AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered at https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33904.0
Corrected several already and appreciate your patience as we work through the rest.

Author Topic: Bangerter Highway  (Read 14179 times)

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14875
  • Last Login: Today at 10:59:26 PM
Re: Bangerter Highway
« Reply #25 on: March 07, 2022, 11:01:03 AM »

What’s up with UDOT’s hesitance to build direct connect ramps? It seems like this is growing trend of placing high capacity DDI or SPUI interchanges on what should be free flowing stacks.
I'd imagine cost.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4124
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 09:11:21 PM
Re: Bangerter Highway
« Reply #26 on: March 07, 2022, 11:06:54 AM »

What’s up with UDOT’s hesitance to build direct connect ramps? It seems like this is growing trend of placing high capacity DDI or SPUI interchanges on what should be free flowing stacks.
I'd imagine cost.
Utah isn’t a poor state though. If UDOT can’t build proper freeway to freeway interchanges maybe they need a new funding source or the state needs to fund them better.

I understand with all the new plans they can’t afford to do it all at once but hopefully overtime they plan on changing upgrading these interchanges.
Logged

triplemultiplex

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4113
  • "You read it; you can't unread it!"

  • Location: inside the beltline
  • Last Login: Today at 12:21:13 PM
Re: Bangerter Highway
« Reply #27 on: March 07, 2022, 03:11:07 PM »

There are also space considerations.  There ain't much room at 201 & the Bangarter.  Especially with another interchange so close to the east on 201.  By the time you start putting in flyovers and the approaches thereto it becomes an ever larger, expensive project.  I look at this location and wonder about how to make it work while at the same time, trading out some of the loops at 201 and I-215 for flyovers/turbines to clean up that weaving situation as well.  It starts to look like a much, much larger project than simply freeway-izing the Bangarter.
Logged
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4124
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 09:11:21 PM
Re: Bangerter Highway
« Reply #28 on: March 07, 2022, 07:30:51 PM »

Yeah UDOT has some interchanges they should “Texafy”  before this one but I wish they’d start on some.
Logged

i-215

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 85
  • Location: SoCal and Salt Lake City
  • Last Login: February 16, 2024, 09:41:31 PM
Re: Bangerter Highway
« Reply #29 on: March 11, 2022, 04:42:41 AM »

There are also space considerations.  There ain't much room at 201 & the Bangarter.  Especially with another interchange so close to the east on 201.  By the time you start putting in flyovers and the approaches thereto it becomes an ever larger, expensive project. 

This is absolutely correct.  You'd have to braid the crap out of it with 32nd West and I-215 closeby.  And there would be quite a few buyouts near the interchange to accommodate the flyovers.

Here's a really poor Photoshop of the Ontario, CA stack atop Bangerter (close scale):
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4124
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 09:11:21 PM
Re: Bangerter Highway
« Reply #30 on: March 11, 2022, 09:11:16 AM »

Meh, Texas can do it Dropped pin
https://goo.gl/maps/T9WGb6Uzrnh8YfuMA
Logged

i-215

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 85
  • Location: SoCal and Salt Lake City
  • Last Login: February 16, 2024, 09:41:31 PM
Re: Bangerter Highway
« Reply #31 on: March 12, 2022, 02:57:50 AM »

That might not be a bad approach.  Build it as a sort of "volleyball" interchange initially, and then add the flyovers later as volume demands it.

In either case, you're still gonna have to braid 32nd.
Logged

Stephane Dumas

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2761
  • Last Login: Today at 09:11:07 PM
Re: Bangerter Highway
« Reply #32 on: March 13, 2022, 11:24:45 AM »

Doubful then a stacked diverging diamond like the one who was once proposed and aborted due to protests at BC-99 and Stevenson highway near Vancouver.
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/steveston-interchange-george-massey-tunnel-bridge-richmond
Logged

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1737
  • Age: 59
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: Today at 07:55:24 PM
Re: Bangerter Highway
« Reply #33 on: March 13, 2022, 06:13:29 PM »

Doubful then a stacked diverging diamond like the one who was once proposed and aborted due to protests at BC-99 and Stevenson highway near Vancouver.
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/steveston-interchange-george-massey-tunnel-bridge-richmond

That looks more like a DCM interchange (a DDI variant, but with the cross movements grade-separated instead of at grade).
Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4894
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: Today at 04:21:34 PM
Re: Bangerter Highway
« Reply #34 on: March 14, 2022, 03:08:27 PM »

Maybe a standard diverging-diamond interchange at that location would have sufficed? Getting back to UT 154, will there be any diverging-diamond interchanges to replace the existing intersections on the Bangerter Highway? Or will we see more single-point-urban-interchanges constructed instead?
Logged

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6250
  • Your friendly neighborhood meteorologist

  • Location: Tallahassee, FL
  • Last Login: February 23, 2024, 09:23:28 AM
    • Utah Highways
Re: Bangerter Highway
« Reply #35 on: March 14, 2022, 04:41:25 PM »

Maybe a standard diverging-diamond interchange at that location would have sufficed?

