Corridor Highway to 4100 South in West Valley City.

Quote
SR-241. From SR-114 Route 114 east on 1600 North in Orem to the on- and off-ramps on the east side of interstate Route 15 Route 89.

The changes to 85 and 241 were expected, but I have no idea what they were after with US 6. I guess they wanted to emphasize that one or more of the bridges at the I-15 Spanish Fork interchange are part of US 6, but per the HRO those are inventoried as ramps anyway (we'll see if that changes). It appears to break all Utah precedent by officially defining US 6 on its I-15 concurrency, and also backtracking it all the way to Nevada.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Rover_0 on January 03, 2020, 03:45:24 PM
The annual legislative state highway changes have been officially proposed in SB 0025 (https://le.utah.gov/~2020/bills/static/SB0025.html):

Quote
SR-6. From the Utah-Nevada state line easterly through Delta and Tintic Junction to the northbound ramps of the North Santaquin Interchange of Route 15; then beginning again at the Moark Connection Interchange of Route 15 easterly through Spanish Fork Canyon and Price to Route 70 west of Green River.
From the Utah-Nevada state line easterly through Delta and Tinic Junction through the North Santaquin Interchange of Route 15 continuing northerly through the Spanish Fork Interchange of Route 15 including the bridge eastbound intersecting Route 15 from southbound exit 257 of Route 15 at the Spanish Fork Interchange, continuing easterly through the Moark Junction, through Spanish Fork Canyon and Price to Route 70 west of Green River, returning along the same route including the bridge intersecting Route 15 at the Spanish Fork Interchange returning to the Utah-Nevada state line.

Quote
SR-85. From Route 68 From Route 73 in Saratoga Springs northerly on 800 West to Route 68 in Lehi; then beginning again at Route 68 in Bluffdale westerly on Porter Rockwell Boulevard; then northerly on Mountain View Corridor Highway to 4100 South in West Valley City.

Quote
SR-241. From SR-114 Route 114 east on 1600 North in Orem to the on- and off-ramps on the east side of interstate Route 15 Route 89.

The changes to 85 and 241 were expected, but I have no idea what they were after with US 6. I guess they wanted to emphasize that one or more of the bridges at the I-15 Spanish Fork interchange are part of US 6, but per the HRO those are inventoried as ramps anyway (we'll see if that changes). It appears to break all Utah precedent by officially defining US 6 on its I-15 concurrency, and also backtracking it all the way to Nevada.

It’s a bit wordy for my tastes and a little less clear on the wording for the westbound side of things, but it’s a good start to acknowledging route concurrencies in the legislature books.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Rover_0 on January 10, 2020, 12:41:36 PM
I’m not sure if this is the best place to put this, but it pertains to Utah highways, in a sense.

It looks like Utah has their plans for newer USBRs. Most notably, there is USBR-77 going from Hanksville north via Sigurd, Salina, Gunnison, and Nephi through the Wasatch Front and to the Idaho state line near Mendon.

USBR-79 looks to piggyback off USBR-70 to the US-89/SR-12 junction, then following 89 and 89A to the Arizona state line south of Kanab.

There are three branch routes, and I find their higher numbers interesting: USBR-677, which basically goes along SR-68 along the west side of Utah Lake, USBR-877, which connects 77 at Sigurd to USBR-70/79 at Panguitch, and USBR-679, which acts as a shortcut for 79 along SR-14 to US-89/USBR-79 at Long Valley Junction.

If there’s one change to make, I’d put USBR-79 along SR-14 and have the portion of US-89 between SR-14 and SR-12 be USBR-679.

Anyways, here’s the link: https://parametrix.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=4da4865207404e75ad6e2b3b0132e81b
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: BigManFromAFRICA88 on February 13, 2020, 12:11:30 AM
I’m not sure if this is the best place to put this, but it pertains to Utah highways, in a sense.

It looks like Utah has their plans for newer USBRs. Most notably, there is USBR-77 going from Hanksville north via Sigurd, Salina, Gunnison, and Nephi through the Wasatch Front and to the Idaho state line near Mendon.

USBR-79 looks to piggyback off USBR-70 to the US-89/SR-12 junction, then following 89 and 89A to the Arizona state line south of Kanab.

There are three branch routes, and I find their higher numbers interesting: USBR-677, which basically goes along SR-68 along the west side of Utah Lake, USBR-877, which connects 77 at Sigurd to USBR-70/79 at Panguitch, and USBR-679, which acts as a shortcut for 79 along SR-14 to US-89/USBR-79 at Long Valley Junction.

If there’s one change to make, I’d put USBR-79 along SR-14 and have the portion of US-89 between SR-14 and SR-12 be USBR-679.

Anyways, here’s the link: https://parametrix.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=4da4865207404e75ad6e2b3b0132e81b

Mind explaining USBRs real quick? Are they just federal/internal designations for the state and national government agencies?
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on February 13, 2020, 12:34:44 AM
They're US Bicycle Routes, which are supposed to become a network of numbered bicycle routes similar to the US highway system. USBR numbering is coordinated by AASHTO just like US highway numbering.

At least in Utah, the existing USBRs are signed to some degree, but not really to the extent that a regular US or state route would be. Here's an example of USBR 70 signage, along SR 24 east of Torrey:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/1781/43256912132_9da47fa756_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/28UsYVS)
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: BigManFromAFRICA88 on February 13, 2020, 03:08:10 AM
They're US Bicycle Routes, which are supposed to become a network of numbered bicycle routes similar to the US highway system. USBR numbering is coordinated by AASHTO just like US highway numbering.

At least in Utah, the existing USBRs are signed to some degree, but not really to the extent that a regular US or state route would be. Here's an example of USBR 70 signage, along SR 24 east of Torrey:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/1781/43256912132_9da47fa756_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/28UsYVS)

Ahhhhh I see. Thanks for the explanation! Might try a few out when I'm back home road tripping the south again haha.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Rothman on February 13, 2020, 01:10:22 PM
Beware, some of the routing is questionable.  Riding a bicycle on KY 122, for USBR 76, for example, would be risky due to the narrow road and locals that treats it like the Monte Carlo.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Plutonic Panda on February 13, 2020, 01:17:59 PM
Shouldn’t be a bicycle route unless there are dedicated lanes or trails.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on February 14, 2020, 12:24:36 AM
St. George News reports that Toquerville is planning to rebuild most of UT-17 (which connects I-15 to La Verkin/Hurricane) on new alignment to bypass the town and then hand it over to UDOT. The article also includes news on other southern Utah projects, including the final section of UT-7 which might be done next year.
https://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2020/02/13/mgk-transportation-expo-recap-heres-what-you-can-expect-for-the-future-of-getting-around-washington-county/

Quote
The new route that Toquerville proposes to build as the new SR-17 will bypass the small town completely and also provide a much safer and less winding route for travelers heading to Zion National Park and other parts of the eastern side of the county.

The new roadway will also be engineered to accommodate a much larger volume of traffic.

“It’s not wise to put that much traffic on the existing SR-17,” Ellsworth said.

The roadway is estimated to cost roughly $10 million and will initially be a two-lane road. After the new roadway is completed, Ellsworth said the city plans to hand the road over to UDOT, which he hopes will eventually widen it to five lanes.

Of note: UDOT recently completed a rebuild of the existing SR-17 with better shoulders and new pavement.

(https://www.stgeorgeutah.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/2020-transport-expo-stgnews-10.jpg)
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on February 14, 2020, 04:48:16 PM
The prospect of a Toquerville bypass built by the city fascinates me - I don't think I know of any other situation in Utah where a local jurisdiction built a new realignment with the idea that it would eventually be transferred permanently to UDOT. The closest thing I can think of would be the SR-224 realignment in the Deer Valley area, but in that case the old alignment was abandoned and I think it was done with an SR-224 truncation in mind (which ultimately never happened).
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on March 24, 2020, 01:15:11 PM
The agenda (https://utahdot.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=2&event_id=219) for the upcoming Utah Transportation Commission Meeting (which will be conducted online due to coronavirus) includes a jurisdictional transfer resolution for the aforementioned SR-17 segment in Toquerville (https://utahdot.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&event_id=219&meta_id=28398). The resolution establishes that SR 17 will be moved to the new bypass once the city has constructed one lane in each direction and connected it to the existing 17 alignment on both ends. Later on, UDOT will expand it to two lanes in each direction.

According to the documents, the new road will be called Toquerville Parkway, splitting from the current alignment just south of the Toquerville City Cemetery and rejoining it about a half-mile south of the I-15 interchange:

(https://i.imgur.com/P20BFHj.png)
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: jakeroot on March 24, 2020, 04:43:50 PM
Seems like a sleepy little hamlet from street view. Can anyone explain to me the value of this bypass?

I'm not an idiot. Bypasses have very clear benefits to travel flow, but those benefits are usually measured against the current situation to determine, basically: is it worth it? The current road has no signals or stop signs, and a limit of at least 40. There must be a ton of crashes?

Here in WA, we're finally getting around to building the final stage of the Yelm Bypass, which is eliminating a good dozen signals and 25/30 limits. That screams "worth it" to me; this just doesn't. Unless there's something major I don't know about.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: rte66man on March 25, 2020, 10:55:14 AM
Seems like a sleepy little hamlet from street view. Can anyone explain to me the value of this bypass?

I'm not an idiot. Bypasses have very clear benefits to travel flow, but those benefits are usually measured against the current situation to determine, basically: is it worth it? The current road has no signals or stop signs, and a limit of at least 40. There must be a ton of crashes?

Here in WA, we're finally getting around to building the final stage of the Yelm Bypass, which is eliminating a good dozen signals and 25/30 limits. That screams "worth it" to me; this just doesn't. Unless there's something major I don't know about.

The traffic in and out of Zion National Park is very heavy in the summers. SR17 is the way in and out of you are headed north.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: jakeroot on March 25, 2020, 01:49:30 PM
Seems like a sleepy little hamlet from street view. Can anyone explain to me the value of this bypass?

I'm not an idiot. Bypasses have very clear benefits to travel flow, but those benefits are usually measured against the current situation to determine, basically: is it worth it? The current road has no signals or stop signs, and a limit of at least 40. There must be a ton of crashes?

Here in WA, we're finally getting around to building the final stage of the Yelm Bypass, which is eliminating a good dozen signals and 25/30 limits. That screams "worth it" to me; this just doesn't. Unless there's something major I don't know about.

The traffic in and out of Zion National Park is very heavy in the summers. SR17 is the way in and out of you are headed north.

I see. Is driving through Toquerville creating lots of congestion along Hwy 17? Or has there been safety issues within Toquerville?

Realistically, most major state highways pass through towns along their paths, but that doesn't mean they all have to be bypassed. In Toquerville's case, the road through the city is quite wide, has a high speed limit, center turn lane, and no traffic control hindrance (like stop signs or signals); it's hard for me to understand how Toquerville is harming flow along Hwy 17, and (especially) why UDOT feels it necessary to bypass the city entirely when there is no clear bottleneck to current traffic beyond a very-reasonable-for-a-town 40mph limit.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on March 25, 2020, 04:45:37 PM
There are certainly other bypasses in Utah that really ought to be built before this one (*cough* Logan and Heber), but I don't think UDOT itself had a ton of desire to build this because all the plans for this have been coming from the city. Toquerville residents don't like having park traffic passing through their town and wanted a bypass to remove that traffic from their main street. Another potential factor is the expectation that traffic will eventually increase enough for a full 4-lane, which could be somewhat difficult to pull off on the current alignment. The article Kniwt posted earlier suggests the winding nature of the current road is another concern as well. Keep in mind also the very high rate at which Washington County is growing, so this new bypass is likely going to become a focus for new development as soon as it's built.

Naturally the bypass is going to become the primary through route once it's done, so UDOT and the city will swap alignments and move SR 17 onto the bypass.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: nexus73 on March 25, 2020, 06:59:04 PM
There are certainly other bypasses in Utah that really ought to be built before this one (*cough* Logan and Heber), but I don't think UDOT itself had a ton of desire to build this because all the plans for this have been coming from the city. Toquerville residents don't like having park traffic passing through their town and wanted a bypass to remove that traffic from their main street. Another potential factor is the expectation that traffic will eventually increase enough for a full 4-lane, which could be somewhat difficult to pull off on the current alignment. The article Kniwt posted earlier suggests the winding nature of the current road is another concern as well. Keep in mind also the very high rate at which Washington County is growing, so this new bypass is likely going to become a focus for new development as soon as it's built.

Naturally the bypass is going to become the primary through route once it's done, so UDOT and the city will swap alignments and move SR 17 onto the bypass.

Heber City getting mentioned by you makes me wonder after US 189's improvements were completed to just north of Deer Creek Dam, why UDOT did not finish the deal so the freeway segment of US 40/189 and the freeway/expressway section of US 189 were connected?  Trucks heading for points south of SLC like to avoid Emigrant Pass and use the route to Provo for connecting with I-15. 

Rick
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: sparker on March 28, 2020, 05:13:42 AM
Seems like a sleepy little hamlet from street view. Can anyone explain to me the value of this bypass?

I'm not an idiot. Bypasses have very clear benefits to travel flow, but those benefits are usually measured against the current situation to determine, basically: is it worth it? The current road has no signals or stop signs, and a limit of at least 40. There must be a ton of crashes?

Here in WA, we're finally getting around to building the final stage of the Yelm Bypass, which is eliminating a good dozen signals and 25/30 limits. That screams "worth it" to me; this just doesn't. Unless there's something major I don't know about.

The traffic in and out of Zion National Park is very heavy in the summers. SR17 is the way in and out of you are headed north.

I see. Is driving through Toquerville creating lots of congestion along Hwy 17? Or has there been safety issues within Toquerville?

Realistically, most major state highways pass through towns along their paths, but that doesn't mean they all have to be bypassed. In Toquerville's case, the road through the city is quite wide, has a high speed limit, center turn lane, and no traffic control hindrance (like stop signs or signals); it's hard for me to understand how Toquerville is harming flow along Hwy 17, and (especially) why UDOT feels it necessary to bypass the city entirely when there is no clear bottleneck to current traffic beyond a very-reasonable-for-a-town 40mph limit.

According to friends who recently retired to the St. George area, UT 17 has been getting substantial commercial truck traffic from AZ-SLC (and the Wasatch Front in general) using the AZ 389/UT 59 routing as a "shortcut" from US 89 over to I-15, usually coming down from Kanab to Fredonia and then west -- thus avoiding schlepping through the various US 89 towns north to I-70.  I suppose Toquerville would rather avoid both the diesel fumes and accompanying noise, hence one of the rationales for the bypass.   
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on March 28, 2020, 08:56:37 PM
UT 17 has been getting substantial commercial truck traffic from AZ-SLC (and the Wasatch Front in general) using the AZ 389/UT 59 routing as a "shortcut" from US 89 over to I-15, usually coming down from Kanab to Fredonia and then west -- thus avoiding schlepping through the various US 89 towns north to I-70.

Good grief. UT 59 is dangerous enough as it is without a bunch of trucks on it because "the algorithm" told them it would save five minutes. There are no shoulders at all, and the news is full of head-on collisions, often fatal. The very steep and narrow descent into Hurricane has no margin for error, and if a truck loses its brakes, the only things stopping it are either going over the side or crashing into downtown.

UT 20 is a perfectly fine connection between US 89 and I-15. Yes, it has Panguitch along the way, but it's not any worse than the slog through Hurricane and La Verkin.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: sparker on March 29, 2020, 03:19:05 AM
UT 17 has been getting substantial commercial truck traffic from AZ-SLC (and the Wasatch Front in general) using the AZ 389/UT 59 routing as a "shortcut" from US 89 over to I-15, usually coming down from Kanab to Fredonia and then west -- thus avoiding schlepping through the various US 89 towns north to I-70.

Good grief. UT 59 is dangerous enough as it is without a bunch of trucks on it because "the algorithm" told them it would save five minutes. There are no shoulders at all, and the news is full of head-on collisions, often fatal. The very steep and narrow descent into Hurricane has no margin for error, and if a truck loses its brakes, the only things stopping it are either going over the side or crashing into downtown.

UT 20 is a perfectly fine connection between US 89 and I-15. Yes, it has Panguitch along the way, but it's not any worse than the slog through Hurricane and La Verkin.

My friends actually moved to the area in November, so their observations likely resulted from winter conditions over the summit on UT 20 (which poses no significant problems at other times).  Truckers tend to select the path of least resistance; seasonally that becomes staying on I-15 for as long as possible before an AZ "cutoff", and conversely, getting on to I-15 as far south as they can.  Otherwise, 389/59/9/17 is 157 miles from Kanab to the I-15/UT 20 interchange versus 95 miles directly on US 89 and UT 20; if truck traffic is using the longer route, it would most likely be due to winter conditions (few competent truckers would add 63 miles to their trip otherwise!). 
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on April 07, 2020, 12:06:17 PM
KSTU-TV reports: UDOT releases its top 10 projects for 2020
Details at the link
https://www.fox13now.com/udot-releases-its-top-10-projects-for-2020

Quote
1. U.S. 89 Farmington to I-84 — Davis and Weber counties, $489 million
2. Bangerter Highway Three Interchanges — Salt Lake County, $222 million
3. I-15 Northbound — Salt Lake County, $163 million
4. Midvalley Highway — Tooele County, $70 million
5. I-15 Express Lanes — Davis and Weber counties, $169 million
6. Southern Parkway (S.R. 7) — Washington County, $75 million
7. 5600 West S.R. 201 to I-80 — Salt Lake County, $83 million
8. I-15 Juab County to Sevier River — Juab County, $15 million
9. U.S. 191 North Moab to Colorado River Bridge — Grand County, $31 million
10. S.R. 201 to S.R. 36 Auxiliary Lane — Tooele County, $6 million
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: thenetwork on April 08, 2020, 11:56:59 AM
KSTU-TV reports: UDOT releases its top 10 projects for 2020
Details at the link
https://www.fox13now.com/udot-releases-its-top-10-projects-for-2020

Quote
1. U.S. 89 Farmington to I-84 — Davis and Weber counties, $489 million
2. Bangerter Highway Three Interchanges — Salt Lake County, $222 million
3. I-15 Northbound — Salt Lake County, $163 million
4. Midvalley Highway — Tooele County, $70 million
5. I-15 Express Lanes — Davis and Weber counties, $169 million
6. Southern Parkway (S.R. 7) — Washington County, $75 million
7. 5600 West S.R. 201 to I-80 — Salt Lake County, $83 million
8. I-15 Juab County to Sevier River — Juab County, $15 million
9. U.S. 191 North Moab to Colorado River Bridge — Grand County, $31 million
10. S.R. 201 to S.R. 36 Auxiliary Lane — Tooele County, $6 million

Didn't hear about the US-191 widening in Moab.  Glad that is happening, despite it being only a 2-mile improvement.  And with the town pretty much shut down to tourists, this is a good time to get it done, the sooner the better.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: sparker on April 08, 2020, 03:27:21 PM
KSTU-TV reports: UDOT releases its top 10 projects for 2020
Details at the link
https://www.fox13now.com/udot-releases-its-top-10-projects-for-2020

Quote
1. U.S. 89 Farmington to I-84 — Davis and Weber counties, $489 million
2. Bangerter Highway Three Interchanges — Salt Lake County, $222 million
3. I-15 Northbound — Salt Lake County, $163 million
4. Midvalley Highway — Tooele County, $70 million
5. I-15 Express Lanes — Davis and Weber counties, $169 million
6. Southern Parkway (S.R. 7) — Washington County, $75 million
7. 5600 West S.R. 201 to I-80 — Salt Lake County, $83 million
8. I-15 Juab County to Sevier River — Juab County, $15 million
9. U.S. 191 North Moab to Colorado River Bridge — Grand County, $31 million
10. S.R. 201 to S.R. 36 Auxiliary Lane — Tooele County, $6 million

I wonder if the UT 7 parkway concept that has its present end at UT 9 west of Hurricane will be extended to connect to the planned UT 17 bypass of Toquerville, completing a full loop terminating at I-15 at both ends.  Considering the rapid growth of the area, something like that would seem to be very beneficial. 
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on April 08, 2020, 03:39:29 PM
KSTU-TV reports: UDOT releases its top 10 projects for 2020
Details at the link
https://www.fox13now.com/udot-releases-its-top-10-projects-for-2020

Quote
1. U.S. 89 Farmington to I-84 — Davis and Weber counties, $489 million
2. Bangerter Highway Three Interchanges — Salt Lake County, $222 million
3. I-15 Northbound — Salt Lake County, $163 million
4. Midvalley Highway — Tooele County, $70 million
5. I-15 Express Lanes — Davis and Weber counties, $169 million
6. Southern Parkway (S.R. 7) — Washington County, $75 million
7. 5600 West S.R. 201 to I-80 — Salt Lake County, $83 million
8. I-15 Juab County to Sevier River — Juab County, $15 million
9. U.S. 191 North Moab to Colorado River Bridge — Grand County, $31 million
10. S.R. 201 to S.R. 36 Auxiliary Lane — Tooele County, $6 million

Didn't hear about the US-191 widening in Moab.  Glad that is happening, despite it being only a 2-mile improvement.  And with the town pretty much shut down to tourists, this is a good time to get it done, the sooner the better.

