UT: more issues for discussion

[US 89]

Some more Utah issues for discussion:

UT 154. The south end of this is marked in TM as I-15, but UDOT highway reference indicates it continues on to the 13800 South intersection, where there is a Mile 0 marker. Eastbound signage on Bangerter itself shows that 154 continues past the I-15 interchange. The BGSs on I-15 do not designate a direction for 154, and signage on both exit ramps indicates 154 goes both ways (northbound and southbound). There's an End State Maintenance sign on that curve as well.

UT 97. TM has the east end of this at the physical gate to Hill Air Force Base. HRO shows the east end just past the I-15 interchange at the first fence line, where there is a clear pavement change. Signage is spotty in the area, but there certainly aren't any 97 signs east of I-15.


UT 85. TM currently shows 85 as a discontinuous route with two segments: one on the Mountain View Corridor and one on 2100 North. I think it should instead be a continuous route, with a concurrency on UT 68 between those segments. Utah is notorious for its treatment of state route concurrencies, but there is this set of 68/85 shields on the concurrency itself.

UDOT's concurrent routes list does not show 68/85 as being a concurrent route, but that's because it doesn't include any state route concurrencies, including the generally accepted 68/48 and 118/120 concurrencies, plus the unsigned UT 30 connections. In addition, although 85's mileage does not increase over the concurrency, this is standard practice for Utah.

[Duke87]

UT 154. The south end of this is marked in TM as I-15, but UDOT highway reference indicates it continues on to the 13800 South intersection, where there is a Mile 0 marker. Eastbound signage on Bangerter itself shows that 154 continues past the I-15 interchange. The BGSs on I-15 do not designate a direction for 154, and signage on both exit ramps indicates 154 goes both ways (northbound and southbound). There's an End State Maintenance sign on that curve as well.

Yep, valid change that needs to be made.

UT 97. TM has the east end of this at the physical gate to Hill Air Force Base. HRO shows the east end just past the I-15 interchange at the first fence line, where there is a clear pavement change. Signage is spotty in the area, but there certainly aren't any 97 signs east of I-15.

I agree it needs to be truncated but the pavement change which marks the official end is so close to the ramps I am inclined to simply make I-15 the terminus. As you say, no signs east of there.

UT 85. TM currently shows 85 as a discontinuous route with two segments: one on the Mountain View Corridor and one on 2100 North. I think it should instead be a continuous route, with a concurrency on UT 68 between those segments. Utah is notorious for its treatment of state route concurrencies, but there is this set of 68/85 shields on the concurrency itself.

Aha, but then... and then.

I am inclined to leave this as is since signage is not nearly consistent enough to make it a clearly marked concurrency. And as you say, it is not in the list.

[US 89]

UT 97. TM has the east end of this at the physical gate to Hill Air Force Base. HRO shows the east end just past the I-15 interchange at the first fence line, where there is a clear pavement change. Signage is spotty in the area, but there certainly aren't any 97 signs east of I-15.

I agree it needs to be truncated but the pavement change which marks the official end is so close to the ramps I am inclined to simply make I-15 the terminus. As you say, no signs east of there.

I was actually suggesting the terminus be moved to I-15. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

UT 85. TM currently shows 85 as a discontinuous route with two segments: one on the Mountain View Corridor and one on 2100 North. I think it should instead be a continuous route, with a concurrency on UT 68 between those segments. Utah is notorious for its treatment of state route concurrencies, but there is this set of 68/85 shields on the concurrency itself.

Aha, but then... and then.

I am inclined to leave this as is since signage is not nearly consistent enough to make it a clearly marked concurrency. And as you say, it is not in the list.

IMO, the only issue with that is that it's inconsistent across TM for the rest of the state. Signage for the UT 118/120 and 48/68 concurrencies is just as inconsistent, and neither of those are in the UDOT list, yet both are included in TM. In addition, if going by signage alone, UT 30 would be broken into three parts; the I-15, I-84, and US 89 concurrencies are completely unsigned.

At any rate, the portion of 85 on 2100 North may not even be 85 within the next year or so. The segment of the Mountain View Corridor between SR-73 and Redwood Road should be done within a few years, and my bet is that it becomes an eastern extension of SR-73.

[Duke87]

Per our discussion in the AARoads chat UT85 is remaining as is for now. Will revisit once more mileage of the Mountain View Corridor opens.

Since it's only a concurrency users can still claim the mileage in question as clinched using UT 68 anyway.