AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Heber Valley Bypass  (Read 4302 times)

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4879
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:18:39 AM
    • Utah Highways
Heber Valley Bypass
« on: February 23, 2019, 01:19:12 AM »

It looks like UDOT is finally getting around to talking about building a bypass of Heber City. I'm glad they're doing it -- there's significant traffic that has to slog through the downtown, where if you get lucky enough to make a light, you'll be pulled over for exceeding the somewhat ridiculous 35 mph speed limit.

UDOT recently had an open house regarding this proposed bypass, and the documents/slideshows from that are now online here. If they go with the current preferred alternative, it looks like US 189 is almost certainly getting a significant reroute out of Heber City. I wonder if US 40 will get the same treatment. I'm also curious whether UDOT will designate Business 40 and/or Business 189 along the old routes through town.

I'm not sure what to make of the proposed roundabout -- I had been hoping they'd consider this an extension of the US 40/189 freeway to the north, to provide a consistent 4-lane high speed corridor through to Provo. Unfortunately, that looks to be a "crash prone modern roundabout". In addition, I think the northern junction of the bypass and current US 40 should have been a flyover junction rather than a right-angle at-grade intersection, but whatever. It'll make it easier to get through Heber for sure.

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3101
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: May 14, 2022, 08:45:43 PM
Re: Heber Valley Bypass
« Reply #1 on: February 23, 2019, 08:54:17 PM »

I suspect the roundabout and standard at-grade intersection with US-40 are cost cutting measures for the interim. If UDOT acquires enough ROW along the bypass they might be able to make freeway-quality upgrades in the future.
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12260
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: May 15, 2022, 11:44:34 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Heber Valley Bypass
« Reply #2 on: February 24, 2019, 07:56:22 AM »

^ Their projected 2050 volumes don't exactly scream the need for a freeway-grade facility.
Logged

Rover_0

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 939
  • Why not?

  • Age: -64
  • Location: Utah
  • Last Login: May 15, 2022, 09:12:13 AM
Re: Heber Valley Bypass
« Reply #3 on: February 25, 2019, 04:40:33 PM »

It looks like UDOT is finally getting around to talking about building a bypass of Heber City. I'm glad they're doing it -- there's significant traffic that has to slog through the downtown, where if you get lucky enough to make a light, you'll be pulled over for exceeding the somewhat ridiculous 35 mph speed limit.

UDOT recently had an open house regarding this proposed bypass, and the documents/slideshows from that are now online here. If they go with the current preferred alternative, it looks like US 189 is almost certainly getting a significant reroute out of Heber City. I wonder if US 40 will get the same treatment. I'm also curious whether UDOT will designate Business 40 and/or Business 189 along the old routes through town.

I'm not sure what to make of the proposed roundabout -- I had been hoping they'd consider this an extension of the US 40/189 freeway to the north, to provide a consistent 4-lane high speed corridor through to Provo. Unfortunately, that looks to be a "crash prone modern roundabout". In addition, I think the northern junction of the bypass and current US 40 should have been a flyover junction rather than a right-angle at-grade intersection, but whatever. It'll make it easier to get through Heber for sure.

My guess would be yes, but we also know what that would mean...we’d also get a new state route. I’d also expect Business US-40 and/or 189 and the state route to have inconsistent, alternating signage.
Logged
Fixing erroneous shields, one at a time...

nexus73

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2260
  • Age: 66
  • Location: Coos Bay OR
  • Last Login: Today at 09:01:02 AM
Re: Heber Valley Bypass
« Reply #4 on: February 25, 2019, 06:30:02 PM »

Given that truck traffic would love to avoid SLC as it heads for Vegas and SoCal, it would seem that best solution is a freeway bypass of Heber City. 

Rick
Logged
US 101 is THE backbone of the Pacific coast from Bandon OR to Willets CA.  Industry, tourism and local traffic would be gone or severely crippled without it being in functioning condition in BOTH states.

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4879
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:18:39 AM
    • Utah Highways
Re: Heber Valley Bypass
« Reply #5 on: February 25, 2019, 08:01:23 PM »

I'm also curious whether UDOT will designate Business 40 and/or Business 189 along the old routes through town.

My guess would be yes, but we also know what that would mean...we’d also get a new state route. I’d also expect Business US-40 and/or 189 and the state route to have inconsistent, alternating signage.

Well, Utah only has two business US routes as it is, so there's not much to go off of. There's a chance we get something like Business 6 in Helper, which largely isn't state maintained (but also isn't signed very well, and might also be Business 191 based on this sign).

