Page 1

               

2015–2040 Long‐Range  Transportation Plan  Transportation in Utah's Rural Areas   


UDOT fully complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes and regulations in all programs and activities. For  more information, or to obtain a Title VI Complaint Form, or call (801) 965‐4384 or see the UDOT website. Communication materials  in alternative formats can be arranged given sufficient notice. 


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) develops a long-range transportation plan (LRP) every 4 years to summarize anticipated transportation system needs for the next 25 to 30 years. The UDOT LRP is the transportation plan for the rural areas for the state of Utah. Utah’s urban areas are under the planning jurisdiction of four Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs): Cache Metropolitan Organization, Dixie Metropolitan Organization, Mountainland Association of Governments, and the Wasatch Front Regional Council. The LRP was also developed in close coordination with the MPOs and will be compiled with the MPOs’ regional transportation plans (RTP) to form the Unified Plan for the state of Utah. Developing a LRP requires an understanding of Utah’s unique characteristics and challenges. In addition to addressing future capacity needs for automobiles, the LRP also identifies needs and projects that will improve Utah’s overall transportation system, facilitate efficient freight movement, enhance roadway safety, and provide transit service and active transportation systems. UDOT’s consideration of the following issues framed the assessment of future needs for Utah’s transportation system: 

Population Growth – According to a 2012 report by the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget (GOMB), Utah’s population is expected to reach 4.5 million people by 2040, a substantial increase from 2.7 million in 2010.

Air Quality Concerns – Utah currently has designated nonattainment air quality areas for carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter 10 (PM10), and particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5), and the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality has developed air quality plans (SIP) for these areas.

Freight Movement – Freight transportation plays a major role in supporting regional and national economy. Freight travels between locations within and outside of Utah on trucks, rail, air, and pipelines. UDOT functions to keep it moving as efficiently as possible.

Recreation/Tourism – Utah is home to a diverse landscape including 5 national parks, 7 national monuments, 2 national recreation areas, 44 state parks, and numerous recreational places in between, including 15 ski resorts.

Energy Development in the Uinta Basin – Oil, natural gas, and other nonconventional energy sources are plentiful in Utah but specifically in the Uinta Basin. The continued demand for energy in the coming decades will drive further regional energy development.

Economic Development –The transportation system is an important cornerstone for the state’s existing and future economy.

The LRP was developed under the guidance of state and federal legislation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Authority (FTA), its community partners, MPOs, the public, and UDOT’s three strategic goals. UDOT’s strategic goals were developed to guide UDOT in all of its activities to meet its transportation challenges in safety, mobility, and in a state of good repair.

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

i


UDOT’s three strategic goals are as follows: 1. Zero Crashes, Injuries, and Fatalities – UDOT is committed to safety and won’t rest until a status of zero crashes, zero injuries, and zero fatalities is attained. 2. Optimize Mobility – UDOT continuously strives to make the transportation system work better while quickly and efficiently moving people to their destinations by optimizing operations; improving connections for transit, biking and pedestrians; and increasing capacity. 3. Preserve Infrastructure – UDOT believes good roads cost less, and through proactive preservation, UDOT will maximize the value of Utah’s infrastructure investment for today and the future. The programs and projects identified in the LRP are consistent with UDOT’s three strategic goals and encourage and promote safety and efficient management, operation, and development of a cost-effective transportation system that will serve Utah’s mobility and freight needs into the future. The end result of this long-range transportation planning process is a list of financially constrained projects that were established with sound financial forecasts. The list is separated into three phases (Phase 1: 2015–2024; Phase 2: 2025–2034; Phase 3: 2035–2040). Project revenue assumptions are agreed upon by UDOT, the MPOs, and the Utah Transit Authority. The results from this process provide a roadmap for future transportation and transit planning for the state.

ii

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN


LIST OF ACRONYMS AADT

average annual daily traffic

CMPO

Cache Metropolitan Planning Organization

DMPO

Dixie Metropolitan Planning Organization

FAF

freight analysis framework

FHWA

Federal Highway Administration

FTA

Federal Transit Authority

GOMB

Governor’s Office of Management and Budget

ISTEA

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991

ITS

intelligent transportation systems

JPAC

Joint Policy Advisory Committee

LOS

level of service

LRP

Long-range Transportation Plan

MAG

Mountainland Association of Governments

MAP-21

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act of 2012

MOU

Memorandum of Understanding

MPO

Metropolitan Planning Organization

NAAQS

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NHS

National Highway System

OCI

overall condition index

PFN

primary freight network

PM10

particulate matter 10

PM2.5

particulate matter 2.5

PTT

public transit team

ROW

right-of-way

RPO

Rural Planning Organization

RTP

regional transportation plan

SAFETEA-LU

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005

SIP

State Implementation Plan

SLCIT

Salt Lake City Intermodal Terminal

STIP

Statewide Transportation Improvement Program

TEA-21

Transportation Equity Act for the21st Century of 1998

UDOT

Utah Department of Transportation

USRAP

United States Road Assessment Program

USTM

Utah State Travel Model

UTA

Utah Transit Authority

VMS

variable message signs

VMT

vehicle miles traveled

WFRC

Wasatch Front Regional Council

WSTA

Western States Transportation Alliance 2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

iii


This page intentionally left blank.

iv

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN


TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION

1

2. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING REQUIREMENTS

2

Federal Requirements

2

UDOT Compliance with MAP-21

3

State and Local Requirements

4

State Laws Affecting Transportation Planning

4

Partnerships and Coordination

4

Public Involvement

6

Federal Public Involvement Requirements for the Long-Range Planning Process

6

Public Involvement in the 2015 Long-Range Plan

7

3. UDOT STRATEGIC GOALS AND PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

10

Zero Crashes, Injuries, and Fatalities

10

Optimize Mobility

11

Preserve Infrastructure

11

4. UTAH’S UNIQUE CHALLENGES

12

Population Growth

12

Air Quality Issues and Improvements

13

Transportation Conformity

13

Status of Utah Air Quality

14

Utah’s Primary Freight Network and Future Demand

14

Additional Challenges for Rural Areas

16

Freight 16 Recreation

16

Connecting Communities

16

Energy Development in the Uinta Basin

16

Small Urban Development

17

Future Trends and Innovations in Transportation

17

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

v


5. ROLE OF LONG-RANGE PLAN IN LISTING PROJECTS AND IDENTIFYING EVOLVING ISSUES

20

6. PLANNING FOCUS AREAS

23

TravelWise

23

Active Transportation

24

Freight

26

Freight Analysis Framework

26

Ongoing and Future Freight Projects

29

Area Planning with Local Government

30

Rural Planning Organization Plans

30

Current and Future Planning Studies

32

7. PROGRAM AREAS

33

Public Transit

33

Funding

33

Unfunded Transit Concepts in Development

35

Traffic Operations/Highway Modernization Integrated Corridor Management/Freeway Control

36

Connected Vehicle Initiative

37

Safety/Zero Fatalities

37

Funding

37

Future Funding

38

Goals and Measures

39

Illustrative Projects

39

Asset Management/Maintenance

vi

35

40

Inventory

40

Goals and Measures

42

Funding and Trends

42

State Highway Capacity

45

Goals and Measures

45

Forecasts

46

Capacity Project Identification

48

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN


8. THE 2015 LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

49

Programmatic Funding Summary

49

Assumptions

49

Revenue Generation Findings

52

Planned Capacity Projects

53

Fiscally Constrained Rural Long-Range Transportation Plan Project List

53

APPENDIX A. Project Fact Sheets and PEL Reports APPENDIX B. Rural Planning Organization Plans

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

vii


This page intentionally left blank.

viii

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN


Introduction

1. INTRODUCTION As the state of Utah’s population increases, the growing travel demand will pose significant challenges to the transportation system. In order to meet these future challenges, the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) develops the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRP)―which has a minimum 20-year project horizon―every 4 years. This LRP is the guiding document and project list for the planning, construction, and preservation of the state transportation system within the rural areas of Utah through 2040. The LRP is one of five plans that make up Utah’s statewide transportation plan or Unified Transportation Plan. The LRP is written in coordination with the four Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) responsible for the urban areas of Utah. MPO plans are called regional transportation plans (RTP). The four MPOs are as follows: 

Cache Metropolitan Planning Organization (CMPO), which is responsible for the urban areas of Cache County;

Dixie Metropolitan Planning Organization (DMPO), which is responsible for the urban areas of Washington County;

Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG), which is responsible for the urban areas of Utah County; and

Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC), which is responsible for the urban areas along the Wasatch Front from Box Elder County south to Salt Lake County.

UDOT increased the LRP update cycle from every 6 years to 4 years to be consistent with the MPO planning cycle.

Rural MPO

The LRP is written in close coordination with local communities and within federal and state guidelines to support UDOT’s strategic goals.

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

1


Requirements

2. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING REQUIREMENTS UDOT’s long-range transportation planning process is guided by federal regulation, the Utah State Legislature, and the requirements of local planning authorities. To strike a balance between competing needs and to foster collaboration, UDOT developed a unique transportation planning process and schedule. The following sections outline the key components that have influenced UDOT’s planning process.

FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS

Utah’s roads and highways are a critical national asset and receive significant federal funding to construct and operate. As such, Utah’s LRP and the planning process are guided by a series of acts enabled by the US Congress and signed into law by the president. This legislation specifies goals and objectives for the entire United States transportation system. It also guides the procedures and content of the planning process as well as ensures equal benefit of the system to all citizens. The following federal legislation guides MPO and statewide planning efforts: 

Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1962 is the authorizing legislation for federal funding for surface transportation. This act required a continuous, cooperative, and comprehensive (3-C) planning process as a stipulation for funding.

Transportation Equity Act for the21st Century of 1998 (TEA-21) and the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) introduced an intermodal emphasis for transportation systems and also established seven planning factors for comprehensive planning efforts.

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEA-LU) of 2005 introduced an additional planning factor to address during the planning process, bringing the total to eight.

2

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN


Requirements

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act of 2012 (MAP-21) reaffirms the 3-C planning process and eight planning considerations set forth in previous transportation acts. Furthermore, this act introduces performance management to the planning process to guide investment toward projects supporting national goals.

Other federal laws affecting transportation planning are as follows: 

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This act prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. Specifically, 42 USC 2000d states that “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Section 162a of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 (section 324, Title 23 U.S.C.). This act requires that there be no discrimination on the basis of gender. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) considers all assurances heretofore received to have been amended to include a prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sex.

SAFETEA-LU Planning Factors 1.

Support the economic vitality of the area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency.

2.

Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users.

3.

Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users.

4.

Increase the accessibility and mobility options to people and freight.

5.

Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, and improve the quality of life.

6.

Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight.

7.

Promote efficient system management and operation.

8.

Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system.

Executive Order #12898 (Environmental Justice) Enacted in 1994, this order directs federal agencies to develop strategies to address disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs on minority and low-income populations.

Executive Order # 13166 (Limited-English-Proficiency) Enacted in 2000, this order directs federal agencies to evaluate provided services and implement a system that ensures that Persons with Limited English Proficiency are able to meaningfully access the services consistent with the fundamental mission of each federal agency without burdening said agency.

UDOT Compliance with MAP-21 Performance management is the hallmark of MAP-21. Under this legislation, each state DOT is required to establish specific measures and targets that support MAP-21’s eight performance goals and allow the state’s progress toward reaching those goals to be tracked. These measures are created by the state DOT in coordination with MPOs and public transportation providers to provide statewide consistency.

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

3


Requirements

“MAP-21 creates a streamlined, performance-based, and multimodal program to address the many challenges facing the U.S. transportation system. These challenges include improving safety, maintaining infrastructure condition, reducing traffic congestion, improving efficiency of the system and freight movement, protecting the environment, and reducing delays in project delivery.” (FHWA)

To fulfill MAP-21’s performance-management requirements, UDOT embarked on a strategic planning effort in conjunction with the state’s four MPOs. The federal performance-measure requirements are being further defined. Until the locally identified unified measures are refined with federal guidance, the 2015 Strategic Direction and Performance Measures document establishes the department’s mission statement and three strategic goals which provide overall guidance and direction for all of UDOT’s activities. Specific performance measures are provided to support each of the department’s goals and federal requirements. Please see Chapter 3 for more information.

STATE AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS

In addition to federal regulation, UDOT must adhere to the laws and guidance of the Utah State Legislature and its community planning partners.

State Laws Affecting Transportation Planning Utah Code Title 72-1-201(d) and Utah Code Title 72-1-204(5)(a), among other guidance, directs UDOT to plan, develop, construct, and maintain state transportation systems that are safe, reliable, environmentally sensitive, and serve the needs of the traveling public, commerce, and industry.

Partnerships and Coordination The state of Utah is unique in its level of collaboration with planning authorities and stakeholders across the state and, therefore, approaches long-range transportation planning differently than other states. Acknowledging that coordinated, effective projects benefit the entire transportation system, the Utah State Legislature encouraged Utah’s four MPOs, the Utah Transit Authority (UTA), and UDOT to collaborate. In response, the six planning entities entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to create a Joint Policy Advisory Committee (JPAC). The JPAC is a forum for facilitating collaboration between policy makers. Although it was not required, the JPAC resulted in aligned planning cycles, financial assumptions, growth assumptions, and modeling approaches. Utah was the first state to compile its statewide and regional transportation plans into one document, Utah’s Unified Transportation Plan. Utah’s Unified Transportation Plan received national recognition from FHWA (source: Regional Models of Cooperation Case Study Series). The 2015 LRP and MPO RTPs will be compiled into the next Unified Transportation Plan.

4

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN


Requirements

Local Government Local public agencies are responsible for planning and programming transportation improvements and maintenance for local roads. UDOT has been authorized by FHWA to provide oversight for local government projects that receive federal aid. UDOT also works with Local public agencies to incorporate project needs that require federal and state funding into the LRP and Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) planning process. Private Sector Combined efforts of UDOT and the private sector has brought creativity and efficiency to assist with addressing complex transportation problems. Through public-private partnerships, UDOT has pioneered new construction techniques, addressed the economic impacts of construction, and supported visioning studies. Multistate UDOT coordinates with neighboring states through several efforts: 

I-15 Mobility Alliance – This is an alliance of state and local transportation officials, local and interstate commerce authorities, port authorities, departments of aviation, freight and passenger rail authorities, freight transportation services, public transportation service providers, environmental and natural resource agencies from the states of Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah. The alliance was selected as one of six corridor coalitions nationwide to receive $1,250,000 funding under the Multistate Corridor Operations and Management Program to execute the delivery of the I-15 Dynamic Mobility Project. This project seeks to obtain, exchange, and disseminate real-time data on all segments of I-15 and create a seamless ITS backbone from San Diego, California, to the northern Utah border.

Western States Transportation Alliance (WSTA) – The WSTA, also known as the Multistate Highway Transportation Agreement, is an alliance of the state DOTs from Oregon, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico. The WSTA was designed to foster collaboration and improve communication between the state legislators, state administrators, and private industries.

I-80 Winter Operation Coalition – I-80 is a major east-west interstate corridor through the states of California, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, and Nebraska. It is a major economic freight and travel corridor that can better serve the public through improved and coordinated maintenance and traveler information. Integration and continuity of winter maintenance operations across the United States are needed to provide consistent traveler information and similar levels of service to achieve a higher degree of boundary transparency and improved mobility, as seen by the traveling public. These five states have initiated a single strategic planning effort to reach consensus on how best to link operational processes and data to maximize winter mobility in the I-80 corridor.

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

5


Requirements

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

UDOT has a long history of public participation and citizen involvement in statewide transportation planning, project delivery, and customer service initiatives. This participation began in the 1970s when federal mandates outlined the basics of public involvement in the regional decision-making process. Since then UDOT has worked to improve these activities in an effort to reach out to and engage as many members of the public as possible and engage them in the decision-making process. During this process the dialogue between the public and decision-makers can develop a vision for their community, county, or region.

Federal Public Involvement Requirements for the Long-Range Planning Process Public participation is required by federal transportation legislation and is welcomed and embraced by UDOT. Transportation legislation requirements increasingly focus on public participation in planning and the decisionmaking process. Federal transportation statutes require early, continued, and reasonable public access to information and the decision-making process. In regard to statewide transportation planning (23 CFR 450.210), UDOT must provide the following: 

reasonable opportunity for the public comment on the transportation plan;

convenient and accessible public meeting times and locations;

employment of visualization techniques to describe the plan;

electronically available (e.g., Internet) public information;

adequate public notice of public participation activities and comment periods at key decision points;

explicit consideration of public input received during the development of the LRP and STIP;

solicitation and consideration of the needs of those traditionally underserved by transportation;

additional public comment opportunities if the final LRP or the TIP differ significantly from the draft version reviewed by the public;

periodic evaluation of the effectiveness of the public participation plan; and

a summary of comments received and the disposition of those comments as well as consultation with federal, state, county, and local planning agencies impacting or affected by the transportation planning process.

6

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN


Requirements

Title VI and Environmental Justice Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed to prevent prejudice against individuals because of race, color, or national origin. Since its passing, other acts and executive orders have expanded prohibition of discrimination based on sex, age, disabilities, income, minority status, and English language proficiency.