It's silly to have a four-laned US 191 from SR 313 all the way through Moab Canyon and across the Colorado River, only to narrow back down to 2 lanes for the last two miles between SR 128 and downtown Moab. UDOT has been talking about widening this for a few years so I'm glad they're finally getting around to it.

I wish they'd four-lane it all the way up to I-70, but I'll take whatever we get as this state seems to have an aversion to four-laning corridors that need it. In my experience that segment of 191 has a lot of truck and tourist traffic and would benefit greatly from longer, continuous passing lanes.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: BigManFromAFRICA88 on April 24, 2020, 06:59:09 PM
KSTU-TV reports: UDOT releases its top 10 projects for 2020
Details at the link
https://www.fox13now.com/udot-releases-its-top-10-projects-for-2020

Quote
1. U.S. 89 Farmington to I-84 — Davis and Weber counties, $489 million
2. Bangerter Highway Three Interchanges — Salt Lake County, $222 million
3. I-15 Northbound — Salt Lake County, $163 million
4. Midvalley Highway — Tooele County, $70 million
5. I-15 Express Lanes — Davis and Weber counties, $169 million
6. Southern Parkway (S.R. 7) — Washington County, $75 million
7. 5600 West S.R. 201 to I-80 — Salt Lake County, $83 million
8. I-15 Juab County to Sevier River — Juab County, $15 million
9. U.S. 191 North Moab to Colorado River Bridge — Grand County, $31 million
10. S.R. 201 to S.R. 36 Auxiliary Lane — Tooele County, $6 million

Didn't hear about the US-191 widening in Moab.  Glad that is happening, despite it being only a 2-mile improvement.  And with the town pretty much shut down to tourists, this is a good time to get it done, the sooner the better.

It's silly to have a four-laned US 191 from SR 313 all the way through Moab Canyon and across the Colorado River, only to narrow back down to 2 lanes for the last two miles between SR 128 and downtown Moab. UDOT has been talking about widening this for a few years so I'm glad they're finally getting around to it.

I wish they'd four-lane it all the way up to I-70, but I'll take whatever we get as this state seems to have an aversion to four-laning corridors that need it. In my experience that segment of 191 has a lot of truck and tourist traffic and would benefit greatly from longer, continuous passing lanes.

Add on top of this the fact that a lot more of US 6 (+ the portion that US 191 joins) should be 4-laned from Spanish Fork east.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: nexus73 on April 24, 2020, 08:11:28 PM
Moab gets so busy in the summer that the vacancy rate is a negative number.  Seasonal workers pour in and overcrowd any space they can find.  Might as well apgrade all the roads which lead to Rome...LOL!  Tourism is predicted to be the largest industry of the 21st century.

Rick
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: roadwaywiz95 on May 21, 2020, 07:05:15 AM
Our next installment in the "Virtual Tour" series is scheduled to take place on Saturday (5/23) at 6 PM ET. Come join me and members of the AARoads community as we profile US Routes 163 and 160 across southern Utah & northern Arizona and discuss the history and features of these highways, all while enjoying a real-time video trip across one of the most scenic areas of the desert southwest.

A link to the event location can be found below:

Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on July 24, 2020, 11:09:43 AM
UDOT recently completed an environmental assessment (http://gis.hwlochner.com/5600south_story/) for upgrading the eastern half of 5600 South (SR 97) in Roy. This would include a significant reconstruction of the interchange at I-15 - it's currently a diamond with one loop ramp, but will be converted into a SPUI. The Riverdale Road (SR 26) northbound exit would be combined into a C/D system with 5600 South, which is a good thing as there's a fairly short weave there right now. If this happens as planned I would bet exits 338 and 339 get renumbered to 338A-B northbound.

(https://i.imgur.com/32RXTWS.png)

The plan also calls for 5600 South to be widened to 5 lanes west to 3500 West (SR 108), with some new traffic lights and a new multi-purpose trail. Unfortunately, there is no funding available right now, so we'll likely have to wait several years before seeing any of this.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: BigManFromAFRICA88 on July 28, 2020, 02:16:35 PM
Took a drive down I-15 south from 5300 South to 11400 South mid-last week and noticed that the northbound land clearing and widening for the first stage of the I-15 North C/D lanes is coming along nicely (new fences being installed and all that). Opened my eyes to how tightly they squeezed in that extra ROW for that I-215/7200 South weaving elimination, and it's going to be interesting how that plays out from Bangerter to 9000 South (especially if they do end up building a half diamond at 10000 South which I think would be good for that downtown Sandy area).
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on July 29, 2020, 10:04:32 AM
(especially if they do end up building a half diamond at 10000 South which I think would be good for that downtown Sandy area).

Is this planned? I can’t recall ever seeing it in any UDOT documents. I do know the idea of a 94th South interchange has been thrown around a few times but probably won’t happen for quite some time.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: BigManFromAFRICA88 on July 29, 2020, 02:35:23 PM
(especially if they do end up building a half diamond at 10000 South which I think would be good for that downtown Sandy area).

Is this planned? I can’t recall ever seeing it in any UDOT documents. I do know the idea of a 94th South interchange has been thrown around a few times but probably won’t happen for quite some time.

You know what, I might have to do some digging to see where I heard this because it had to have been over two years ago or so. Somewhere linking the Monroe Street area with Rio Tinto Stadium and Hale Centre Theatre and the north entrance to South Towne Mall (or whatever it's called nowadays haha) would be good regardless, and it's gonna be interesting how much ROW finagling they'll be doing on that east side of I-15 northbound to squeeze in those C/D lanes...
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on September 02, 2020, 06:30:17 PM
UDOT has recently announced a project called I-80 & I-215 Renewed (http://www.udot.utah.gov/saltlakeeast/), which will repave portions of I-80 (between exit 126 and 128) and I-215 (between exit 3 and 5) in the eastern Salt Lake Valley. A new eastbound lane will also be added to that section of I-80. The bridges at 1300 East, 1700 East, and 2000 East will be completely replaced, while the bridge at 2300 East will be rehabbed and widened.

(https://i.imgur.com/e4wVIa4.jpg)

The new lane will be the most welcome improvement, in my opinion. That stretch of highway is one of the few places in Salt Lake where even in normal, non-rush hour traffic, you'll usually be going below the speed limit - and that section is one of the few that didn't get raised to 70 a few years back. I'm also hoping they can improve the geometry of the 13th and 23rd East on-ramps and merges, which are very tight by Salt Lake standards. Replacing the bridges is a good idea as well, and maybe the clearance at some of them can be increased - the 17th East bridge in particular has just 14'11" of clearance now and has been scraped by trucks more than once in just the past few years.

Only sad part: after this project is complete, there will be no more original 1960s interstate concrete remaining in Utah. Those parts of I-80 and I-215 opened in 1967 and 1969 respectively. There is still some original concrete on I-15 in Davis County, but none of it is older than 1970.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: BigManFromAFRICA88 on September 03, 2020, 01:03:57 PM
UDOT has recently announced a project called I-80 & I-215 Renewed (http://www.udot.utah.gov/saltlakeeast/), which will repave portions of I-80 (between exit 126 and 128) and I-215 (between exit 3 and 5) in the eastern Salt Lake Valley. A new eastbound lane will also be added to that section of I-80. The bridges at 1300 East, 1700 East, and 2000 East will be completely replaced, while the bridge at 2300 East will be rehabbed and widened.

(https://i.imgur.com/e4wVIa4.jpg)

The new lane will be the most welcome improvement, in my opinion. That stretch of highway is one of the few places in Salt Lake where even in normal, non-rush hour traffic, you'll usually be going below the speed limit - and that section is one of the few that didn't get raised to 70 a few years back. I'm also hoping they can improve the geometry of the 13th and 23rd East on-ramps and merges, which are very tight by Salt Lake standards. Replacing the bridges is a good idea as well, and maybe the clearance at some of them can be increased - the 17th East bridge in particular has just 14'11" of clearance now and has been scraped by trucks more than once in just the past few years.

Only sad part: after this project is complete, there will be no more original 1960s interstate concrete remaining in Utah. Those parts of I-80 and I-215 opened in 1967 and 1969 respectively. There is still some original concrete on I-15 in Davis County, but none of it is older than 1970.

Very welcome news. RIP the orginal concrete but that section of I-80 needed to be revamped. Hopefully soon that project for the interchange between I-215 and I-80 follows soon after, I'm hoping it starts in 2022 or 2023 and gets wrapped up by 2029.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: compdude787 on September 03, 2020, 01:07:51 PM

Only sad part: after this project is complete, there will be no more original 1960s interstate concrete remaining in Utah. Those parts of I-80 and I-215 opened in 1967 and 1969 respectively. There is still some original concrete on I-15 in Davis County, but none of it is older than 1970.

Don't see that as a bad thing at all. It's good that Utah actually is replacing their concrete pavement.

You should come to Seattle, where there is still original concrete pavement on I-5 from when the freeway opened in 1962. Although it was ground down ten years ago it's still really old and there are cracks everywhere.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on September 03, 2020, 01:17:39 PM
Only sad part: after this project is complete, there will be no more original 1960s interstate concrete remaining in Utah. Those parts of I-80 and I-215 opened in 1967 and 1969 respectively. There is still some original concrete on I-15 in Davis County, but none of it is older than 1970.

Don't see that as a bad thing at all. It's good that Utah actually is replacing their concrete pavement.

You should come to Seattle, where there is still original concrete pavement on I-5 from when the freeway opened in 1962. Although it was ground down ten years ago it's still really old and there are cracks everywhere.

I think of original concrete like button copy signage. From the perspective of a driver, is it good when those get replaced with more modern, reflective signs? Probably. But that doesn't mean it's not sad to see them go.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on September 29, 2020, 11:38:33 AM
From UDOT News: NEW I-80 EXIT-ONLY LANE PROJECT TO BE COMPLETED SIX MONTHS EARLY (https://www.udot.utah.gov/connect/2020/09/15/new-i-80-exit-only-lane-project-to-be-completed-six-months-early/)

Quote
Exit-only lane from S.R. 201 to S.R. 36 will improve access for Tooele County drivers

A new exit-only lane on westbound I-80 between S.R. 201 and S.R. 36 in Tooele County is scheduled to open tomorrow morning – six months early. This new “auxiliary” lane, designed to provide additional space for entering or exiting the interstate, will improve traffic flow and reduce delays for drivers in the area. 

Crews were able to compete the project early because materials for the project became available sooner than expected. The original plan had construction pausing for the winter and finishing in spring 2021, but the contractor on the project was able to speed up work and open the lane six months ahead of schedule.

“Tooele County is growing fast, and this area is a choke point, where a small crash can cause major delays,” said Oanh Le-Spradlin, UDOT project manager. “Our goal is to provide a smoother, safer trip for drivers, so we wanted to get this lane opened as quickly as possible.”

Despite its relatively short length (about two miles), the project is expected to deliver major benefits for drivers. UDOT traffic engineers calculate that the additional lane will reduce delays by up to five times in incidents where a westbound lane is blocked on the interstate between S.R. 201 and S.R. 36.

The project is unique in several ways. Designers and field workers used digital 3-D models for most of the work instead of traditional paper plans, which saved time, improved precision, and reduced waste. In a further effort to improve efficiency and reduce environmental impacts, more than 3,600 cubic yards of old concrete were crushed up and repurposed to build the new auxiliary lane. And when construction required the closure of the former view area along westbound I-80, the project team partnered with the Daughters of the Utah Pioneers and other organizations to move two historical markers previously located there to a new site near Saltair. 

The I-80 westbound auxiliary lane project is one of UDOT’s Top 10 projects for 2020 and is one of several improvements recently completed or under construction along I-80 in this area. UDOT continues to work closely with local governments to prioritize and develop projects to meet Tooele County’s unique transportation needs.

This is huge. The section of I-80 between SR 36 and SR 201 is the busiest interstate segment in Utah that had never been widened beyond its original four lanes. Traffic can be pretty bad there even during the day - and if there was an accident during rush hour, delays could reach several hours. (I had a friend who lived in Tooele who would routinely be more than 2 hours late to Salt Lake because of accidents in that bottleneck area.)

Hopefully they'll add an eastbound auxiliary lane as well in the coming years, but what would help more than anything is an alternative to I-80 - the current detour if I-80 is closed is to go all the way down to SR 73. There is talk of extending SR 201 to 36, but that seems unlikely to happen anytime soon.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: JKRhodes on September 30, 2020, 07:20:04 PM
Quote
This is huge. The section of I-80 between SR 36 and SR 201 is the busiest interstate segment in Utah that had never been widened beyond its original four lanes. Traffic can be pretty bad there even during the day - and if there was an accident during rush hour, delays could reach several hours. (I had a friend who lived in Tooele who would routinely be more than 2 hours late to Salt Lake because of accidents in that bottleneck area.)

Hopefully they'll add an eastbound auxiliary lane as well in the coming years, but what would help more than anything is an alternative to I-80 - the current detour if I-80 is closed is to go all the way down to SR 73. There is talk of extending SR 201 to 36, but that seems unlikely to happen anytime soon.

With the amount of growth in Tooele county I can see the need to have this stretch of I-80 eventually widened as wide as I-15 at the Point of the Mountain.The first time I drove it, I was honestly shocked to see so few lanes on the sole direct route serving such a rapidly growing area. 

If they can't squeeze an extra roadway in between 201 and 36, I think would definitely behoove the state to add contraflow lanes to I-80 in order to accommodate for rush hour traffic, accidents, etc.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: BigManFromAFRICA88 on October 12, 2020, 03:43:42 PM
Quote
This is huge. The section of I-80 between SR 36 and SR 201 is the busiest interstate segment in Utah that had never been widened beyond its original four lanes. Traffic can be pretty bad there even during the day - and if there was an accident during rush hour, delays could reach several hours. (I had a friend who lived in Tooele who would routinely be more than 2 hours late to Salt Lake because of accidents in that bottleneck area.)

Hopefully they'll add an eastbound auxiliary lane as well in the coming years, but what would help more than anything is an alternative to I-80 - the current detour if I-80 is closed is to go all the way down to SR 73. There is talk of extending SR 201 to 36, but that seems unlikely to happen anytime soon.

With the amount of growth in Tooele county I can see the need to have this stretch of I-80 eventually widened as wide as I-15 at the Point of the Mountain.The first time I drove it, I was honestly shocked to see so few lanes on the sole direct route serving such a rapidly growing area. 

If they can't squeeze an extra roadway in between 201 and 36, I think would definitely behoove the state to add contraflow lanes to I-80 in order to accommodate for rush hour traffic, accidents, etc.

Especially considering that they are going to build Midvalley Highway in the next 20 years possibly out to a full freeway, it would help to future-proof those lanes in both directions a fair bit.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on October 23, 2020, 11:39:27 AM
UDOT has recently completed a preliminary environmental assessment for a new interchange on I-15 at 1600 North/2700 South in southern Utah County, between the existing interchanges at US 6 and SR 77.

According to the preferred alternative map (https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/5e64fa3f5abd41a4b7130ceac985b022), in addition to the new SPUI, the project would realign all the frontage roads in the area and construct a new auxiliary lane on I-15 between the new interchange and US 6.

It would also include a whole bunch of improvements to 16th North/27th South itself (maybe they should come up with a single name for that road, too). As currently proposed, the entire length from Spanish Fork Main Street (SR 115) to State Street (SR 51) would be widened to four lanes plus a center turn lane, with a new sidewalk and multi-use trail next to the roadway. A grade separation is also proposed at the Union Pacific's Sharp subdivision (the western of the two railroad crossings); interestingly, the Tintic branch won't get a separation, but that line gets much less rail traffic and it looks like they're trying to combine it with the Sharp line.

Based on the amount of improvements planned for 16th North/27th South - especially the new railroad bridge - I would not be surprised if it ended up as a new state highway.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: BigManFromAFRICA88 on December 27, 2020, 04:55:25 PM
Didn't get a chance to snap pictures, but I was driving for the first time in a long time on I-15 North from Bangerter Highway to 9000 South, and I was pleased to see that the bridge over 9000 South, built for the new CD lanes to I-215 starting from 9400 South (https://www.udot.utah.gov/i15northbound/), was completed with pavement. Looks to be opened by the advertised early 2021 date on time, but it will be cool to see the eventual end product of local lanes from Bangerter north. This section of I-15 is nothing like I remember it 15 years ago when I was a little kid looking at all the signs.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on December 29, 2020, 12:03:51 AM
St. George News reports that funds have been approved to start work on a new exit along SR 7 at 3650 South (presumably Exit 12) in Washington City:
https://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2020/12/26/mgk-funding-approval-paves-way-for-new-southern-parkway-interchange-in-washington-city/

Quote
During its Dec. 16 meeting, the Dixie Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Transportation Executive Council approved $2.9 million for the construction of the 3560 South-Southern Parkway interchange. This funding will include a $214,200 match from Washington City.

... Though the project may be getting underway soon, Shaw said residents shouldn’t expect to see construction begin for at least another two to three years. It will take up to one year just to get the design phase completed, he said.

