AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Utah  (Read 55706 times)

i-215

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 70
  • Location: SoCal and Salt Lake City
  • Last Login: October 06, 2021, 06:18:26 AM
Re: Utah
« Reply #250 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.
Logged

Kniwt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 742
  • Last Login: Today at 02:06:16 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #251 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.

Logged

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 8768
  • Last Login: Today at 05:56:30 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #252 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.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

triplemultiplex

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2759
  • "You read it; you can't unread it!"

  • Location: inside the beltline
  • Last Login: Today at 11:41:22 AM
Re: Utah
« Reply #253 on: September 27, 2021, 05:39:24 PM »

Sure seems to be; especially on new concrete pavement.
Logged
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4449
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City/Atlanta
  • Last Login: Today at 11:47:24 AM
    • Utah Highways
Re: Utah
« Reply #254 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). 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). In my experience, this is more visible in any sort of weather but especially when it's raining.

Kniwt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 742
  • Last Login: Today at 02:06:16 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #255 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.

Logged

SeriesE

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 252
  • Location: CA
  • Last Login: December 05, 2021, 10:55:42 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #256 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.
Logged

triplemultiplex

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2759
  • "You read it; you can't unread it!"

  • Location: inside the beltline
  • Last Login: Today at 11:41:22 AM
Re: Utah
« Reply #257 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.
Logged
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4449
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City/Atlanta
  • Last Login: Today at 11:47:24 AM
    • Utah Highways
Re: Utah
« Reply #258 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:



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.

i-215

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 70
  • Location: SoCal and Salt Lake City
  • Last Login: October 06, 2021, 06:18:26 AM
Re: Utah
« Reply #259 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).
Logged

SeriesE

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 252
  • Location: CA
  • Last Login: December 05, 2021, 10:55:42 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #260 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.
Logged

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4449
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City/Atlanta
  • Last Login: Today at 11:47:24 AM
    • Utah Highways
Re: Utah
« Reply #261 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.



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...)

SeriesE

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 252
  • Location: CA
  • Last Login: December 05, 2021, 10:55:42 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #262 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.



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
Logged

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4449
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City/Atlanta
  • Last Login: Today at 11:47:24 AM
    • Utah Highways
Re: Utah
« Reply #263 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.

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 2293
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 05:48:54 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #264 on: October 17, 2021, 09:40:05 PM »

^^^ not happy about that is needs to be a stack.
Logged

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4449
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City/Atlanta
  • Last Login: Today at 11:47:24 AM
    • Utah Highways
Re: Utah
« Reply #265 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.

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 2293
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 05:48:54 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #266 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?
Logged

triplemultiplex

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2759
  • "You read it; you can't unread it!"

  • Location: inside the beltline
  • Last Login: Today at 11:41:22 AM
Re: Utah
« Reply #267 on: October 21, 2021, 02:46:24 PM »

Different freeway.
West Davis is up by Ogden.
Mountain View is UT 85.
Logged
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4449
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City/Atlanta
  • Last Login: Today at 11:47:24 AM
    • Utah Highways
Re: Utah
« Reply #268 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:



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/

Kniwt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 742
  • Last Login: Today at 02:06:16 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #269 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.
Logged

 


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.