UDOT TITLE VI COORDINATOR Utah Department of Transportation 4501 S. 2700 W. PO Box 141265 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-1265 Phone: (801) 965-4384 Fax: (801) 965-4101 UDOT ADA COORDINATOR

Utah Department of Transportation Not only does Title VI apply to specific projects funded by the 4501 S. 2700 W. federal government, it also applies to state agencies who receive PO Box 143200 federal funding. Therefore, UDOT is bound by Title VI in all aspects Salt Lake City, UT 84114-3200 of its operations. This means that UDOT transportation projects Phone: (801) 965-4486 completed with federal funds should not disproportionately affect Hearing impaired: 711 or 1-800-346-4128 (positively or negatively) any person. It also requires equal opportunity to participate in all UDOT planning activities, including long-range transportation planning.

UDOT is committed to fulfilling federal mandates for Title VI and environmental justice throughout the planning process and project development phases of its work. To view more information regarding UDOT’s commitments to Title VI, as well as contact information for the UDOT Title VI coordinator or Americans with Disabilities coordinator, please contact UDOT or visit the UDOT website. The Importance of Environmental Justice in the Public Participation Process Effective public involvement in the planning and project development process can alert state and local agencies about environmental justice concerns. Continuous interaction between community members, transportation and planning professionals, and decision-makers is critical to successfully identify and address potential environmental justice issues. UDOT takes seriously the responsibility of ensuring our transportation partners have public involvement procedures that provide an inclusive, representative, and equal opportunity for two-way communication while addressing environmental justice concerns. Executive Order 13166 improving access for Persons with Limited English Proficiency was issued in 2000 to improve access to federally conducted and assisted programs and activities for persons who, as a result of national origin, are limited in their English proficiency. It requires federal agencies to ensure that recipients of federal financial assistance provide meaningful access to applicants and beneficiaries with Limited English Proficiency. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination by a department, agency, special purpose district or other instrumentality of the state or local government.”

Public Involvement in the 2015 Long-Range Plan UDOT has a mandated responsibility to include the public during development of the statewide LRP. To comply with this requirement, UDOT staff and consultants held nearly 30 events across Utah to solicit input on LRP socioeconomic data, travel-demand model results, and project list prioritization. These events included public meetings; meetings with elected officials, local government planning staff, and focus groups; stakeholder outreach; surveys; and social media campaigns. 2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

7


Requirements

Once the draft project list was compiled it was made available during a 60-day formal public comment period. During this time UDOT utilized an online mapping application to solicit public comments, in addition to accepting comments through email and more traditional means, such as by letter, fax, and phone. UDOT also solicited comments on the Draft LRP from land and resource managers and local government officials across the state through a comprehensive email campaign. In addition to traditional methods of accepting comments, UDOT also made available electronic content on its website (udot.utah.gov). Content included a video describing the long-range planning process, an interactive mapping application, static maps, and a draft prioritized projects list. UDOT developed a separate mapping application that allowed comments to be made within a dynamic map. Comments were also accepted by traditional email using the planning@utah.gov address. Comments received are available on this interactive map. Meetings Meetings were held across the state throughout 2014 and 2015 in conjunction with various associations of governments meetings, local government conferences, and single-purpose meetings with stakeholders. Public Notice Formal public comment was solicited and accepted on the 2015 LRP from March 1 through April 30, 2015. The effort to collect public comments included official notices in major newspapers with statewide distribution, including a Spanish-language newspaper. In addition, press releases were sent to every newspaper within the state of Utah. Comments were also solicited through radio and television broadcasts. Tribal Coordination Coordination with Native American tribes included attending a Pow Wow in Cedar City and a Tribal Leader Meeting in Towaoc, Colorado, to review draft project lists and solicit comments. Land and Resource Managers and Other Agencies In March 2015 UDOT began soliciting comments from federal and state agencies that manage lands in Utah. Letters were sent to the director of each agency asking for comments on UDOT’s proposed projects and how they might impact management objectives. The following federal agencies were contacted:       

US Department of the Interior, National Park Service US Department of Agriculture, National Forest Service US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation US Department of the Army, Tooele Army Depot US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service

8

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN


Requirements

The following state agencies (divisions) were contacted:      

State History Forestry, Fire, and State Lands Parks and Recreation Wildlife Resources Utah Geological Survey School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration

Local Governments In addition to the aforementioned meetings, local governments were also contacted via email with requests to participate in the public comment period and to share this information with their citizens. These entities included:    

associations of governments regional planning organizations county governments city governments

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

9


Goals

3. UDOT STRATEGIC GOALS AND PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT In 2014 UDOT refined its visioning and strategic goals to better guide planning efforts. The growing demand on Utah’s transportation system is substantial―the population will double by 2050―and finding ways to meet those demands while keeping the current system running requires resourcefulness and innovative thinking. By focusing on its strategic goals, UDOT is able to meet these challenges, improve quality of life, and strengthen Utah’s economy. UDOT’s three strategic goals are: 1. Zero Crashes, Injuries, and Fatalities – UDOT is committed to safety and won’t rest until a status of zero crashes, zero injuries, and zero fatalities is attained. 2. Optimize Mobility – UDOT continuously strives to make the transportation system work better while quickly and efficiently moving people to their destinations by optimizing operations; improving connections for transit, biking and pedestrians; and increasing capacity. 3. Preserve Infrastructure – UDOT believes good roads cost less, and through proactive preservation, UDOT will maximize the value of Utah’s infrastructure investment for today and the future. In addition to the strategic goals, UDOT has identified several emphasis areas for its efforts:     

integrated transportation collaboration education transparency quality

ZERO CRASHES, INJURIES, AND FATALITIES

This is an important mission for UDOT, and so the first strategic goal centers on safety. The Strategic Highway Safety Plan, required by MAP-21, is adopted by each state to set goals for highway safety. Through UDOT’s Zero Fatalities campaign, its partnering efforts with local communities and law enforcement, and by programmatically identifying safety improvement needs across the state as part of long-range planning, UDOT is helping make Utah a safer place for its customers. 10

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN


Goals

UDOT has identified the following performance measures to meet this strategic goal: 

Safety – UDOT is dedicated to building and maintaining road facilities that are safe for its customers. UDOT tracks this performance by looking at traffic fatalities, contributing factors, and workplace safety incidents measured by annual workers compensation claims.

OPTIMIZE MOBILITY

As Utah grows, the demand on the transportation system will only increase. Transportation needs are not the same for all regions of Utah. Population growth, freight, traffic demands, safety, air quality, and other factors vary significantly from place to place in rural Utah. UDOT is committed to finding innovative transportation solutions to improve the transportation system’s capacity and efficiency into the future. UDOT has identified the following performance measures listed by category to meet this strategic goal: 

Manage System – UDOT manages transportation through a number of systems. UDOT tracks this performance by estimating traveler information distribution, setting and tracking snow removal targets, and tracking incident management.

Optimize System – UDOT strives to make the current system more efficient through innovative design solutions and integrated transportation. UDOT tracks this performance through signal optimization improvements and managed lanes improvements.

Capacity – Adding capacity to the current transportation system decreases traveler delays. UDOT tracks this performance measure through capacity increases, travel-delay forecasts, and Transportation Investment Fund expenditures.

PRESERVE INFRASTRUCTURE

UDOT maintains nearly 16,000 lane miles of state highway across Utah, which amounts to a multibillion-dollar investment in roads, bridges, and assets. With proper planning, well-timed preservation treatments and other technologies can greatly extend the life of the roadway and postpone costly reconstruction projects. Preservation and rehabilitation efforts make efficient use of taxpayer money. UDOT has identified the following performance measures listed by category to meet this strategic goal: Pavement Condition – UDOT uses distress surveys and modeling techniques to forecast pavement conditions. UDOT tracks ride quality for interstates and Level 1 and Level 2 roads (see Asset Management/Maintenance Section) based on assumed annual funding. Bridge Condition – UDOT inspects all bridges in Utah on a 2-year cycle. UDOT tracks bridge condition, age distribution, and pavement and bridge expenditures. Maintenance – UDOT’s Maintenance Division is always seeking ways to proactively approach maintenance activities. The Central Maintenance Division’s Maintenance Management Quality Assurance Program is used to identify the performance of 19 state highway assets. For more information on UDOT’s Strategic Direction and to view performance metrics, please see the 2015 Strategic Direction document. 2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

11


Challenges

4. UTAH’S UNIQUE CHALLENGES Developing a Statewide LRP requires an understanding of Utah’s unique characteristics and challenges. Future needs for Utah’s transportation system are determined by looking at growth trends in population, housing, and economic development, and gathering local input. In addition to addressing future capacity needs for automobiles, the LRP also identifies needs and projects designed to improve Utah’s transportation system as a whole. This includes projects that facilitate efficient freight movement both within and through the state and projects that enhance roadway safety or provide multimodal transportation options such as bus systems and bicycle facilities.

POPULATION GROWTH When planning and implementing improvements to Utah’s existing transportation system, the crucial issue of population growth and resulting transportation needs must be addressed. According to a 2012 report by the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget (GOMB), Utah’s population is expected to reach 4.5 million people by 2040, up from 2.7 million in 2010 (rural and metropolitan populations based on county population, not actual MPO jurisdictional areas). While the majority of Utah’s population growth will occur within the urban areas of the state, population growth contributed by the rural areas is nonetheless significant at just over 450,000. Over this same time period, the proportion of urban to rural population remains constant at 86 percent to 14 percent respectively.

Urban Rural Population Share 1980, 2010, and 2040

15% 15%

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

4% 2%

2040 2010 1980 WFRC 52% Source:

12

CMPO DMPO 4% 8% 4% 5%

Rural 14%

15% 19%

MAG 22%

64%

58%

Utah Governor’s Office of Management and Budget and Utah Population Estimate Committee.


Challenges

Rural County Population Change 2010–2040 151% 160%

140,000 120,000

120%

120%

100,000

89% 89% 96% 97%

80,000

77%

60,000

31%

40,000 20,000

3% 7% 10% 11%

26%

59% 59%

100% 80% 60%

36% 38% 39% 42% 32% 33% 34%

40% 20%

0

0%

2010 Source:

140%

2020

2030

2040

30 Yr. % Growth

Utah Governor’s Office of Management and Budget, 2012.

The rate of population growth is another important consideration for transportation planners. The population in five of Utah’s fastest growing rural counties will double by 2040 and is predicted to increase by half in another five counties. This rapid growth will carry over to increased demand on existing roadways. Planners must account for future demand when planning for project over the 25-year time horizon of the LRP. Counties that exceed a population threshold of 50,000 with 1,000 people per square mile may lead to a creation of new MPO boundaries.

AIR QUALITY ISSUES AND IMPROVEMENTS

Long-range transportation planning must address population growth and society’s value of individual mobility. One implication of growth, particularly in urban core areas (Weber, Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah Counties), is air quality. Air quality impacts must be addressed in the project planning stage to ensure that regional air quality emissions do not exceed allowable limits.

Transportation Conformity Transportation conformity is a way to ensure that federal funding and approval are given to transportation activities that are consistent with air quality goals. According to the Clean Air Act of 1977, transportation plans, programs, and projects cannot:   

create new violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), increase the frequency or severity of existing NAAQS violations, or delay attainment of the NAAQS.

If an area cannot meet the NAAQS, the Environmental Protection Agency designates it as a nonattainment area. When this occurs, the state is required to develop an air quality State Implementation Plan (SIP) describing how and when it will attain the NAAQS. The LRP must conform with the SIP’s goals.

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

13


Challenges

A formal interagency consultation process involving the EPA, FHWA, Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and state and local transportation and air quality agencies is required for development of state air plans, regional transportation plans, and regional transportation programs. Regional emissions are estimated based on highway and transit usage, according to transportation plans and programs. Projected emissions for the plans and programs must not exceed the emissions limits established by the state’s air quality plans. If projected mobile source emissions do not conform to the limits defined by the state through emission testing, then programming of federal transportation funds for new capacity projects is halted in that region until the emissions can be controlled. Local and state officials are continually considering how projects in these urban areas affect air quality. The plans and programs they implement include available options for offsetting or reducing motor vehicle emissions, as required. Examples of mobile source emission controls employed by UDOT include transit improvements, Express Lanes, signal timing, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Status of Utah Air Quality Utah currently has designated nonattainment air quality areas for carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter 10 (PM10), and particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5), and the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality has developed air quality plans (SIPs) for these areas. These areas include Cache, eastern Box Elder, Weber, Davis, Salt Lake, eastern Tooele, and Utah counties and will directly impact the MPO transportation planning process. However, the Environmental Protection Agency is proposing to update the 8-hour ozone primary standard, to protect public health, and the secondary standard, to protect public welfare. Both would be 8-hour standards set within the range from 65 to 70 parts per billion. This change to the standard could increase Utah’s ozone nonattainment areas to 11 counties and not just those locations under jurisdiction of MPOs. The Uinta Basin in rural, northeastern Utah, where the majority of the state’s oil and gas production occurs, has had ozone concentrations in excess of current NAAQS during winter inversion periods. This will have implications for UDOT planning efforts. Because no MPO exists in the Uinta Basin, UDOT is the responsible entity according to the Transportation Conformity Regulations (as of April 2012) [Section 93.109 (g) (2) (i)]: “When the requirements of [Section 93.106(d)] apply to isolated rural nonattainment areas, references to ‘MPO’ should be taken to mean the state department of transportation.” Hence UDOT will be responsible for conducting the necessary transportation conformity analysis for a Uinta Basin nonattainment area, if and when so designated.

UTAH’S PRIMARY FREIGHT NETWORK AND FUTURE DEMAND

Freight transportation plays a major role in supporting Utah’s economy. As the “Commerce Crossroads of the West,” Utah offers the business community efficient access to logistics and transportation services in the western United States. UDOT was one of the first DOTs in the United States to identify Primary Freight Network (PFN) highways and target critical infrastructure investments on those routes. Utah’s PFN highways serve not only businesses that rely on trucking but also all other modes of freight transportation. 14

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN


Challenges

Interstate Routes Critical Rural Freight Routes Critical Urban Freight Routes Energy Routes TOTAL

Value in Billion USD

Total Freight Movements 1997 – 2012 $250

250

$200

200

$150

150

$100

100

$50

50

$-

1997

2002

2007

2012

Value in Billion USD

Total Freight Movements 2012 and 2040 $800

400

$600

300

$400

200

$200

100

$-

2012

2040

Freight Moved by Truck Value in Billion USD

$350 $300 $250

250 200

$200

150

$150

100

$100

50

Weight in Million Tons

From 2012 to 2040 the value of goods moved within, from, and to Utah will go from $207.2 billion to $516.7 billion, a 249 percent increase over 28 years. The weight of goods moved will also increase in that time span from 215.3 million tons in 2012 to 344.8 million tons in 2040, which is an increase of about 160 percent.

937 711 89 255 1,992

Weight in Million Tons

Overall, freight value and weight within, from, and to Utah have increased. From 1997 to 2012, the value of all freight moved within Utah’s borders increased from $124.5 billion to $207.2 billion, which is an increase of $82.7 billion or 166 percent in 15 years. The weight of freight increased from 168.1 million tons in 1997 to 215.3 million tons in 2012, which is an increase of 47.2 million tons or 128 percent in 15 years.

UTAH’S PRIMARY FREIGHT NETWORK HIGHWAY MILEAGE

Weight in Million Tons

Freight must travel seamlessly along geographic corridors, with a choice of transportation modes between locations or activity centers within and outside Utah. To support this, UDOT chose to focus on a corridor-based strategy by identifying Utah’s PFN highways. Since Utah’s PFN highways have been defined, projects located on the PFN are given higher scores for project prioritization. The corridor approach has allowed UDOT to gain a better understanding of freight movement within Utah and transcontinental freight flow through Utah, since specific corridors serve and support specific economic sectors, freight centers, and geographic locations. By improving specific corridors, shippers, receivers, businesses, and industries dependent on those corridors can be strengthened, further supporting Utah’s and the United States’ economic competitiveness. Originally defined in 2005 as Utah’s Primary Freight Routes, Utah has amended the name to be consistent with MAP-21 and distinguish the corridors between highways and railroads. Utah’s PFN highways consist of interstate routes, critical rural freight routes, critical urban freight routes, and energy routes.

$50 With a 211 percent increase in the value of goods moved via truck $from $136.9 billion in 2012 to a predicted $289.2 billion in 2040 2012 2040 and a 155 percent increase in freight weight moved from 134.0 Source: Freight Analysis Framework3, Federal Highway Administration, 2014. million tons in 2012 to a predicated 207.3 million tons in 2040, a change in how the state handles freight can be expected. Having such an increase in the amount of freight moved within and through Utah will significantly impact the economy of the state both in terms of jobs and infrastructure.

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

15


Challenges

ADDITIONAL CHALLENGES FOR RURAL AREAS

Utah’s rural transportation needs differ from urban transportation needs and have additional anticipated system influences. This section reviews these differences and the potential drivers for travel demand and network change in Utah. Future chapters address how these needs are being met.

Freight As discussed above, Utah plays a vital role in the national freight network, and rural areas have the bulk of the freight network. Although vital to the economy and lifeblood of both the nation and the state, this presents challenges for the rural areas related to the impact that trucks can have on the transportation system from a maintenance and capacity perspective. These challenges are especially apparent on rural main streets and recreational routes across Utah.

Recreation Utah is home to a diverse landscape including 5 national parks, 7 national monuments, 2 national recreation areas, 44 state parks, and numerous recreational places in between including 15 ski resorts. The access by local, state, national, and international visitors adds a seasonal variation component to many of the roadways across Utah.