Nah, something needs to be done. From experience I will say that DDI sucks. It is damn near impossible to drive straight through without waiting several light cycles, and the left turns from westbound 201 to southbound Bangerter will routinely back up all the way down the ramp into westbound mainline 201 - even outside of rush hour.

I don't know if every single movement needs to be free-flowing, but as far as I am concerned, through traffic on Bangerter should be grade-separated and there needs to be free flow for the west-to-south and north-to-east movements. I'm not sure if all of that is possible without ripping out some of the development down there, but the closer we can get to that the better.

Getting back to UT 154, will there be any diverging-diamond interchanges to replace the existing intersections on the Bangerter Highway? Or will we see more single-point-urban-interchanges constructed instead?

Well, given that the state has just built seven SPUIs on Bangerter and is currently in the process of building three more... I would be absolutely shocked if they built something that wasn't a SPUI outside of that dense 41st-to-201 corridor mentioned earlier. They are especially nice for cases like this because they don't require a whole lot of right-of-way and for the most part can be built in the space that already exists. The same early conceptual designs for the interchanges at 13400 South, 9800 South, 4700 South, and California Ave are all SPUIs.

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4124
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 09:11:21 PM
Re: Bangerter Highway
« Reply #36 on: March 16, 2022, 02:15:03 PM »

Doubful then a stacked diverging diamond like the one who was once proposed and aborted due to protests at BC-99 and Stevenson highway near Vancouver.
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/steveston-interchange-george-massey-tunnel-bridge-richmond
Wow what a beautiful interchange. Damn shame that wasn’t built. I hope the people that opposed it enjoy a lower quality interchange and more traffic congestion in this area than what wouldn’t otherwise be true if they built this. I guess they don’t really care.
Logged

i-215

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 85
  • Location: SoCal and Salt Lake City
  • Last Login: February 16, 2024, 09:41:31 PM
Re: Bangerter Highway
« Reply #37 on: March 18, 2022, 05:01:04 AM »

Quote
I would be absolutely shocked if they built something that wasn't a SPUI outside of that dense 41st-to-201 corridor mentioned earlier. They are especially nice for cases like this because they don't require a whole lot of right-of-way and for the most part can be built in the space that already exists. The same early conceptual designs for the interchanges at 13400 South, 9800 South, 4700 South, and California Ave are all SPUIs.

Right now, the 9800 South SES shows a "tight diamond."  They'll probably regret that in 20 years.
Logged

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6250
  • Your friendly neighborhood meteorologist

  • Location: Tallahassee, FL
  • Last Login: February 23, 2024, 09:23:28 AM
    • Utah Highways
Re: Bangerter Highway
« Reply #38 on: March 23, 2022, 11:03:03 PM »

It appears work is largely complete on the 62nd/104th/126th interchanges project. Some orange barrels and lane restrictions remain for finishing touches and such, but it looks like all movements are open and complete.

The 126th South interchange is now signed as Exit 6, and 62nd South has Exit 15 signage. Nothing permanent is up at 104th yet, but if 114th is already exit 8, 90th is already exit 11, and 98th is getting a future upgrade some time soon... I'm putting my bets on 104th becoming exit 9.

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6250
  • Your friendly neighborhood meteorologist

  • Location: Tallahassee, FL
  • Last Login: February 23, 2024, 09:23:28 AM
    • Utah Highways
Re: Bangerter Highway
« Reply #39 on: May 20, 2022, 10:53:40 PM »

Per UDOT's website, all work on the 62nd, 104th, and 126th South interchanges is now complete. They also have an updated on future construction plans:

Quote from: UDOT News
UDOT has now completed 10 interchanges along Bangerter Highway, and in 2021, the Utah legislature allocated more than $600 million toward completing the remaining improvements. Construction is slated to begin next year at 4700 South in Taylorsville/West Valley City, 9800 South in South Jordan, 13400 South in Riverton and 2700 West in Riverton/Bluffdale.