The US 6 BL in Price, on the other hand, is sort of a mess because it disappears once you're off the mainline bypass (and as you mentioned, becomes simply SR 55 -- this is a problem with interstate business routes as well). There's also this intersection where signage is very clear that a "business loop" continues west on Main St, but go that way and you won't see any sort of reassurance or further instructions.

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3417
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: May 15, 2022, 07:02:19 PM
Re: Heber Valley Bypass
« Reply #6 on: February 26, 2019, 05:11:29 PM »

Do US 40 and US 189 really have to be co-designated together? Maybe US 40 could end at 189 on the south side of Heber City and 189 could continue to Interstate 80 solely. I'm not a fan of two (or more) US Highways being designated together to a common terminus. The 40-189 duplex may have been necessary when US 40 still continued to Reno, NV (and San Francisco, CA before that), but it seems unnecessary to me now.
Logged

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4879
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:18:39 AM
    • Utah Highways
Re: Heber Valley Bypass
« Reply #7 on: March 01, 2019, 02:09:51 PM »

Do US 40 and US 189 really have to be co-designated together? Maybe US 40 could end at 189 on the south side of Heber City and 189 could continue to Interstate 80 solely. I'm not a fan of two (or more) US Highways being designated together to a common terminus. The 40-189 duplex may have been necessary when US 40 still continued to Reno, NV (and San Francisco, CA before that), but it seems unnecessary to me now.

First of all, it's not a common terminus; 40 ends at I-80, but 189 continues northeast on I-80 into Wyoming -- Utah just chooses not to sign this concurrency. And secondly, I would strongly oppose a truncation of US 40 to Heber City. As I explained in another thread:

US 40 is over 2000 miles long, so it seems just a little bit wrong to end it at a minor 3dus in Heber City. Keeping it for 15 more miles allows the route to end at a major interstate (I-80), which is undoubtedly where almost all westbound 40 traffic is headed. Not to mention the fact that the 40/189 overlap is almost universally known as US 40, and 189 wasn't even signed on that overlap until summer 2017.

Rover_0

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 939
  • Why not?

  • Age: -64
  • Location: Utah
  • Last Login: May 15, 2022, 09:12:13 AM
Re: Heber Valley Bypass
« Reply #8 on: March 01, 2019, 03:37:51 PM »

Do US 40 and US 189 really have to be co-designated together? Maybe US 40 could end at 189 on the south side of Heber City and 189 could continue to Interstate 80 solely. I'm not a fan of two (or more) US Highways being designated together to a common terminus. The 40-189 duplex may have been necessary when US 40 still continued to Reno, NV (and San Francisco, CA before that), but it seems unnecessary to me now.

First of all, it's not a common terminus; 40 ends at I-80, but 189 continues northeast on I-80 into Wyoming -- Utah just chooses not to sign this concurrency. And secondly, I would strongly oppose a truncation of US 40 to Heber City. As I explained in another thread:

US 40 is over 2000 miles long, so it seems just a little bit wrong to end it at a minor 3dus in Heber City. Keeping it for 15 more miles allows the route to end at a major interstate (I-80), which is undoubtedly where almost all westbound 40 traffic is headed. Not to mention the fact that the 40/189 overlap is almost universally known as US 40, and 189 wasn't even signed on that overlap until summer 2017.

I’ve thought about this too, before 189 was (properly) re-signed along the 40/189 freeway.

While it borders on Fictional Highway territory, another thought I’ve had is to route 40 down current 189 through Provo Canyon and along SR-52, ending at I-15. That way, 189’s (actual) south end would be in Heber City, while 40 would be able to continue to the Wasatch Front.

Also, with SRs 52 and, when fully built out, 176, you could route 40 along them (I-15), the recently renumbered SR-194 (2100 North in Lehi), and a fully-built SR-85 to I-80. Provo’s University Ave from the current 189/52 junction south could become something like SR-41.

Probably not the best US Route proposal (particularly the left turn you’d need to make in Heber City and the U-shaped route), but it would add a few miles to US-40 to get it to the Wasatch Front and provide an alternate to I-80.
Logged
Fixing erroneous shields, one at a time...

i-215

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 79
  • Location: SoCal and Salt Lake City
  • Last Login: March 23, 2022, 04:32:42 AM
Re: Heber Valley Bypass
« Reply #9 on: March 02, 2019, 03:48:47 AM »

I suspect the roundabout and standard at-grade intersection with US-40 are cost cutting measures for the interim. If UDOT acquires enough ROW along the bypass they might be able to make freeway-quality upgrades in the future.