Connecting Communities Because of the dispersal of small communities over vast stretches of land in rural Utah, the transportation system provides a vital connection to small communities by connecting goods and services, including emergency and medical services not available in each small community.

Energy Development in the Uinta Basin Despite recent drops in the cost of energy, long-term demand for energy is increasing. According to the World Energy Outlook 2014 published by the International Energy Agency, global demand for oil is predicted to increase by 37 percent by 2040 and demand for natural gas is likely to grow by 50 percent over the same period. Oil, natural gas, and other nonconventional energy sources are plentiful in Utah but specifically in the Uinta Basin. The continued demand for energy in the coming decades will drive further development of energy in the region. With energy development comes the need for sufficient transportation facilities to support the extraction industry. This includes not just freighting equipment and materials into the region and capacity to deliver energy out of the region but also facilities to support the increased demand of the local growing population.

16

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN


Challenges

Small Urban Development Urban development consisting of housing, businesses, parks, schools, and other built infrastructure is needed to support human habitation spread across the landscape around the Utah’s population centers. While the majority of urban development is occurring in areas along the Wasatch Front and in Washington County, other areas like Cedar City, Park City, Heber Valley, and Tooele County are rapidly growing, too. The proximity to current urban areas may be influencing this growth. Urban development is an important consideration for long-range transportation planning because as urban areas spread the supporting transportation system must also grow. As new roadways are needed to service new urban development, the capacity of existing roadways must also expand. The future transportation system should improve the connections and carrying capacity from Utah’s existing population centers to the rural areas of the state. Freight and transit needs to service these areas should be considered when planning these connections.

FUTURE TRENDS AND INNOVATIONS IN TRANSPORTATION

Transportation demand is always evolving and presents a major challenge to long-range planning. It is imperative that UDOT understands and accommodates future transportation demands. This is a challenging task: While some factors affecting transportation demand may or may not follow predictable trends, the results of the trends that seem to be predictable on transportation are not always obvious. For example, the populations of Utah’s urban areas are predictably increasing, which would normally increase demand on roadways and public transportation. However, technological advancements, such as automated vehicles and wirelessly connected vehicles, and new transportation services, such as car sharing, may or may not increase the number of total vehicles on the road. There are several emerging trends in the transportation sector that have potential to substantively impact the nature of future travel. The technological advancements mentioned above, demand-responsive technologies, and socioeconomic trends in millennial lifestyle and travel patterns are just a few examples. These could cause “disruptive change” in the transportation sector, resulting in shifts that fundamentally alter previous patterns. As such, they must be considered in any substantive, forward-thinking approach such as that envisioned in this LRP. Although the effects of these emerging trends on transportation demands is unclear, it is UDOT’s intent to anticipate any shifts that may fundamentally alter previous patterns and find methods to eliminate risk. While the results of these trends are unclear, the method of analyzing them is well established (although rarely used in the transportation planning context). Unlike conventional transportation models that rely on historical trends and stated or revealed behavior to forecast future conditions, analytical processes for considering disruptive change must use methods that employ expert opinion to support policy creation and risk analysis. For the Wasatch Front Central Corridor Study, UDOT is using the WFRC/MAG and UDOT transportation models to understand baseline trend behavior and forecast future demand, and other methods to analyze the impact of disruptive changes to the transportation sector. 2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

17


Challenges

As a part of these study efforts, UDOT is tracking the following emerging trends that have potential to influence future transportation demand on Utah’s highways. 

Labor force participation rate – Jobs recovery brings return of commuting and other travel.

Driving-age population – Postmillennials come of age, baby boomers retire but remain active.

Vehicle ownership – Recent urban trend to living car free and sharing cars, bikes, and rides.

Stricter driver’s licensing regulation – additional states adopt graduated licensing laws further reducing teen driving.

Fuel cost per mile (all forms of fuel) – Gas prices rise at or above rate of inflation, thus reducing discretionary driving.

Congestion – With rising congestion, people have limited willingness to spend time traveling and they reduce travel distances.

Non-automobile modal options – Transit, bike, walk.

Emergent alternative travel options – Demand-response transit, car and bike sharing, and complete streets shift choices from driving.

Gross domestic product and real income – Rising household income increases driving.

Telecommuting, teleconferencing – Increasingly realistic virtual presence further reduces in-person meetings and commute travel.

Suburban migration – Recent migration of millennials and baby boomers to urban centers reverses.

Household formation – Economic conditions, social preferences return to traditional household forms and travel patterns.

Goods and services home delivery – Same-day home delivery becomes widespread, increasing the vehicle miles traveled associated with deliveries.

Social networking in lieu of travel – Virtual forums increasingly substitute for face-to-face social encounters and entertainment.

Internet shopping – Home delivery becomes widespread, reducing trips to the store. 18

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN


Challenges

Autonomous cars (with driver aboard) – Self-driving cars reduce stress, give freedom to multitask, and increase acceptance of longer travel times.

Driverless cars (operating unoccupied on public streets) – Unoccupied vehicles are in continuous circulation, serving on-demand travel needs.

These trends could have impacts on travel demand and transportation networks along with policy implications.

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

19


Role

5. ROLE OF LONG-RANGE PLAN IN LISTING PROJECTS AND IDENTIFYING EVOLVING ISSUES UDOT’s Long-Range Plan process analyzes Utah’s rural transportation needs over a 25-year planning horizon by following a process guided by federal and state laws, UDOT’s strategic goals, Utah’s unique transportation needs, and the local community. To accomplish this task, UDOT follows a process that begins by identifying goals and objectives of the overall transportation system for the next 25 to 30 years. Next, a series of forward-looking modeling tools are used to define future transportation needs with considerations of Utah’s unique characteristics and challenges. UDOT then works with regional transportation planners and local officials to identify potential projects that meet forecasted travel demands. Funding sources are identified to estimate total available budget. Projects are prioritized based on need and funding constraints. Finally, performance management is used to assess the success of projects relative to goals and objectives. Every 4 years the LRP process recommences, allowing UDOT to adapt to the ever-changing and increasingly challenging needs of Utah. As mentioned previously, UDOT has three strategic goals: Zero Crashes, Injuries, and Fatalities; Preserve Infrastructure; and Optimize Mobility. All projects identified in the LRP are consistent with these goals to encourage and promote safety and efficient management, operation, and development of a cost-efficient transportation Identify Goals and system that will serve Utah’s mobility and freight needs into the Objectives future. In keeping with the performance measure requirements of MAP-21, UDOT will assess the overall contribution of LRP projects Measure Define Needs Performance toward meeting its strategic goals. While specific measures have not yet been finalized by the Secretary of Transportation, they will be soon. In addition, UDOT has been exploring potential unified transportation plan performance measures. Once measures are determined, they will be used to gauge success of the LRP. In 4 Phase Plan Identify years (2019) a new LRP will be published. Until then, UDOT will Based on Potential Prioritization Strategies evaluate its goals, run new forecast models for population, and Funding with Regions economic development, and travel demands, and reassess Utah’s Identify transportation needs. In this manner the LRP process continually Funding Assumptions adapts to evolving conditions.

20

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN


Role

Transportation needs across the state are identified through data analysis, public involvement, corridor studies, local government coordination, and the direct experience of UDOT region and other division personnel. Identified needs are matched with specific transportation projects to mitigate the need. These transportation projects are prioritized according to UDOT’s strategic goals, planning-level project concepts, and input from UDOT region staff, local government staff, elected officials, and other stakeholders. Costs are estimated for all potential projects and compared with general revenue projections. Project lists are aligned to anticipated revenues over time. In this LRP, projects are assigned to one of three phases based on funding availability and anticipated need: Phase 1 (2015–2024), Phase 2 (2025–2034) or Phase 3 (2035–2040). UDOT and the state’s four MPOs have agreed to a planning-horizon year of 2040. The base year for the LRP for revenue and cost data is 2015. Some projects may be classified as unfunded based on budget limitations. These projects remain on the LRP project list in case new funding sources are identified. While not funded, UDOT is maintaining a long-term and historical record of unfunded and proposed projects to comply with federal requirements for planning and funding, as well as the National Environmental Policy Act. After the adoption of the LRP, projects are added to the STIP from those identified in the state 2015–2040 LRP (this document) as well as those identified from the MPO’s RTPs. The projects advanced, or programmed, from these long-range transportation plans to the STIP have the best near-term feasibility and priority for the state and UDOT region(s), can be linked to a specific funding source, and are consistent with UDOT’s goals. According to state regulations, a project added to the STIP must come from an approved LRP or RTP. Newly discovered, highpriority needs require a LRP amendment before they may be added to the STIP. The STIP uses a 5-year planning horizon to prioritize projects, but it is reevaluated and updated annually by UDOT. Projects selected by means of a prioritization process for funding through the STIP are refined by project development. Projects transition from planning concepts to actual projects as they are vetted by environmental evaluation and documentation, design, and construction. Once a project moves from long-range plans to the funded STIP, it is likely to be constructed. However, unanticipated environmental findings, large project cost increases, or reductions in expected funding can change this. UDOT is assessing the development of a systematic approach to corridor planning to better define projects and the implementation plan prior to being listed on the STIP. The process not only includes coordination with partner agencies in an effort to expand coordination efforts but also links planning processes with National Environmental Policy Act and statewide environmental processes. The corridor planning process would allow for early planning-level coordination with the various programs within UDOT and take all systems into account including safety, infrastructure and signal needs, access plans, seasonal variation, asset management, transit, active transportation, and others. It would also provide for early collaboration with the public, resource agencies, and other agencies to better define the corridor needs. The final product of corridor planning would identify an implementation plan listing various projects, and all information would be integrated into the environmental process. These products would include goals and objectives for the corridor, analysis of solutions, elimination of solutions, and potential impacts. They would also document the public involvement process and make recommendations for future efforts. This approach provides a broad look at the corridor plan and an early definition of the solutions that meet the context of the overall area.

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

21


Role

Ultimately, the results of early corridor planning would lead to an integrated corridor management plan that coordinates individual network operations between adjacent facilities and creates an interconnected system capable of cross-network travel management.

22

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN


Focus

6. PLANNING FOCUS AREAS The UDOT Transportation Planning Division has several planning focus areas that influence project selection, development, and prioritization. These focus areas are extensions of UDOT’s strategic goals and help connect UDOT’s LRP to those goals. This chapter focuses on those planning areas: TravelWise, active transportation, freight, and area planning with local government.

TRAVELWISE

TravelWise is based on people working together to develop a coordinated transportation program that encourages alternatives to driving alone and actions that reduce congestion at peak travel times. The program advocates viable and reliable travel choices including vanpool and carpool, telecommuting, flexible work hours, bike sharing, car sharing, and trip chaining, to name a few. The TravelWise program has established and seeks to develop additional partnerships with the WFRC, MAG, UDOT departments, area employers, transit agencies, other MPOs, cities, counties, schools, and other public, private, and nonprofit agencies that can encourage TravelWise strategies. In addition to working with planning partners, the program has a large educational campaign to encourage the public to change their transportation habits and follow TravelWise strategies. These strategies include the following: 

moving discretionary trips to other less-congested driving periods, therefore reducing traffic numbers during peak hours;

supporting public transit as a vital component to the transportation system to increase ridership;

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

23


Focus

encouraging active transportation, such as walking and bicycling, to reduce short-distance vehicle trips;

utilizing the capacity of empty automobile seats through carpooling, ridesharing, and vanpooling to help improve the efficiency of the transportation system;

using technology through teleworking, video conferencing, e-government, Internet shopping, and related techniques to save travel time;

promoting, educating, and supporting all partners of transportation and land use changes to foster longterm benefits; and

incorporating strategies in long-range transportation plans.

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION

UDOT fully supports active transportation. As stated in the Inclusion of Active Transportation Policy: “It is the policy of the Department that the needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, and other Active Transportation users will be routinely considered as an important aspect in the funding, planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of Department transportation facilities.”(UDOT 2013) To help facilitate this policy and bring active transportation to Utah’s roadways, UDOT initiated multiple approaches. The first approach is a public awareness campaign coupled with community planning called “Road Respect” designed to promote safety and improve relationships between drivers and cyclists on Utah’s roadways. The second approach is to develop a statewide bicycle plan that assesses the capacity of Utah’s existing roadways to support active transportation, identify gaps in bicycle facilities, and establish a list of projects that UDOT could integrate into projects.

Road Respect On Utah’s roads, Utah drivers and cyclists meet in potentially life-threatening situations thousands of times a day. The Road Respect Program is dedicated to promoting bicycling and improving safety by educating both drivers and cyclists about the rules of the road and encouraging mutual respect so that everyone gets home safely. The mission of the Road Respect Program is to:      

24

encourage integrated transportation planning, support healthy communities, promote tourism and recreation, enhance law enforcement through education, educate system users, and encourage transit use.

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN


Focus

A second component of the Road Respect Program is the Road Respect Community Program. This program is dedicated to providing education on, support of, and guidance for bicycle and active transportation planning for municipalities across Utah. This program connects communities to resources, training, promotional opportunities, and information about the latest innovations in active transportation, design, planning, construction, and operations and maintenance. The Road Respect Community Program offers collaboration and consultation to assist communities with developing activities and resources that contribute to an effective bike program that emphasizes safety and cooperation between cyclists and motorists.

State Bicycle Plan The State Bicycle Plan, which consists of Region Bike Plans, aids project managers, designers, and planners with decision making so they know where efforts and limited funds can make the biggest impact for bicycle transportation in support of active transportation. UDOT’s individual regions identified bicycle needs that were combined to form one statewide plan. The UDOT Region 4 Bike Plan was completed in 2013. The urban areas of Regions 1, 2, and 3 were completed in 2014; and the rural areas of Regions 1, 2, and 3 will be completed soon. The UDOT Region bicycle planning effort serves and reflects UDOT’s mission to provide a complete, safe, and efficient transportation system for the state by identifying gaps in the bicycle network and prioritizing needs. The plan supports UDOT goals for zero fatalities and optimizing mobility through the emphasis area of integrated transportation. Bicycle network gap analysis was performed using standard criteria established by the FHWA for road conditions, a safety data analysis, and by the UDOT Regions. The gaps and supporting data used to create the plan for all regions can be found on UPlan, UDOT’s interactive mapping tool, in the Region Bike Plan Gallery. The characteristics of the gaps are detailed in the data attributes accessed through UPlan maps to assist UDOT planners and engineers with making decisions for the route.

BICYCLE NETWORK GAPS ANALYSIS         

AADT Existing bike facility locations (bike lanes, trails, etc.) Existing conditions data (2009 UDOT study) Safety (bicycle-motor vehicle collision locations; high-risk intersections) Shoulder widths Speed limits State bicycle route restrictions Street parking restrictions Truck traffic volume

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

25


Focus

FREIGHT

As the “Freight Crossroads of the West,” Utah relies on an efficient and complex freight transportation network. Utah’s freight transportation system plays a critical role in fostering economic vitality and competitiveness in regional and global markets. Trucks move the majority of freight in Utah, but all modes of freight transport are important. In 2015 UDOT completed its first Utah State Rail Plan since 1996. Further, UDOT is developing the Utah Freight Plan, its first ever freight plan (2015), to ensure that the transportation system in Utah supports and enhances trade and sustainable economic growth. Freight is defined as any good, product, or raw material carried by a commercial means of transportation, which includes highway, rail, pipeline, air, and water. The activities involved in the management of how and where freight moves is defined as “logistics.” Logistics is becoming a significant challenge due to the growing need for freight services resulting from increasing consumer demand in Utah and increasing congestion, as well as the ability of transportation infrastructure to support such demand. In light of existing market forces, fuel prices, and other factors that will affect the cost of moving goods, freight planning, and especially truck freight, is an important component of the statewide and metropolitan planning process.

Freight Analysis Framework The Freight Analysis Framework (FAF) consists of FHWA data compiled from multiple sources to outline freight movements for all states. The data provides an estimate for the tonnage, value, and ton miles for a number of factors, including origin, destination, mode, and commodities. UDOT has chosen to use value and weight by transportation mode for forecasts. The data used to determine the past trends and forecasts for 2040 are given in increments of 5 years from 1997 to 2012. Note: All FAF data in this document referring to the value of freight is based on the 2007 constant of the US dollar and is in millions of US dollars unless otherwise stated. All data referring to the weight of freight are in thousand tons unless otherwise stated.

