AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: New UT-131 in Draper  (Read 594 times)

roadguy2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 575
  • Location: Someplace in Utah
  • Last Login: Today at 01:14:40 AM
New UT-131 in Draper
« on: May 26, 2017, 04:49:06 PM »

The official UDOT highway map for SLC shows a UT-131 going from between Redwood and MVC to 14600 S. Anyone know anything more about this?
Logged
189 to Evanston!

Rover_0

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 811
  • Why not?

  • Age: 32
  • Location: Utah
  • Last Login: Today at 02:46:59 AM
Re: New UT-131 in Draper
« Reply #1 on: May 27, 2017, 12:45:23 AM »

The official UDOT highway map for SLC shows a UT-131 going from between Redwood and MVC to 14600 S. Anyone know anything more about this?

Yep. It was signed into law this year; it's planned to follow Porter Rockwell Blvd. from SR-140 (14600 S) southwest along the new Porter Rockwell Blvd across a yet-to-be-built bridge over the Jordan River set to open next year to SR-68 (Redwood Rd) at the current northern SR-68/85 junction (Redwood Rd/Porter Rockwell Blvd). My bet is that when the 2100 N portion of 85 is connected with the rest of the route (the two sections are currently connected by a concurrency* between 68 and 85 with the northern/main segment of 85 currently beginning/ending at PR Blvd), SR-131 will assume the PR Blvd stub to the west of SR-68.

Speaking of SR-140, as part of a tradeoff with Bluffdale (as UDOT is wont to do), pretty much all of the route (west of 850 W) has been turned over to that city. It wouldn't surprise me entirely if the rest of 140 west of 131 is turned over to Bluffdale City in the years to go.

Also, it's probably not found on there, but there's also a new SR-135 (on Pleasant Grove Blvd) between the newer SR-129 (N County Blvd and 700 North in Pleasant Grove) and 2800 West just to the west of I-15's Exit 275. It ends in an area where there's a lot of nothing right now, but I have a feeling that SR-135 will eventually meet up with the newer SR-176 (currently the Vineyard Connector which is set to swing northward) when both roads are more fully constructed.

I've also went down there to investigate new signage and there's nothing there yet...the UT-140 signs haven't yet been removed from the SR-68/(old) SR-140 intersection either, but these things take time.

*Keeping in mind that state route concurrencies in Utah are a very tenuous thing and are rarely signed, though 68/85 has some dual signage with both routes at 2600 N. But all the other assemblies only sign 68, and there's an "END SR-85" sign at the Redwood Rd/2100 N intersection.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2017, 01:02:46 AM by Rover_0 »
Logged
Fixing erroneous shields, one at a time...

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3016
  • Last Login: November 21, 2017, 05:41:10 PM
Re: New UT-131 in Draper
« Reply #2 on: May 27, 2017, 01:45:53 AM »

I am just trying to wrap my head around a road being named after Porter Rockwell.

He is admired by Mormons for his devotion to Joseph Smith, but he definitely headed off on a rough-and-tumble path once he got out west after Smith's martyrdom.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

roadguy2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 575
  • Location: Someplace in Utah
  • Last Login: Today at 01:14:40 AM
Re: New UT-131 in Draper
« Reply #3 on: May 27, 2017, 10:41:34 AM »

Speaking of SR-140, as part of a tradeoff with Bluffdale (as UDOT is wont to do), pretty much all of the route (west of 850 W) has been turned over to that city. It wouldn't surprise me entirely if the rest of 140 west of 131 is turned over to Bluffdale City in the years to go.

I'm not at all surprised about turning 140 over to Bluffdale. It always suprised me that it was even a state route anyway, especially with that one lane railroad bridge.

In that case, they might as well eliminate the 140 designation completely and extend 131 over old 140 (14600 S) to I-15.
Logged
189 to Evanston!

Rover_0

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 811
  • Why not?

  • Age: 32
  • Location: Utah
  • Last Login: Today at 02:46:59 AM
Re: New UT-131 in Draper
« Reply #4 on: May 27, 2017, 10:51:07 AM »

My thoughts exactly. Eliminating SR-140 entirely once SR-131 is completed to SR-68, I believe, is ultimately the end game here. It may take a few years and some recent BGSs would need to be modified/replaced, but I see it happening within a decade.

At its full SR-68 to I-15 extent, SR-140 was (well, is, just without the designation most of the way) a fun little route with character.

XT1585
« Last Edit: May 27, 2017, 10:55:36 AM by Rover_0 »
Logged
Fixing erroneous shields, one at a time...

roadguy2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 575
  • Location: Someplace in Utah
  • Last Login: Today at 01:14:40 AM
Re: New UT-131 in Draper
« Reply #5 on: May 31, 2017, 11:40:37 PM »

On the subject of UDOT turning state routes over to cities/counties. Has UDOT eliminated the surface street section of SR-201 (2100 South) or is it still a state route? I think it might have been eliminated, or will be soon, and this is why:

At the 2100 S/State St intersection, northbound signage says TO 201 instead of WEST. The street blades for 2100 South at that light make no mention of SR-201, but the State St blades do show US-89. And AFAIK, there isn't a SR-201 reassurance marker on 2100 S, but I'd have to drive it again with that in mind to be sure.

Personally, I think that it would make more sense for 2100 S to be turned back to SLC. Then 201 would refer only to the freeway, and it would eliminate that short jog on 900 West between the freeway and 2100.
Logged
189 to Evanston!

 


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.