... The upcoming interchange will serve the eastern part of Washington City, particularly the Washington Fields area, as it provides more convenient access to the St. George Regional Airport and Interstate 15 without having to travel through town. The interchange will also provide easier access for patrons of the Red Cliffs Utah Temple of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

(https://www.stgeorgeutah.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/3650-south-extension-map.jpg)
(The satellite imagery in that diagram is very out of date. The housing now extends many more blocks to the east, north, and south.)

SR 7 is still just a Super-2 in that section. But new housing developments have rapidly grown almost to the edge of the freeway, which was nearly desolate just a few years ago.

Meanwhile, work continues in Hurricane on the extension of SR 7 from Sand Hollow Road to SR 9. About the first mile east of Sand Hollow was recently paved, and most of the remainder has been graded, with bridge work still in progress. Two-way traffic at Sand Hollow is now using a new eastbound exit ramp. The anticipated January-February opening would appear to be unlikely.

(https://i.imgur.com/KUD9LjE.jpg)
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 29, 2020, 11:41:35 AM
I drove the Southern Park as far as I could and I didn’t know they were still working on it. I also heard Utah will consider a billion plus dollar package to fund transportation projects so that will be nice. Utah is really staying on top of it. I’m considering buying a place in Moab I love it there so much.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on December 30, 2020, 12:36:25 AM
Is the east end of the new Southern Parkway segment just going to be a regular at-grade intersection at SR 9? I'm not finding any maps or proposed alignments other than the general UDOT project page (https://www.udot.utah.gov/projectpages/f?p=250:2007:0::NO:2007:P2007_EPM_PROJ_XREF_NO,P2007_PROJECT_TYPE_IND_FLAG:9046).

If so, I hope UDOT is preserving ROW for any potential upgrades down the road. They did not do that with Bangerter in SLC.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on December 30, 2020, 01:19:22 AM
Is the east end of the new Southern Parkway segment just going to be a regular at-grade intersection at SR 9?

It's a diamond interchange with grade separation, presumably with traffic signals. Here are a couple photos from November, so there's been a bit more work since then. First, looking east from the top of the interchange toward Hurricane. Not shown are the ramps on the west side, which are somewhat long and on a grade of about 6% due to the terrain:

(https://i.imgur.com/Zv9fME8.jpg)

And looking south at the new SR 7 (in the middle, slightly uphill). As of last week, the grading was mostly complete, but no pavement had been laid:

(https://i.imgur.com/0ZplqwR.jpg)
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on January 01, 2021, 06:31:01 PM
Here are some more pictures of the new SR 7 and SR 9 interchange in Hurricane. All pictures taken 1/1/2021.

Looking east from SR 9:

(https://i.imgur.com/08mgBFA.jpg)

Looking east from the ramp from SR 9 to SR 7:

(https://i.imgur.com/MlIhQtK.jpg)

Looking south on SR 7:

(https://i.imgur.com/9YZtxsn.jpg)

Looking west from SR 9:

(https://i.imgur.com/IiOojjM.jpg)
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on January 06, 2021, 01:57:56 AM
I'm just now getting to some photos I took this past spring during the height of COVID. One weekend in April, I drove up to the Golden Spike historic site - while the visitor center was of course closed, all the hikes and scenic drives were open. At the Big Fill Loop Trailhead (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.636904,-112.4931481,17z), I came across this ancient state highway right-of-way marker:

(https://i.imgur.com/GMZOeKs.jpg)

Even more interesting is this isn't even a state highway today...but between 1935 and 1962, 7200 North (Golden Spike Drive) was part of SR 83. I would imagine this marker dates from the earlier part of that time frame.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on January 14, 2021, 08:50:26 PM
The Spectrum of St. George reports that the controversial "Northern Corridor" project near St. George has been given the federal OK to proceed.
https://www.thespectrum.com/story/news/2021/01/14/northern-corridor-gets-approved-environmental-groups-pledge-fight/4160228001/

Quote
Washington County and the Utah Department of Transportation were given the OK from the Trump administration on Thursday to punch a four-lane highway through part of the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area.

Dubbed the Northern Corridor, the highway would connect Interstate 15 in the east with Red Cliffs Drive in the west, helping solve a growing traffic problem, according to county officials.

Friday's decision marks the culmination of a controversial year-and-a-half federal review of the highway's environmental implications on one of Washington County's most protected pieces of land, and the highly sensitive species — like the Mojave desert tortoise — given sanctuary there.

The decision, made public Thursday by the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, was praised by county officials who've attempted to build the highway for the past decade but drew ire from the environmental groups who've already pledged to continue fighting it.

(https://i.imgur.com/WlkVaG7.png)
(As usual, the satellite imagery for the area is very outdated. The road is already complete and open east of the red locator, connecting to I-15 Exit 13.)
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on January 23, 2021, 05:56:17 PM
The new section of SR 7 has been paved from Sand Hollow Road to just shy of 3000 South in Hurricane. It's posted for only 60mph, presumably due to the big hill. It looks like there might be an eastbound climbing lane.

All photos taken 23-Jan-2021.

(https://i.imgur.com/fGgSDDp.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/0HI1cE6.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/FdpTrzd.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/SLfrO7b.jpg)




Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Dougtone on January 30, 2021, 11:49:34 AM
Taking the roughly 130 mile trek on US 6 from I-15 in Spanish Fork, Utah to I-70 near Green River, Utah. It is a highway of scenery and history as it winds its way through the Spanish Fork Canyon, Price Canyon and the cities of Helper and Price. Check it out at:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/01/a-journey-down-utahs-us-6-from-i-15-in.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/01/a-journey-down-utahs-us-6-from-i-15-in.html)
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: andy3175 on March 14, 2021, 09:10:03 PM
Taking the roughly 130 mile trek on US 6 from I-15 in Spanish Fork, Utah to I-70 near Green River, Utah. It is a highway of scenery and history as it winds its way through the Spanish Fork Canyon, Price Canyon and the cities of Helper and Price. Check it out at:

https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/01/a-journey-down-utahs-us-6-from-i-15-in.html (https://www.gribblenation.org/2021/01/a-journey-down-utahs-us-6-from-i-15-in.html)
Speaking of US 6, an article in the Salt Lake Tribune notes safety improvements that have reduced accident-related injuries along the highway, especially the segment in Carbon County.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2020/11/13/utahs-us-transformed/

Quote
Back in 1996, Reader’s Digest and the BBC damningly proclaimed the winding, narrow U.S. 6 in central Utah as one of America’s deadliest highways. In the decade that followed, more than 150 people died there in more than 500 accidents that involved serious injuries.

But the Utah Transportation Commission celebrated Friday what it says has been years of quiet improvement since 2006, as the rate of crashes with serious injuries there dropped by 75% after a long series of safety projects.

That also came as traffic on the highway increased by about 50% in that time.

“That is as safe of a road as we have in the state of Utah now with all the improvements we’ve done,” said commission member Kevin Van Tassell, a former state senator. Before 2006, he said he remembers signs along the route pleading, “Gov. [Mike] Leavitt, please do away with our death trap.”

The route, mostly in Carbon County, is a major diagonal shortcut between the Wasatch Front and Moab or Denver.


Some of the 19 cited safety improvement projects include:

- widened shoulders and travel lanes
- additional passing lanes (once in each direction at least every six miles)
- fewer curves
- grade separated interchanges where needed (including one near Price)
- relocated truck scales and weigh station

SM-G975U

Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Route66Fan on March 15, 2021, 03:39:34 AM
I am just wondering, why is it so hard to find historic Utah county plat maps? I am trying to map out the routing of the "Pikes Peak Ocean to Ocean Highway" autotrail in Utah on Google Maps, however, in order to find the exact routing, I need county plat maps, or property ownership maps, from the 1910's, 1920's, or earlier. So far, all l I can find are old state maps, which while they show roughly where the route went, they don't show the exact routing, such as what local roads the route followed. When I was mapping out the routing in Kansas, I had no problem finding historic county plat maps for that state. Why am I having a problem finding historic county plat maps for Utah? I was also having somewhat of a problem like this with mapping out the route in Colorado. The Kansas county plat maps were archived by the Kansas Historical Society. Am I just looking in the wrong place? Who could I ask for a digital copy of these historic county plat, or property ownership maps? Please help, thank you.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: zzcarp on March 15, 2021, 10:36:05 PM
I am just wondering, why is it so hard to find historic Utah county plat maps? I am trying to map out the routing of the "Pikes Peak Ocean to Ocean Highway" autotrail in Utah on Google Maps, however, in order to find the exact routing, I need county plat maps, or property ownership maps, from the 1910's, 1920's, or earlier. So far, all l I can find are old state maps, which while they show roughly where the route went, they don't show the exact routing, such as what local roads the route followed. When I was mapping out the routing in Kansas, I had no problem finding historic county plat maps for that state. Why am I having a problem finding historic county plat maps for Utah? I was also having somewhat of a problem like this with mapping out the route in Colorado. The Kansas county plat maps were archived by the Kansas Historical Society. Am I just looking in the wrong place? Who could I ask for a digital copy of these historic county plat, or property ownership maps? Please help, thank you.

I don't know how much you deal with online property records, but most counties nowadays have online GIS parcel maps, sometimes from which you can see traces of old highways reflected in the present property lines.

I'd look up each county's assessor's office and contact them for further research-they could likely get you old tax maps or the property ownership maps you need.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: andy3175 on April 02, 2021, 11:58:03 AM
Work begins next month on rehabilitating sections of Interstate 80 and Interstate 215 in Salt Lake.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210325005067/en/Sterling-Awarded-122.7-Million-Design-Build-Project-in-Utah-Featuring-Accelerated-Bridge-Construction

Quote
Sterling Construction Company, Inc. Today announced its subsidiary, Ralph L. Wadsworth Construction Company, LLC, has been selected by the Utah Department of Transportation (“UDOT”) to renew portions of I-80 and I-215, two major highways in the Salt Lake Valley, to provide improved transportation for both local and interstate travel. The project is scheduled to commence in May 2021 and will take approximately two years to complete.

This project consists of the removal and replacement of existing concrete pavement, the design and replacement of four bridge structures, and widening and adding lanes to portions of the highway. Two of the bridges will be constructed utilizing Accelerated Bridge Construction (“ABC”), a construction method that involves the use of advanced technologies to assemble a bridge offsite and then transport it to a project site for installation.

Joe Cutillo, Sterling’s CEO commented, “This sizeable project gives us the opportunity to showcase our highly differentiated Accelerated Bridge Construction capabilities. ABC is of great value to project owners as it dramatically shortens the amount of time it takes to replace an existing bridge, which translates into substantially reduced traffic impacts and inconvenience to motorists in the area around a job site. Additionally, ABC substantially improves work zone safety for both drivers and contractor personnel and minimizes environmental impact, relative to conventional bridge construction methods.”
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: andy3175 on April 02, 2021, 11:04:12 PM
Work begins on Zion National Park (Utah 9) bridge and tunnel construction.

https://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2021/03/30/prc-bridge-and-tunnel-construction-to-begin-sunday-at-zion-national-park/#.YGfZ1mllDqs

Quote
Construction for the bridge and tunnel preservation project will begin Sunday night with anticipated completion on Aug. 28 in Zion National Park.

In 2017, bridges and tunnels along the Zion-Mount Carmel Highway were inspected and are considered safe, but attention is recommended to increase service life and avoid major rehabilitation needs, according to a press release issued by the town of Springdale.

The main goals of this project include general maintenance, historic preservation and updating traffic safety devices. 
Construction is scheduled to begin on the Zion-Mount Carmel Tunnel (and the Zion-Mount Carmel Highway) this Sunday at 7 p.m. MDT and will continue for 50 consecutive days. According to the release, the weekly construction schedule is as follows: Sunday through Thursday work will begin at 7 p.m. and run until 5 a.m. the following morning. No construction is scheduled to occur over the weekends from Friday 5 a.m. to Sunday 10 p.m. 

During the weekly construction schedule, tunnel hours for oversized vehicle operations will end at 7 p.m. One-way traffic control will be provided from 7-10 p.m. A full closure to all vehicle traffic will be implemented in the tunnels Sunday through Friday from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. To accommodate anticipated seasonal increases in visitor traffic, oversized vehicle operation hours will change to end at 8 p.m. beginning April 23.   

The historic Zion Tunnel was carved through solid sandstone in the 1920s.

Proceeding with construction and full closures at night is anticipated to decrease traffic congestion, reduce visitor impacts, as well as facilitate safe and efficient working environment for the construction crew.  
Strategic vehicle closures will also help reduce impacts from artificial light intrusion on night skies and wildlife.  

Construction on the North Fork Virgin River Bridge and East Portal Bridge will occur during normal business hours so visitors should anticipate minor delays. One lane of vehicle travel will be provided throughout the construction period on the bridges. 
Construction of the 1.1 mile Zion-Mount Carmel Tunnel began in the late 1920’s and was completed in 1930. At the time that the tunnel was dedicated, on July 4, 1930, it was the longest tunnel of its type in the United States. The purpose of building the Zion-Mount Carmel Tunnel (and the Zion-Mount Carmel Highway) was to create direct access to Bryce Canyon and Grand Canyon from Zion National Park.
Today the tunnel is basically the same as it was upon its completion over eighty years ago. This preservation project will improve the safety of the bridges and tunnels in Zion National Park. 




SM-G975U

Title: Re: Utah
Post by: andy3175 on April 02, 2021, 11:07:33 PM
US 40 Starvation Reservoir bridge is under construction.

https://www.gephardtdaily.com/local/udot-will-begin-bridge-work-on-u-s-highway-40-over-starvation-reservoir-monday/%3famp

Quote
DUCHESNE COUNTY, Utah, March 26, 2021 (Gephardt Daily) — The Utah Department of Transportation will begin bridge repair work on U.S. Highway 40 over Starvation Reservoir Monday.

“This scheduled bridge maintenance project will maximize the value of UDOT’s infrastructure investment,” said a statement from UDOT. “Improvements will include renovating the parapet walls and resurfacing the concrete bridge deck to extend the life of the roadway. SR-35 and SR-208 are available as alternate routes to avoid construction.”

There will be 15-30 minute travel delays possible and reduced speeds and lane closures in the construction area. Construction activity is anticipated Monday-Thursday 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. to 12 p.m. on Friday. ...

The project is expected to be completed in fall 2021.


SM-G975U

Title: Re: Utah
Post by: kenarmy on April 11, 2021, 02:58:48 PM
Where can I find a map or info on US 50's former concurrency with US 40? I found a link but it wouldn't work. And did US 6 ever go north enough to intersect US 40 in Utah?
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Mapmikey on April 11, 2021, 04:08:30 PM
US 6 never touched US 40 in Utah.

Davidrumsey.com and search Utah 1956 to see US 40-50 in some detail.

Title: Re: Utah
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on April 12, 2021, 06:04:13 PM
The Spectrum of St. George reports that the controversial "Northern Corridor" project near St. George has been given the federal OK to proceed.
https://www.thespectrum.com/story/news/2021/01/14/northern-corridor-gets-approved-environmental-groups-pledge-fight/4160228001/

Quote
Washington County and the Utah Department of Transportation were given the OK from the Trump administration on Thursday to punch a four-lane highway through part of the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area.

Dubbed the Northern Corridor, the highway would connect Interstate 15 in the east with Red Cliffs Drive in the west, helping solve a growing traffic problem, according to county officials.

Friday's decision marks the culmination of a controversial year-and-a-half federal review of the highway's environmental implications on one of Washington County's most protected pieces of land, and the highly sensitive species — like the Mojave desert tortoise — given sanctuary there.

The decision, made public Thursday by the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, was praised by county officials who've attempted to build the highway for the past decade but drew ire from the environmental groups who've already pledged to continue fighting it.

(https://i.imgur.com/WlkVaG7.png)
(As usual, the satellite imagery for the area is very outdated. The road is already complete and open east of the red locator, connecting to I-15 Exit 13.)

Any possibility this approval will be recinded by the new administration.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Plutonic Panda on April 12, 2021, 06:07:05 PM
The Spectrum of St. George reports that the controversial "Northern Corridor" project near St. George has been given the federal OK to proceed.
https://www.thespectrum.com/story/news/2021/01/14/northern-corridor-gets-approved-environmental-groups-pledge-fight/4160228001/

Quote
Washington County and the Utah Department of Transportation were given the OK from the Trump administration on Thursday to punch a four-lane highway through part of the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area.

Dubbed the Northern Corridor, the highway would connect Interstate 15 in the east with Red Cliffs Drive in the west, helping solve a growing traffic problem, according to county officials.

Friday's decision marks the culmination of a controversial year-and-a-half federal review of the highway's environmental implications on one of Washington County's most protected pieces of land, and the highly sensitive species — like the Mojave desert tortoise — given sanctuary there.

The decision, made public Thursday by the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, was praised by county officials who've attempted to build the highway for the past decade but drew ire from the environmental groups who've already pledged to continue fighting it.

(https://i.imgur.com/WlkVaG7.png)
(As usual, the satellite imagery for the area is very outdated. The road is already complete and open east of the red locator, connecting to I-15 Exit 13.)

Any possibility this approval will be recinded by the new administration.
God I hope not.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Rover_0 on April 15, 2021, 03:16:39 PM
The Spectrum of St. George reports that the controversial "Northern Corridor" project near St. George has been given the federal OK to proceed.
https://www.thespectrum.com/story/news/2021/01/14/northern-corridor-gets-approved-environmental-groups-pledge-fight/4160228001/

Quote
Washington County and the Utah Department of Transportation were given the OK from the Trump administration on Thursday to punch a four-lane highway through part of the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area.

Dubbed the Northern Corridor, the highway would connect Interstate 15 in the east with Red Cliffs Drive in the west, helping solve a growing traffic problem, according to county officials.

Friday's decision marks the culmination of a controversial year-and-a-half federal review of the highway's environmental implications on one of Washington County's most protected pieces of land, and the highly sensitive species — like the Mojave desert tortoise — given sanctuary there.

The decision, made public Thursday by the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, was praised by county officials who've attempted to build the highway for the past decade but drew ire from the environmental groups who've already pledged to continue fighting it.

(https://i.imgur.com/WlkVaG7.png)
(As usual, the satellite imagery for the area is very outdated. The road is already complete and open east of the red locator, connecting to I-15 Exit 13.)

Any possibility this approval will be recinded by the new administration.
God I hope not.

Agreed. I feel that a lot of the projects in that area have done well to be more environmentally friendly.

Anyways, I can’t seem to find anything definitive about it, but given that UDOT seems to have a pretty big part in the planning of the Northern Corridor, it seems that UDOT will have maintenance over the road—ergo, it will be a state route. IIRC, I think it will connect to Red Hills Parkway just before RHP meets SR-18 (Bluff Street). With RHP and SR-8 (Sunset Blvd) being not too far apart, I can’t help but wonder if we get an SR-8 extension out of this.

