AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Mountain View Corridor  (Read 2231 times)

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2162
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City/Atlanta
  • Last Login: Today at 01:10:51 AM
Mountain View Corridor
« on: April 15, 2018, 10:24:45 PM »

Since discussion of MVC seems to be spread out across several threads, I figured I’d start this one devoted to it.

Anyway, UDOT is currently designing the next section of the corridor to be built in Utah County: from the 2100 North/Redwood Road intersection south to SR-73. Just like the southern half of the existing Salt Lake County portion, just the frontage roads will be built for this stage. However, there will be a 6’ sidewalk on the east side and a 10’ trail on the west side. Construction is expected to begin this year and finish in 2019.

Project website

« Last Edit: April 16, 2018, 12:16:24 AM by roadguy2 »
Logged
Interstate clinches: 14 82 86ID 215UT 225 345 444 575 985
US clinches: 91 491 550

Flickr
Imgur

i-215

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 63
  • Location: SoCal and Salt Lake City
  • Last Login: May 06, 2019, 03:37:16 AM
Re: Mountain View Corridor
« Reply #1 on: April 17, 2018, 12:03:11 AM »

It's a nice improvement from the original drawing which just had a 1+1 configuration (only the easterly pavement section).  I'm glad UDOT got it funded enough to do the full frontage road (2x2).

As a note, a recent Transportation Commission Meeting had a land swap deal with a developer about a mile or two south of the terminus with SR-73.  The state is very serious about taking MVC farther south than 73 (along Utah Lake), even though no formal studies have been conducted yet.
Logged

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2162
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City/Atlanta
  • Last Login: Today at 01:10:51 AM
Re: Mountain View Corridor
« Reply #2 on: June 27, 2018, 07:26:19 PM »

As a note, a recent Transportation Commission Meeting had a land swap deal with a developer about a mile or two south of the terminus with SR-73.  The state is very serious about taking MVC farther south than 73 (along Utah Lake), even though no formal studies have been conducted yet.

Sure enough, here's a new YouTube video from UDOT, which mentions that UDOT and local governments are studying a freeway extension south on Foothill Blvd to Pony Express Parkway.

It also discusses the SR-73 freeway proposal from MVC west to Eagle Mountain Blvd. I like the idea, but IMO, any freeway upgrades of 73 should be delayed until 2100 North is upgraded to a freeway. The 73 freeway upgrade will do no good if you're still going to have to stop at a light at Redwood.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2018, 07:31:44 PM by US 89 »
Logged
Interstate clinches: 14 82 86ID 215UT 225 345 444 575 985
US clinches: 91 491 550

Flickr
Imgur

BigManFromAFRICA88

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 85
  • Just roads being dudes.

  • Age: 20
  • Location: Utah/California
  • Last Login: October 14, 2019, 03:40:05 PM
Re: Mountain View Corridor
« Reply #3 on: June 28, 2018, 12:44:11 PM »

As a note, a recent Transportation Commission Meeting had a land swap deal with a developer about a mile or two south of the terminus with SR-73.  The state is very serious about taking MVC farther south than 73 (along Utah Lake), even though no formal studies have been conducted yet.

Sure enough, here's a new YouTube video from UDOT, which mentions that UDOT and local governments are studying a freeway extension south on Foothill Blvd to Pony Express Parkway.

It also discusses the SR-73 freeway proposal from MVC west to Eagle Mountain Blvd. I like the idea, but IMO, any freeway upgrades of 73 should be delayed until 2100 North is upgraded to a freeway. The 73 freeway upgrade will do no good if you're still going to have to stop at a light at Redwood.

Honestly for years now I said to myself I wouldn't be surprised if they extended it to at least US-6 with a bypass of Santaquin and called it Interstate 415. Go big or go home.
Logged

JKRhodes

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 193
  • Ditat Deus

  • Age: 36
  • Location: Safford, Arizona
  • Last Login: October 11, 2019, 11:02:08 AM
Re: Mountain View Corridor
« Reply #4 on: July 12, 2018, 08:44:01 PM »

Any plans to tie in between 2100 North and Porter Rockwell Blvd? Alternative studies? Seems like a tight squeeze through there; NSA and National Guard offices also seem like unlikely candidates for ROW acquisition.
Logged

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2162
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City/Atlanta
  • Last Login: Today at 01:10:51 AM
Re: Mountain View Corridor
« Reply #5 on: July 23, 2018, 03:42:09 PM »

Honestly for years now I said to myself I wouldn't be surprised if they extended it to at least US-6 with a bypass of Santaquin and called it Interstate 415. Go big or go home.

I wouldn’t be surprised about an extension to US 6 in the (very) long run, but I would be very surprised if it was given an interstate style number, much less signed as one. UDOT has missed a lot of chances for this (other examples include SR-7, 67, 154, 201, and the future 179), so I see no reason why they’d suddenly change their minds.



Any plans to tie in between 2100 North and Porter Rockwell Blvd? Alternative studies? Seems like a tight squeeze through there; NSA and National Guard offices also seem like unlikely candidates for ROW acquisition.