Additionally, UDOT plans to begin work on 4100 South in West Valley City to California Avenue in Salt Lake City in 2028. When those are complete and all stoplights are removed from Bangerter Highway, the time it takes to drive from I-15 in Draper to the Salt Lake City International Airport will be reduced by up to 20 minutes, according to UDOT traffic engineers.

That last paragraph... the "all stoplights removed" claim...does not account for the interchange at I-15. That should have been built as a free flowing interchange back in the 90s when there wasn't too much going on down there. That SPUI is sort of a mess now and I don't see anything UDOT can do to fix it at this point short of tearing down a bunch of development that's now right up against the interchange.

UDOT news article link: https://www.udot.utah.gov/connect/2022/05/19/three-new-bangerter-highway-interchanges-now-complete/

Great Lakes Roads

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1070
  • Always gotta stop at a Buc-ee's!

  • Age: 24
  • Location: La Porte, IN
  • Last Login: Today at 11:19:06 PM
Re: Bangerter Highway
« Reply #40 on: May 31, 2023, 05:07:44 PM »


The final segment (and the most complicated part) of the Bangerter Highway freeway upgrade from 4100 S to California Avenue has its preferred alternative selected, and it's Alternative B (Interchanges).

Interchanges will be located at 4100 S, 3500 S, Parkway Boulevard (2700 S), 2100 S/SR 201/1820 S, and California Ave.

https://udot.utah.gov/bangerter4100tocalifornia/#/public-meetings-documents
Logged

cl94

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6639
  • Helping to break everyone's Sierra clinches

  • Age: 29
  • Location: Northern Nevada
  • Last Login: Today at 10:48:26 PM
Re: Bangerter Highway
« Reply #41 on: May 31, 2023, 11:20:21 PM »

About bleeping time. I drove the at-grade segment of Bangerter in August and it can be a slog. The interchange at SR 201 sucks.

Interesting that they're making 201 a Breezewood, a la E-470 at I-70 east of Denver. Wonder if they'll ever find a need to fully upgrade that?
Logged
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

i-215

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 85
  • Location: SoCal and Salt Lake City
  • Last Login: February 16, 2024, 09:41:31 PM
Re: Bangerter Highway
« Reply #42 on: June 07, 2023, 09:03:55 PM »

I'm sure in some future decade, interchanges at SR-201 and I-15 (south) will become full system interchanges.  But probably not for another 20 years.

Bangerter Highway's existence demonstrates UDOT's modus operandi:  That it's better to building something "good enough" now and put it to work than to wait forever trying to build the "right" solution.  As a result, we got to use a Freeway Jr. since 1994, rather than waiting another 20 years for a real freeway.  Mountain View is similar, except they build the future improvements into the design, so there is adequate R.O.W. to build it in the future.

The Bangerter system interchanges are probably similar.  Their microsimulation models probably show reasonable Level of Service through some distant horizon year.  And it'll be the job of the next generation to fund/improve on their work.  In the meantime, we have something affordable that does the job now.
Logged

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1737
  • Age: 59
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: Today at 07:55:24 PM
Re: Bangerter Highway
« Reply #43 on: June 09, 2023, 01:56:23 AM »

The 201 interchange isn't a Breezewood, because the Bangerter mainlaines will pass over adjacent to the SPUI point of intersection with the off-ramps. It's more like a "3-level SPUI" than anything else. It may not need upgrading to a full stack/fully directional interchange for a while.
Logged

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4894
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: Today at 04:21:34 PM
Re: Bangerter Highway
« Reply #44 on: June 09, 2023, 11:14:24 AM »

Maybe once the Bangerter Highway is completely freeway, they can work on making the Mountain View Corridor completely freeway as well.
Logged

i-215

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 85
  • Location: SoCal and Salt Lake City
  • Last Login: February 16, 2024, 09:41:31 PM
Re: Bangerter Highway
« Reply #45 on: June 12, 2023, 01:02:13 AM »

Unlike Bangerter Highway, Mountain View is designed from the ground up to Interstate standards, though it will likely never join the Interstate system.

MVC cost several billion dollars.  Utah couldn't afford it in 2009.  So the state had two choices:

  • Collect private capital (investors), turn the toll concession over to them, and let them toll us for many decades to recoup their investment, plus interest and a handsome profit
  • Build what the state could afford, decade by decade, until the project is finished

After outrage from westsiders, the state wisely chose the second option.  MVC will eventually get all of its bridges, with the first phase being the Herriman Freeway in 2027.  Other bridges (3500 S) are funded before 2030, though I'm not sure how soon.