(Correct me if I’ve missed anything.)
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 15, 2021, 08:53:36 PM
If the Northern Corridor is constructed, it will be an extension of the existing Washington Parkway, right? That would make a nice bypass of St. George, Middleton and Washington. I assume the road would be four lanes with at-grade intersections, correct?
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on April 17, 2021, 12:01:09 PM
If the Northern Corridor is constructed, it will be an extension of the existing Washington Parkway, right? That would make a nice bypass of St. George, Middleton and Washington. I assume the road would be four lanes with at-grade intersections, correct?

The recently completed road north of I-15 to Green Spring Drive is signed as Washington Parkway, but most of it is only two lanes (yes, with at-grade intersections at Washington Main Street and Fairway Drive before heading into the more residential area) and usually quite empty. Here's a random shot:

(https://i.imgur.com/qkf4y9Z.jpg)
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 17, 2021, 02:04:04 PM
How much traffic uses the road on a daily basis, since it looks very empty? I would assume Washington Parkway is quite underutilized; maybe more traffic would come to the corridor if more development was built alongside it.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on April 18, 2021, 12:49:10 AM
How much traffic uses the road on a daily basis, since it looks very empty? I would assume Washington Parkway is quite underutilized; maybe more traffic would come to the corridor if more development was built alongside it.

I mean it doesn't really go anywhere right now... all it does right now is connect a couple subdivisions, so I wouldn't expect too much traffic on it.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on April 18, 2021, 03:46:52 PM
Each spring, UDOT usually posts a "top 10 projects" list of some sort describing the year's biggest highway construction projects. This year they didn't put it in a top-10 format, but they did make a similar post (https://www.udot.utah.gov/connect/2021/04/15/construction-to-ramp-up-on-utahs-roads/) describing the year's biggest planned projects.

Major central Wasatch Front projects include:

Quote
Bangerter Three Interchanges – Salt Lake County, $221 million: UDOT is building new freeway-style interchanges on Bangerter Highway at 6200 South, 10400 South and 12600 South. This is a continuation of UDOT’s multi-year effort to upgrade Bangerter Highway in order to meet the traffic demands of western Salt Lake County. Construction began in May 2020 and most of the project is expected to be completed by December.
Expected impacts: Drivers can expect the east/west closure of 12600 South at Bangerter Highway to remain in place until August, with reduced speeds along the detour routes. 6200 South remains closed to east/west travel across Bangerter Highway for cyclists and pedestrians through July. Drivers should also plan for an east/west closure of 10400 South at Bangerter Highway from May to November.

Quote
I-80 & I-215 Renewed; Salt Lake East – Salt Lake County, $146.5 million: UDOT is repaving I-80 between 1300 East and 2300 East, and the I-215 east belt between 3300 South and 4500 South. A new lane will also be added to eastbound I-80 between 1300 East and 2300 East, and the 1300 East, 1700 East and 2000 East bridges along I-80 will be demolished and reconstructed. Construction for the project will begin as early as this May and will continue through 2022.
Expected impacts: Drivers can expect lane restrictions on I-80 and I-215 overnight and on weekends, as well as at least two overnight closures of I-80 during bridge work.

Northern Wasatch Front projects:

Quote
I-15 Davis-Weber Express Lanes – Davis and Weber Counties, $163 million: UDOT is widening I-15 to extend the Express Lanes from Layton Parkway to Riverdale Road. The project is also building new, widened bridges at Church Street and 200 South and repaving and widening bridges at five additional locations. Additionally, crews are extending the on-ramp from Layton Parkway to Hill Field Road, installing new ramp meters at high-traffic on-ramps and replacing concrete panels between Hill Field Road and I-84. Construction began in summer 2018 and will continue through fall.
Expected impacts: The project will maintain three lanes of traffic on I-15 during daytime hours, Monday through Saturday, but drivers should expect overnight and weekend lane closures as well as lane splits, shoulder work and other changing traffic conditions.

Quote
S.R. 53; 24th Street Viaduct Rehab – Weber County, $7.2 million: Crews will extend the life of the 24th Street viaduct by repaving from A Ave. to Lincoln Ave over the Union Pacific railroad yard into downtown Ogden. This project will also enhance pedestrian access by converting stairs to an ADA-compliant ramp and improve drainage on the viaduct. Construction began earlier this month and is scheduled to be complete in early September.
Expected impacts: Drivers can expect the viaduct to be reduced to a single eastbound one-way lane with pedestrian and bicycle access restricted. They should also plan for seven overnight closures of the viaduct, as well as one weekend closure.

Southern Wasatch Front projects:

Quote
I-15; Northbound I-15 Bridge Ride Fix in American Fork – Utah County, $4.1 million: Workers will repair three bridges along northbound I-15 between the 500 East and Main Street interchanges in American Fork to even out the bumps. Construction will begin this summer.
Expected impacts: Drivers can expect lane restrictions and moderate travel delays.

Quote
2100 North Lehi (S.R. 194; I-15 to S.R. 68) – Utah County, $3.4 million: UDOT will repave 2100 North (S.R. 194) in Lehi from Redwood Road (S.R. 68) to Thanksgiving Way to extend the life of the road and provide a smoother ride for drivers. Construction is expected to begin this month and end by June.
Expected impacts: Drivers can expect lane restrictions in alternating directions.

Quote
S.R. 92 Alpine Loop (American Fork Canyon Seasonal Gate to U.S. 189 in Provo Canyon) – Utah County, $1 million: Crews will resurface the Alpine Loop (S.R. 92) from the Pine Hollow Trailhead to U.S. 189 in Provo Canyon to extend the life of the road. Construction is scheduled to begin in early May and expected to be complete in July.
Expected impacts: Drivers can expect one-way traffic with flagging during work hours along S.R. 92 from Mount Timpanogos Campground to U.S. 189 in Provo Canyon throughout construction. Additionally, the road from Pine Hollow Trailhead to Timpooneke Campground will be closed from early May to late May, and the road from Timpooneke Campground to the Mount Timpanogos Campground will be closed from early May to late July.

Elsewhere in northern and northeast Utah:

Quote
S.R. 248; S.R. 224 to U.S. 40 – Summit County, $3.1 million: UDOT will extend the life of the pavement and provide a smoother driving surface along S.R. 248 by repaving the highway from S.R. 224 to the U.S. 40 interchange. This project is also upgrading a series of pedestrian ramps and restriping the corridor to add a westbound shoulder-running bus lane for about 2 miles from U.S. 40 to Comstock Drive. Construction is expected to start in June and continue through fall.
Expected impacts: Drivers can expect daytime lane closures and possible flagging throughout construction.

Quote
U.S. 40; Starvation Reservoir Bridge Preservation – Duchesne County, $4.2 million: UDOT will extend the life of the road and provide a smoother driving surface along the Starvation Bridge on U.S. 40 in Duchesne County. Crews will repave the concrete surface of the bridge and the bridge barriers and will apply a polymer seal to help the bridge surface resist wear. Construction began earlier this month and will continue through late October.
Expected impacts: Drivers can expect one-way traffic and heavy delays throughout the project.

Southern and eastern Utah:

Quote
U.S. 191; 400 North to Colorado River bridge – Grand County, $31.1 million: Workers are widening U.S. 191 in north Moab to four travel lanes, along with a center turn lane for most of the project length. Additionally, a new storm drain system is being installed to help manage seasonal run-off that occasionally pushes debris onto the highway. Construction began last year and is expected to be complete this June.
Expected impacts: Drivers can expect U.S. 191 to be reduced to one lane in each direction for the duration of the project.

Quote
I-15 over East Nichols Canyon Rd – Iron County, $10.5 million: UDOT will replace two I-15 bridges in Cedar City to keep the interstate in good condition and maintain this key statewide transportation corridor. Construction is expected to start later this year and is expected to end in 2022.
Expected impacts: Drivers can expect I-15 lanes to be temporarily shifted to the median during the project.

I was somewhat surprised that the West Davis Corridor, Tooele Midvalley Highway, and Southern Parkway projects weren't included here, but I guess construction on those won't really have a whole lot of impact on existing roads.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on April 29, 2021, 02:10:42 PM
St. George News reports today that the final 8 miles of UT 7, from Sand Hollow Road to UT 9, will open May 20.

https://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2021/04/29/mgk-officials-announce-completion-and-opening-date-of-final-segment-of-southern-parkway/
Quote
Work on the estimated $75.5 million, 8-mile stretch of road officially designated as state Route 7 began in March 2020 and is set to wrap up with a ribbon cutting on May 19, with the road opening up for public use the next day.

“It’ll be opened up all the way,” Kevin Kitchen, a spokesman for the Utah Department of Transportation, told St. George News. “It’ll be awesome.”

Lingering work on the Southern Parkway’s final section includes paving, some electrical work and the painting of some new structures built as a part of the project, Kitchen said.

The final segment of the Southern Parkway runs from the intersection with Sand Hollow Road/4300 West and around, heading north on the eastern side of the Sand Hollow Reservoir until connecting with state Route 9 in the area of 2700 West.

As a part of the project, four new overpasses have been built at the intersections of Sand Hollow Road, 1100 West and 3000 South and SR-9.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: andy3175 on May 14, 2021, 10:46:01 AM
Plans call for a possible new road to connect to Navajo Mountain in Utah. The link has a map showing the location of the community and its lack of connection to the state highway grid.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2021/05/09/why-navajo-mountain-one/

Quote
The small southern Utah town of Navajo Mountain, one of the most isolated communities in the Lower 48, may soon find a new connection to the state’s highway system if a $110 million project moves forward. ...

A draft proposal, prepared by Jones and DeMille Engineering, anticipates three phases for the project: a $49 million dirt road connection between Navajo Mountain and Oljato; a $30.2 million dirt spur heading north across the San Juan River to connect to Highway 276 east of Halls Crossing; and, lastly, the paving of both new roads.

The initial phase would shave about 55 miles off the current three-hour, one-way journey from Navajo Mountain to Blanding, likely reducing driving times by 40 minutes.

The connection to Highway 276 would reduce the trip by 13 additional miles, but it would require the construction of a $10.5 million bridge near Clay Hills Crossing on the San Juan River as well as several smaller bridges.



SM-G975U

Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on May 18, 2021, 07:08:44 PM
Fox 13 in SLC reports today on the ongoing effort to find a stripe paint that works in Utah's myriad climates.
https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/utah-scientists-work-to-find-better-way-to-illuminate-road-lines

Quote
The scientists spread regular glow-in-the-dark paint in a line next to similar paint that included reflective glass beads. While water can often impact the visibility of all paints, the version with the glass beads is designed to block out the water, but not the light.

Early in the test, the paint glowed brightly. But when the light dimmed, the line did not shine as bright. The paint did pass the durability test, with no sign of deterioration.

"I feel like we're just turning the corner," said Taylor Sparks, the University of Utah's Associate Chair of Material Science Engineering and the older brother of Dave Sparks, the star of the popular "Diesel Brothers" television series.

Meanwhile, UDOT has tried different ways to make lane lines more visible, including reflective tape. However, the state's weather conditions pose a problem with that solution.

"We have experimented with other things, like markers implanted in the roadway, but with the amount of plowing we do in the State of Utah, they can be problematic," said Robert Miles, UDOTs Director of Traffic and Safety.

UDOT also uses its own version of a paint with glass beads to reflect headlights, but it too has issues with water, which dissipates the light.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Rothman on May 18, 2021, 09:56:44 PM
Heh.  "Myriad climates."  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints took plans for a large church (stake center) from Utah and built it outside of Springfield, MA.

They forgot about humidity.  Some of the stucco decorations on the outside peeled off the summer after it was constructed.

They also somehow forgot about...winter.  Pipes broke due to lack of sufficient insulation.

Some myriad they got out there. :D
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on May 19, 2021, 12:20:10 AM
Sounds like an issue more of construction than inherent design. Winter temperatures in Springfield are only a few degrees colder than they are in Salt Lake City - the warmest place in the Wasatch Front. Logan is colder.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Rothman on May 19, 2021, 06:41:26 AM
Sounds like an issue more of construction than inherent design. Winter temperatures in Springfield are only a few degrees colder than they are in Salt Lake City - the warmest place in the Wasatch Front. Logan is colder.
My father was a local leader involved with the project. Both issues were identified as design issues rather than construction, my oversimplification for humor's sake notwithstanding. :D
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on May 19, 2021, 01:07:47 PM
Some photos from this morning's grand opening of the final section of UT 7 from Sand Hollow Road to SR 9. A couple of, um, interesting signs.

Speed limit is only 60mph through the entire new section.
The second carriageway is fully graded but not paved.
Exit 19 has ramps in the eastbound direction only. There is no Exit 19 westbound.

(https://i.imgur.com/f6AU7EF.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/fTTwVbb.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/qJHH9uL.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/u4zIP69.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/qwX6Blg.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/ChUjaTd.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/gsf3mXG.jpg)
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on May 19, 2021, 07:39:12 PM
Is exit 19 some sort of access to the state park? I wasn't aware of any planned interchanges between Sand Hollow Rd and 3000 South. Amazing how little coverage UDOT has given to this project - if this were in northern Utah, it almost certainly would have its own website with more details. Instead all I could find was the generic project page (https://www.udot.utah.gov/projectpages/f?p=250:2007:0::NO:2007:P2007_EPM_PROJ_XREF_NO,P2007_PROJECT_TYPE_IND_FLAG:9046,A).

Also, did you happen to see whether the SR 9 interchange where SR 7 now ends is numbered?
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on May 19, 2021, 07:55:58 PM
The end at SR 9 has no exit number, and not even any BGSs, just that tiny JCT sign and the LGS in the background for "<-- TO I-15 / Hurricane -->".

(At the other end, the junction with I-15 has no exit number or advance BGSs either.)

Because I had bike brain, I didn't get any pics of the Exit 19 advance BGSs, which are just for a numbered street. I'm not sure why Exit 19 exists, since there's no pavement -- and not even gravel -- beyond the interchange. My best guess is that it provides a place for vehicles towing ATVs/UTVs to enter the areas beyond the state park. For that matter, the eastbound offramp appears to begin around MP 20.1, so even the exit number is a bit odd.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on May 19, 2021, 08:03:51 PM
The end at SR 9 has no exit number, and not even any BGSs, just that tiny JCT sign and the LGS in the background for "<-- TO I-15 / Hurricane -->".

I meant from SR 9, but I imagine you didn't see that.

As for exit 19, I wonder if it's intended to be a second entrance to Sand Hollow State Park at some point in the future. I know tourism in that area has increased significantly in recent years and there are some OHV/campground areas on that side of the lake.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on May 19, 2021, 11:03:39 PM
So here's a map of the extension (thanks Duke87 for digging this up from the depths of the interwebs):

(https://utahpla.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/SR-7-Extended.jpg)

Seems to me that exit 19 should have been numbered 20, given it is basically equidistant from 18 and 22, but who am I to argue.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on May 20, 2021, 06:21:53 AM
Seems to me that exit 19 should have been numbered 20, given it is basically equidistant from 18 and 22, but who am I to argue.

In fact, here's an older picture of MP 20 before the signs and stripes went up, looking eastbound. The overpass in the background is, um, Exit 19. You can see the offramp just beginning at the curve sign.

(And there's nowhere that UDOT could theoretically be planning for an actual "Exit 20" in the future. Past the exit is a steady 5% grade hugging the side of the hill, and there couldn't possibly be an exit there ... well, until another developer decides to drop another 3,000 homes in the middle of nowhere, which is happening at Exit 15 now. :/ )

(https://i.imgur.com/0HI1cE6.jpg)
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on May 23, 2021, 11:43:20 AM
The end at SR 9 has no exit number, and not even any BGSs, just that tiny JCT sign and the LGS in the background for "<-- TO I-15 / Hurricane -->".
I meant from SR 9, but I imagine you didn't see that.

There are new BGSs along SR 9. Here are a couple of them heading westbound. Apologies for the crappy 5:30am photos. (There's also a new "END" SR 7 sign just north of the interchange, where the road continues as a new access road into a trailer park, but no corresponding "begin" in the opposite direction.)

(https://i.imgur.com/wA7zJMU.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/MQrZWUc.jpg)
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on May 23, 2021, 01:21:24 PM
I wonder what the logic behind not numbering the exits is. UDOT did the same thing on the new signage for the Coral Canyon interchange at the west end of 9. Seems like they'd want a head start on numbering given current plans to upgrade 9 to a freeway for most of the way from 15 to Hurricane. (For comparison, exits 404 and 405 on US 89 in Davis County were numbered when they were built 20ish years ago, well in advance of the current project to extend a continuous freeway into the area.)
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: andy3175 on June 06, 2021, 05:08:06 PM
The Spectrum of St. George reports that the controversial "Northern Corridor" project near St. George has been given the federal OK to proceed.
https://www.thespectrum.com/story/news/2021/01/14/northern-corridor-gets-approved-environmental-groups-pledge-fight/4160228001/

Quote
Washington County and the Utah Department of Transportation were given the OK from the Trump administration on Thursday to punch a four-lane highway through part of the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area.

Dubbed the Northern Corridor, the highway would connect Interstate 15 in the east with Red Cliffs Drive in the west, helping solve a growing traffic problem, according to county officials.

Friday's decision marks the culmination of a controversial year-and-a-half federal review of the highway's environmental implications on one of Washington County's most protected pieces of land, and the highly sensitive species — like the Mojave desert tortoise — given sanctuary there.

The decision, made public Thursday by the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, was praised by county officials who've attempted to build the highway for the past decade but drew ire from the environmental groups who've already pledged to continue fighting it.

(https://i.imgur.com/WlkVaG7.png)
(As usual, the satellite imagery for the area is very outdated. The road is already complete and open east of the red locator, connecting to I-15 Exit 13.)

Any possibility this approval will be recinded by the new administration.
God I hope not.

Agreed. I feel that a lot of the projects in that area have done well to be more environmentally friendly.

Anyways, I can’t seem to find anything definitive about it, but given that UDOT seems to have a pretty big part in the planning of the Northern Corridor, it seems that UDOT will have maintenance over the road—ergo, it will be a state route. IIRC, I think it will connect to Red Hills Parkway just before RHP meets SR-18 (Bluff Street). With RHP and SR-8 (Sunset Blvd) being not too far apart, I can’t help but wonder if we get an SR-8 extension out of this.

(Correct me if I’ve missed anything.)
A lawsuit was issued by Conserve Southwest Utah to halt the Northern Corridor project in the St. George area.

Press release: https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/lawsuit-targets-utah-highway-through-protected-conservation-lands-threatened-tortoise-habitat-2021-06-04/

Quote
Conservation groups sued federal officials Thursday to stop construction of the Northern Corridor Highway, a controversial four-lane highway through the protected Red Cliffs National Conservation Area in southwest Utah.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., against the Interior Department and the Bureau of Land Management, says the Trump administration violated five environmental protection laws when it approved the highway in January.

“The decision by the previous administration is a clear violation of the National Conservation Area’s congressionally mandated purpose and ignores more effective and environmentally sensitive transportation alternatives,” said Tom Butine, board president of Conserve Southwest Utah, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. “Local and federal stakeholders designated what is now the Red Cliffs National Conservation Area 25 years ago as a permanently protected wildlife reserve in exchange for allowing development on 300,000 acres of land outside the protected area. It makes no sense to pursue this route when a better way exists to both move traffic and protect Red Cliffs. If a highway is allowed through this protected land, it means nothing can be protected.”