Yes, though it’s currently unfunded. To my knowledge, no studies have been done for that segment specifically. Regarding the ROW, I thought the same at first, but based on the interactive map, it looks like there’s enough room.

Here’s a map of the MVC project’s initial phase (future frontage roads/outside lanes): EDIT: the map isn't showing, so here's a link to it.



I didn’t realize the northern extension was funded past 201, up to California. That’s probably new in the past few months.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2018, 04:45:22 PM by US 89 »
Logged
Interstate clinches: 14 82 86ID 215UT 225 345 444 575 985
US clinches: 91 491 550

Flickr
Imgur

JKRhodes

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 193
  • Ditat Deus

  • Age: 36
  • Location: Safford, Arizona
  • Last Login: October 11, 2019, 11:02:08 AM
Re: Mountain View Corridor
« Reply #6 on: August 02, 2018, 12:23:43 AM »

Interesting. On a side note, I am moving to Utah in a couple of weeks, hence the newfound personal interest in their road systems. Compared to my home state of Arizona, Utah definitely has its own set of unique challenges due to geographical restraints. I see a lot of forward thinking with the Mountain View Corridor and other future freeways.

At the same time, Utah has its work cut out for it with the challenge of building suitable alternatives to I-80 and I-15, going from Salt Lake into Toole and Utah counties respectively.

Logged

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2162
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City/Atlanta
  • Last Login: Today at 01:10:51 AM
Re: Mountain View Corridor
« Reply #7 on: December 17, 2018, 11:47:35 PM »

I've recently been made aware of a redesignation of the Mountain View Corridor's 2100 North segment. According to the Online Highway Reference, the 2100 North segment is now designated as SR 194. This appears to be in advance of the opening of the segment between 2100 North/Redwood and SR 73, which will be designated as an extension of SR 85.

This redesignation caught me by surprise, as it was never brought up in a Transportation Commission meeting. It's worth noting that the Legislature still has to officially change these defintions, which will likely happen next month.

The new descriptions for the routes, at least in the HRO, are as follows:

Quote from: SR 85
From Route 73 in Saratoga Springs northerly via Mountain View Highway to Route 68 at 2100 North in Lehi; then beginning again at Route 68 westerly on Porter Rockwell Blvd; then northerly on Mountain View Hwy to 4100 South

Quote from: SR 194
From Route 15 westerly on 2100 North in Lehi to Route 68

This also means the weird situation of SR 73 and 145 ending at the same place no longer makes much sense to me. At this point, the two routes really should just be combined into one, and either redesignate the eastern SR 73 segment or delete it entirely.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2018, 11:51:54 PM by US 89 »
Logged
Interstate clinches: 14 82 86ID 215UT 225 345 444 575 985
US clinches: 91 491 550

Flickr
Imgur

BigManFromAFRICA88

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 85
  • Just roads being dudes.

  • Age: 20
  • Location: Utah/California
  • Last Login: October 14, 2019, 03:40:05 PM
Re: Mountain View Corridor
« Reply #8 on: December 18, 2018, 07:02:32 PM »

Drove down the Redwood Road/Pioneer Crossing route on a bypass of Point of the Mountain and witnessed that construction has started in extending those frontage roads, didn't take pics tho...
Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2308
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: October 14, 2019, 03:16:34 PM
Re: Mountain View Corridor
« Reply #9 on: December 19, 2018, 04:42:51 PM »

Does anyone know if the Mountain View Corridor has exit numbers? Or whether it will have exit numbers in the future? I prefer roads with interchanges to have numbers (mileage-based, not sequential).
Logged

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2162
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City/Atlanta
  • Last Login: Today at 01:10:51 AM
Re: Mountain View Corridor
« Reply #10 on: December 19, 2018, 06:20:42 PM »

Does anyone know if the Mountain View Corridor has exit numbers? Or whether it will have exit numbers in the future? I prefer roads with interchanges to have numbers (mileage-based, not sequential).

Well, there are no interchanges on the Mountain View Corridor as of now, nor will there be for some time. I fully expect the future interchanges to be numbered, based on existing practice on nearby highways such as Bangerter. Utah seems to have a general practice of numbering exits on all freeways.
Logged
Interstate clinches: 14 82 86ID 215UT 225 345 444 575 985
US clinches: 91 491 550

Flickr
Imgur

Rover_0

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 872
  • Why not?

  • Age: -66
  • Location: Utah
  • Last Login: Today at 10:32:53 AM
Re: Mountain View Corridor
« Reply #11 on: January 17, 2019, 10:36:34 PM »

I've recently been made aware of a redesignation of the Mountain View Corridor's 2100 North segment. According to the Online Highway Reference, the 2100 North segment is now designated as SR 194. This appears to be in advance of the opening of the segment between 2100 North/Redwood and SR 73, which will be designated as an extension of SR 85.

This redesignation caught me by surprise, as it was never brought up in a Transportation Commission meeting. It's worth noting that the Legislature still has to officially change these defintions, which will likely happen next month.