Millions

Freight Value by Type (2007 Dollars) 1997–2040 $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $0

Rail

Pipeline 1997

26

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

2002

Truck 2007

2012

Multiple Modes 2040

Air


Focus

Thousands

Freight Weight by Type (Tons) 1997–2040 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0

Rail

Pipeline 1997

2002

Truck 2007

2012

Multiple Modes

Air

2040

Truck According to FHWA’s Highway Statistics 2008, the most recent data provided on this subject, Utah has the highest percentage of truck traffic in the United States at 23 percent; the average is only 12 percent nationwide. Utah is home to more than 15,000 trucking companies. As a result, Utah businesses have quick access to competitive trucking services to meet any logistical needs across the continent. Utah has almost 6,000 miles of state highways and interstates that link the state with all major regions of the western United States and Canada including I-15, I70, I-80, and I-84. As discussed in Chapter 4, UDOT identified Utah’s PFN (highway), which consists of interstate routes, critical rural freight routes, critical urban freight routes, and energy routes. In 2012 more freight was moved by trucks in Utah than all other modes combined. By weight trucks carried 63 percent, and by value trucks carried 58 percent. And according to FAF data, trucks are expected to move almost 40 percent more freight tonnage by the year 2040, from 129 to 205 million tons. This represents an enormous increase in the numbers of trucks on Utah’s state routes (S.R.) and interstate highways in the coming years. Rail The railroad industry continues to play a vital role in the movement of freight to, from, and through Utah. Freight handled by rail in Utah is either originating or terminating in Utah or passing through the state en route to or from the West Coast and the Midwest. There is only one rail freight intermodal facility in Utah―the Salt Lake City Intermodal Terminal (SLCIT), which is used exclusively by Union Pacific Railroad. Only Union Pacific Railroad provides rail intermodal freight service (truck trailers and containers) in Utah. The SLCIT is located adjacent to Salt Lake City’s rapidly growing west side industrial and distribution warehousing area and is proximal to the I-80, I-215, and S.R. 201 freeways, all of which are on Utah’s PFN highways. A facility for new automobiles is maintained by the Union Pacific Railroad at its Roper Yard, located about three miles south of downtown Salt Lake City adjacent to the I-15, I-80, and S.R. 201 freeways. This facility handles all shipments of new automobiles and vehicles by rail for northern Utah and a multistate area. 2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

27


Focus

Water There is no freight moving on Utah waterways. Air There are two air cargo facilities located at the Salt Lake City International Airport―one at the south end and one at the northwest end. Sixteen cargo carriers handled more than 328 million pounds of air cargo and airmail in 2014. The main air cargo carriers in Utah include FedEx, UPS, Delta, and Southwest. Among the 46 public use airports in Utah, eight of them have air cargo service.

AIR CARGO SERVICE AIRPORTS        

Buck Davis Field (Price) Canyonlands Field (Moab) Cedar City Regional Airport Logan-Cache Airport Salt Lake City International Airport St. George Municipal Airport Vernal Regional Airport Wendover Airport

Multiple Modes This service includes shipments by multiple modes and parcel delivery services, the US Postal Service, and couriers; it is not limited to containerized or trailer-on-flatcar shipments. The FAF3 and US Census Bureau Commodity Flow Survey use multiple modes and mail rather than intermodal to represent commodities that move by more than one mode. Intermodal typically refers to containerized cargo that moves between ship and surface modes or between truck and rail. Repeated efforts to identify containerized cargo in the Commodity Flow Survey have proved unsuccessful. Shipments reported as multiple modes can include anything from containerized cargo to coal moving from mine to railhead by truck and rail to harbor. The “mail” component recognizes that shippers who use parcel delivery services typically do not know what modes were involved after the shipment was picked up. Pipelines By weight, pipelines are the third largest mode of shipments in Utah. Pipelines deliver their products reliably, safely, efficiently, and economically. Pipelines in Utah carry crude oil, refined petroleum products, and solid material in slurry form (phosphate rock) that would be transported by trucks or trains if pipeline infrastructure was not available. On average, approximately 2,200 trucks per day are kept off Utah’s highways because of these systems. There are five oil refineries located between Salt Lake City and suburban Woods Cross, Utah, to the north. Also in this same energy corridor are the Chevron and Pioneer Pipeline Terminals for petroleum products arriving from outof-state sources. All of these facilities provide a multimodal connection inasmuch as they combine rail freight service with pipelines and trucks. Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety UDOT’s stated goal of zero crashes, injuries, and fatalities applies to all roadway users. Commercial freight transport makes up nearly a quarter of all vehicles traveling on Utah’s roadways. The following figure shows the number of commercial motor vehicle crashes statewide and on the PFN. While there is a slight increase statewide, there is a slight decrease in commercial motor vehicle crashes on the PFN. Since 2009, UDOT has been constructing capacity improvements, climbing lanes, passing lanes, and long-term truck parking on Utah’s PFN highways. While more time is needed for review, it appears that capacity and other projects on the PFN are helping to improve safety.

28

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN


Focus

Commercial Motor Vehicle Crashes in Utah 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 2009

2010

2011

On the Primary Freight Network

2012

2013

All Commercial Motor Vehicle Crashes

Source: Traffic and Safety, 2015. CONFIDENTIAL: These data, as well as all UDOT safety program information, are protected under 23 USC 409.

Ongoing and Future Freight Projects Over the last decade UDOT has conducted extensive outreach to and research with the trucking industry into issues such as: 

long-term truck parking,

identifying and constructing capacity improvement projects to reduce congestion,

identifying and constructing climbing lanes on interstate highways,

identifying and constructing passing lanes on non-interstate PFN routes,

identifying freight centers and the routes linking them to the PFN,

identifying safety and mobility challenges associated with operating industry standard 53-foot trucks at intersections and interchanges,

identifying existing and needed truck chain-up areas, and

identifying existing and needed truck escape ramps.

Two examples of Utah upgrading PFN routes by increasing overall capacity are the multibillion-dollar reconstruction projects along I-15 and portions of I-80 along the length of Utah’s Wasatch Front urbanized corridor.

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

29


Focus

Although Utah’s PFN routes are in very good shape with regard to safe and efficient freight movement, many of Utah’s freight collector routes linking freight centers with the PFN need improvements. While some of these routes are state routes, many are roads and streets that are locally maintained. The majority of freight collector routes that need improvements are in the urbanized area along Utah’s Wasatch Front corridor. Additional improvements needed include: 

highway-rail grade separations;

intersection/interchange design for better turning radius, signal timing, and turn lane lengths;

full-width paved shoulders on two-lane highways;

adequate long-term truck parking near freight centers; and

city and town education about identifying and maintaining needed truck routes, which often involves nonstate-maintained roads and streets.

Many of the projects identified through the freight planning process would directly improve capacity. These projects are included in the LRP Project List in Chapter 8.

AREA PLANNING WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT Rapid population growth across Utah is straining the existing transportation system in many areas. While transportation planning within urban areas falls under the jurisdiction of MPOs, planning in the rural areas remains in the realm of UDOT and local governments. For those rural areas expected to transition to urban classification in the next 10–20 years, UDOT funds and participates in the Rural Planning Organization (RPO) Program. The current RPOs are Tooele Valley, Iron County, and Wasatch County. In 2013 the eastern Washington County RPO was incorporated by DMPO, and in 2014 the highly urbanized portion of the Box Elder County RPO was incorporated by WFRC; however, there have been discussions of portions of Box Elder County reforming as a new RPO. The RPO Program facilitates ongoing planning efforts between UDOT and local governments to:    

facilitate access management agreements to protect future right-of-way (ROW) needs; facilitate data collection for traffic volumes, capital improvements, and land use changes; develop and maintain an RTP; and assist with development of annual STIP.

Rural Planning Organization Plans As a part of this program, each RPO develops a transportation plan in coordination with UDOT and local governments. These RPOs’ plans are a part of the LRP and are found in Appendix B:   

30

Iron County Rural Planning Organization Tooele Valley Rural Planning Organization Wasatch County Rural Planning Organization

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN


Focus

Local Projects of Regional Significance RPO plans include local projects of regional significance. Although these projects are outside of the funding constraints for this LRP, the potential impacts on the regional transportation system are great. Projects of regional significance connect to state facilities and generally function as arterials. These projects can be found in Appendix B as a part of the RPO plans.

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

31


Focus

CURRENT AND FUTURE PLANNING STUDIES

Corridors for study have been identified by each of the UDOT regions. A list of those corridors are provided here for reference. REGION

STUDY AREA

Region 1

Ogden Canyon

The study is not fully funded. The $200,000 will fully fund Phase 1 of the project, which covers information gathering. Phase 2, which is the concept-development portion, will probably require an additional $500,000.

Phase 1 – $200,000 Phase 2 – $500,000

S.R. 201/215 Interchange Study

Preliminary traffic analysis shows that weaving movements on S.R. 201 fail in both directions with existing conditions. A feasibility study is recommended to further study the impacts on adjacent interchanges and look at innovative interchange solutions to eliminating the weaving movements without causing additional weaving issues on S.R. 201/Redwood Road or S.R. 201/3200 West.

$200,000

The current I-80 east bound to Foothill Drive north bound exit acts as both an exit for east bound I-80 and north bound I-215 vehicles. It has a substandard acceleration length for I-80 merging vehicles and forces them to yield to exiting IRegion 2 Foothill Drive/I-80/ 215 vehicles. Compounding the situation is the poor line of sight between I-80 I-215 Solution Study merging vehicles and I-215 exiting vehicles. The purpose of the study would be to identify and model a cost-effective and reasonable solution to this and other issues in the area.

$200,000

East-West Study

This study would address moving traffic in areas farther south than the current study. The details of the scope will be further fleshed out, but at the east-west routes from 5400 to 12300 South would be the focus. The plan was to study eastwest routes through West Valley City (3500, 4100, 4700, and 5400 South).

$250,000

S.R. 73 Eagle Mountain to Saratoga Springs

Perform traffic analyses and evaluate a range of traffic alternatives including frontage road freeway, traditional freeway, reversible lanes, arterial concept and transit alternative.

$500,000

For this long-term planning study, the Utah County portion could be included in the study that is beginning in Salt Lake County. The philosophy developed in Salt Lake County could be used, since the same issues―just delayed by 10 years―exist, such as determining the maximum number of lanes, considering double-decker lanes, living with LOS F, and considering a parallel freeway. UDOT should be consistent as a department and help the MPOs create consistent assumptions.

$100,000

Region 3 I-15

INFORMATION

Develop a study to give range of alternatives along S.R. 9 from I-15 to the S.R. 9 from Southern Southern Parkway. Determine a range of alternatives with cost, environmental Parkway to I-15 impacts, right-of-way impacts, and expected date of project implementation.

$100,000

The Eastern Washington County Rural Planning Organization completed a highlevel planning effort for this corridor. This study would analyze the corridor for safety improvements, integrated transportation needs, passing lanes, and capacity improvements on a project-by-project level.

$75,000

Predictive safety modeling for passing Use predictive methods to analyze these corridors for safety improvements such as lanes on 89, 191, 9, turning lanes, passing lanes, and RV pullouts. 6, 18

$150,000

S.R. 9 Hurricane to Springdale Region 4

BUDGET

32

Signal planning in Moab

Develop a plan for Moab’s entire network of signals to achieve appropriate timing for a balance of pedestrians and through traffic.

$50,000

I-15 passing lanes freight mobility

Analyze the I-15 corridor for freight-mobility needs. Study additional passing lanes, parking improvement, automation of available parking, and possible additional partnerships with the local community.

$100,000

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN


Programs

7. PROGRAM AREAS This chapter addresses UDOT’s five major program areas, which are public transit, assets management (pavement preservation/bridge preservation), safety, traffic operations, and capacity. Each funding program is discussed from a policy perspective outlining funding sources and methods for prioritizing and allocating funds. Proposed performance goals and measures are included for program areas that are required by MAP-21 legislation. Chapter 8 continues the funding discussion for capacity by listing specific projects and costs.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

The UDOT Public Transit Team (PTT) applies for and distributes FTA funds on a competitive basis to assist eligible entities with providing services to seniors, individuals with disabilities, the low-income population, and the general public in small urban and rural areas statewide. Small urban areas include all areas with a population of less than 200,000, including areas where the CMPO and DMPO have planning responsibility. The FTA funds managed and distributed through the PTT are not to be confused with those FTA funds (Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Program) that are directly distributed by FTA to Utah’s urban and small urban transit agencies including UTA, Cache Valley Transit District, and SunTran.

Funding The PTT manages five grant programs on behalf of FTA and the state of Utah. Grant totals for the 2014 Utah apportionments are approximately $9 million. The PTT is currently managing a number of projects funded under SAFETEA-LU and MAP-21 grant programs. Fund levels have grown approximately 1 percent per year on average through the SAFETEA-LU and MAP-21. However, given the recent trends of decreasing funding, UDOT is prepared for flat or decreased funds moving forward. Section 5304 Funds – Statewide Planning Section 5304 funds are used for rural statewide transit planning that supports MAP-21’s cooperative, continuous, and comprehensive planning philosophy. This program results in long-range plans and short-range programs of investment priorities. These funds are not a part of the annual project development and approval process. The PTT works closely with eligible agencies around the state to distribute Section 5304 funds for these purposes but does not require an application submittal to receive funds. In 2014 the funding for this program was $220,217.

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

33


Programs

Section 5310 Funds – Mobility for Seniors and the Disabled The 5310 Program distributes funds for projects that enhance mobility of seniors and individuals with disabilities. This program requires coordination and development of local plans and that projects be identified in a coordinated public transit plan (coordinated plan) developed by a lead local agency (UDOT has designated associations of governments as local planning agencies). UDOT’s role in the coordinated planning process is to ensure that FTA coordination requirements are met and adequate technical assistance is provided when requested. The PTT has adopted policies and procedures to ensure that the 5310 Program includes a competitive selection process conducted in an open and transparent manner, resulting in a fair and equitable distribution of funds among agencies across the state, including tribal governments and other entities servicing Native Americans. Funding line items are incorporated into the STIP. In areas where the coordinated plan or competitive selection process is not completed in a time frame that coincides with the development of the STIP, the STIP amendment process is used to include competitively selected projects before the FTA grant award. Project approval is finalized when the Utah Transportation Commission reviews and approves the STIP and FTA accepts the commission’s approval. In 2014 the funding for this program was $481,588. Section 5311 and 5339 – Rural Area Formula Grants Section 5311 and 5339 funds are designated for rural areas of the state and are primarily used to fund the six fixed-route transit systems outside of the Wasatch Front. These grants are used to finance vehicle purchases, construct facilities, and for other operational expenses. The grants are also used to operate intercity bus system and Rural Transit Assistance Program.

UTAH’S SIX FIXED-ROUTE TRANSIT PROVIDERS OUTSIDE OF THE WASATCH FRONT      

Cache Valley Transit District Cedar Area Transportation Service Park City Transit Ute Tribe Transit Basin Transit Association Navajo Transit System

The PTT recognizes that these funds are limited and capital and operating needs are vast. In 2014 the funding for these programs was almost $8 million. The PTT holds an annual meeting with the fixed route providers around the state. The purpose of the meeting is to review each transit system’s short- and long-range plans and develop an agreed-upon funding schedule. While not a competitive process, the PTT does require that a detailed application be submitted to receive 5311 and 5339 Program funds. This ensures that 5311 and 5339 Program funds are allocated fairly and that needs are being met around the state. The adopted schedule then becomes a part of the STIP. The STIP requests for the Cache Valley Transit District include route expansions and increased frequency for some routes, vehicle replacements, facility upgrades, and new equipment. Park City Transit plans to hire additional staff, enhance bus stops, construct an additional transit center, and purchase vehicle replacements. The Basin Transit Association plans to expand routes, convert fleet to compressed natural gas, and construct a compressed natural gas fueling facility. Cedar Area Transit projects include bus stop enhancements, vehicle replacement, route expansion, and storage garage construction. Intercity bus routes currently funded with 5311(f) funds were identified in the 2012 Statewide Intercity Bus Study. As demand and funding allow, the PTT works with the UDOT Procurement Office to administer a request for proposals and select an operator best suited for the specific route(s). The FTA funded programs must be identified through a locally derived planning process.

34

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN


Programs

Section 5329 Funds – State Safety Oversight Program The Safety Oversight Program was authorized by MAP 21 for states with rail systems not already regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), which is the agency responsible for the safety of freight rail systems and Amtrak. These Section 5329 FTA funds are provided for UDOT to perform the State Safety Oversight Program for fixed-guideway public transportation light rail systems and streetcars. In 2014 the Section 5329 funds provided to UDOT amounted to $469,576.

Unfunded Transit Concepts in Development Several transit concepts are under development as a part of the ongoing UTA Mountain Accord Study, of which UDOT is a partner. These are currently outside of the MPO area and the UTA service area, but they are important connections to and from the MPO area from the growing Wasatch Back. The unfunded concepts that are a part of this plan are: 

S.R. 224 Transit Corridor – Mode Undetermined: from Kimball Junction to Park City with possible transit connection to Cottonwood Canyons,

S.R. 248 Transit Corridor – Mode Undetermined: from Quinn’s Junction to Park City with possible transit connection to Cottonwood Canyons,

I-80 Express Bus Corridor – Salt Lake City International Airport to Kimball Junction,

I-80 Bus Corridor – Kimball Junction to US Highway 40, and

US Highway 40 Bus Corridor – I-80 to S.R. 248.