The Trump administration’s January 2021 decision, supporting a request from Washington County and Utah’s congressional delegation, permitted construction of a four-lane highway through Red Cliffs National Conservation Area.


The St. George news has more at https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2021/06/04/apc-us-sued-over-approval-of-northern-corridor-highway-in-desert-tortoise-habitat/&ved=2ahUKEwiwpdKP84PxAhVHJDQIHVl4BW0QvOMEegQICxAB&usg=AOvVaw2RAaFzx8aHU-O7wlNlMBPS&cshid=1623013637239

SM-G975U

Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Plutonic Panda on June 06, 2021, 06:41:22 PM
We as a country need to go back and rethink the environmental laws we have on the books. I understand the need for protecting our environment and as someone who spends much of their time outdoors and in our parks I appreciate conservation efforts.

That said we shouldn’t have projects left and right delayed or canceled due to unreasonable environmental restrictions.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Rothman on June 06, 2021, 11:13:00 PM
We as a country need to go back and rethink the environmental laws we have on the books. I understand the need for protecting our environment and as someone who spends much of their time outdoors and in our parks I appreciate conservation efforts.

That said we shouldn’t have projects left and right delayed or canceled due to unreasonable environmental restrictions.
I'd imagine 90% of the projects out there are not delayed by environmental work, if not more.  Most federal-aid projects are categorical exclusions to NEPA.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Plutonic Panda on June 07, 2021, 05:04:34 AM
We as a country need to go back and rethink the environmental laws we have on the books. I understand the need for protecting our environment and as someone who spends much of their time outdoors and in our parks I appreciate conservation efforts.

That said we shouldn’t have projects left and right delayed or canceled due to unreasonable environmental restrictions.
I'd imagine 90% of the projects out there are not delayed by environmental work, if not more.  Most federal-aid projects are categorical exclusions to NEPA.
Interesting given the fact that it takes years and years longer to get a project going today than it used to before environmental laws were on the books.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Rothman on June 07, 2021, 07:05:03 AM
We as a country need to go back and rethink the environmental laws we have on the books. I understand the need for protecting our environment and as someone who spends much of their time outdoors and in our parks I appreciate conservation efforts.

That said we shouldn’t have projects left and right delayed or canceled due to unreasonable environmental restrictions.
I'd imagine 90% of the projects out there are not delayed by environmental work, if not more.  Most federal-aid projects are categorical exclusions to NEPA.
Interesting given the fact that it takes years and years longer to get a project going today than it used to before environmental laws were on the books.

Again, your umbrella statement is not supported by reality.  I have direct experience with federal-aid project development.  All simple federal-aid projects that don't need ROW or other special considerations can get going within a fiscal year.  Even with ROW, here in NY, that is given an additional year in the project schedule to deal with property needs.  Environmental determination can be had on these projects by design approval without affecting the schedule (i.e., when you're supposed to).  These types of projects represent the massive bulk of states' programs and the environmental paperwork's cost is a matter of actual cost (people's salaries devoted to the work at state and federal levels plus overhead) rather than a major detriment to the schedule.

For the few, larger projects that are actually building new facilities or widening them -- you know, projects that actually have an environmental impact -- sure, the process takes a little longer to do those reviews and for good reason.  Still, I've been amazed by how quickly the I-81 project here in NY made it through the DEIS, especially after MA's EIS experience with the Big Dig.

Therefore, if there are "years and years" of delay, I doubt the major factor is the environmental review.  You can add a year or two for that in the case of these larger projects.  But, more than that indicates a lack of funding or political desire for the project to progress rather than environmental concerns.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: BigManFromAFRICA88 on June 08, 2021, 02:48:54 PM
We as a country need to go back and rethink the environmental laws we have on the books. I understand the need for protecting our environment and as someone who spends much of their time outdoors and in our parks I appreciate conservation efforts.

That said we shouldn’t have projects left and right delayed or canceled due to unreasonable environmental restrictions.
I'd imagine 90% of the projects out there are not delayed by environmental work, if not more.  Most federal-aid projects are categorical exclusions to NEPA.
Interesting given the fact that it takes years and years longer to get a project going today than it used to before environmental laws were on the books.

Again, your umbrella statement is not supported by reality.  I have direct experience with federal-aid project development.  All simple federal-aid projects that don't need ROW or other special considerations can get going within a fiscal year.  Even with ROW, here in NY, that is given an additional year in the project schedule to deal with property needs.  Environmental determination can be had on these projects by design approval without affecting the schedule (i.e., when you're supposed to).  These types of projects represent the massive bulk of states' programs and the environmental paperwork's cost is a matter of actual cost (people's salaries devoted to the work at state and federal levels plus overhead) rather than a major detriment to the schedule.

For the few, larger projects that are actually building new facilities or widening them -- you know, projects that actually have an environmental impact -- sure, the process takes a little longer to do those reviews and for good reason.  Still, I've been amazed by how quickly the I-81 project here in NY made it through the DEIS, especially after MA's EIS experience with the Big Dig.

Therefore, if there are "years and years" of delay, I doubt the major factor is the environmental review.  You can add a year or two for that in the case of these larger projects.  But, more than that indicates a lack of funding or political desire for the project to progress rather than environmental concerns.


I have far fewer expertise than Rothman in terms of DOT experience but I want to emphasize some of the last points that it mainly comes down to funding. Big projects require a large amount of taxes or alternate forms of funding, and the recent trend in the US is that people just don't want to fund those projects as much. Some don't want to fund them due to concerns on government spending; some don't want to fund them due to conservational activism. I think the delays are a confluence of both that and various other factors... you can't just pin the blame on environmental laws.

Plus, I personally think it's good that we have longer EIS processes to make sure that a route is going exactly where it should go, especially with the technology and analytics we have today.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: jakeroot on June 08, 2021, 04:52:33 PM
Plus, I personally think it's good that we have longer EIS processes to make sure that a route is going exactly where it should go, especially with the technology and analytics we have today.

As long as we're underscoring each other here, I will underscore this point. The EIS process is not fast (it shouldn't be fast, as there are way too many factors at play), but modern technology should make the EIS process easier, no matter if you're using GIS data to highlight a highway routing that impacts certain kinds of soil the least, or setting up an online open house to invite comments and feedback.

I suppose there are some places where it's easier (flat areas?), but around here, the EIS process is really essential: tons of little creeks and tributaries; the soil changes every 20 feet; hills, valleys, and farmland; protected animals and trees; other projects(!); you can't just throw the environmental review process to the wind because it extends project timelines. Apart from relatively unusual circumstances, there is usually an alternative that works for everyone that can be find through an effective EIS process.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Plutonic Panda on June 09, 2021, 09:06:30 PM
We as a country need to go back and rethink the environmental laws we have on the books. I understand the need for protecting our environment and as someone who spends much of their time outdoors and in our parks I appreciate conservation efforts.

That said we shouldn’t have projects left and right delayed or canceled due to unreasonable environmental restrictions.
I'd imagine 90% of the projects out there are not delayed by environmental work, if not more.  Most federal-aid projects are categorical exclusions to NEPA.
Interesting given the fact that it takes years and years longer to get a project going today than it used to before environmental laws were on the books.

Again, your umbrella statement is not supported by reality.  I have direct experience with federal-aid project development.  All simple federal-aid projects that don't need ROW or other special considerations can get going within a fiscal year.  Even with ROW, here in NY, that is given an additional year in the project schedule to deal with property needs.  Environmental determination can be had on these projects by design approval without affecting the schedule (i.e., when you're supposed to).  These types of projects represent the massive bulk of states' programs and the environmental paperwork's cost is a matter of actual cost (people's salaries devoted to the work at state and federal levels plus overhead) rather than a major detriment to the schedule.

For the few, larger projects that are actually building new facilities or widening them -- you know, projects that actually have an environmental impact -- sure, the process takes a little longer to do those reviews and for good reason.  Still, I've been amazed by how quickly the I-81 project here in NY made it through the DEIS, especially after MA's EIS experience with the Big Dig.

Therefore, if there are "years and years" of delay, I doubt the major factor is the environmental review.  You can add a year or two for that in the case of these larger projects.  But, more than that indicates a lack of funding or political desire for the project to progress rather than environmental concerns.
I hear what you’re saying but you’re not convincing me that our current process isn’t causing unnecessarily long delays in road projects. The Golden Gate Bridge was conceived, funded, and built in less than 6 years. There has to be middle ground between that and taking 20+ years to build a new bay bridge. Projects all across the country suffer this fate or close to it. I see article after article detailing how it takes DOTs decades to complete a project from its inception from the EIS to the public input.

This is infrastructure that was needed yesterday yet somehow we seem perfectly content with telling people sitting in soul crushing traffic don’t worry the new train or additional freeway lanes will be here in 10 years. Meanwhile in China:

Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Plutonic Panda on June 09, 2021, 09:07:29 PM
Plus, I personally think it's good that we have longer EIS processes to make sure that a route is going exactly where it should go, especially with the technology and analytics we have today.

As long as we're underscoring each other here, I will underscore this point. The EIS process is not fast (it shouldn't be fast, as there are way too many factors at play), but modern technology should make the EIS process easier, no matter if you're using GIS data to highlight a highway routing that impacts certain kinds of soil the least, or setting up an online open house to invite comments and feedback.

I suppose there are some places where it's easier (flat areas?), but around here, the EIS process is really essential: tons of little creeks and tributaries; the soil changes every 20 feet; hills, valleys, and farmland; protected animals and trees; other projects(!); you can't just throw the environmental review process to the wind because it extends project timelines. Apart from relatively unusual circumstances, there is usually an alternative that works for everyone that can be find through an effective EIS process.
Yet that’s always the argument I hear when I dare criticize the EIS process is that we can’t just do away with it. I’m not suggesting that.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: triplemultiplex on June 09, 2021, 10:47:03 PM
Yes, fascist regimes like China can build shit faster.  At the cost of your liberty.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Plutonic Panda on June 09, 2021, 11:26:51 PM
Yes, fascist regimes like China can build shit faster.  At the cost of your liberty.
As I said, there is middle ground.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: i-215 on June 22, 2021, 11:45:54 PM
It's not like Los Angeles County which nearly killed a widening project for the I-710 freeway -- after over 10 years of EIS.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-05-27/l-a-transportation-leaders-stop-short-of-pulling-the-plug-on-710-freeway-expansion

Utah seems to strike a fairly reasonable middle ground.  Mountain View Corridor was (I believe) about 6-7 years from the beginning of the EIS process to first construction.  Which gave time for the state legislature to cobble together funding to actually build it.   And the EIS appears quite thorough.  MVC hasn't been a magnet for law suits and is actually getting built out. 
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on June 23, 2021, 12:50:09 AM
I see something like the West Davis Highway further north as a perfect example of how the environmental process should work when you're talking about building roads through sensitive areas. UDOT spent 3 years writing up a draft EIS and was willing to work with the various environmental groups that put up a fight. They spent another four years studying additional alternatives, making concessions, and ironing out changes to the original plan before getting a final EIS and record of decision done, and for the most part even the environmentalists seem to be satisfied with the final product. (Of course, it took another 4 years for construction to actually start due to funding issues and covid.)

UDOT learned their lesson from when they first tried to build the Legacy Parkway. The initial EIS for that project was rather incomplete and rushed, and as a result it spent four years getting dragged through lawsuits before a compromise was worked out that included a whole laundry list of concessions UDOT had to make (some of which were a little excessive in my opinion). The highway was supposed to be done for the 2002 Olympics ... it did not open until 2008.

Mountain View is a different animal because it doesn't involve major environmental issues like wetlands (Legacy, West Davis) or endangered species (Northern Corridor). It's just a suburban/exurban highway - and for the most part, there isn't really a huge NIMBY mentality in Utah with respect to roads (sure there's some, but way less than you see in other parts of the US). It's only when environmental issues come into play that projects around here really run into roadblocks.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: andy3175 on July 10, 2021, 09:37:25 AM
Utah 9 in Springdale at the entrance to Zion National Park was damaged by a flood caused by a thunderstorm that dropped an inch of rain in an hour on June 29. Over 100 cars were in the path of floodwater, along with several buildings. The local Quality Inn is likely a total loss due to the volume of water and mud in the building. Also significantly damaged were Cable Mountain Lodge and Zion Campfire Lodge.

Some articles including videos:

https://www.thedrive.com/news/41376/flash-flood-in-zion-national-park-buries-over-100-cars-in-red-mud

https://www.outtherecolorado.com/news/video-terrifying-footage-shows-family-caught-in-flash-flood-in-zion/article_9ddfb980-df3f-11eb-a5f0-1f3dc15e8588.amp.html

https://www.ksl.com/article/50195787/zion-national-park-officials-cleaning-up-after-flash-floods-sweep-southern-utah

Utah 9 was closed in Springdale and suffered some pavement damage from the flood of mud, boulders, and debris. It has since reopened as cleanup continued over the past week.  Details from a June 30 release from the National Park Service:

https://www.nps.gov/zion/learn/news/zion-national-park-continues-clean-up-after-flash-flood.htm

SM-G975U

Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Plutonic Panda on July 10, 2021, 03:34:02 PM
They also doing tunnel work in Zion to the main tunnel and I only found that out after driving 30 minutes from La Verkin. I was on my way from LA to Moab and since I travel so much I often get bored of interstates and prefer the two lane backroads. I do wish they’d put a sign at La Verkin though the closure was listed on their website. Oh well.

Oddly enough I found myself wondering how the flood control was around here given the narrow canyon and lots of impermeable surfaces natural or otherwise. I also got my first dose of how bad traffic can really be going through the west entrance. A low key personal rapid transit system would be cool to test out here.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: andy3175 on July 29, 2021, 01:40:05 PM
Sandstorm caused multiple car accident on July 25, 2021, with 8 fatalities on Interstate 15 near Kanosh.

https://www.9news.com/mobile/article/news/nation-world/pileup-in-utah-during-sandstorm/507-d9472a3f-a4b7-4abc-b94b-428dae2ee17c

Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on July 29, 2021, 03:41:28 PM
Sandstorm caused multiple car accident on July 25, 2021, with 8 fatalities on Interstate 15 near Kanosh.

https://www.9news.com/mobile/article/news/nation-world/pileup-in-utah-during-sandstorm/507-d9472a3f-a4b7-4abc-b94b-428dae2ee17c

Yeah, this was brutal. Second deadliest weather event in Utah since the NWS started keeping track of this in 1950 (the worst was a 2015 flash flood in Hildale that killed 12).

The dust storm was probably caused by outflow winds from nearby thunderstorms over the mountains east of 15, but those storms were fairly weak and the highest reported wind gust was 36 mph … which is not unusual at all in the inland west. To be honest I’m sort of surprised this type of thing isn’t more common in Utah. I would have to imagine the ongoing drought made it a lot easier for the wind to pick up that dust.

As a result of this, UDOT meteorologists are installing a new portable weather station with a camera in the area. The station is supposed to connect to a new set of dust-storm warning signs with beacons that will flash when low visibility conditions are occurring.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: andy3175 on July 29, 2021, 05:14:11 PM
Sandstorm caused multiple car accident on July 25, 2021, with 8 fatalities on Interstate 15 near Kanosh.

https://www.9news.com/mobile/article/news/nation-world/pileup-in-utah-during-sandstorm/507-d9472a3f-a4b7-4abc-b94b-428dae2ee17c

Yeah, this was brutal. Second deadliest weather event in Utah since the NWS started keeping track of this in 1950 (the worst was a 2015 flash flood in Hildale that killed 12).

The dust storm was probably caused by outflow winds from nearby thunderstorms over the mountains east of 15, but those storms were fairly weak and the highest reported wind gust was 36 mph … which is not unusual at all in the inland west. To be honest I’m sort of surprised this type of thing isn’t more common in Utah. I would have to imagine the ongoing drought made it a lot easier for the wind to pick up that dust.

As a result of this, UDOT meteorologists are installing a new portable weather station with a camera in the area. The station is supposed to connect to a new set of dust-storm warning signs with beacons that will flash when low visibility conditions are occurring.

This was a surprising story to me.  I've driven through this area multiple times and have noticed high wind speeds previously... but no dust storms. I'm sure signs and alerts will be added here to improve motorist safety. But still, what a tragedy for those involved. This happened after the Pioneer Day weekend which may have increased traffic on the 25th.

(Edited to correct erroneous reference to a non existent religious holiday. My bad.)

More on this from the Salt Lake Tribune:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2021/07/25/least-dead-vehicle/

Quote
Five of the dead were members of the same family, traveling in a Buick, according to UHP. They were: Race Sawyer, 37, of Lehi, who was driving, and his son, Rider, 12; Kortni Sawyer, 30, of St. George, who was Race’s sister-in-law, and her son, Riggins, 6, and daughter, Franki, 2.

UHP also said a married couple in a Hyundai were killed: Richard Lorenzon, 51, who was driving, and Maricela Lorenzon, 47, both from Salt Lake City. According to Maricela’s Facebook page, they had four daughters.

A 15-year-old boy, Cameron Valentine of Yuma, Ariz. — who was a passenger in a Cadillac — also was killed, UHP reported. ...

The collisions happened about 4:30 p.m. on Interstate 15 near milepost 152, between the Meadow and Kanosh exits in Millard County, about 150 miles south of Salt Lake City.

The crashes happened, UHP officials said, when high winds kicked up sand or dust, which impaired drivers’ visibility on the highway.

According to the UHP, the series of collisions started with several minor crashes blocking the freeway. Then a semi-trailer truck, as it was slowing down to stop, rear-ended a pickup truck. UHP reported that the most serious crashes happened behind the semi, as two vehicles became wedged under the back of the trailer. Those vehicles were then hit from behind by another pickup, while another vehicle apparently sideswiped the trailer.

Traffic was halted overnight on both sides of the interstate while UHP investigated the accident, and traffic was diverted through Meadow and Kanosh on State Route 133 before being allowed back on the freeway. By late morning, traffic was reopened in both directions.


SM-G975U
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Rothman on July 29, 2021, 09:05:24 PM
Wait, us Mormons have holy weekends? :D

Please don't say you meant Pioneer Day... :D
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: andy3175 on July 29, 2021, 10:19:15 PM
Wait, us Mormons have holy weekends? :D

Please don't say you meant Pioneer Day... :D
Perhaps not an LDS holiday. From the original article:

Quote
Roadways on Sunday were full of drivers headed home after a long weekend to celebrate a state holiday recognizing Utah history and settlers from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who trekked west in search of religious freedom.




SM-G975U

Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Rothman on July 29, 2021, 10:54:09 PM
Wait, us Mormons have holy weekends? :D

Please don't say you meant Pioneer Day... :D
Perhaps not an LDS holiday. From the original article:

Quote
Roadways on Sunday were full of drivers headed home after a long weekend to celebrate a state holiday recognizing Utah history and settlers from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who trekked west in search of religious freedom.




