AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Utah  (Read 28991 times)

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1339
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: Today at 05:59:16 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #150 on: February 13, 2020, 01:17:59 PM »

Shouldn’t be a bicycle route unless there are dedicated lanes or trails.
Logged

Kniwt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 654
  • Last Login: Today at 05:58:52 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #151 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.

« Last Edit: February 14, 2020, 12:26:48 AM by Kniwt »
Logged

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3017
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City/Atlanta
  • Last Login: Today at 05:53:49 PM
    • Utah Highways
Re: Utah
« Reply #152 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).
« Last Edit: February 14, 2020, 07:02:41 PM by US 89 »
Logged

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3017
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City/Atlanta
  • Last Login: Today at 05:53:49 PM
    • Utah Highways
Re: Utah
« Reply #153 on: March 24, 2020, 01:15:11 PM »

The agenda 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. 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:

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11910
  • U/Wash | GIS & Urban Design

  • Age: 24
  • Location: Seattle and Tacoma, WA Vancouver, BC | Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:04:14 PM
    • LinkedIn
Re: Utah
« Reply #154 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.
Logged
My comments do not reflect that of the University of Washington, anyone employed by the University of Washington, nor any other students of the University of Washington. All are my own.

rte66man

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1349
  • Location: Warr Acres, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 06:19:13 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #155 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.
Logged
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

jakeroot

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 11910
  • U/Wash | GIS & Urban Design

  • Age: 24
  • Location: Seattle and Tacoma, WA Vancouver, BC | Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 05:04:14 PM
    • LinkedIn
Re: Utah
« Reply #156 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.
Logged
My comments do not reflect that of the University of Washington, anyone employed by the University of Washington, nor any other students of the University of Washington. All are my own.

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3017
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City/Atlanta
  • Last Login: Today at 05:53:49 PM
    • Utah Highways
Re: Utah
« Reply #157 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.

nexus73

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2089
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Coos Bay OR
  • Last Login: Today at 05:26:25 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #158 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
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.

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7237
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:11:28 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #159 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.   
Logged

Kniwt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 654
  • Last Login: Today at 05:58:52 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #160 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.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7237
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:11:28 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #161 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!). 
Logged

Kniwt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 654
  • Last Login: Today at 05:58:52 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #162 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
Logged

thenetwork

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2508
  • Age: 2016
  • Location: Grand Junction, Colorado
  • Last Login: Today at 06:03:48 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #163 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.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7237
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:11:28 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #164 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. 
Logged

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3017
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City/Atlanta
  • Last Login: Today at 05:53:49 PM
    • Utah Highways
Re: Utah
« Reply #165 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.

BigManFromAFRICA88

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 109
  • Just roads being dudes.

  • Age: 21
  • Location: Utah/California
  • Last Login: September 26, 2020, 10:00:21 AM
Re: Utah
« Reply #166 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.
Logged

nexus73

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2089
  • Age: 65
  • Location: Coos Bay OR
  • Last Login: Today at 05:26:25 PM
Re: Utah
« Reply #167 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
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.

roadwaywiz95

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 89
  • Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!

  • Age: 32
  • Location: New York
  • Last Login: September 29, 2020, 05:56:33 PM
    • roadwaywiz
Re: Utah
« Reply #168 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:

Logged
It's the Mario Cuomo Bridge, capisce?


https://www.facebook.com/roadwaywiz/
https://www.youtube.com/user/roadwaywiz
https://www.instagram.com/roadwaywiz/

Clinched Mainline Interstates: 4,8,11,12,17,19,41,66,68,71,76(E),78,79,83,84(E),86(E),87(N),88(E),88(W),89,91,93,95,96,97,99,H1,H2,H3

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3017
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City/Atlanta
  • Last Login: Today at 05:53:49 PM
    • Utah Highways
Re: Utah
« Reply #169 on: July 24, 2020, 11:09:43 AM »

UDOT recently completed an environmental assessment 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.



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.

BigManFromAFRICA88

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 109
  • Just roads being dudes.

  • Age: 21
  • Location: Utah/California
  • Last Login: September 26, 2020, 10:00:21 AM
Re: Utah
« Reply #170 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).
Logged

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3017
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City/Atlanta
  • Last Login: Today at 05:53:49 PM
    • Utah Highways
Re: Utah
« Reply #171 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.

BigManFromAFRICA88

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 109
  • Just roads being dudes.

  • Age: 21
  • Location: Utah/California
  • Last Login: September 26, 2020, 10:00:21 AM
Re: Utah
« Reply #172 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...
Logged

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3017
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City/Atlanta
  • Last Login: Today at 05:53:49 PM
    • Utah Highways
Re: Utah
« Reply #173 on: September 02, 2020, 06:30:17 PM »

UDOT has recently announced a project called I-80 & I-215 Renewed, 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.



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.

BigManFromAFRICA88

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 109
  • Just roads being dudes.

  • Age: 21
  • Location: Utah/California
  • Last Login: September 26, 2020, 10:00:21 AM
Re: Utah
« Reply #174 on: September 03, 2020, 01:03:57 PM »

UDOT has recently announced a project called I-80 & I-215 Renewed, 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.



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.
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.