It sort of reminds me of US-93 through Wickenberg, Arizona.  There's a freeway-ish highway and suddenly WHAM... roundabout.

To be fair, it gets my attention to slow down through town.  But yes, I'd prefer an all-out freeway.
Logged

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4879
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:18:39 AM
    • Utah Highways
Re: Heber Valley Bypass
« Reply #10 on: May 24, 2021, 10:17:19 AM »

Big bump, but this appears to have now advanced to the environmental impact study stage:

https://hebervalleyeis.udot.utah.gov/

Current schedule suggests a draft EIS will probably be complete by sometime next summer.

andy3175

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1456
  • Location: San Diego, California, USA
  • Last Login: May 15, 2022, 05:01:57 PM
    • AARoads
Re: Heber Valley Bypass
« Reply #11 on: July 10, 2021, 09:54:58 AM »

Big bump, but this appears to have now advanced to the environmental impact study stage:

https://hebervalleyeis.udot.utah.gov/

Current schedule suggests a draft EIS will probably be complete by sometime next summer.
This is great news. I see options under consideration include improvements to existing roads, improvements to nearby roads that could serve the corridor, and construction of new roads. Although I'm not sure how it would be aligned, a bypass to connect US 189 south with US 40-189 north would be a nice addition.

SM-G975U

Logged
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4879
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: Today at 02:18:39 AM
    • Utah Highways
Re: Heber Valley Bypass
« Reply #12 on: October 28, 2021, 03:34:23 PM »

It looks like the EIS project team has now come up with several options for what to do with this. In addition to the no-build alternative and a transit alternative, we have a whole lot of different ideas, which are available on the project website.

The 40 alternatives all make some sort of improvements to US 40 itself through town:

Alternative 40A: widen US 40 to a 7-lane cross section (3 each way plus a center turn lane) through Heber City
Alternative 40B: convert all five traffic lights on US 40 (at 500 North, Center Street, 100 South, 600 South, and 1200 South/US 189) to roundabouts
Alternative 40C: realign SR 113 to use Center Street instead of 100 South, and add turn lanes to all five existing lights on 40
Alternative 40D: build a 2-lane bridge or tunnel along 40 between 500 North and 1200 South to allow through traffic to bypass intersections
Alternative 40E: convert the existing center turn lane on US 40 into a reversible lane, serving NB traffic in the morning and SB traffic in the evening
Alternative 40F: split US 40 into a one-way couplet between 500 North and 1000 South, along Main St (NB) and 100 West (SB)

The W alternatives all construct a western bypass of some type:

Alternative WA1: construct a western bypass from US 40 at 1000 North to roughly the 1200 West/1200 South intersection, then splitting into two spurs going south along 1200 West to US 189 and east along 1300 South to US 40. This would be a freeway facility, mostly super-two but with a 4-lane section between SR 113 and the split of the two spurs. In addition to the endpoints, interchanges would be provided on the main bypass at SR 113 west of Heber, and on the 1300 South spur where it crosses US 189 just SW of town.
Alternative WB1: same general concept as WA1, but would construct an expressway facility with at-grade intersections instead of interchanges. This would also include two additional intersections on the 1300 South segment between 1200 West and US 189.
Alternative WC1: same general concept as WB1, but would construct an arterial facility rather than expressway

Alternatives WA2, WB2, and WC2 would keep the same bypass construction as WA1/WB1/WC1 but also move US 189 to a brand new alignment from the 1200 West/1200 South bypass intersection southwest to its current alignment at roughly 1800 West.

Alternative WD would construct a western bypass parkway, but with "turbo roundabouts" instead of intersections (apparently some sort of roundabout design that requires to pick your destination before you even enter). There would be no spur east to US 40 with this alternative, and the north end at US 40 would be well north of town (3200 North or even SR 32/River Rd). Roundabouts would be constructed at the US 40 and US 189 endpoints as well as at 2400 North, 1200 North, SR 113, and 1200 South. Notably, the proposed cross section for this alternative actually does not meet current UDOT standards and was proposed by a member of the public.

The E alternatives all construct an eastern bypass, from US 40 east around 1000 North, then turning south around 1200 East or so and returning to US 40.

Alternative EA: construct an eastern bypass super-two freeway, with interchanges at both US 40 endpoints and at Center Street
Alternative EB: construct an eastern bypass expressway, with intersections at the EA interchange locations as well as Mill St, 600 South, 980 South, and 1200 South. This would be four lanes north of 1200 South and two lanes south of it.
Alternative EC: construct an eastern bypass arterial, with even more intersections and five lanes (4 plus center turn) throughout.

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.