SM-G975U
Right, Pioneer Day, just celebrating the arrival of Mormons into the Salt Lake Valley.  Not a "holy weekend."  It's nowhere near, say, Yom Kippur. :D
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: andy3175 on July 29, 2021, 11:17:25 PM
Wait, us Mormons have holy weekends? :D

Please don't say you meant Pioneer Day... :D
Perhaps not an LDS holiday. From the original article:

Quote
Roadways on Sunday were full of drivers headed home after a long weekend to celebrate a state holiday recognizing Utah history and settlers from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who trekked west in search of religious freedom.




SM-G975U
Right, Pioneer Day, just celebrating the arrival of Mormons into the Salt Lake Valley.  Not a "holy weekend."  It's nowhere near, say, Yom Kippur. :D

Agreed. Thanks. I corrected the original post.

Title: Re: Utah
Post by: andy3175 on July 29, 2021, 11:29:02 PM
On another note, monsoonal storms are causing damage to roads across Southern Utah... in addition to the damage caused by storms at Zion and Springdale, storms have caused roadway damage in Moab and Cedar City.

https://www.abc4.com/news/local-news/flash-floods-sweep-through-the-streets-of-moab/amp/

https://www.abc4.com/news/southern-utah/real-shock-iron-county-residents-seek-help-preparing-for-future-flash-floods/

Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on July 30, 2021, 01:04:38 AM
^ For what it's worth, your Deseret News link and quote are from 2013...

The past few weeks have certainly been one of the most productive monsoon periods I've seen in Utah. In fact, the NWS office in Salt Lake City has issued at least one flash flood warning on each of the past 11 days - mostly in various small drainages and tourist areas of southern Utah. And the rainfall rates coming from these storms are nuts - Beaver had almost 2 inches in the span of an hour today, and one weather station on I-15 just north of Anderson Jct (SR 17) recorded 0.90" in 10 minutes. Cedar City is one place that absolutely does not need any more rain after some very heavy rain earlier this week flooded several homes.

The floods in northern Utah have mostly been coming from burn scar areas. Don't be surprised if we have some flood issues with US 6 between Emma Park Rd and US 191 at Castle Gate at some point in the next few days. That is right below the burn scar from the Bear Fire (which closed US 6 for a time while it was burning last month), and any debris flow from that burn area would have to cross 6 as it makes its way downhill to the Price River. There are several other burn scars in southern Utah County near the Mapleton/Spanish Fork areas that are being closely monitored as well.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: andy3175 on July 30, 2021, 09:54:13 AM
^ For what it's worth, your Deseret News link and quote are from 2013...

The past few weeks have certainly been one of the most productive monsoon periods I've seen in Utah. In fact, the NWS office in Salt Lake City has issued at least one flash flood warning on each of the past 11 days - mostly in various small drainages and tourist areas of southern Utah. And the rainfall rates coming from these storms are nuts - Beaver had almost 2 inches in the span of an hour today, and one weather station on I-15 just north of Anderson Jct (SR 17) recorded 0.90" in 10 minutes. Cedar City is one place that absolutely does not need any more rain after some very heavy rain earlier this week flooded several homes.

The floods in northern Utah have mostly been coming from burn scar areas. Don't be surprised if we have some flood issues with US 6 between Emma Park Rd and US 191 at Castle Gate at some point in the next few days. That is right below the burn scar from the Bear Fire (which closed US 6 for a time while it was burning last month, and any debris flow from that burn area would have to cross 6 as it makes its way downhill to the Price River. There are several other burn scars in southern Utah County near the Mapleton/Spanish Fork areas that are being closely monitored as well.
Thanks... that's what I get for reading the content and not the date! I'll go back and remove that link since it's not timely!

SM-G975U

Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on August 09, 2021, 11:33:54 PM
Per several news articles, AASHTO approved a bunch of new US Bicycle Routes and extensions of existing routes at their 2021 spring meeting. A UDOT interactive map of new and existing USBRs (https://parametrix.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=4da4865207404e75ad6e2b3b0132e81b) is available online.

Summary of changes and routings

USBR 70 - no changes:

USBR 77 - brand new route, essentially a main N/S corridor through the Wasatch Front:

USBR 79 - extended south to Arizona from former terminus at US 89/SR 12 intersection:

USBR 677 - brand new route, alternate to USBR 77 through Utah Valley:

USBR 679 - brand new route, much shorter alternate to USBR 79 that does not go through Panguitch

USBR 877 - brand new route, connects USBR 70/79 at Panguitch to USBR 77 at Sigurd
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: mrsman on August 15, 2021, 03:46:18 PM
Wait, us Mormons have holy weekends? :D

Please don't say you meant Pioneer Day... :D
Perhaps not an LDS holiday. From the original article:

Quote
Roadways on Sunday were full of drivers headed home after a long weekend to celebrate a state holiday recognizing Utah history and settlers from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who trekked west in search of religious freedom.




SM-G975U
Right, Pioneer Day, just celebrating the arrival of Mormons into the Salt Lake Valley.  Not a "holy weekend."  It's nowhere near, say, Yom Kippur. :D

Is Pioneer Day a state holiday in Utah?  Is it a day that only state workers get off, or is it widely celebrated?

I think a similar concept exists in Massachussets with Patriots Day.  It is celebrated on the third Monday of April, to commemorate the battles of Lexington and Concord in the Revolutionary War.  It is a state holiday, but many non-state workers also get the day off.  Given that the Boston Marathon is run on the day, and so many streets are closed, it is a day when traffic is certainly strongly discouraged.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on August 16, 2021, 01:43:19 PM
Wait, us Mormons have holy weekends? :D

Please don't say you meant Pioneer Day... :D
Perhaps not an LDS holiday. From the original article:

Quote
Roadways on Sunday were full of drivers headed home after a long weekend to celebrate a state holiday recognizing Utah history and settlers from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who trekked west in search of religious freedom.




SM-G975U
Right, Pioneer Day, just celebrating the arrival of Mormons into the Salt Lake Valley.  Not a "holy weekend."  It's nowhere near, say, Yom Kippur. :D

Is Pioneer Day a state holiday in Utah?  Is it a day that only state workers get off, or is it widely celebrated?

I think a similar concept exists in Massachussets with Patriots Day.  It is celebrated on the third Monday of April, to commemorate the battles of Lexington and Concord in the Revolutionary War.  It is a state holiday, but many non-state workers also get the day off.  Given that the Boston Marathon is run on the day, and so many streets are closed, it is a day when traffic is certainly strongly discouraged.

Pioneer Day is basically the Utah version of Patriots Day. It is a state holiday but it’s well known and widely celebrated beyond just state offices. Because it’s in July, it is celebrated with fireworks - and in some areas, the frequency/intensity of those fireworks celebrations can rival or even exceed what you see on the 4th.

And for those of us Utahns who are not LDS church members, we often refer to the day as “Pie and Beer Day”. First time I saw that was on a sign in front of the Catholic church in downtown SLC several years ago. :sombrero:
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on August 20, 2021, 12:42:51 PM
KUTV reports that, due to "poor driving behavior," the at-grade crossing of 6200 South on Bangerter Highway is being permanently closed until the new interchange at the same location is completed.
https://kutv.com/news/local/udot-making-changes-after-dozens-of-crashes-at-one-intersection

Quote
“Over the last month, we’ve been averaging about a crash every other day. It’s really astounding," John Gleason with UDOT said.

Gleason said they know what’s causing the problem.

“It’s all because of poor driving behavior. It’s because of people running red lights, speeding."

UDOT decided change is necessary.

“We’re seeing these crashes happen time and time again. So we have to sometimes go above and beyond to assure safety. And this is one of those cases," Gleason said.

On Monday night, crews will begin the work to to close east-west access on the route.

“We’ve worked very closely with the city and with the police department, and we feel the best decision is to close down 6200 South at Bangerter. Take that stoplight that somebody people are running out of the equation," Gleason said.

(https://www.abc4.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2021/08/UDOT-Map-8.20.21.jpg?resize=447,720)
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: i-215 on August 26, 2021, 06:50:29 AM
Drivers don't just suddenly "go bad" at a single location.

I'm out of state, so granted I haven't driven it — but in my humble opinion, this is more a situation of poor construction staging failing to account for how universally terrible drivers always are.

Hey if UDOT enjoys criticizing Utahns, great.  Not the PR strategy I would have chosen, personally.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on September 26, 2021, 05:04:12 PM
KSL reports that I-15 in Lehi will be restriped using "contrast striping," with more to come throughout the state:
https://www.ksl.com/article/50248957/why-i-15-lane-striping-will-soon-look-different-in-the-lehi-area-and-then-other-parts-of-utah

Quote
Utah transportation crews are set to address one of the main complaints they've heard from I-15 drivers passing through the Point of the Mountain in recent years: the painted lane stripes.

Beginning Sunday night, Utah Department of Transportation crews will repaint the stripes with what's known as "contrast striping" in each direction from the Point of Mountain to Main Street in Lehi. From 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. Sundays through Fridays throughout October, crews will close up to four freeway lanes in each direction to accomplish this, according to UDOT spokesman John Gleason.

... Gleason explained the current stripes can be difficult to see beginning around fall and continuing into winter because the lower angle of the sun, and then snowstorms can make visibility "more challenging." That's a problem because close to 200,000 vehicles use that section of road daily.

Contrast striping is a new method of lane striping that UDOT officials feel can help with those issues. Gleason said they tested it on the freeway from about 9000 South to the Bangerter Highway in Salt Lake County and they've received mostly positive feedback since. It's why they plan to expand the process in Lehi and then other parts of the state in the next year.

(https://img.ksl.com/slc/2842/284286/28428673.jpeg)
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Rothman on September 26, 2021, 08:58:06 PM
Makes me wonder if that's just the age-old practice in other states of painting a dark stripe along with the white one.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: triplemultiplex on September 27, 2021, 05:39:24 PM
Sure seems to be; especially on new concrete pavement.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on September 27, 2021, 05:48:47 PM
If this is the case, it's not a new development. UDOT has been putting black stripes alongside the primary white ones in some capacity at least since the early-2000s Olympics reconstruction (example (https://goo.gl/maps/Mt5yp8RJjfChhe8R6)). I've never seen this white-on-black look on asphalt, and I'm pretty sure it is mostly restricted to concrete freeways.

What I'd like to see, though I'm not holding my breath, is a black stripe behind the main white one (example from Atlanta (https://goo.gl/maps/Yha6dtHHPYnkbL4a6)). In my experience, this is more visible in any sort of weather but especially when it's raining.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on October 01, 2021, 12:26:21 PM
The speed limit on the new section of UT 7 from Exit 18 to UT 9 has been increased from 60mph to 65mph.

(https://i.imgur.com/AgEpUOp.jpg)
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: SeriesE on October 02, 2021, 12:16:11 AM
Random question from looking at maps.

How come UT-201 didn’t meet I-80 at South Salt Lake? They just kind of missed each other by a couple of blocks, resulting in the complicated interchange today.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: triplemultiplex on October 04, 2021, 05:21:56 PM
One was a planned freeway (I-80) and the other one (UT 201) 'grew up' on an existing corridor over time as demands increased.  It would've been too late to plow a freeway straight west from the souther 15/80 junction by the time the first interchanges were going in on UT 201.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on October 04, 2021, 09:16:39 PM
One was a planned freeway (I-80) and the other one (UT 201) 'grew up' on an existing corridor over time as demands increased.  It would've been too late to plow a freeway straight west from the souther 15/80 junction by the time the first interchanges were going in on UT 201.

To add: the SR 201 freeway used to connect directly to the portion of 2100 South east of I-15. Take a look at the pre-2001 configuration of that interchange:

(https://i.imgur.com/KGnMoVv.png)

It is still interesting though because all of the modern 201 freeway between I-215 and I-15 was brand-new alignment built at the same time as I-15 and I-80. I can't imagine it would have been that much harder to make that new-construction freeway line up with I-80. Clearly whoever first planned the Salt Lake-area freeways felt that keeping the historical connection to 2100 South was more important.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: i-215 on October 06, 2021, 06:16:32 AM
Gosh, growing up we all called it the "2100 South Freeway."   Calling it "the 201" was a concerted P.R. effort by UDOT (working with KSL and others).

Buyouts were pretty crazy for the new freeway interchange as it is (all the businesses south of the 21st South Fwy, east of 9th).  The rail yard is huge and they were probably trying to cross it at as much of a 90-degree angle as they could (to reduce bridge length).  Going diagonally to connect with I-80 would have just made the project a lot more expensive for minimal benefit.  (But this is just my opinion).
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: SeriesE on October 06, 2021, 12:04:52 PM
Gosh, growing up we all called it the "2100 South Freeway."   Calling it "the 201" was a concerted P.R. effort by UDOT (working with KSL and others).

Buyouts were pretty crazy for the new freeway interchange as it is (all the businesses south of the 21st South Fwy, east of 9th).  The rail yard is huge and they were probably trying to cross it at as much of a 90-degree angle as they could (to reduce bridge length).  Going diagonally to connect with I-80 would have just made the project a lot more expensive for minimal benefit.  (But this is just my opinion).
The other way is to make I-80 diagonal by starting at 2100 South and then move down to the current alignment.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on October 06, 2021, 02:41:38 PM
Gosh, growing up we all called it the "2100 South Freeway."   Calling it "the 201" was a concerted P.R. effort by UDOT (working with KSL and others).

Buyouts were pretty crazy for the new freeway interchange as it is (all the businesses south of the 21st South Fwy, east of 9th).  The rail yard is huge and they were probably trying to cross it at as much of a 90-degree angle as they could (to reduce bridge length).  Going diagonally to connect with I-80 would have just made the project a lot more expensive for minimal benefit.  (But this is just my opinion).
The other way is to make I-80 diagonal by starting at 2100 South and then move down to the current alignment.

It is rather interesting that the eastern part of I-80 was built where it was. Obviously it lines up with where Parleys Canyon is, but why wasn't it routed directly northwest from there to connect with I-80 west of downtown and produce a continuous route? Most cities in the 1950s had no issues with tearing down city centers to build new freeways.

In fact, I came across an old planning document with a freeway that would have done exactly that...but it still didn't connect directly to western I-80. That was the proposed East Valley Freeway, which would have junctioned I-15 at 600 North, gone southeast through downtown, and then south generally along the 1300 East and Van Winkle corridor.

(https://i.imgur.com/Km4eVZH.png)

That explains both the weird asymmetry in the routing of I-215, the original configuration of the 600 North interchange with free-flowing ramps, and also probably why Van Winkle exists in the first place. For the sake of downtown I'm glad the freeway didn't get built, but it sure would have made accessing the east valley and especially the University of Utah area a hell of a lot easier.

(Also, it's fun to see what's on there that never got built and what isn't on there that did. The 20th East Expressway never came to fruition either, but the arterial "West Valley Highway" mostly got built as expressway, now-half-freeway Bangerter, the "West Davis Highway" got adapted into today's Legacy Parkway, and there is no equivalent at all to the modern Mountain View Corridor...)
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: SeriesE on October 06, 2021, 09:42:41 PM
Gosh, growing up we all called it the "2100 South Freeway."   Calling it "the 201" was a concerted P.R. effort by UDOT (working with KSL and others).

Buyouts were pretty crazy for the new freeway interchange as it is (all the businesses south of the 21st South Fwy, east of 9th).  The rail yard is huge and they were probably trying to cross it at as much of a 90-degree angle as they could (to reduce bridge length).  Going diagonally to connect with I-80 would have just made the project a lot more expensive for minimal benefit.  (But this is just my opinion).
The other way is to make I-80 diagonal by starting at 2100 South and then move down to the current alignment.

It is rather interesting that the eastern part of I-80 was built where it was. Obviously it lines up with where Parleys Canyon is, but why wasn't it routed directly northwest from there to connect with I-80 west of downtown and produce a continuous route? Most cities in the 1950s had no issues with tearing down city centers to build new freeways.

In fact, I came across an old planning document with a freeway that would have done exactly that...but it still didn't connect directly to western I-80. That was the proposed East Valley Freeway, which would have junctioned I-15 at 600 North, gone southeast through downtown, and then south generally along the 1300 East and Van Winkle corridor.

(https://i.imgur.com/Km4eVZH.png)

That explains both the weird asymmetry in the routing of I-215, the original configuration of the 600 North interchange with free-flowing ramps, and also probably why Van Winkle exists in the first place. For the sake of downtown I'm glad the freeway didn't get built, but it sure would have made accessing the east valley and especially the University of Utah area a hell of a lot easier.

(Also, it's fun to see what's on there that never got built and what isn't on there that did. The 20th East Expressway never came to fruition either, but the arterial "West Valley Highway" mostly got built as expressway, now-half-freeway Bangerter, the "West Davis Highway" got adapted into today's Legacy Parkway, and there is no equivalent at all to the modern Mountain View Corridor...)

Also looking at the current configuration, the western I-80 freeway doesn’t seem that necessary. I-80 could have taken the UT-201 route and eliminate that concurrency. Airport can be served by a long off ramp from I-215
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on October 17, 2021, 07:52:44 PM
At long last, the I-80 interchange at 5600 West is being converted to a diverging diamond this weekend.

https://www.ksl.com/article/50263248/i-80-interchange-at-5600-west-to-close-over-the-weekend

Now if only they could finish the 4-lane and railroad bridge on 56th between 80 and 201. Nothing numbs the mind quite like being stuck in an industrial hellscape with hundreds of trucks waiting over 15 minutes for a very very slow train going into that UP intermodal center.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Plutonic Panda on October 17, 2021, 09:40:05 PM
^^^ not happy about that is needs to be a stack.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on October 17, 2021, 10:47:43 PM
^^^ not happy about that is needs to be a stack.

At I-80 and 56th West?  :-D  That would be some serious overkill and a tremendous waste of money that would be far better spent elsewhere in the state. Not to mention the lack of ROW without ripping up warehouses and hotels and whatever else.

Especially since in the somewhat near future we'll see a northward Mountain View Corridor extension to I-80.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Plutonic Panda on October 21, 2021, 12:39:43 PM
^^^ I’m not too familiar with SLC. Is this the same road that is to become the West Davis freeway?
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: triplemultiplex on October 21, 2021, 02:46:24 PM
Different freeway.
West Davis is up by Ogden.
Mountain View is UT 85.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on November 21, 2021, 11:35:42 AM
Looks like UDOT is conducting an environmental study for improvements to Orem's 1600 North between I-15 and US 89, along some of the newest state highway mileage in Utah:

(https://i.imgur.com/cDcLn3F.jpg)

This is a good thing and is why UDOT took over the road in the first place - this road has a ton of traffic and needs some upgrades that Orem and Lindon couldn't afford to make.

https://www.udot.utah.gov/connect/2021/11/04/udot-to-hold-public-meetings-on-environmental-study-about-potential-improvements-to-1600-north-in-orem/
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on November 30, 2021, 01:05:45 PM
KSL reports that a section of SR 73 in Eagle Mountain will be lowered from 65mph to 55mph:
https://www.ksl.com/article/50294478/udot-to-reduce-speed-limit-along-section-of-busy-eagle-mountain-highway

Quote
After residents voiced concerns about safety and too many traffic accidents, the Utah Department of Transportation said it will be reducing the speed limit along a section of state Route 73.

