Utah

[Rover_0]

According to the next UDOT Transportation Commission meeting agenda, 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.

[US 89]

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, 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.

[US 89]

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:

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.

[Rover_0]

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:

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.

[US 89]

re-extending SR-29 west

I don't know about that - Ephraim Canyon Road is a narrow, winding, unpaved mountain road 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.

[Rover_0]

re-extending SR-29 west

I don't know about that - Ephraim Canyon Road is a narrow, winding, unpaved mountain road 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.

[jakeroot]

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, 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.

[US 89]

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.

[BigManFromAFRICA88]

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.

[jakeroot]

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).

[Kniwt]

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):



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.

[triplemultiplex]

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.

[US 89]

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. 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, 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

[Kniwt]

UDOT is indeed studying upgrading SR 9 to a freeway from I-15 to Hurricane

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).

[cl94]

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...

[Kniwt]

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.

[US 89]

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.

[Kniwt]

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.

[US 89]

The annual legislative state highway changes have been officially proposed in SB 0025:

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.

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.

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.

[Rover_0]

The annual legislative state highway changes have been officially proposed in SB 0025:

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.

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.

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.

[Rover_0]

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

[BigManFromAFRICA88]

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?

[US 89]

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:

[BigManFromAFRICA88]

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:

Ahhhhh I see. Thanks for the explanation! Might try a few out when I'm back home road tripping the south again haha.

[Rothman]

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.