TRAFFIC OPERATIONS/HIGHWAY MODERNIZATION

The next two decades will see transformational changes in transportation brought about by technological progress. Automakers are incrementally adding automated “smart” features and connectivity to vehicles―such as adaptive cruise controls, lane change warnings, automated parallel parking, collision warning with automated braking, and others―all of which will ultimately lead to fully autonomous vehicles. It has been said that the coming change in vehicle automation will be as transformational as the conversion from horses to horsepower. Automakers are also about to add vehicle connectivity, or communication between vehicles, to enhance safety. Transportation agencies are joining this revolution by adding roadside communication infrastructure, thus creating the ability to inform the driver, through the vehicle systems, about collision risk, sharp curves, route conditions, and hazards, and manage traffic operations through enhanced information provided by vehicles on the road. These advancements are concurrent with, and are fueling, changes in vehicle ownership patterns, car-sharing technologies, the evolution of electric vehicles, transit use, and the interface between transportation modes. Younger people appear to be less interested in car ownership and more open to ride sharing, car sharing, bike sharing, and active transportation. Wireless connectivity of everything provides the information to facilitate these uses. The way people 2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

35


Programs

think about transportation and how they use it is changing, and the result will be an entirely different landscape. Today, drivers are provided information largely through three mechanisms: fixed and dynamic signs along the roadways, information from the web and on hand-held applications (which the driver “pulls”), and by providing information to third-party sources who provide information back to the driver over a variety of media. In the near future, we will “push” information to the driver through in-vehicle systems. In some cases this information may be audible or visible; in other cases, vehicle manufacturers may choose to give information to the driver in tactile ways (e.g., shaking a seat or vibrating a steering wheel) or by taking control of automobile functions. This new approach will both generate and require enormous amounts of data and will require a higher level of accuracy and security than we now have, as messages must be correct and reliable. This new transportation future portends a different role for operations for agencies like UDOT. Over the past two decades, UDOT has aggressively pursued intelligent transportation systems (ITS), which is the use of technology to assess traffic conditions, make traffic management decisions, and provide information to the drivers to aid their decisions and influence behavior. It has been clearly demonstrated that this information can, in essence, add capacity to Utah’s existing roadway network. Managing traffic demand and traffic flow using ITS makes the system work more efficiently. Further, the assessment of traffic flow is much easier today because of technology. Average speeds and travel times, congestion patterns, arrivals on green lights, queue lengths, and many other measures are currently used to drive engineering decisions. The increased capabilities that will be realized through advanced ITS systems, connected vehicles, and vehicle automation will accelerate this ability to monitor, measure, and improve traffic conditions. UDOT is working to leverage these advancements. While it is impossible to imagine the scope of future capabilities that technology will yield, a few initiatives that are currently being pursued are given below.

Integrated Corridor Management/Freeway Control These efforts consist of several elements to maximize the throughput of all modes of transportation in a given corridor. Elements include managed motorways to avoid freeway capacity degradation, transit and park-and-ride information for freeway and arterial users, integrated signal timing to support ramp metering, arterial travel time measurement to improve traveler information, express lanes and travel demand management, and future technologies as yet identified. A key element is the effort to coordinate these disparate elements so they reinforce each other rather than cancel each other out. The expected cost for this project is $150–250 million plus or minus. Costs include geometric improvements to improve ramps for metering, automated park and ride parking occupancy measurements, additional variable message signs (VMS), dedicated and specialized staff to manage and maintain the systems, etc.

36

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN


Programs

Connected Vehicle Initiative These efforts are broad initiatives to install communications infrastructure to support a variety of safety, mobility, and environmental applications. In the near term, this infrastructure will be in limited corridors and will support only a few applications, like smart transit signal priority, weather probe data collection, and truck platooning. These applications use small, controllable fleets. As early as 2017, however, light vehicles may start coming with standard vehicle-to-vehicle communication equipment. By about 2020 all new light vehicles are likely to be built with such equipment. In preparation for this, and building on the success of limited applications in early phases of the initiative, UDOT will deploy additional communication infrastructure and applications and cooperate with automakers and other private-sector entities to advance this technology. It is expected that connected vehicle technology will enable significant progress toward UDOT’s goal of zero fatalities and crashes. The short term budget (0–5 years) is expected to be between $400 thousand to $6.5 million. The longer-term budget will be at least an order of magnitude larger.

SAFETY/ZERO FATALITIES

While fatal crashes have trended downward in recent history, the future remains uncertain. Roadway safety features, such as rumble strips and cable barriers, have become common on Utah highways. This development has resulted by direct effort because the benefit of such features was clearly recognized. Additionally, advanced vehicle safety features are developing at a rapid pace. However, some of these gains could be offset by increased driver distraction, both from hand-held devices and features within vehicles themselves. Further on the horizon is the potential for self-driving cars or connected vehicles. If proven reliable, this technology could drastically reduce human error, one of the most significant factors in roadway crashes.

Funding UDOT’s Traffic and Safety Division has the following funding sources and annual programmable amounts: 

Federal Funding Sources o Highway Safety Improvement Program ($21.2 million) o Railway-Highway Grade Crossing Program ($1.6 million) o Safe Routes to School ($1 million)

State Funding Sources o Spot Safety Improvement Program ($2 million) o New Traffic Signals ($7 million) o Sign Modification and Replacement ($400 thousand) o Small Area Lighting ($300 thousand)

Federal safety funds may be used for improvements on any public road in Utah, not just on the state-owned roadways. The Traffic and Safety Division works to fully allocate each year’s funding on safety projects to continually improve safety across Utah.

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

37


Programs

Future Funding Historically, the Traffic and Safety Division has identified and funded projects primarily on the basis of finding spot locations where history shows repeated fatal and serious-injury crashes. Improving safety by implementing this method becomes more difficult each year as more and more problem spots are treated. Also, the randomized nature of crashes means that, although crashes may share very similar attributes, they often do not naturally aggregate themselves by location. UDOT is increasingly turning to systemic safety analysis to identify future projects as a result of the aforementioned considerations. Systemic analysis methods look at roadway and crash attributes to identify common conditions across the state (as opposed to looking at spot aggregations of crashes) that lead to fatal and serious-injury crashes. One benefit of this method is that it allows UDOT to systemically implement safety improvements at locations before crashes occur. Rumble strips are a good example of a systemic treatment implemented by UDOT. Many fatal and serious-injury crashes occur in rural areas where motorists drive off roads because they are drowsy or distracted. UDOT implements rumble strips systemically on these types of roads, whether or not crashes have already occurred, because the safety concern is related to the type of condition present rather than any location-specific considerations. An additional example is cable barrier installation. The figure below shows the relationship between the decrease in severe cross-median crashes and the total miles of median cable barrier installed. UDOT continues to install median cable barrier where appropriate to prevent future crashes despite the dramatic decrease in cross-median crashes that has already been observed.

Interstate Severe Cross-Median Crashes vs. Total Miles of Median Cable Barrier Installed 200

300 250

150

200

100

150 100

50

50

0

0 2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Severe Crahes

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Miles of Cable Barrier

Source: Traffic and Safety, 2015. CONFIDENTIAL: These data, as well as all UDOT safety program information, are protected under 23 USC 409.

The Traffic and Safety Division is currently working with the U.S. Road Assessment Program (usRAP) to build a systemic safety model that is expected to produce lists of safety projects that can be implemented across Utah. The “How much money is needed?” question will be better understood once these efforts have come to fruition. The Traffic and Safety Division’s ultimate goal from a funding standpoint is to have a model that can show the number of fatalities and serious injuries that can be reduced each year with a given amount of funding.

38

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN


Programs

Goals and Measures The fundamental metrics used within UDOT are the number of annual traffic-related fatal and serious-injury crashes in Utah. In recent years both metrics have maintained an overall downward trend, and UDOT remains firmly committed to the goal of zero fatalities. The graph below shows the downward traffic fatality trend. The goal of the Traffic and Safety Division’s safety projects is to keep reducing fatal and serious-injury crashes.

Traffic-Related Fatalities 2000 – 2014 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Source: Traffic and Safety, 2015. CONFIDENTIAL: These data, as well as all UDOT safety program information, are protected under 23 USC 409.

The Traffic and Safety Division maintains a geospatially located database of all state crash reports. This database provides the historical crash data used to identify spot safety treatments and systemic trends. Once a highway segment or intersection has been evaluated for its potential to reduce severe crashes, the benefit/cost ratio is determined. UDOT currently uses several factors to weight crashes by severity level. These numbers are updated annually based on direction from the FHWA. UDOT prioritizes safety funding according to the benefit/cost ratios developed for each potential project.

Illustrative Projects The Utah Highway Strategic Safety Plan (2013) identifies the following 11 emphasis areas to receive “added attention and emphasis in the safety organizations for the next 5 years.” 1. public outreach and education 2. roadway departure crashes 3. use of safety restraints 4. impaired driving 5. aggressive driving 6. drowsy driving 7. distracted driving 8. intersection safety 9. teen driving safety 10. motorcycle safety 11. speed management

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

39


Programs

Within UDOT these areas, along with other safety focus areas, are addressed through a combination of engineering, enforcement, and education programs. Some of the common projects and outreach efforts supported by UDOT include:        

shoulder and median rumble strips, cable median barrier, rural intersection lighting, wildlife crossing treatments, rural intersection turn lanes, curve warning signs and delineation, Safe Routes to School program, and comprehensive safety campaigns.

ASSET MANAGEMENT/MAINTENANCE

Asset management is the systematic inventory of physical assets UDOT PHILOSOPHY and strategic maintenance of those assets over time. Physical “Good roads cost less.” assets are features such as pavement, bridges, culverts, and signs that UDOT has responsibility of maintaining as part of the state’s transportation system. UDOT has a complete inventory of physical assets within the state right-of-way saved in the Asset Management System. The amount of asphalt and concrete pavements that make up the state system is included. The exact sizes and locations of pavement markings, guardrails, barriers, road signs, and light fixtures are known. The conditions of all state bridges and pavements are included in the Asset Management System. Using state-of-the-art data systems and analysis tools, assets can be analyzed for planning and programming of funds and projects. Of the roadway assets within the state’s right-of-way, most pertinent to the LRP are the maintenance of roadway surfaces (pavement) and bridges, including interchanges. While all assets contribute to the overall success of Utah’s transportation network, these two assets have the largest impact on UDOT’s strategic goal achievement.

Inventory Pavement UDOT manages 16,000 lane miles of pavement from multilane, urban concrete interstates to rural, two-lane asphalt roads. Approximately $250 million is required annually to preserve this $20 billion asset. To accomplish this task, UDOT has used the philosophy that “good roads cost less,” which means timely, costeffective treatments minimize cost while achieving the desired level of performance. A combination of preservation, rehabilitation, and major rehabilitation projects is used to extend pavement life and delay the need for reconstruction.

40

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

UDOT PHILOSOPHY “A plan for every section of every road.”


Programs

UDOT has adopted pavement management levels to define the expectations for pavement condition at three different levels. These levels allowed for prioritization of budget expenditures on pavement maintenance while acknowledging that current funding levels were not adequate to maintain the entire system at the highest level of quality prior to the additional funding from Utah HB 362 Transportation Infrastructure Funding. The impact of this new funding source to the pavement management levels is still being assessed. Management levels are based on each roadway’s contribution to statewide and national transportation networks, the PFN, and general travel demand. The management levels are: 

PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT LEVELS  Interstate  Level 1 o AADT >1,000 o Truck volume >200  Level 2 o AADT <1,000 o Truck volume <200

Interstate – Utah’s Interstate Highways are I-15, I-215, I70, I-80, and I-84935 miles (16% of total miles and 53% of vehicle miles traveled [VMT]) Level 1 – Average annual daily traffic (AADT) greater than 1,000 and truck volume greater than 200 o National Highway System (NHS)1,720 miles (29% of total miles and 37% of VMT) o Non-NHS1,330 miles (23% of total miles and 8% of VMT) Level 2 – AADT less than 1,000 1,875 miles (32% of total miles and 2% of VMT)

Bridges UDOT’s bridge assets consist of nearly 1,900 state-owned bridges with a span of 20 feet or more. These assets are managed to support UDOT’s strategic goals within the parameters of a limited budget. To assist in this process, data are collected on bridges to support structure project prioritization for preservation, rehabilitation, and replacement. Performance models predict the future condition of bridges and determine the appropriate treatment choice of preservation, rehabilitation, or replacement, based on funding and condition. Treatment choices are as follows: 

 

Preservation: Actions to prevent, delay, or reduce deterioration of bridges, restore the function of existing bridges, keep bridges in good condition, and extend their lives. Preservation actions can be preventative or condition driven. Rehabilitation: Work performed to restore structural integrity or correct safety deficiencies. Replacement: Total replacement of a bridge with a new facility constructed in the same general traffic corridor.

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

41


Programs

Goals and Measures Performance measures for pavement and bridges are based on measurable criteria that are unique to each asset type. These criteria are summarized into categories of good, fair, and poor. Pavement criteria is based on the International Roughness Index, which is a measure of the surface roughness of the roadway to quantify ride quality. Bridge performance is based on the Overall Condition Index (OCI). The OCI value is based on the condition of six components of each bridge: wearing surface, deck, girder, joint, painting system on steel members, and substructure.

CONDITION MEASURES Pavement Condition Poor IRI >170 Fair IRI 95-170 Good IRI <95

Bridge Condition Poor OCI <55 Fair OCI 55–90 Good OCI >90

PERFORMANCE MEASURES Pavement Condition Interstate >95% ≥Fair Level 1 >90% ≥Fair Level 2 >80% ≥Fair

Bridges Structures >90% Good

UDOT’s performance targets for pavement are based on the three pavement management levels. UDOT’s goal is to maintain 95–98 percent of interstate roadways as fair or better, 90–95 percent of Level 1 roadways as fair or better, and 80–90 percent of Level 2 roadways as fair or better. For bridges, the goal is for 90–95 percent to be in good condition.

Funding and Trends Prior to Utah HB 362, funding for pavement was sufficient to maintain interstate and Level 1 roads but not Level 2 roads. The tiered preservation strategy addressed the risk of trying to maintain all roads equally with limited funding, which would cause all highways to drop to a lower pavement standard. Over the course of the past 7 years, UDOT has continued with this tiered approach. Asset management data reveal that conditions for interstate, NHS, and Level 1 roadways have steadily improved over time while Level 2 conditions trend slightly downward. After the assessment of the additional funding from HB 362, UDOT will work to provide the lowest pavement lifecycle cost and adjust funding thresholds for Level 1 and Level 2 roadways accordingly. Interstate Pavements Prior to Utah HB 362, funding for interstate pavements was $70 million per year. At this level of investment, 95–98 percent of the interstate system is preserved in fair or better condition through 2035.

Interstate Pavement (935 miles)

Level of Service Distribution with existing $70 million/yr – 4% project cost inflation 100% 90% 80%

% of Miles

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

2024

2026

2028

2030

2032

% with Good Ride Quality (IRI < 95 in/mi) % with Fair Ride Quality % with Poor Ride Quality (IRI > 170 in/mi)

42

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

2034

2036

2038

2040


Programs

NHS Pavements Prior to Utah HB 362, funding for NHS pavements was $60 million per year. This level of investment was predicted to maintain the percentage of pavement in fair or better condition at or above 90 percent through 2031.

National Highway System Pavement (1,720 miles)

Level of Service Distribution with existing $60 million/yr – 4% project cost inflation

100% 90% 80%

% of Miles

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

2024

2026

2028

2030

2032

2034

2036

2038

2040

% with Good Ride Quality (IRI < 95 in/mi) % with Fair Ride Quality % with Poor Ride Quality (IRI > 170 in/mi)

Level 1 Pavements Prior to Utah HB 362, funding for Level 1 pavements was $36 million per year. This level of investment was predicted to maintain the percentage of pavement in fair or better condition near 90 percent through 2023.

Level 1 Pavement (AADT > 1,000) – Non NHS (1,330 miles)

Level of Service Distribution with existing $45 million/yr – 4 % project cost inflation 100% 90%

% of Miles

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

2024

2026

2028

2030

2032

2034

2036

2038

2040

% with Good Ride Quality (IRI < 95 in/mi) % with Fair Ride Quality % with Poor Ride Quality (IRI > 170 in/mi)

Level 2 Pavements The current level of investment in Level 2 roadways is not adequate to maintain the pavements in their current condition. The level of investment is currently $10 million per year. This level of investment results in the percentage of pavement in good condition gradually declining from 20 percent to nearly 10 percent by 2030. In order to improve the condition of Level 2 pavements, significant additional funding is required. An investment of 2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

43


Programs

$50 million per year is forecasted to gradually increase the condition of Level 2 pavements to almost 50 percent in good condition by 2040. The increased investment of $50 million per year would require a new funding source to avoid negative impacts to other UDOT assets.

Level 2 Pavement (AADT < 1,000) – Non NHS (1,875 miles)

Level of Service Distribution with existing $10 million/yr – 4% project cost inflation 100% 90% 80%

% of Miles

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

2024

2026

2028

2030

2032

2034

2036

2038

2040

% with Good Ride Quality (IRI < 95 in/mi) % with Fair Ride Quality % with Poor Ride Quality (IRI > 170 in/mi)

Utah Bridges The sustainability target set by UDOT is for 90–95 percent of the bridges on the state transportation system to be in good condition. Good condition is defined as having an OCI of 90 percent or greater. Current investment of $20 million per year brings the percentage of bridges in good condition to just over 80 percent by 2019 with a decline in this percentage through 2040.

State Bridges (1,888 Bridges)

Condition Distribution with Existing 20 Million/Year – 4% Project Cost Inflation 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

2024

Good

44

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

2026

Fair

2028

2030

Poor

2032

2034

2036

2038

2040


Programs

STATE HIGHWAY CAPACITY

The systems funding programs discussed thus far in this chapter are planned on a policy basis, as described. Although not federally required as MPOs are, a state highway-capacity project list has been generated to be consistent with MPO planning partners and to meet planning requirements for projects to be identified in a plan prior to receiving money from the Utah Transportation Investment Fund.