... In response, UDOT said it is in the final steps of approving a speed limit reduction in the area from 65 mph to 55 mph. The change could be finalized in the next few months.

... Geoff Dupaix, UDOT's region three senior communications manager, said UDOT does have the intersection of S.R. 73 and Six-Mile Cutoff Road, and other intersections along the corridor, identified for future traffic signals.

And there's this at the end of the report:
Quote
Eventually, S.R. 73 will be converted into a freeway/frontage road system, but Dupaix said that could still be a decade away.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on December 27, 2021, 06:16:39 PM
I-15 between MPs 282-284 is closed because a light pole fell onto the freeway overnight in high wind ... and an inspection of other poles in the area revealed many problems ahead of another winter storm.
https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/part-of-northbound-i-15-closed-in-northern-utah-county

Quote
A UDOT spokesperson tells FOX 13 more than one light pole fell onto the road Sunday night due to high winds and had to be moved, causing UDOT to start inspecting other poles in the area near Triumph Boulevard.

On Monday, UDOT inspectors found several other poles in the same area with stress fractures caused by years of wear and tear. So, UDOT made the decision to remove them due to the risk of them falling during Monday night's upcoming storm.

Here's a live UDOT camera at MP 278 northbound:
(http://udottraffic.utah.gov/1_devices/aux15357.jpeg)
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Occidental Tourist on December 30, 2021, 08:21:25 PM
KSL reports that I-15 in Lehi will be restriped using "contrast striping," with more to come throughout the state:
https://www.ksl.com/article/50248957/why-i-15-lane-striping-will-soon-look-different-in-the-lehi-area-and-then-other-parts-of-utah

Quote
Utah transportation crews are set to address one of the main complaints they've heard from I-15 drivers passing through the Point of the Mountain in recent years: the painted lane stripes.

Beginning Sunday night, Utah Department of Transportation crews will repaint the stripes with what's known as "contrast striping" in each direction from the Point of Mountain to Main Street in Lehi. From 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. Sundays through Fridays throughout October, crews will close up to four freeway lanes in each direction to accomplish this, according to UDOT spokesman John Gleason.

... Gleason explained the current stripes can be difficult to see beginning around fall and continuing into winter because the lower angle of the sun, and then snowstorms can make visibility "more challenging." That's a problem because close to 200,000 vehicles use that section of road daily.

Contrast striping is a new method of lane striping that UDOT officials feel can help with those issues. Gleason said they tested it on the freeway from about 9000 South to the Bangerter Highway in Salt Lake County and they've received mostly positive feedback since. It's why they plan to expand the process in Lehi and then other parts of the state in the next year.

(https://img.ksl.com/slc/2842/284286/28428673.jpeg)

A wonderful news article that never once explains what contrast striping is or how it addresses low light conditions. There’s even a link embedded in the words “contrast striping” that takes you to another article that doesn’t mention contrast striping at all.

Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on January 15, 2022, 11:18:09 AM
I-15 between MPs 282-284 is closed because a light pole fell onto the freeway overnight in high wind ... and an inspection of other poles in the area revealed many problems ahead of another winter storm.
https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/part-of-northbound-i-15-closed-in-northern-utah-county

KSL reports that UDOT is now going to remove all 23 of the remaining 120-foot light poles in the area:
https://www.ksl.com/article/50328590/dont-want-to-take-any-chances-udot-to-remove-more-i-15-light-poles-over-safety-concerns
Quote
Crews removed the pole that day but then found four similar poles were unstable after an inspection. This resulted in an emergency closure of the freeway in both directions that lasted several hours on Dec. 27, as crews removed those poles.

None of the poles were that old. They were all installed as a part of UDOT's I-15 Technology Corridor project just a year or two ago, according to Gleason. It remains unclear as to why one fell and four others became unstable.

But the agency's engineers didn't feel confident that they could continue inspections of the poles while they remain on I-15, so engineers will remove the 23 other poles installed in the area at the time and inspect them away from the busy freeway.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on January 23, 2022, 12:19:45 PM
St. George News has a long article surveying the history of roads in Washington County and vicinity. Highlights include the original LaVerkin bridge over the Virgin River, the Bigelow Tunnel on US 91, and construction of I-15. Lots of pics.

https://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2022/01/23/raw-washington-county-transportation-history-day-turning-desperate-pieces-of-road-into-smooth-thoroughfares/

(https://www.stgeorgeutah.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/WashCo-Transportation-Historic-First-LaVerkin-Bridge.jpg)

(https://www.stgeorgeutah.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/WashCo-Transportation-Red-River-Bridge-historic-St-George-News.jpg)
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Rover_0 on February 03, 2022, 10:56:07 AM
Watching the Utah Legislature (https://le.utah.gov/~2022/bills/static/SB0013.html), you have the expected changes (establishment of SR-179, truncation of SR-138 to SR-179, extension of SR-85 to SR-201), there are a couple interesting tidbits:

—The legislative (and milepost) direction of SR-194 (Lehi’s 2100 North between Redwood Road and I-15/US-89) has been flipped (west-to-east from east-to-west), and the route has been extended slightly to the stoplight right after the I-15/US-89 interchange.

—There are a couple amendments mentioning westward extensions of SR-71 and SR-92. I presume 71 will continue on 12600 South to MVC (SR-85) and SR-92’s extension is across a yet-to-be-built Jordan River crossing, right?
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on February 03, 2022, 11:21:02 AM
The actual bill text in the sections for 71 and 92, for those too lazy to click:

Quote
43          72-4-105.1. Future designations of state highways.
44          (1) Upon completion of construction to extend the western terminus of SR-71, the
45     department shall recommend to the Legislature an amendment to the description of SR-71 in
46     Section 72-4-113 to reflect the new western terminus.
47          (2) (a) The department shall perform an environmental analysis related to the proposed
48     extension of the western terminus of SR-92 with funds appropriated to the department for that
49     purpose.
50          (b) Upon completion of construction of the proposed extension of the western terminus
51     of SR-92, the department shall recommend to the Legislature an amendment to the description
52     of SR-92 in Section 72-4-115 to reflect the new western terminus.

Extending 71 west to Mountain View makes sense. There are surprisingly few state highway connections to the southern end of Mountain View - all the E/W routes down there end at Bangerter, which was sort of the western development limit when those designations went into place. Extending one seems like a good idea for network continuity purposes, and that mile or so of 126th South is pretty much state highway quality already. Arguably 134th South is an even higher quality road as is between those points, but seems better to keep things simple with which roads are state and which aren't.

The possibility of a 92 extension is fascinating as I have not heard any talk of this from UDOT or in the news at all. 194 can get pretty congested during afternoon rush hour, so another Jordan River bridge in the vicinity of Thanksgiving Point definitely isn't a bad idea... but I have no idea where you'd put it. If you extend 92 directly west from Ashton Blvd where it currently ends, you're cutting right through the golf course which seems like a non-starter.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on February 11, 2022, 10:48:05 AM
The Salt Lake Tribune reports that some lawmakers are seeking funding for a $270 million bridge on UT 276 to replace the inactive Bullfrog-Hall's Landing ferry across Lake Powell.
https://www.sltrib.com/news/2022/02/11/does-utah-need-million/

Quote
No bridges cross Lake Powell for roughly 90 miles between the Glen Canyon Dam in Arizona and Hite at the upstream end of the reservoir.

For years, the Utah Department of Transportation operated a ferry between Hall’s Crossing and Bullfrog in the middle of Lake Powell, but due to record low reservoir levels and other issues, the ferry is not operational.

Rep. Phil Lyman, R-Blanding, believes it’s time to replace the ferry with a more reliable alternative. At a subcommittee hearing held at the Utah Capitol earlier this month, Lyman requested lawmakers approve $2 million for an engineering study of a large bridge to cross rugged canyon terrain near the ferry site.

... The Lake Powell bridge would shorten driving times between central and southeast Utah if another roads project moves forward that would connect Monument Valley with Highway 276 near Halls Crossing. The $30 million project would include a $10.5 million bridge across the San Juan River near Clay Hills Crossing.

The Legislature will decide whether or not to prioritize Lyman’s $2 million request to fund the engineering study later this month.

(https://www.nps.gov/glca/learn/news/images/IMG_1411.JPG)
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on February 11, 2022, 11:59:17 AM
St. George News reports on this year's Dixie Transportation Expo and updates several projects across southern Utah:
https://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2022/02/10/mgk-dixie-transportation-expo-highlights-projects-on-i-15-and-in-st-george-and-surrounding-municipalities/

Quote
... UDOT plans to add a third lane to (I-15) in either direction between mile markers 6 and 8 (the Dixie Drive interchange and St. George Boulevard interchange) in St. George and again between mile markers 10 and 13 (the Green Springs interchange and Washington Parkway interchange) in Washington City. The project between miles 6 and 8 will undergo an environmental study set to start soon, followed by design work in 2023 and construction possibly starting in 2024. ... Work to be done between miles 10 and 13 is further along, with construction expected to start in 2023. This includes the Exit 11 interchange that will connect to Main Street in Washington City.

(In Hurricane,) the 2800 West project will tie into the Southern Parkway where it intersects with state Route 9 and will run north to 600 North. This will be a two-lane roadway that will also feature a paved path along the roadside for pedestrian use. Work is set to begin in June and conclude by Thanksgiving.

(In Toquerville:) ... Now referred to as the Toquerville Parkway, the road will start at Anderson Junction off I-15 and run south on the west side of Toquerville where it will eventually connect with state Route 17 on the southern end of town. The primary goal is to divert traffic away from Toquerville’s downtown area. ... Work on the roadway started in January and is anticipated to conclude by mid to late December. Toquerville is hosting a groundbreaking for the new parkway on Feb. 24.

(http://)
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on February 11, 2022, 02:49:50 PM
Widening I-15 through St George is long overdue. Good to see UDOT finally making steps in that direction.

I can't imagine there will be much political appetite to build a SR 276 bridge over Lake Powell, especially given that the state just spent a couple years and several million dollars to refurbish the ferry and extend the boat ramps...only for water levels to promptly fall below the level of the extended ramps this past summer. The old ramps were good as long as the lake's surface elevation was above 3610 feet. The new ones are good above 3575 feet. Current lake elevation? 3530 feet.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Plutonic Panda on February 11, 2022, 04:41:14 PM
I really am exciting for both of those proposals but especially the 276 bridges. Please please let that happen. I hate ferries with a passion and wish they’d get rid of that.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: kwellada on February 11, 2022, 05:04:03 PM
I really am exciting for both of those proposals but especially the 276 bridges. Please please let that happen. I hate ferries with a passion and wish they’d get rid of that.

I don't mind ferries (lived in BC and WA state for years). However, I really want to drive that highway and don't want to be backtracking on either side of the river. And with the news that the Colorado high country snowpack isn't doing great in 2022, I have a feeling it'll be faster to build a bridge than to wait for the reservoir to fill up to previous levels. Besides, perhaps the bridge can be part of the future Glen Canyon National Park!
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Plutonic Panda on February 11, 2022, 05:17:44 PM
I really am exciting for both of those proposals but especially the 276 bridges. Please please let that happen. I hate ferries with a passion and wish they’d get rid of that.

I don't mind ferries (lived in BC and WA state for years). However, I really want to drive that highway and don't want to be backtracking on either side of the river. And with the news that the Colorado high country snowpack isn't doing great in 2022, I have a feeling it'll be faster to build a bridge than to wait for the reservoir to fill up to previous levels. Besides, perhaps the bridge can be part of the future Glen Canyon National Park!
I don’t mind ferries either as I should worded that differently. I just don’t like them where a bridge could be built instead. Of course in some cases there are exceptions where we might not need tons of bridges polluting an environment like the Puget Sound but here it is definitely needed.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on February 11, 2022, 05:49:08 PM
I really am exciting for both of those proposals but especially the 276 bridges. Please please let that happen. I hate ferries with a passion and wish they’d get rid of that.

I don't mind ferries (lived in BC and WA state for years). However, I really want to drive that highway and don't want to be backtracking on either side of the river. And with the news that the Colorado high country snowpack isn't doing great in 2022, I have a feeling it'll be faster to build a bridge than to wait for the reservoir to fill up to previous levels. Besides, perhaps the bridge can be part of the future Glen Canyon National Park!
I don’t mind ferries either as I should worded that differently. I just don’t like them where a bridge could be built instead. Of course in some cases there are exceptions where we might not need tons of bridges polluting an environment like the Puget Sound but here it is definitely needed.

Define "needed". The road from the north into Bullfrog has an AADT of less than 200. I just don't see how you justify spending $270 million - an amount greater than Utah's entire bridge allotment in the infrastructure bill - to replace a ferry that carries that few cars and only runs four months of the year even in times of high water. Seems to me it'd be far easier and cheaper to figure out a way to extend the ferry ramps further down or build new ramps or even buy a new, smaller-capacity ferry that can handle smaller depths.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: zzcarp on February 11, 2022, 05:51:45 PM
And with the news that the Colorado high country snowpack isn't doing great in 2022

As of yesterday, the Colorado River basin snowpack was at 104% of average (https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=483531769804881&set=a.251179323040128). It's not enough to fill the downstream deficits yet, and the snowpack situation improved significantly this winter.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Plutonic Panda on February 11, 2022, 06:43:46 PM
I really am exciting for both of those proposals but especially the 276 bridges. Please please let that happen. I hate ferries with a passion and wish they’d get rid of that.

I don't mind ferries (lived in BC and WA state for years). However, I really want to drive that highway and don't want to be backtracking on either side of the river. And with the news that the Colorado high country snowpack isn't doing great in 2022, I have a feeling it'll be faster to build a bridge than to wait for the reservoir to fill up to previous levels. Besides, perhaps the bridge can be part of the future Glen Canyon National Park!
I don’t mind ferries either as I should worded that differently. I just don’t like them where a bridge could be built instead. Of course in some cases there are exceptions where we might not need tons of bridges polluting an environment like the Puget Sound but here it is definitely needed.

Define "needed". The road from the north into Bullfrog has an AADT of less than 200. I just don't see how you justify spending $270 million - an amount greater than Utah's entire bridge allotment in the infrastructure bill - to replace a ferry that carries that few cars and only runs four months of the year even in times of high water. Seems to me it'd be far easier and cheaper to figure out a way to extend the ferry ramps further down or build new ramps or even buy a new, smaller-capacity ferry that can handle smaller depths.
Maybes it’s that low because there isn’t a bridge.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Plutonic Panda on February 11, 2022, 07:13:54 PM
And with the news that the Colorado high country snowpack isn't doing great in 2022

As of yesterday, the Colorado River basin snowpack was at 104% of average (https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=483531769804881&set=a.251179323040128). It's not enough to fill the downstream deficits yet, and the snowpack situation improved significantly this winter.
They need to work out a way to reduce the water output at the Glen Canyon Dam to boost lake levels. Same thing with the Hoover Dam.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Duke87 on February 11, 2022, 10:39:51 PM
Maybes it’s that low because there isn’t a bridge.

It's that low because aside from Bullfrog UT 276 is not the most direct route to anywhere. UT 95 (which has a bridge) is the faster thru route.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on February 11, 2022, 10:52:21 PM
Maybes it’s that low because there isn’t a bridge.

It's that low because aside from Bullfrog UT 276 is not the most direct route to anywhere. UT 95 (which has a bridge) is the faster thru route.

And that bridge has only been around since 1966, when the dam was built - before that, 95 used a ferry across the Colorado a little south of the current bridge, near where the now-unusable Hite Marina is.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Plutonic Panda on February 11, 2022, 10:56:02 PM
Maybes it’s that low because there isn’t a bridge.

It's that low because aside from Bullfrog UT 276 is not the most direct route to anywhere. UT 95 (which has a bridge) is the faster thru route.
True but what they need to do is build a road to connect to AZ 98 near Shonto. That would greatly help reduce travel times going to Page and I’d personally use that route many times a year.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: kwellada on February 12, 2022, 09:18:47 AM
As of yesterday, the Colorado River basin snowpack was at 104% of average (https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=483531769804881&set=a.251179323040128). It's not enough to fill the downstream deficits yet, and the snowpack situation improved significantly this winter.

Here's an article from a few days ago about the water forecast:
https://coloradosun.com/2022/02/08/colorado-river-basin-runoff-drought/

I am doing snow dances so that maybe March will be snowy up in Colorado but it's not sounding as though this winter will do much to change the overall drought situation.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Alex on February 12, 2022, 10:21:04 AM
St. George News reports on this year's Dixie Transportation Expo and updates several projects across southern Utah:
https://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2022/02/10/mgk-dixie-transportation-expo-highlights-projects-on-i-15-and-in-st-george-and-surrounding-municipalities/

Quote
... UDOT plans to add a third lane to (I-15) in either direction between mile markers 6 and 8 (the Dixie Drive interchange and St. George Boulevard interchange) in St. George and again between mile markers 10 and 13 (the Green Springs interchange and Washington Parkway interchange) in Washington City. The project between miles 6 and 8 will undergo an environmental study set to start soon, followed by design work in 2023 and construction possibly starting in 2024. ... Work to be done between miles 10 and 13 is further along, with construction expected to start in 2023. This includes the Exit 11 interchange that will connect to Main Street in Washington City.

So if Exit 11 is being added at Main Street in Washington, does the blank entry on the succeeding interchange sequence sign beyond Exit 13 / Washington Parkway imply another future exit?

(https://www.aaroads.com/ut/015/i-015-n-exit-016-2.jpg) (https://www.aaroads.com/ut/015/i-015-n-exit-016-2.jpg)
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on February 12, 2022, 11:28:15 AM
So if Exit 11 is being added at Main Street in Washington, does the blank entry on the succeeding interchange sequence sign beyond Exit 13 / Washington Parkway imply another future exit?

Seems highly unlikely. The only road that even crosses the highway between Exits 16 and 22 is the access road into a low-use section of the Red Cliffs National Recreation Area. (That narrow one-lane road under the freeway.)

I suppose, in theory, they could add another interchange at the north end of the industrial zone along Old US 91, so trucks heading north wouldn't have to double back to UT 9 to enter I-15, but I've never heard any talk of such a thing.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: pderocco on February 15, 2022, 12:51:02 AM
Maybes it’s that low because there isn’t a bridge.

It's that low because aside from Bullfrog UT 276 is not the most direct route to anywhere. UT 95 (which has a bridge) is the faster thru route.

The ferry has been on my bucket list for a few years. On Jan 2, I took 95 over Hite Crossing, but I might have chosen 276 had the ferry been running. A bridge doesn't seem practical, though, because it would have to be about twice the length of the US-89 bridge, and while it would attract some traffic, it wouldn't attract much unless they built a paved road along Capitol Reef.

By the way, why is the Mokee Dugway unpaved? It was an easy drive, but it's really peculiar.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on March 16, 2022, 11:38:16 AM
Significant reconstruction is coming to the US 40 freeway in Wasatch County this spring and summer, including pavement rehab and a full deck replacement on the Provo River bridges. Looks like they are going to try to fit three lanes onto one of those bridges during the construction, which seems like it will be a very tight squeeze.

https://www.udot.utah.gov/connect/2022/03/03/major-construction-to-begin-on-u-s-40-north-of-heber-city/
https://udotinput.utah.gov/us40improved

(https://www.udot.utah.gov/connect/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2022/03/US40Improved_Map-1024x641.jpg)
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on March 23, 2022, 07:48:41 PM
Not the most spectacular pics, but work has begun on the UT 17 bypass of Toquerville. Photos taken 23-Mar-2022.