The new descriptions for the routes, at least in the HRO, are as follows:

Quote from: SR 85
From Route 73 in Saratoga Springs northerly via Mountain View Highway to Route 68 at 2100 North in Lehi; then beginning again at Route 68 westerly on Porter Rockwell Blvd; then northerly on Mountain View Hwy to 4100 South

Quote from: SR 194
From Route 15 westerly on 2100 North in Lehi to Route 68

This also means the weird situation of SR 73 and 145 ending at the same place no longer makes much sense to me. At this point, the two routes really should just be combined into one, and either redesignate the eastern SR 73 segment or delete it entirely.

Iím surprised by this as well! I was told by someone at UDOTís Region 3 that SR-85 was going to have a double ending...Iím glad to see that this is not the case.

However, something needs to be done about SR-73. Just as you said above, merge the primary western segment and SR-145 and redesignate the eastern segment (if not, get rid of said eastern segment altogether).
Logged
Fixing erroneous shields, one at a time...

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2162
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City/Atlanta
  • Last Login: Today at 01:10:51 AM
Re: Mountain View Corridor
« Reply #12 on: April 28, 2019, 12:11:08 PM »

In addition to the ongoing Utah County work, construction has now started on the next Salt Lake County extension of the Mountain View Corridor. The website says the extension will go to SR 201, but maps and diagrams suggest it will go all the way to California Avenue.

Here's a simulation of the Mountain View and 201 interchange. I'm a little bit sad they aren't building this out as the full system interchange from the beginning, but I suppose it doesn't matter as long as they actually preserve the ROW (unlike Bangerter).

Logged
Interstate clinches: 14 82 86ID 215UT 225 345 444 575 985
US clinches: 91 491 550

Flickr
Imgur

triplemultiplex

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2205
  • "You read it; you can't unread it!"

  • Location: inside the beltline
  • Last Login: October 16, 2019, 04:09:50 PM
Re: Mountain View Corridor
« Reply #13 on: May 09, 2019, 11:41:52 AM »



I thought that cloverleaf was looking pretty shrimpy, but then I realized it's a bike path!
Logged
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1050
  • Location: Los Angeles
  • Last Login: Today at 09:53:25 AM
Re: Mountain View Corridor
« Reply #14 on: May 09, 2019, 10:01:16 PM »

^^^^ I always thought itíd be cool to have a stack bike interchange. Necessary? No. But cool? Hell yes. Itíd be an attraction too.
Logged

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2162
  • 189 to Evanston!

  • Location: Salt Lake City/Atlanta
  • Last Login: Today at 01:10:51 AM
Re: Mountain View Corridor
« Reply #15 on: October 09, 2019, 01:40:47 AM »

The grand opening of the new segment in Utah County has been announced for October 26, 2019. As the legislature defined earlier this year, this will be designated as a new segment of SR 85.

I will be curious to see what route signage is like at the endpoints. At the north end, SR 85 hops on what might be considered a concurrency with 68, and while there is some signage to support this, the previous signage at this intersection featured an END 85 sign (where 194 ends now). Meanwhile, the south end is a block from the intersection where SR 73 and 145 currently end at each other. I wonder if UDOT will sign the literal route definitions (EAST 73 TO 145, even though 73 ends in a block), or just hand-wave it as 73 west/145 east. Maybe at some point the 73/145 junction will be officially moved to the 85 intersection, or perhaps something totally different happens with the designations. Either way, as they are currently defined, three state routes are essentially going to end at each other.
Logged
Interstate clinches: 14 82 86ID 215UT 225 345 444 575 985
US clinches: 91 491 550

Flickr
Imgur

Rover_0

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 872
  • Why not?

  • Age: -66
  • Location: Utah
  • Last Login: Today at 10:32:53 AM
Re: Mountain View Corridor
« Reply #16 on: October 10, 2019, 05:49:39 PM »

The grand opening of the new segment in Utah County has been announced for October 26, 2019. As the legislature defined earlier this year, this will be designated as a new segment of SR 85.

I will be curious to see what route signage is like at the endpoints. At the north end, SR 85 hops on what might be considered a concurrency with 68, and while there is some signage to support this, the previous signage at this intersection featured an END 85 sign (where 194 ends now). Meanwhile, the south end is a block from the intersection where SR 73 and 145 currently end at each other. I wonder if UDOT will sign the literal route definitions (EAST 73 TO 145, even though 73 ends in a block), or just hand-wave it as 73 west/145 east. Maybe at some point the 73/145 junction will be officially moved to the 85 intersection, or perhaps something totally different happens with the designations. Either way, as they are currently defined, three state routes are essentially going to end at each other.

Itíll be interesting, thatís for sure. My wife and I went down to that area earlier in the year, and at least at the time, going south from the current 68/85/131 junction, there was proper concurrent signage for SR-68 *and* SR-85. Iíll have to dig up that picture and post it sometime.
Logged
Fixing erroneous shields, one at a time...

 


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.