UT: UT 201 east end

[US 89]

The segment of UT 201 on 2100 South has recently been removed from TM on grounds of lack of signage, truncating the eastern terminus to I-15/80. While it's true this portion isn't really signed, since when does TM remove unsigned segments from routes? I don't see how this is any different from UT 190, which has an eastern segment that's not really signed and yet was added after a bit of discussion in this forum.

In addition, the route's current configuration in TM would allow one to claim a segment of UT 201 freeway between exit 17 and I-15. If you're going by UDOT's reference documentation, that is an impossible movement because everything on the freeway east of that interchange as ramps. If you're connecting between 900 West and I-15 on UT 201, you'd be doing it on the surface street. This makes it possible to have a TM clinch of 201 just by driving the freeway - when there is in fact a whole extra mile of surface street that's part of the route.

In this case, there is a clear reason the surface-street segment isn't signed all that well, and it's to avoid confusing the general public with two 201's right next to each other - especially since 201 is a well-known freeway number. To be fair, there is no posted mile marker 17 or 18 on the surface street portion, which suggests UDOT may intend to decommission that segment or renumber it to something else (signed or not). That might not be a bad idea, but UDOT hasn't done anything of that sort and probably doesn't intend to.

Side note: this whole mess exists because the 201 freeway used to directly tie into 2100 South, and the whole thing was UT 201. That connection was removed during a major freeway reconstruction project before the 2002 Olympics.

[Duke87]

For the record, my logic on this, and why it's not the same thing is that I see a distinction between a section of a route being poorly signed through neglect and a section of route being actively and deliberately unsigned.

UT 190's eastern extension to Guardsman Pass is a case of the former - there are no shields on that section of the road, but there isn't any signage stating or implying it isn't part of UT 190 either.

The section of UT 201 on 2100S, on the other hand, is a case of the latter - signage for the exit to it from I-15 just says "2100 S", and signage from the east end at US 89 says "TO UT 201" - explicitly stating, by virtue of that "TO", that that section of 2100S is not part of UT 201. It can be readily surmised by how things are signed that there is clear intent on UDOT's part to exclude 2100S from UT 201 as experienced by motorists. Indeed, it doesn't even directly connect to the rest of the route.

The general principle at play here is: if the signage is consistent (which is the case for UT 201), then the signage rules supreme if it disagrees with what exists on paper. However, if signage is inconsistent or missing (which is the case for UT 190), then we use what exists on paper as the fallback.


This is generally in line with how things have been handled elsewhere, but if anyone has anything else to say about it, I'm open to hearing it.

[Duke87]

Marking resolved and moving since no one has said anything further in the past six months.