Seen from the south side of Toquerville, grading of the bypass is visible in the distance:
(https://i.imgur.com/rt7iWKR.jpg)

From the north side, the end of the bypass:
(https://i.imgur.com/gFD7pVz.jpg)

UDOT project page: https://maps.udot.utah.gov/wadocuments/Apps/ProgramBriefing/4/18214.pdf
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: TheGrassGuy on April 05, 2022, 09:53:12 PM
I was today years old when I realized that there was a long rail causeway bisecting Great Salt Lake. And that that causeway had no gaps until 2016. And that Great Salt Lake is shriveling up so much that Antelope Island is no longer an island anymore.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Rothman on April 05, 2022, 10:41:39 PM
I was today years old when I realized that there was a long rail causeway bisecting Great Salt Lake. And that that causeway had no gaps until 2016. And that Great Salt Lake is shriveling up so much that Antelope Island is no longer an island anymore.
...and the causeway changes the water chemistry north and south of it...

...and the railroad had named places along the causeway that online map services picked up and caused funny things to happen with directions.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on April 05, 2022, 11:40:00 PM
And that that causeway had no gaps until 2016.

No, the full causeway as originally constructed in the 1960s had a pair of culverts to allow some water exchange. Then in the wet years of the early 1980s, the south half of the lake rose so high that it threatened to flood some of the outlying areas of SLC, and the existing culverts weren't doing enough to equalize the lake levels, so the causeway was breached near the west end in 1984 (that's what this (https://www.google.com/maps/@41.2217419,-112.8488302,612m/data=!3m1!1e3) is). The issue was that in the early 2010s both of those culverts had to be closed I think because of issues with subsidence, and then a multi-year drought dropped the lake below the level of the 1984 breach. So for a few years, there wasn't any water exchange until the causeway was breached again in 2016.

And that Great Salt Lake is shriveling up so much that Antelope Island is no longer an island anymore.

Antelope Island hasn't been an island since 2001 and actually requires a higher-than-average lake level (average is 4200 feet elevation) to be isolated from the mainland. The more noteworthy stat there is that there are currently no permanent islands beyond temporary sandbars or minor stuff like that. The last ones to go are Gunnison Island (4193 ft) and Fremont Island (4195 ft), and have been islands as recently as a couple years ago... but the lake currently stands at about 4191 feet.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on April 08, 2022, 03:44:12 PM
Published in KSL today: Is this I-15 section about to get a makeover? UDOT eyes changes to aging freeway (https://www.ksl.com/article/50383650/is-this-i-15-section-about-to-get-a-makeover-udot-eyes-changes-to-aging-freeway)

Quote
SALT LAKE CITY — An aging section of I-15 from Salt Lake City to Farmington may soon receive a makeover.

Utah transportation officials said Thursday they are set to open an initial scoping phase to find the current problems and potential ideas people who drive on the freeway from 400 South in Salt Lake City and Shepard Lane in Farmington have. The stretch of I-15 covers 13 total exits in Salt Lake City, North Salt Lake, Bountiful, Centerville and Farmington, but also impacts the communities of Woods Cross and West Bountiful.

"We're looking to identify the transportation needs in this area and work to find potential solutions to address those needs," said Tiffany Pocock, the I-15 project manager for the Utah Department of Transportation. "Hearing from those who live and travel here is a key part of that process."

In a video about the project, Pocock explained that the concrete and asphalt pavement in the selected area is about 50 years old and needs to be swapped out. It isn't alone; nine of the 35 bridges along the stretch are recommended for replacement, while one is recommended for a deck replacement and another 19 are recommended for preservation work.

That's a problem as the population within the Wasatch Front continues to expand. It limits the types of projects needed to help out with the region's growth.

"Most existing structures do not have clearance to accommodate any additional lining of I-15 in areas if needed," Pocock said.

In addition, she said there are "several areas" along the stretch of the freeway that don't drain properly, meaning pipes and culverts in the area need to be replaced. Other possible changes include reducing sharp curves and widening shoulders to improve visibility and reduce crashes in the corridor, Pocock said.

And without any major reconfiguring, UDOT estimates the time to travel the section of freeway will jump from 18 to 19 minutes in recent years to 55 to 66 minutes by 2050, based on population growth trends. Engineers believe that would end up spilling out onto local streets as people look for alternative routes.

That's why UDOT is also looking at ways to improve sidewalks, crosswalks, bike paths and trails to help people get across the freeway's entrances and exits.

"Moving people includes not just those in cars but people walking safely on sidewalks, riding bicycles and using public transit," Pocock said. "The system should provide good health for individuals and communities."

But before any changes are made, UDOT starts the process with a scoping to understand the challenges of the stretch of the freeway and what people who use it on a regular basis need from it. This helps engineers craft projects that offer solutions to the problem.

The current scoping phase aims to study everything from land use to air quality, noise, economics, equity, environmental justice and more. The public comment period for this phase opens Monday and will continue through May 13. People will be able to submit comments either through UDOT's project website, by email to i15eis@utah.gov, or by mail to 392 E. Winchester Street Ste. 300 / Salt Lake City, UT 84107.

Once that's completed, the agency follows a series of steps in drafting an environmental impact statement before finalizing that document and issuing a record of decision. This process, which is projected to continue through 2024, is when project designs and details become more concrete. There are a few other public comment periods along the way.

From there, it's up to funding, planning and construction before a makeover of I-15 from Salt Lake City to Farmington becomes a reality.

Interestingly, over half of this segment of I-15 has actually been reconstructed in the last 20 years - the segment from 600 North to I-215 in the late 2000s, and I-215 to Centerville in the mid 2010s - and all the bridges on those segments were replaced in those projects. The part from Centerville to Farmington does have some original bridges and pavement from the early 1970s, though.

The biggest thing I'd like to see is a fourth GP lane in both directions from Salt Lake City north to I-215, to match the segments on either side of this one. Originally there were 3 lanes each way there, and the late 2000s reconstruction only added the HOV lane. That stretch is a reliable choke point during rush hour in my experience.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: BigManFromAFRICA88 on April 14, 2022, 04:05:06 PM
Published in KSL today: Is this I-15 section about to get a makeover? UDOT eyes changes to aging freeway (https://www.ksl.com/article/50383650/is-this-i-15-section-about-to-get-a-makeover-udot-eyes-changes-to-aging-freeway)

Quote
SALT LAKE CITY — An aging section of I-15 from Salt Lake City to Farmington may soon receive a makeover.

Utah transportation officials said Thursday they are set to open an initial scoping phase to find the current problems and potential ideas people who drive on the freeway from 400 South in Salt Lake City and Shepard Lane in Farmington have. The stretch of I-15 covers 13 total exits in Salt Lake City, North Salt Lake, Bountiful, Centerville and Farmington, but also impacts the communities of Woods Cross and West Bountiful.

"We're looking to identify the transportation needs in this area and work to find potential solutions to address those needs," said Tiffany Pocock, the I-15 project manager for the Utah Department of Transportation. "Hearing from those who live and travel here is a key part of that process."

In a video about the project, Pocock explained that the concrete and asphalt pavement in the selected area is about 50 years old and needs to be swapped out. It isn't alone; nine of the 35 bridges along the stretch are recommended for replacement, while one is recommended for a deck replacement and another 19 are recommended for preservation work.

That's a problem as the population within the Wasatch Front continues to expand. It limits the types of projects needed to help out with the region's growth.

"Most existing structures do not have clearance to accommodate any additional lining of I-15 in areas if needed," Pocock said.

In addition, she said there are "several areas" along the stretch of the freeway that don't drain properly, meaning pipes and culverts in the area need to be replaced. Other possible changes include reducing sharp curves and widening shoulders to improve visibility and reduce crashes in the corridor, Pocock said.

And without any major reconfiguring, UDOT estimates the time to travel the section of freeway will jump from 18 to 19 minutes in recent years to 55 to 66 minutes by 2050, based on population growth trends. Engineers believe that would end up spilling out onto local streets as people look for alternative routes.

That's why UDOT is also looking at ways to improve sidewalks, crosswalks, bike paths and trails to help people get across the freeway's entrances and exits.

"Moving people includes not just those in cars but people walking safely on sidewalks, riding bicycles and using public transit," Pocock said. "The system should provide good health for individuals and communities."

But before any changes are made, UDOT starts the process with a scoping to understand the challenges of the stretch of the freeway and what people who use it on a regular basis need from it. This helps engineers craft projects that offer solutions to the problem.

The current scoping phase aims to study everything from land use to air quality, noise, economics, equity, environmental justice and more. The public comment period for this phase opens Monday and will continue through May 13. People will be able to submit comments either through UDOT's project website, by email to i15eis@utah.gov, or by mail to 392 E. Winchester Street Ste. 300 / Salt Lake City, UT 84107.

Once that's completed, the agency follows a series of steps in drafting an environmental impact statement before finalizing that document and issuing a record of decision. This process, which is projected to continue through 2024, is when project designs and details become more concrete. There are a few other public comment periods along the way.

From there, it's up to funding, planning and construction before a makeover of I-15 from Salt Lake City to Farmington becomes a reality.

Interestingly, over half of this segment of I-15 has actually been reconstructed in the last 20 years - the segment from 600 North to I-215 in the late 2000s, and I-215 to Centerville in the mid 2010s - and all the bridges on those segments were replaced in those projects. The part from Centerville to Farmington does have some original bridges and pavement from the early 1970s, though.

The biggest thing I'd like to see is a fourth GP lane in both directions from Salt Lake City north to I-215, to match the segments on either side of this one. Originally there were 3 lanes each way there, and the late 2000s reconstruction only added the HOV lane. That stretch is a reliable choke point during rush hour in my experience.

Any phasing of the Wesd Devis interchange in Farmington included?
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on April 19, 2022, 06:22:22 PM
St. George News reports that UDOT has started a study on a possible new interchange at I-15 and 700 South in St. George (approx. MP 7).

Edit to add: That would mean St. George-Washington would have exits 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 (new), 8, 10, 12 (Washington Main St., in study), and 13. A lot of closely spaced exits!

https://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2022/04/18/prc-public-comment-sought-on-possible-addition-of-interchange-at-i-15-and-700-south-in-st-george/
Quote
Area residents have the opportunity to be heard on the subject of a potential new interchange at Interstate 15 and 700 South to “improve regional mobility in the St. George area,” according to a news release from the Utah Department of Transportation.

The public is invited to attend a public scoping meeting to share feedback about their transportation needs in this area, ask questions and learn more about the process and timeline, the news release said.

UDOT project website: https://udotinput.utah.gov/i15stgeorge

(https://udotinput.utah.gov/img/twb2obrx9tqidsejk2hq_1000_1000.JPG)
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: thenetwork on April 19, 2022, 09:18:03 PM
^^ I didn't realize St. George has ballooned in population so quickly -- from about 70,000 in 2010 to about 93,000 in 2020.  What is the fascination with St. George of late?  I know they have mild winters, you are a short drive to a wide variety of terrains/climates,... and it's not too far a trip to Vegas either.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on April 19, 2022, 09:42:58 PM
^^ I didn't realize St. George has ballooned in population so quickly -- from about 70,000 in 2010 to about 93,000 in 2020.  What is the fascination with St. George of late?  I know they have mild winters, you are a short drive to a wide variety of terrains/climates,... and it's not too far a trip to Vegas either.

It's more than that; adjacent Washington City, Santa Clara, and Ivins are also booming (as is the Hurricane area just to the east), and the metro is on the cusp of passing 200,000. (Latest U.S. Census lists it as the fastest-growing metro in the whole nation, +5.1% just last year alone.)

There are lots of reasons why the area is booming, some of which veer into the type of political discussion we shouldn't be having here. :) The big attraction used to be cheap housing, but that's long gone with $500k and above now the rule rather than the exception, and many rents more than doubling in recent years.

There's abundant land (but not-so-abundant water) and extremely developer-friendly local governments.

It's sort of like Las Vegas without what some consider the "bad" parts (depending on your definition of "bad") plus greater Salt Lake City without "bad" parts either, be they weather, traffic, crime, politics, or something else.

The most strange thing: Since St. George was always so tiny, there's essentially no local TV market at all, and it's considered part of the Salt Lake City market. All the "local" major network TV is from SLC, 300 miles away. (Las Vegas, though much closer, is a different Nielsen market completely.) And on the SLC "local" news, the weather forecasts often give St. George before they give SLC.

Edit to add:  But RMcN still gives St. George the tiniest of city insets that doesn't even cover the city, let alone the "suburbs."
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on April 24, 2022, 10:11:05 PM
Edit to add:  But RMcN still gives St. George the tiniest of city insets that doesn't even cover the city, let alone the "suburbs."

Unfortunately, Utah is generally not on a list of places national-level decision makers (including mapmakers) care all that much about, especially outside of the Wasatch Front. To some extent that even extends to UDOT, as evidenced by the lack of a full six-lane between SR-7 and SR-9.

The growth of St George is absolutely nuts, though. I've commented before that every time I go down there I'm amazed by how much bigger it feels. And I used to go there every couple years. I haven't made it that far down since around 2016 or 17, so I'm prepared for a huge shock to the system if/when I do find myself there again.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on April 24, 2022, 10:20:02 PM
I haven't made it that far down since around 2016 or 17, so I'm prepared for a huge shock to the system if/when I do find myself there again.

I'll spoil your surprise just a wee bit with these photos of the SE side of town: (taken from the airport general-aviation access road)
That's the new LDS temple -- the city's second -- in the distance in the upper center of the 2022 photo.

(https://i.imgur.com/IzRfAlK.jpg)
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on April 24, 2022, 10:59:06 PM
Ah yes, two temples is always the mark of a true major Utah city...  :-D

Consider my mind blown. The airport is supposed to still be in the middle of absolute nowhere.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on June 11, 2022, 04:36:34 PM
It would appear that UDOT has in fact used Clearview font beyond the Legacy Parkway:

(https://i.imgur.com/YSxGGNu.jpg)

That hospital sign sure looks like Clearview to me. There are a few others just like it along 186 in the area; poking around on street view, it looks like they went up somewhere in the 2015-2017 time frame.

Also worth noting that "University Childrens" actually refers to two separate hospitals, the University of Utah and Primary Children's. Sign design could maybe be worked on some.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: jakeroot on June 11, 2022, 08:02:47 PM
That hospital sign sure looks like Clearview to me.

Me too.

Interestingly, one of the only Clearview signs to ever appear on a Washington State freeway was also a VA Hospital-related sign: https://goo.gl/maps/8gfu8u1nuRLF53At9
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on July 03, 2022, 12:10:38 PM
St. George News reports that UDOT has started a study on a possible new interchange at I-15 and 700 South in St. George (approx. MP 7).

UDOT held its first public meeting on this interchange, and the high volume of comments has led UDOT to schedule another public meeting this summer. St. George News reports:
https://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2022/07/03/mgk-volume-of-comments-on-proposed-700-south-interchange-leads-udot-to-plan-additional-public-meeting/

Quote
The St. George City Council was given an update on the status of the proposed 700 South interchange project Thursday from the Utah Department of Transportation. Due the number of public comments received on the project, UDOT officials announced an additional public input meeting would be held over the summer.

... Ryan Anderson, a project manager for UDOT, told the council that they had received nearly 250 comments from residents and others living and working in the project’s study area. The number is amongst the highest they’ve ever received for such a project, he said.

... According to the project’s original timeline, the environment assessment, which will include alternatives for the interchange and surrounding area, was anticipated to be released later this year. However, due to the volume of comments and the issues and alternatives that accompanied them, the process is being pushed back three to four months.

UDOT project website: https://udotinput.utah.gov/i15stgeorge

(https://udotinput.utah.gov/img/twb2obrx9tqidsejk2hq_1000_1000.JPG)
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on July 12, 2022, 08:35:59 PM
Now that the state prison is finally moving to the new site west of the airport, the state is planning to redevelop much of the land the current prison occupies in Draper in a project called The Point (https://thepointutah.org/), which looks like it's going to be a huge mixed-use development. Naturally, the site is filled with flowery planner language, but these images looked most interesting:

(https://i.imgur.com/w7mtoUK.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/2WJvJJP.png)

The big road network item here is a connection between existing Porter Rockwell Blvd at 14600 South and 600 West at Bangerter exit 1. I suspect this will wind up as a northward extension of SR 131, especially since all the signs for exit 1 on Bangerter currently have a big blank space where a state route shield would presumably fit (https://goo.gl/maps/qqdGaiRtq64qU87r6). (A similar thing was done with SR 135 in Pleasant Grove - the signs went up before the route existed, so they had that blank space for several years before the shields went in.) I'd have to imagine 140 will get cut back to Porter Rockwell at the same time with a 131 extension, which would be an improvement over the random western terminus at 800 West that it has now.

As for SR 287, which serves the current prison...that's going to have to be deleted, but I wonder if the number will be moved to the road into the new prison site. There is precedent for this - the last time the prison moved back in the 1950s, SR 187 was the prison access road, and it was moved along with the prison from Sugar House to Draper.
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Rothman on July 12, 2022, 09:21:38 PM
Heh...Porter Rockwell...
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: jakeroot on July 15, 2022, 03:49:43 PM
Not enough SPUIs!
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: US 89 on July 19, 2022, 01:27:42 AM
Not enough SPUIs!

Don’t worry, there are two more just off the edges of that first image :-D
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on July 20, 2022, 01:39:27 AM
UDOT has installed dust-storm warning signals and signs ("VISIBILITY REDUCED WHEN FLASHING") on UT 7 between MPs 18 and 21 around the south shore of Sand Hollow Reservoir. They are, I believe, the first such signs in the area.

(https://i.imgur.com/r5g8ckY.jpg)
Title: Re: Utah
Post by: Kniwt on July 25, 2022, 02:20:05 PM
Andy Larsen of The Salt Lake Tribune has written a surprisingly deep dive (for mainstream media) into the AADTs for I-15 around the area.
https://www.sltrib.com/news/2022/07/25/where-is-i-15-busiest-what-time/

Quote
... And, admittedly, a selfish thought crosses my mind: Could I have avoided this traffic?

I finally decided to find out. There’s so much traffic data out there compiled by the Utah Department of Transportation that it can be overwhelming. But I wanted to analyze the place where I — and probably you — most frequently get caught in a traffic jam: on Interstate 15 in Salt Lake County.

... As you’d expect, different parts of I-15 have more traffic than others. The impact of various on-ramps and off-ramps, freeway interchanges, and population centers means traffic is more likely in certain spots.

But, of course, it also depends on which direction you’re traveling. Take a look at the graph below, which represents average daily northbound-traveling traffic during 2022. At the bottom of the graph is each mile marker of I-15 within Salt Lake County at which UDOT measures traffic, and then we’ve annotated some important interchanges along the way.

(https://i.imgur.com/3wAlicQ.png)