Goals and Measures To achieve UDOT’s goal of optimizing mobility, needed roadway projects are evaluated using a generalized, daily roadway level of service (LOS) based on 2010 Highway Capacity Manual methodologies. The LOS is a qualitative scale measuring motorists’ driving experience. LOS A represents free-flow conditions, and LOS F represents traffic stream breakdowns. UDOT has set a goal of maintaining roadways in the rural parts of the state at LOS C or better, so LOS C was chosen as the threshold for determining project selection in the rural areas of the state. LOS values are defined by parameters, such as:    

vehicle density percent time following percent free flow speed average travel speed

Hourly LOS thresholds were converted to equivalent daily volume thresholds based on a number of roadway and traffic characteristics, including the following:        

peak hour factors directional splits seasonal variation heavy truck percentages signal density access density terrain passing opportunities

Though broad parameter assumptions are made in determining equivalent daily volume thresholds, these generalized thresholds are felt to offer a reasonable approximation for a statewide screening-level analysis. The following table shows the generalized capacities used to screen when a roadway would be approaching the LOS C/D and D/E thresholds.

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

45


Programs

GENERALIZED LEVEL OF SERVICE C AND D VALUES BY ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASS Functional Class

Freeway

Area Type

Total Travel Lanes (both directions)

Max LOS C Volume Threshold (vehicle/day)

Max LOS D Volume Threshold (vehicle/day)

4

43,000

55,000

6

64,000

79,000

8

85,000

103,000

2

11,500

14,500

4

23,000

25,000

2 (assuming a two-way left turn lane)

12,500

16,000

4 (assuming a two-way left turn lane)

28,500

35,000

2

7,500

9,500

4

16,000

20,500

2 (assuming a two-way left turn lane)

8,500

10,500

4 (assuming a two-way left turn lane)

26,000

31,000

All

Rural Arterial Small Urban

Rural Collector Small Urban

Localized LOS Analysis More refined LOS analyses are performed after projects are identified for the LRP for further analysis and reported in the project fact sheet. In addition, an in-depth LOS analysis is conducted as project enters the concept development phase. Recreational/Seasonal Fluctuation Analysis Development of screening-level LOS volume thresholds for capacity analysis accounted for the typical seasonal variation exhibited on rural Utah highways. However, a few select areas in rural Utah exhibit seasonal fluctuation well beyond the statewide average. The abnormal seasonal fluctuation in these regions is usually due to tourism travel patterns or winter road closures. These areas were assessed and factors considered when corridor capacity needs were determined.

Forecasts To produce the future volume forecasts used in 2015 LRP development, UDOT applied the Utah State Travel Model (USTM ) version 1.3. The USTM is a behaviorally based, travel-demand forecasting tool that predicts travel based on the location of jobs, housing, and transportation infrastructure. Version 1.3 included the following updates: 

more refined Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ);

updated highway networks, including the draft project list from the 2015 MPO RTPs; and

inclusion of the most recent updated WFRC, MAG, CMPO, and DMPO socioeconomic and TAZ data.

The USTM version 1.3 also included a robust update to socioeconomic projections for the rural counties in Utah. The following sequence summarizes the process followed to develop new socioeconomic data sets:

46

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN


Programs

1. The updated jobs and housing data used the updated TAZ system developed for USTM 1.3. The updated TAZ included a much finer geographic resolution from the previous USTM version and provides a better trafficloading-on-the-highway network for the analysis. 2. Residential data (households, population, average household size, and average income) for the base year were derived from 2010 US Census data. 3. Employment data (jobs by job type) for the base year were derived from the Department of Workforce Services 2011 ES202 job data set. 4. Residential and employment totals for future years were obtained from GOMB 2012 projects. The GOMB provided county- and city-level household, population, and employment totals. The number of jobs, households, or population allocated inside a city or a county for each year was the difference in the GOMB control totals. 5. The TAZ-level allocation of the GOMB control total was based on base-year residential and employment allocation, developable land (i.e., excluding open water bodies or steep slopes), aerial photography, and land use data to create a draft future socioeconomics forecast.

UDOT receives data related to where people live and work

UDOT uses this data to understand where people are coming from and going to

UDOT compares this with existing roadways to identify future transportation needs

UDOT plans projects in rural areas to meet those needs while Metropolitan Planning Organizations plan projects for urban areas

6. The draft socioeconomic forecasts were then reviewed by local government planning staff and others. This coordination was done primarily through the local AOGs. Based on feedback received, adjustments were made to create the final socioeconomic forecasts used for the LRP. The USTM was run to generate roadway demand based on the following scenarios: 

2011 Base Year Run – The 2011 (base year of the model) base-year scenario was used to assess the reasonableness of the model’s forecasting ability. The model’s performance was assessed by comparing the 2011 base-year model run to UDOT’s 2011 traffic count data. In general, the model compared reasonably well to the observed counts and was considered to be sufficiently calibrated to perform the analysis without further modifications.

No-build Runs – The no-build runs included the future socioeconomic data but just the existing and committed highway network. The existing and committed highway network was defined as anything built today plus the projects programmed in the STIP. The no-build scenario runs helped identify where projects 2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

47


Programs

might be needed based on capacity constraints. No-build scenarios were run for the following years: o o o 

Need Runs – Based on the results of the no-build runs, projects were added to the highway network to bring the estimated LOS of the roadway to C or better. The need scenario runs helped identify performance based on implementation of identified needs. No-build scenarios were run for the following years: o o o

2024–2024 socioeconomic, 2019 highway network 2034–2034 socioeconomic, 2019 highway network 2040–2040 socioeconomic, 2019 highway network

2024–2024 socioeconomic, 2024 unconstrained highway network 2034–2034 socioeconomic, 2034 unconstrained highway network 2040–2040 socioeconomic, 2040 unconstrained highway network

Fiscally Constrained Runs – The results of the no-build and need scenario runs were taken to the UDOT region leadership and other stakeholders and discussed along with the fiscal constraints identified for each horizon year of the plan, UDOT project prioritization, project viability, and other local input. A fiscally constrained project list that balanced all of these factors was identified and became the final project list for the LRP. These projects were then coded into the highway network. The fiscally constrained scenarios were run for the following years and used to develop the final traffic forecasts for the plan: o o o

2024–2024 socioeconomic, 2024 fiscally constrained highway network 2034–2034 socioeconomic, 2034 fiscally constrained highway network 2040–2040 socioeconomic, 2040 fiscally constrained highway network

The final traffic forecasts from the USTM model output were postprocessed, or smoothed, at a segment level by calculating the distance-weighted average volume for each segment. The change in average volume from each future year to the model base year was calculated, and the difference in daily volume was added to 2011 UDOT traffic counts. Once the future forecasts were populated, a reasonableness check was performed to ensure that the future forecasts follow a reasonable growth trend compared against UDOT historical count data.

Capacity Project Identification UDOT uses these forecast and LOS capacities to determine where future transportation system needs will be. These needs are discussed with UDOT regions, local governments, and other stakeholders to determine strategies to employ to address these needs. Once vetted with these stakeholders and through public comment, these needs were added to the project list in Chapter 8.

48

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN


Plan

8. THE 2015 LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN PROGRAMMATIC FUNDING SUMMARY

Every 4 years UDOT, the MPOs, and the UTA update the statewide Unified Transportation Plan, as well as the individual RTPs and LRP. Part of this update includes the Unified Transportation Plan funding model update. This process is a cooperative effort among all parties to develop federal, state, and local revenue projections for current and future sources based on agreed-upon assumptions. Expenditure estimates were generated for operations, preservation, and new capacity projects and separated into three phases (Phase 1: 2015–2024; Phase 2: 2025– 2034; Phase 3: 2035–2040). These projects were then financially constrained based on revenue estimates, including the use of debt. The results from this process provide a roadmap for future transportation and transit planning for the state.

Assumptions Expenditure assumptions are based on uniform costing of projects by each MPO, UDOT, and UTA (consensus committee). Revenue projections are based on assumptions agreed on by the parties for each major revenue stream from federal, state, and local sources. The parties involved met on several occasions to review and finalize the following assumptions. The major discussion points focused on growth assumptions from the previous update, information from state agencies including the consensus committee and other long-range forecasting methods developed by the group. The following tables summarize the major assumptions used to generate revenue projections, along with the assumptions used in the 2011 update and the source and/or methodology used to generate the projections.

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

49


Plan

PERCENT UDOT REVENUES

GROWTH RATES FOR

27.30%

Motor Fuel

8.19%

Special Fuel

31.08%

2.00%

2.50%

5.00%

1.50%

Congressional Budget Office Testimony, “The Highway Trust Fund and Paying for Highways”

2014: 1.40%

Consensus

2015: 0.90%

Consensus

2016–2018: 1.50%

Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget estimate

2019–2040: 1.71%

Historic Consumption Average Annual Growth Rate 1992– 2012

2014: 2.30%

Consensus

2015: 1.10%

Consensus

2016–2018: 1.50%

Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget estimate

2019–2040: 4.32%

Historic Consumption Average Annual Growth Rate 1992– 2012

1.96%

4.04%

Historic weighted average for Registrations and Permits from 1992–2012

B&C Road Funds

Mixed (combo or Motor Fuel, Special Fuel, Registration Fees, etc.)

2.09%

Historic weighted average for Motor Fuel and Registrations and Permits from 1992–2012

Registration Increases (Transportation Investment Fund)

1.96%

4.04%

See above “Registrations and Permits”

5.00%

100.00%

50

REVISED RATES SOURCES

Registration Fees and Permits 6.80%

6.17

REVISED RATES UDOT Revenue Assumptions

Federal Revenues

20.47%

PREVIOUS UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION PLAN (2011)

2014: 3.00%

Consensus

2015: 4.66%

Consensus

2016–2018: 4.00%

Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget estimate After reviewing various historic growth rates 1978–2013, a conservative estimate of 5% that matches UTA’s rate is recommended

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN


Plan

METROPOLITAN ORGANIZATION REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS Highway Quarter Cent Sales Tax (County Revenues)a

Salt Lake County: 5.00% Davis County: 5.00% Weber County: 5.00% Utah County: 5.50% Cache County: none Washington County: 1.96%

Salt Lake County: 4.28% Davis County: 5.47% Weber County: 4.17% Utah County: 5.96% Cache County: 5.05% Washington County: 5.96%

Registration Fees (County Revenues)

4.04%

WFRC: 4.42% MAG: 5.96% CMPO: 5.05% DMPO: 5.96%

Historic Average Annual Growth Rate from 1993–2013 for WFRC, MAG, and CMPO. Historic Average Annual Growth Rate from 1998–2013 for DMPO.

See “Registrations and Permits” above.

Other Revenue Assumptions

UTA Sales Tax

2014: 4.20% 2015: 4.75% 2016: 4.88% 2017–2040: 5%

UTA Transit Development Plan Analysis, 30-year historic average is 5.49%, so UTA uses a conservative 5% in its projections past 2016. (UTA’s sales tax growth rate projections may differ slightly from UDOT’s in the short term because UTA encompasses a different geographic location and calculates sales tax revenue based on a slightly different “basket of goods.”)

Other Expense Assumptions Roadway Preservation Needs a

2018–2040: 4.5%

Provided by UDOT and represents construction cost inflation and the addition of lane miles to the system.

Quarter-cent sales tax growth rates will also be used for new transit revenue.

The parties also agreed on the general assumptions behind the use of debt financing to pay for certain amounts of capital. The general impact of bonding is that capital is funded upfront and then paid over time. The efficiency of this borrowing is based on future projections of bonding and inflation rates. The assumptions for debt were heavily influenced by the state’s historic use of debt, which has been limited to 15 years. This analysis assumed 15year debt with a 3 percent rate for Phase 1 and a 4 percent rate for Phases 2 and 3. Inflation, as outlined above, was assumed to be 4.5 percent. If this scenario is accurate, it is cheaper to bond and lock-in inflation at 3 percent or 4 percent by borrowing rather than pay the extra costs of inflation. However, the future is not that clear. The borrowing limit was constrained by traditional historic bond amounts and the statutory debt limit set by the state (which is below the constitutional limit). With this in mind, each MPO received an allocation of debt based on pro rata population. A summary of the bonding capacity is provided in the chart below. For this LRP, bonding of $410 million for Phase 1 and $612 million for Phase 2 was assumed.

BONDING CAPACITY

PHASE I 2015–2024

PHASE 2 2025–2034

PHASE 3 2035–2040

Total Bonding Capacity Future Value

$3,000,000,000

$4,440,732,855

$6,573,369,429

WFRC

$1,719,458,158

$2,432,200,102

$3,444,127,325

MAG

$580,499,829

$916,636,999

$1,433,008,393

CMPO

$124,368,331

$189,079,797

$283,001,634

DMPO

$163,865,840

$290,723,765

$502,811,218

Rural

$411,807,842

$612,092,192

$910,420,860

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

51


Plan

Revenue Generation Findings Based on the assumptions above, discussions with the parties, and several iterations with modeling, revenue streams were estimated for each phase. This included both revenues from currently authorized revenue streams as well as reasonable assumptions of new revenues to be implemented in future years. Revenue summaries provided herein will be on a net present value basis. State Level The following table provides a summary of the total highway and transit revenues available by phase at the state level. This table represents all revenues available or generated at all levels of government in the state. TOTAL HIGHWAY AND TRANSIT Revenue

2015–2024

2025–2034

2035–2040

2015–2040

Existing Revenues

$22,376,002,987

$24,419,035,817

$14,674,444,382

$61,469,483,186

New Revenues

$2,573,056,359

$5,380,783,301

$4,434,013,000

$12,387,852,660

Total

$24,949,059,347

$29,799,819,117

$19,108,457,382

$73,857,335,846

Highway and Transit Funding by Region 2015–2040 $0

$5

20152024 Phase 1 20252034 Phase 2

$10

$15

12.6

$20

4.1

0.6 1.0

BILLIONS $25

4.0

Highway Transit

0.3

1.8

0.2 0.0 0.2 13.7 3.7

20352040 Phase 3

0.6 0.1

4.7

0.5 0.4

8.4 2.9

0.8 1.3

2.9

0.5 0.8

MAG

CMPO

Highway Transit Highway Transit

2.2

0.8 0.4 0.1 0.3 WFRC

4.0

DMPO

Rural

Rural The following table breaks down the revenues available for highways and transit within the rural parts of Utah outside an MPO as planned by UDOT. This includes revenues generated or allocated at all levels and available for expenditure by UDOT, transit providers, and county and local governments within geographic boundaries outside of an MPO. TOTAL HIGHWAY AND TRANSIT Total (Net Present Value) Revenue Existing Revenues New Revenues Total 52

2015–2024

2025–2034

2035–2040

2015–2040

4,030,710,347

3,980,201,535

2,169,069,436

10,179,981,319

267,356,502

502,457,708

418,099,350

1,187,913,560

4,298,066,849

4,482,659,244

2,587,168,786

11,367,894,879

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN


Plan

PLANNED CAPACITY PROJECTS

Based on the financial assumptions defined and prioritized above, the following constitutes the financially constrained LRP capacity project list. This list is sorted by UDOT Region and then by project phase. Maps follow at the end of the project list and interactive maps are available online.