Logged

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6250
  • Your friendly neighborhood meteorologist

  • Location: Tallahassee, FL
  • Last Login: February 23, 2024, 09:23:28 AM
    • Utah Highways
Re: Bangerter Highway
« Reply #46 on: August 01, 2023, 10:02:12 AM »

The 201 interchange isn't a Breezewood, because the Bangerter mainlaines will pass over adjacent to the SPUI point of intersection with the off-ramps. It's more like a "3-level SPUI" than anything else. It may not need upgrading to a full stack/fully directional interchange for a while.

At this point I don't see a need for a free-flow full stack. The main reason that DDI is so bad is because DDI's don't work super well if there's a significant amount of through traffic on the cross street, since you obviously can't let both directions go through at the same time. That means it's really a poor choice to put on an expressway like Bangerter where you can expect a decent amount of through traffic, even if the dominant movement is 201 west to Bangerter south and vice versa. This design removes most through traffic on Bangerter entirely. If they can design that SPUI so that the west-to-south left turn is prioritized and those extra lights are kept green most of the time, the interchange should flow much smoother.

The problem here is that 1980s-UDOT had no foresight and didn't anticipate the amount of development that ultimately happened in the west side of the Salt Lake Valley, so no extra right of way was reserved and the connections around that area weren't planned well. As a result, we now have development all the way up to the original diamond ramps - and that's industrial development instead of something like a few houses, which I'd imagine is quite a bit more expensive to relocate. Plus a lot of that industrial park area can only be accessed easily from Bangerter using cross streets very close to 201 (1820 South, S. Frontage Rd). So at this point, not only is the cost of ROW going to be prohibitively expensive, but you can't build an interchange that's big enough it blocks access to these industrial areas. Given those restrictions, this is probably the best 2020s-UDOT could come up with and I don't think we'll be too much worse off for it.

I don't think we'll ever need a full set of free-flowing ramps as some of those movements are simply used much less than others (east-to-north, for example, is basically only for people going from Magna to the airport and will never serve anything more beyond whatever local industrial development occurs). Some would eventually be nice to have, especially the west-to-south connection if and when that movement outgrows the SPUI, but traffic is going to have to get really bad to justify how much that's going to cost.

Mountain View is the way it is because 2009-UDOT learned from the mistakes of 1980s-UDOT. It will take a while to see full build-out, but that highway will never see the right-of-way issues that have plagued nearly every Bangerter upgrade project like this one.

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4124
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 09:11:21 PM
Re: Bangerter Highway
« Reply #47 on: August 01, 2023, 10:06:58 AM »

Either a free flowing stack should be built for efficiency and safety purposes.
Logged

US 89

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6250
  • Your friendly neighborhood meteorologist

  • Location: Tallahassee, FL
  • Last Login: February 23, 2024, 09:23:28 AM
    • Utah Highways
Re: Bangerter Highway
« Reply #48 on: November 06, 2023, 11:02:02 PM »

Preliminary work is beginning on the last four interchanges not associated with the 41st South to 201 project. The three in the south end of the valley - at 98th South, 134th South, and 27th West, are being combined into one "Bangerter South" project. Current timeline for that is shown below:



Construction at 47th South won't start until next summer because the Jordan Valley Aqueduct has to be relocated first. When all is said and done, 47th and 134th will be freeway-under SPUIs, and 27th West will be a freeway-over SPUI. The 98th South and 27th West interchanges will be the first non-SPUIs built on Bangerter; they will instead be "tight diamonds" - freeway-over at 27th and freeway-under at 98th.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2023, 05:48:06 PM by US 89 »
Logged

Great Lakes Roads

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1070
  • Always gotta stop at a Buc-ee's!

  • Age: 24
  • Location: La Porte, IN
  • Last Login: Today at 11:19:06 PM
Re: Bangerter Highway
« Reply #49 on: November 06, 2023, 11:15:03 PM »

Preliminary work is beginning on the last four interchanges not associated with the 41st South to 201 project. The three in the south end of the valley - at 98th South, 134th South, and 27th West, are being combined into one "Bangerter South" project. Current timeline for that is shown below:



Construction at 47th South won't start until next summer because the Jordan Valley Aqueduct has to be relocated first. When all is said and done, 47th and 134th will be freeway-under SPUIs. The 98th South and 27th West interchanges will be the first two non-SPUI built on Bangerter; it will instead be a "tight diamond".

Fixed your information on the 27th West interchange... it will be a tight diamond interchange, not a SPUI.
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.