Fiscally Constrained Rural Long-Range Transportation Plan Project List Line & UDOT Map # Region

County

Fiscally Improvement Constrained Type a Phase

Project Name

2015 Cost

Project Description

UDOT Region 1 1

1

Box Elder/ Cache

1

Passing Lane SR-30 MP 97 to MP 101

2

1

Cache

1

US-89 Widen NB from 1 lane to 2 lanes Add one climbing lane in Passing Lane from MP 486.82 to MP 489.10, SR-243 to NB direction Amazon Hollow Dugway, Climbing

3

1

Cache

1

US-89 Widen NB from 1 lane to 2 lanes Passing Lane from MP 489.1 to MP 490.0, Amazon Hollow Dugway to Swan Creek, Climbing

4

1

Weber

1

5

1

Morgan/ Weber

1

6

1

Morgan

1

Widening

7

1

Cache

1

Widening

8

1

Weber

2

Widening

9

1

Box Elder/ Cache

2

Widening

10

1

Box Elder

2

Passing Lane I-84 Widen WB from MP 17.3 to MP 19.9

11

1

Box Elder

2

Passing Lane I-84 Widen EB from MP 6.8 to MP 17.7

12

1

Rich

2

Widening

US-89/SR-30 Widen US-89 MP 500.1 to SRAdd one travel lane in each 30 MP 110.8, Marina to Buttercup in direction conjunction with 300 W Bypass

11.6m

13

1

Box Elder

2 and 3

Widening

SR-30 MP 90.7 to MP 95.1, I-15 to SR-38 (Collinston)

31.5m

14

1

Box Elder

3

15

1

Morgan/ Weber

3

16

1

Morgan

3 and 4

New I-84 at MP 94.0, with southern extension Interchange of SR-167

17

1

Box Elder

4

Passing Lane I-84 Widen EB from MP 25.3 to MP 29.7

18

1

Box Elder

4

Passing Lane I-84 Widen WB from MP 33.5 to MP 35.6

19

1

Weber

4

Planning Study Planning Study

Add one travel lane in each direction

Widening

19.0m

Add one climbing lane in NB direction

7.3m

SR-39 MP 9 to MP 22, Ogden Canyon

Planning Study

1.0m

SR-167 MP 0.0 to 11.1, Trapper's Loop

Planning Study

1.0m

SR-66 MP 12.7 to MP 13.6, from Morgan City to I-84 SR-30 MP 102.3 to MP 108.7, SR-23 to SR252 (Cache MPO Boundary at MP 106 to 108.7) SR-158, MP 0 to MP 3.8, Pineview Dam to Eden SR-30 MP 95.1 to MP 102.3, SR-38 to SR23

Add one travel lane in each direction

7.8m

Add one travel lane in each direction

38.0m

Passing Lane I-84 Widen WB from MP 29.3 to MP 32.3 Widening

5.0m

SR-167 MP 0 to MP 1.6, from I-84 to new I-84 extension

SR-39 MP 8.6 to MP 21.9, Wasatch National Forest Boundary to 9900 E (Huntsville)

Add one travel lane in each direction Add one travel lane in each direction Add one travel lane in WB direction Add one travel lane in EB direction

Add one travel lane in each direction Add one travel lane in WB direction Add one travel lane in each direction Construct new interchange and extend SR-167 Add one travel lane in EB direction Add one travel lane in WB direction Add one travel lane in each direction

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

53

24.5m 33.8m 9.0m 37.2m

8.3m 14.7m 35.0m 13.9m 5.8m 500m


Plan

Line & UDOT Map # Region

County

Fiscally Improvement Constrained Type Phase a

Project Name

Project Description

2015 Cost

20

1

Box Elder

4

Widening

I-15 Widen from MP 365.7 to MP 372.6, Add one travel lane in each SR-13 to Honeyville (WFRC boundary from direction MP 365.7 to 368.3)

23.7m

21

1

Morgan/ Weber

4

Widening

SR-167 Widen MP 1.6 to 11.1, from new I- Add one travel lane in each 84 extension to SR-39 direction

44.7m

22

1

Box Elder

4

I-15 Widen from MP 372.6 to MP 379.5, Honeyville to Tremonton

56.0m

23

1

Morgan

4

24

1

Morgan

4

Add one travel lane in each direction New interchange at New New Interchange at Trappers Loop Rd and Trappers Loop Rd to Interchange I-84 to replace 1/2 interchange replace 1/2 interchange New Re-open east interchange SR-66 at MP 14.3, I-80 Interchange at I-84 Widening

38.0m 38.0m

UDOT Region 2 25

2

Summit/ Wasatch

1

26

2

Summit

1

27

2

Summit/ Wasatch

1

Widening

28

2

Tooele

1

Widening

29

2

Tooele

1

Widening

30

2

Summit

1

Intersection SR-32 at MP 10.4, SR-35 Improvement

31

2

Summit

1

Passing Lane

32

2

Tooele

1 and 2

33

2

Summit

34

2

35

Widening

SR-248 MP 0 to MP 2.1, from SR-224 to Richardson Flats

Add one travel lane in each direction

Corridor SR-224 MP 5.7 to MP 11.5, from SR-248 to Corridor improvement Improvement I-80 SR-248 MP 3.3 to MP 4.9, from US-40 to Browns Canyon SR-36 MP 55.7 to MP 57.3, SR-112 to 2400 N SR-36 MP 62.9 to MP 65.8, from SR-138 to I-80

Add one travel lane in each direction Add one travel lane in each direction Add one travel lane in each direction

9.9m 13.6m 10.0m 11.1m 13.6m

Intersection improvements

5.0m

Add one travel lane in WB direction

11.9m

Upgrade I-80 at MP 98.7, SR-36 Interchange

Upgrade Interchange

38.0m

1 and 2

Upgrade I-80 at MP 144.2, Kimball Junction Interchange

Upgrade Interchange

38.0m

Tooele

1 and 2

New I-80 at MP 94.5, Midvalley Highway Interchange Interchange (refer to local plan)

Construct new interchange

38.0m

2

Tooele

2

Widening

36

2

Tooele

2

Widening

37

2

Tooele

2

Widening

38

2

Summit/ Wasatch

2

Widening

39

2

Summit

2

Intersection SR-32 at MP 10.2, Hilltop Road (Francis) Improvement

4.0m

40

2

Summit

2

Passing Lane

5.0m

41

2

Summit

2

Passing Lane

42

2

Summit

2

Passing Lane

43

2

Summit

2 and 3

New Interchange

54

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

I-80 Widen WB from MP 139 to MP 142, from Summit to Jeremy Ranch

SR-138 MP 11.2 to MP 15.3, from Grantsville to Sheep Lane SR-36 MP 57.3 to MP 62.9, 2400 N to SR 138 SR-36 MP 53.6 to MP 55.7, Skyline Dr. to SR-112 SR-248 MP 6.3 to MP 9.4, from Deer Mountain Blvd to Wasatch/Summit CL

Extending existing 5-lane section Add one travel lane in each direction Add one travel lane in each direction Extending existing 4-lane section/BRT

Realign skewed intersection Add one travel lane in EB I-80 Widen EB from MP 168 to 169.8 direction Add one travel lane in EB I-80 Widen EB from MP 188.9 to MP 191.9 direction I-80 Widen WB from MP 165.5 to MP Add one travel lane in WB 167.3 direction I-80 at MP 143.0, View Area â&#x20AC;&#x201C; High Ute Construct new interchange Interchange

19.3m 26.3m 9.9m 14.6m

10.1m 7.6m 38.0m


Plan

Line & UDOT Map # Region

County

Fiscally Improvement Constrained Type Phase a

Project Name

2015 Cost

Project Description

44

2

Summit

3

Auxiliary Lanes

US-40 Widen from 2 lanes to 3 lanes from Construct EB and WB MP 1.3 to MP 4.0, SR-248 to Silver Summit auxiliary lane Add one travel lane in each I-80 MP 99 to MP 101.2, from SR-36 to SRdirection and widen EB 201 (Blackrock) structure. I-80 MP 94.5 to MP 99, from Midvalley Add one travel lane in each Highway to SR-36 direction

45

2

Tooele

3

Auxiliary Lanes

13.9m

46

2

Tooele

3

Widening

47

2

Tooele

3

Widening

SR-112 Widen MP 0.0 to MP 5.9, from SR- Add one travel lane in each 138 to Utah Avenue direction

27.7m

48

2

Summit

3 and 4

49

2

Summit

4

Widening

SR-32 Widen MP 16.8 to MP 28.4, from New Lane to I-80

Add one travel lane in each direction

61.7m

50

2

Summit

4

Widening

SR-32 Widen MP 10.4 to MP 16.8, SR-35 to New Lane (Oakley)

Add one travel lane in each direction

30.1m

51

2

Tooele

4

Widening

SR-138 Widen MP 15.3 to MP 20.4, from Sheep Lane to SR-36

Add one travel lane in each direction

24.0m

US-40 Widen EB from MP 4.0 to MP 6.10, Add one climbing lane in Passing Lane from beyond the crest of the vertical curve EB direction (county line) to SR-248

12.7m

24.8m

10.3m

UDOT Region 3 52

3

Duchesne

1

Passing Lane

US-40 Widen EB from MP 97.7 to MP 99.1, Add one travel lane in EB Bridgeland and Myton direction

4.5m

53

3

Duchesne

1

Passing Lane

US-40 Widen WB from MP 101.7 to MP 103.1, West of Myton

Add one travel lane in WB direction

4.3m

54

3

Duchesne

1

Widening

US-40 Widen from 1 to 2 lanes from MP 105.5 to MP 111.3

Construct four-lane facility with center turn lane.

19.5m

55

3

Duchesne

1

Intersection US-40 at MP 82.07, MP 111.47, and SR-87 Intersection improvements Improvement at MP 1.14

5.0m

56

3

Wasatch

1

Passing Lane

US-40 Widen WB from MP 35.1 to MP 39.0, West of Strawberry Reservoir

57

3

Uintah

1

Passing Lane

US-40 Widen EB and add center turn lane from MP 122.4 to MP 125.0, Gusher

58

3

Wasatch

1

Widening

59

3

Utah

1

Widening

60

3

Uintah

2

Widening

61

3

Wasatch

2

Passing Lane

US-40 Widen EB from MP 43.5 to MP 44.2, Extend EB passing lane Strawberry Reservoir over the hill crest

2.2m

62

3

Duchesne

1

Passing Lane

US-40 Widen EB from MP 65.2 to MP 67.6, Assist EB vehicles up two East of Fruitland steep grades

9.4m

63

3

Wasatch

1

Passing Lane

US-40 Widen WB from MP 31.2 to MP 32.7, Daniels Canyon North of Summit

Add one travel lane in WB direction

5.2m

64

3

Duchesne

2

Passing Lane

US-40 Widen WB from MP 95.0 to MP 95.9, Bridgeland extension

Lengthen short WB passing lane

4.0m

65

3

Utah

2

Widening

US-6 MP 181.64 to MP 184.08, from Diamond Fork to Covered Bridge

Add one travel lane in WB direction

5.5m

US-189 MP 22 to MP 28.9, Wallsburg to Heber US-6 MP 195.0 to MP 197.0, SF Canyon Widening Sheep Creek to Mill Fork (to existing 5-lanes) US-40 MP 115.4 to MP 125.0, Ballard to Gusher

Add one travel lane in WB direction Construct EB passing lane with center turn lane (additional two lanes) Add one travel lane in each direction

12.0m

Add one travel lane in each direction

23.0m

Construct four lane facility with center turn lane

66.2m

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

55

11.0m

27.0m


Plan

Line & UDOT Map # Region

County

Fiscally Improvement Constrained Type Phase a

Project Name

Project Description

Lengthen short EB passing US-40 Widen EB from MP 48.5 to MP 51.3, lane, connect with Soldier Creek Area previous US-40 Widen EB from MP 93.0 to 94.9, Add one travel lane in EB Passing Lane Bridgeland direction US-6 MP 189.3 to MP 194.0, Red Narrows Add one travel lane in each Widening to Billies Mt. direction US-6 MP 178.0 to MP 184.1, from Add one travel lane in each Widening Powerhouse Road in SF to Diamond Fork direction Road (to existing five lanes) I-15 Widen NB from MP 230 to MP 233, Add one travel lane in NB Passing Lane between Nephi and Mona direction

66

3

Wasatch

2

Passing Lane

67

3

Duchesne

2

68

3

Utah

2 and 3

69

3

Utah

3 and 4

70

3

Juab

1 and 2

71

3

Duchesne

4

Passing Lane

72

3

Wasatch

4

Turn Lane

73

3

Uintah

4

Turn Lane

US-40 Widen WB from MP 136.0 to MP 138.2, Twists West of Vernal US-40 Widen from 1 to 2 lanes from MP 18.4 to MP 19.8, Heber 1500 S to Center Creek Road SR-121 MP 37.8 to MP 40.3, 2500 West to US-40 in Vernal

2015 Cost 23.5m 4.9m 118.3m 110.3m 10.1m

Add one travel lane in WB direction

9.4m

Construct center turn lane

1.1m

Construct center turn lane

15.0m

Add NB left, SB left, acceleration lanes, shift graded dirt road to line up with SR-35 at SR-87 Shift intersection to the east for improved geometry at Randlett Rd, SR-88 at MP 9.98, Randlett Road add NB acceleration lane coming out of gravel pit, add left turn lane into the pit Add SB left, NB right, WB SR-121 at MP 17.49, White Rocks Highway right at White Rocks Highway SR-121 at MP 22.49, LaPoint and 9500 Add WB/ EB left at LaPoint East

74

3

Duchesne

4

Intersection SR-35 at MP 62.01, SR-87 Improvement

75

3

Uintah

4

Intersection Improvement

76

3

Uintah

4

Intersection Improvement

77

3

Uintah

4

Intersection Improvement

78

3

Wasatch

4

Intersection US-189 at MP 28.9, US-40 Heber Hub Improvement intersection

Intersection improvements

14.0m

79

3

Wasatch

4

Passing Lane

US-40 Widen WB from MP 25.7 to MP 28.1, Daniels Canyon

Add one travel lane in WB direction

9.0m

80

3

Duchesne

4

Passing Lane

US-191 Widen SB from MP 270.1 to MP 272.5, Indian Canyon South of Summit

Add one travel lane in SB direction

4.9m

81

3

Duchesne

4

Passing Lane

82

3

Duchesne

4

83

3

Juab

4

84

3

Uintah

4

Passing Lane

SR-191 Widen NB from MP 366.5 to MP 367.1, Simplot Switchbacks

Extend existing NB passing lane

1.8m

85

3

Uintah

4

Passing Lane

US-40 Widen EB from MP 158.3 to MP 159.0, from Jensen Eastward

Lengthen short EB passing lane

2.0m

56

US-40 Widen EB from MP 59.4 to MP 60.5, Add one travel lane in EB East of Current Creek direction Lengthen EB passing lane; US-40 Widen EB from MP 68.3 to MP 70.7, convert to 5-lane section Passing Lane Tabiona Turnoff Eastward to accommodate access points SR-132 Widen EB from MP 36.5 to MP Add one travel lane in EB Passing Lane 37.7 in Salt Creek Canyon direction

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

1.9m

4.0m

1.3m 1.1m

2.0m

8.7m

2.9m


Plan

Line & UDOT Map # Region

County

Fiscally Improvement Constrained Type Phase a

Project Name

2015 Cost

Project Description

US-191 Widen NB from MP 261.7 to MP Add one travel lane in NB Passing Lane 263.3, Indian Canyon Near Carbon County direction Line SR-191 Widen SB from MP 267.8 to MP Passing Lane Add new SB climbing lane 269.1 Connect 2 existing NB SR-191 Widen NB from MP 367.5 to MP (uphill passing) lanes with Passing Lane 368.2, North of Simplot Switchbacks new section of climbing lane Construct new SB SR-191 Widen SB from MP 363.6 to MP (downhill) passing lane for Passing Lane 365.2, Red Fleet Reservoir Area a four-lane section, 4-foot buffer, 8-foot shoulders Connect three existing NB SR-191 Widen NB from MP 371.7 to MP Passing Lane passing lanes to make one 373.1, North of Simplot continuous Construct WB climbing lane from SR-32 signal to Passing Lane US-40 Widen WB from MP 5.8 to MP 13.2 beyond the crest of the vertical curve (county line) I-15 Widen SB 2 lanes to 3 lanes from MP Widen SB 2 lanes to 3 Passing Lane 205.2 to MP 206.2 lanes Add new NB uphill lane US-191 Widen NB from 1 to 2 lanes from incorporating existing 0.1 Passing Lane MP 375.2 to 376.4, North of Simplot mile section; eliminate Switchbacks piece at MP 374.8 US-191 Widen SB from MP 259.7 to MP Construct new SB passing Passing Lane 261.3, Indian Canyon near Carbon County lane

86

3

Duchesne

4

87

3

Duchesne

4

88

3

Uintah

4

89

3

Uintah

4

90

3

Uintah

4

91

3

Wasatch

4

92

3

Juab

4

93

3

Uintah

4

94

3

Duchesne

4

95

3

Uintah

4

Passing Lane

SR-45 Widen NB from MP 15.4 to MP 16.2, Add one travel lane in NB North of Bonanza direction

2.0m

96

3

Juab

4

Passing Lane

SR-132 Widen WB from MP 43.5 to MP 45.0 in Salt Creek Canyon

Add one travel lane in WB direction

3.5m

97

3

Uintah

4

Passing Lane

SR-45 Widen NB from MP 2.6 to MP 3.1, near White River

Extend NB passing lane

1.7m

98

3

Duchesne

4

Passing Lane

SR-87 Widen EB from MP 19.9 to MP 20.4, Extend EB passing lane West of Altamont over the hill crest

1.4m

99

3

Juab

4

Passing Lane

SR-132 Widen EB from MP 41.9 to MP 43.1 in Salt Creek Canyon

Add one travel lane in EB direction

2.8m

100

3

Duchesne

4

Passing Lane

SR-87 Widen WB from MP 18.7 to MP 19.2, West of Altamont

Extend WB passing lane over the hill crest

1.2m

101

3

Uintah

4

Widening

US-40 Widen from 1 to 2 lanes from MP 125.0 to MP 140.8

Construct four lane facility with center turn lane.

72.8m

102

3

Wasatch

4

Widening

US-40 Widen from 1 to 2 lanes from MP 19.2 to MP 21.8, South Heber City to mouth of Daniels Canyon

Construct four lane facility with center turn lane

12.2m

103

3

Duchesne

4

Widening

US-40 Widen from 1 to 2 lanes from MP 103.0 to MP 105.5

Construct four lane facility with center turn lane.

15.4m

104

3

Uintah

4

Turn Lane

US-40 Widen MP 148.5 to MP 158.1, US40 from SR-45 to Jensen

Construct center turn lane

26.9m

105

3

Wasatch

4

Widening

US-40 Widen MP 33.7 to MP 34.8, part of Construct 5 lane section as 2+1 facility part of 2+1 facility

5.2m

106

3

Duchesne

4

Passing Lane

US-40 Widen WB from MP 65.0 to MP 65.2, part of 2+1 facility

2.3m

Construct WB passing lane as part of 2+1 facility.

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

57

5.2m 4.1m

1.8m

6.1m

4.2m

19.2m

2.8m

3.7m

6.8m


Plan

Line & UDOT Map # Region

County

Fiscally Improvement Constrained Type Phase a

Project Name

Project Description

2015 Cost

107

3

Wasatch

4

Passing Lane

US-40 Widen EB from 1 to 2 lanes from MP Construct EB passing lane 40.3-46.0, part of 2+1 facility as part of 2+1 facility

13.4m

108

3

Wasatch

4

Passing Lane

US-40 Widen WB from MP 34.8 to MP 40.3, part of 2+1 facility

Construct WB passing lane as part of 2+1 facility

12.9m

109

3

Wasatch

4

Passing Lane

US-40 Widen WB from MP 51.3 to MP 58.3, part of 2+1 facility

Construct WB passing lane as part of 2+1 facility

18.2m

110

3

Duchesne

4

Passing Lane

US-40 Widen EB from MP 65.2 to MP 68.2, Construct EB passing lane part of 2+1 facility as part of 2+1 facility

111

3

Duchesne

4

Passing Lane

US-40 Widen WB from MP 70.4 to MP 80.8, part of 2+1 facility

Construct WB passing lane as part of 2+1 facility

24.4m

112

3

Duchesne

4

Passing Lane

US-40 Widen WB from MP 83.2 to MP 85.9, part of 2+1 facility

Construct WB passing lane as part of 2+1 facility

8.1m

113

3

Duchesne

4

Passing Lane

US-40 Widen WB from MP 62.0 to MP 65.2, part of 2+1 facility

Construct WB passing lane as part of 2+1 facility

9.3m

114

3

Wasatch/ Duchesne

4

Passing Lane

US-40 Widen EB from MP 58.3 to MP 59.4, Construct EB passing lane part of 2+1 facility as part of 2+1 facility

2.6m

115

3

Duchesne

4

Passing Lane

US-40 Widen EB from MP 60.5 to MP 62.0, Construct EB passing lane part of 2+1 facility as part of 2+1 facility

3.5m

116

3

Duchesne

4

Passing Lane

US-40 Widen EB lanes from MP 80.8 to MP Construct EB passing lane 83.2, part of 2+1 facility as part of 2+1 facility

7.4m

117

3

Wasatch

4

Widening

US-40 Widen MP 46.0 to MP 51.3

Construct 5 lane section as part of 2+1 facility

24.9m

118

3

Duchesne

4

Widening

US-40 MP 59.4 to MP 60.5, part of 2+1 facility

Construct 5 lane section as part of 2+1 facility

5.2m

119

3

Duchesne

4

Widening

US-40 MP 68.2 to MP 70.4, part of 2+1 facility

120

3

Duchesne

4

Widening

SR-121 Widen from 1 lane to 2 lanes MP 0.0 to MP 0.6

Construct 5 lane section as part of 2+1 facility Construct four lane facility with center turn lane from US-40 to 200 North

121

3

Wasatch

4

122

3

Wasatch

4

123

3

Uintah

4

Widening

US-191 Widen MP 352.6 to MP 354.1

Construct four lane facility with center turn lane

16.7m

124

3

Duchesne

4

Widening

US-40 Widen MP 88.0 to MP 103.0

Construct four lane facility with center turn lane

74.1m

125

3

Uintah

4

Widening

US-191 Widen MP 371.1 to MP 373.4

Construct four lane facility with center turn lane

10.8m

126

3

Uintah

4

127

3

Duchesne

4

128

3

Duchesne

4

129

3

Uintah

4

Turn Lane

SR-45 MP 36.2 to MP 40.3, Construct center turn lane.

130

3

Wasatch

4

Turn Lane

58

New US-40 at MP 13.24, SR-32 Construct new interchange Interchange SR-113 (Midway Lane) from MP 4.2 to 6.2, Add one travel lane in each Widening 300 East Midway to South Field Rd direction

Intersection US-40, SR-88 Intersection, Signalize USImprovement 40/SR-88 intersection US-40 MP 85.8 to MP 88.0, Duchesne Intersection urban area, Realign SR-191 with SR-87 Realignment when US-40/SR-191 signal meets warrant criteria. Intersection US-40, SR-87 Intersection, Signalize USImprovement 40/SR-87 intersection

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

8.9m

10.3m 2.8m 38.0m 13.0m

Signalize intersection

4.0m

Realign SR-191 with SR-87 when US-40/SR-191 signal meets warrant criteria

5.2m

Signalize intersection

4.0m

Construct center turn lane

9.6m

SR-113, Construct center turn lane MP 0 to Construct center turn lane MP 3.9, US-189 to Midway Main Street

11.0m


Plan

Line & UDOT Map # Region

County

Fiscally Improvement Constrained Type Phase a

Project Name

2015 Cost

Project Description

131

3

Wasatch

4

Turn Lane

SR-113, Construct center turn lane MP 6.2 Construct center turn lane to MP 7.1, South Field Rd to US-40

2.1m

132

3

Duchesne

4

Turn Lane

SR-121 MP 0.6 to MP 1.6, 200 North to 1800 North (Roosevelt)

Construct center turn lane

2.4m

133

3

Duchesne

4

Turn Lane

US-191 MP 294.10 to 294.84, US-40 to 400 South (Duchesne)

Construct center turn lane and standard 8-foot shoulders

1.0m

134

3

Uintah

4

Turn Lane

US-191 MP 354.4 to 356.3, from 1500 North to 500 East (Vernal)

Construct center turn lane

4.5m

135

3

Wasatch

4

Turn Lane

SR-222 MP 0.2 to MP 3.3, Midway Main Street to end of pavement

Construct center turn lane

7.3m

2.5m

UDOT Region 4 136

4

Iron

1

Passing Lane

SR-20 Widen EB from 1 lane to 2 lanes from MP 10.0 to MP 11.5

Widen EB from 1 lane to 2 lanes

137

4

San Juan

1

Passing Lane

US-191 Widen NB/SB as various locations from MP 80 to MP 96

138

4

Iron

1

Widening

Widen NB/SB as various locations Widen roadway both directions from 1 lane to 2 lanes

139

4

San Juan

1

Passing Lane

US-191 Extend SB passing lane from MP 109.8 to MP 110.1

Extend SB passing lane

0.5m

140

4

Grand

1

Passing Lane

US-191 Widen NB/SB as various locations, South Moab to Blue Hill

Widen NB/SB as various locations

4.0m

141

4

Emery

1

Passing Lane

US-6 Widen WB from 1 lane to 2 lanes MP Widen WB from 1 lane to 290.7 to MP 291.7 2 lanes

1.5m

142

4

Emery

1

Passing Lane

US-6 Widen EB from 1 lane to 2 lanes from Widen EB from 1 lane to 2 MP 294.0 to MP 295.0 lanes

1.5m

143

4

Emery

1

Passing Lane

US-6 Widen WB from 1 lane to 2 lanes from MP 295.0 to MP 296.0

1.5m

144

4

Carbon

1

Widening

SR-10 MP 65.36 to MP 67.66, 3000 South Add one travel lane in each (Carbon Co.) to US-6 direction

8.0m

145

4

Carbon

1

Widening

SR-10 MP 66.16 to MP66.75, 2000 South to 2500 South in Price

2.6m

146

4

Washington

1

Passing Lane

I-15 Widen NB from 2 lanes to 3 lanes from Widen NB from 2 lanes to MP 38.0 to MP 40.0 3 lanes

147

4

Millard

1

Passing Lane

I-15 Add NB/SB Climbing lanes from MP 135.0 to MP 142.5

148

4

San Juan

1

US-191 Widen NB/SB at various locations Passing Lane MP 103.0 to MP 107.0, Lasal Junction to Mormon Tank

Widen NB/SB as various locations

9.4m

149

4

Emery

1

Passing Lane

US-6 Widen both EB and WB from 1 lane to 2 lanes from MP 291.7 and 293.7

Widen both EB and WB from 1 lane to 2 lanes

9.4m

150

4

Emery

1

Passing Lane

US-6 Widen WB from 1 lane to 2 lanes from MP 266.8 and 269.9

Widen WB from 1 lane to 2 lanes

7.3m

151

4

Emery

1

Passing Lane

US-6 Extend WB passing lane from MP 261.2 to MP 262.0

Extend WB passing lane

1.9m

152

4

Kane

1

Passing Lane

US-89 Extend SB passing lane from MP 104.50 to 106.50

Extend SB passing lane

4.7m

SR-130 MP 6.30 to MP 9.0

Widen WB from 1 lane to 2 lanes

Add one travel lane in each direction

4.5m

5.5m

Add climbing/passing lanes both directions

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

6.0m

59

22.4m


Plan

Line & UDOT Map # Region

County

Fiscally Improvement Constrained Type Phase a

Project Name

Project Description

2015 Cost

153

4

San Juan

1

Passing Lane

US-191 Widen SB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes from MP 90.1 to MP 91.3

Widen SB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes

2.8m

154

4

Garfield

1

Passing Lane

US-89 Widen NB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes from MP 121.4 to MP 122.4

Widen NB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes

2.4m

155

4

Garfield

1

Passing Lane

US-89 Widen NB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes from MP 135.0 to MP 137.0

Widen NB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes

4.7m

156

4

San Juan

1

Passing Lane

157

4

Grand

1

Widening

4

Sanpete

1

Widening

Widen NB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes Widen roadway both directions from 1 lane to 2 lanes Widen NB/SB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes

13.5m

158

US-191 Widen NB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes from MP 41.0 to MP 42.0 US-191 Widen from MP 126.3 to MP 128.4, from Moab (existing 4-lanes) to Colorado River Bridge US-89 Widen from MP 259.9 to MP 262, Airport Road to Ephraim

159

4

Iron

1

Passing Lane

Widen WB from 1 lane to 2 lanes

5.9m

160

4

Carbon

1

Widening

SR-20 Widen WB from 1 lane to 2 lanes from MP 7.5 to MP 10.0 SR-10 Widen from MP 64.2 to MP 65.7, from Ridge Road to 3000 South (Carbon Co.)

Add one travel lane in each direction

7.1m

161

4

Utah/ Carbon

1

162

4

Washington

1

163

4

Washington

1

164

4

San Juan

1

Passing Lane

165

4

Washington

1

166

4

Garfield

167

4

168

Corridor US-6 MP 221.0 to MP 230.0 (Price Canyon) Improvement SR-9 MP 9.9 to MP 32.6, from Hurricane to Corridor Zion National Park (DMPO from 9.9 to Improvement 16.1) SR-59 Widen SB from 1 lane to 2 from MP Passing Lane 15.7 to MP 17.0

2.4m

9.9m

Corridor Improvement

10.0m

Corridor Improvement

15.0m

Widen SB from 1 lane to 2 lanes

3.1m

US-191 Extend SB passing lane from MP 79.0 to MP 79.2

Extend SB passing lane

0.5m

Passing Lane

SR-59 Widen travel lane in each direction from MP 13.0 to MP 14.1

Widen travel lane in each direction

5.2m

1

Passing Lane

US-89 Widen NB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes from MP 155.0 to MP 156.0

Widen NB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes

2.4m

Kane

1

Passing Lane

US-89 Widen travel lane from MP 99.0 to MP 100.0

Add NB acceleration and passing lane

2.4m

4

San Juan

1

Passing Lane

US-191 Extend NB passing lane from MP 67.8 to MP 68.0

Extend NB passing lane

0.5m

169

4

Washington

1

Passing Lane SR-9 Widen WB MP 29.2 to MP 28.7

Widen WB and add bike accommodations

1.2m

170

4

Kane

1

Passing Lane

US-89 Extend SB passing lane from MP 76.5 to MP 76.7

Extend SB passing lane

0.5m

171

4

San Juan

1

Passing Lane

US-191 Extend NB passing lane from MP 66.3 to MP 66.9

Extend NB passing lane

1.4m

172

4

San Juan

1

Passing Lane

US-191 Extend SB passing lane from MP 69 Extend SB passing lane to 71.0

2.6m

173

4

San Juan

1

Passing Lane

US-191 Extend SB passing lane from MP 93.0 to 93.7

Extend SB passing lane

1.6m

174

4

Kane

1

Passing Lane

US-89 Extend NB passing lane from MP 75.2 to MP 75.5

Widen NB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes

0.7m

175

4

Kane

1

Passing Lane

US-89 Widen NB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes from MP 38.0 to MP 42.0

Widen NB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes

9.4m

176

4

Kane

1

Passing Lane

US-89 Widen NB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes from MP 50.0 to MP 53.0

Widen NB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes

7.1m

60

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN


Plan

Line & UDOT Map # Region

County

Fiscally Improvement Constrained Type Phase a

Project Name

2015 Cost

Project Description Widen SB from 1 lane to 2 lanes

1.2m

US-191 Extend SB passing lane from MP 86.1 to MP 86.5

Extend SB passing lane

0.9m

Passing Lane

SR-59 Widen travel lane in each direction from MP 2.0 to MP 3.5

Widen travel lane in each direction

3.5m

1

Passing Lane

SR-59 Widen travel lane in each direction from MP 8.2 to MP 9.1

Widen travel lane in each direction

2.1m

Kane

1

Passing Lane

US-89 Extend NB passing lane from MP 73.0 to MP 73.9

Widen NB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes

2.1m

4

Kane

1

Passing Lane

US-89 Extend NB passing lane from MP 74.4 to MP 74.9

Widen NB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes

1.2m

183

4

Kane

1

Passing Lane

US-89 Extend SB passing lane from MP 76.9 to MP 77.9

Extend SB passing lane

2.4m

184

4

Kane

1

Passing Lane

US-89 Widen NB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes from MP 15.0 to MP 16.0

Widen NB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes

2.4m

185

4

Kane

1

Passing Lane

US-89 Widen SB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes from MP 16.0 to MP 17.0

Widen SB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes

2.4m

186

4

Kane

1

Passing Lane

US-89 Extend SB passing lane from MP 44.1 to MP 44.9

Extend SB passing lane

1.9m

187

4

Garfield

1

Passing Lane

US-89 Widen SB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes from MP 113.3 to MP 114.0

Widen SB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes

1.6m

188

4

Sanpete

1

Passing Lane

US-89 Widen NB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes from MP 232.0 to MP 233.0

Widen NB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes

2.4m

189

4

Garfield

1

Widening

SR-12 Widen from MP 70.75 to MP 71.25

Widen roadway at narrow curve known as â&#x20AC;&#x153;The Tankâ&#x20AC;?

2.4m

190

4

Sanpete

1

Passing Lane

US-89 Widen NB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes from MP 251.6 to MP 252.1

Widen NB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes

1.2m

191

4

Sanpete

1

Passing Lane

US-89 Widen SB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes from MP 243.6 to MP 244.1

Widen SB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes

1.2m

192

4

Washington

1

Passing Lane

193

4

Washington

1

194

4

Piute

1

195

4

Sanpete

1

Passing Lane

US-89 Widen SB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes from MP 252.0 to MP 252.40

Widen SB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes

0.9m

196

4

Sanpete

1

Passing Lane

US-89 Widen SB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes from MP 252.4 to MP 253.0

Widen SB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes

1.4m

197

4

Garfield

1

Passing Lane

US-89 Widen SB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes from MP 143.2 to MP 143.7

Widen SB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes

1.2m

198

4

Washington

1

Widening

SR-9 Widen WB from MP 16.5 to 16.9

199

4

Emery

2

Widening

SR-155 Widen from MP 4.65 to MP 4.94, Main Street to 300 North

200

4

Sanpete

2

Passing Lane

US-89 Widen NB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes from MP 286.7 to MP 288.3

177

4

Washington

1

Passing Lane SR-59 Widen SB from MP 17.3 to MP 17.8

178

4

San Juan

1

Passing Lane

179

4

Washington

1

180

4

Washington

181

4

182

SR-9 Widen both EB and WB from 1 lane to Widen both EB and WB 2 lanes from MP 20.6 to MP 23.5 from 1 lane to 2 lanes Widen NB from 1 lane to 2 Widening SR-59 Widen NB from MP 12.3 to MP 12.7 lanes US-89 Widen NB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes Widen NB from 1 lanes to Passing Lane from MP 170.4 to MP 171.4 2 lanes

Widen WB and add bike accommodations Widen roadway both directions from 1 lane to 2 lanes Widen NB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

61

13.6m 1.9m 2.4m

1.9m 5.0m 3.8m


Plan

Line & UDOT Map # Region

County

Fiscally Improvement Constrained Type Phase a

Project Name

Project Description

2015 Cost

201

4

Sanpete

2

Passing Lane

US-89 Widen SB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes from MP 290.0 to MP 292.5

Widen SB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes

5.9m

202

4

Sanpete

2

Passing Lane

US-89 Widen NB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes from MP 295.0 to MP 296.0

Widen NB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes

2.4m

203

4

Piute

2

Passing Lane

US-89 Widen SB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes from MP 174.5 to MP 175.5

Widen SB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes

2.4m

204

4

Washington

2

Passing Lane

SR-9 Widen WB from 1 lane to 2 lanes from MP 26.7 to MP 26.3

Widen WB from 1 lane to 2 lanes

0.9m

205

4

San Juan

2

Realignment

SR 162 Realign at MP 21.75 to match McElmo Creek bridge alignment

Realigned to match proposed alignment of bridge over McElmo Creek

6.0m

206

4

Sanpete

2

Widening

US-89 Widen from MP 263.6 to MP 267.5, Widen NB/SB from 1 lanes Ephraim to Pigeon Hollow Junction to 2 lanes

18.3m

207

4

Washington

2

Widening

SR-18 Widen from MP 9.5 to MP 20.1,Winchester Drive to Veyo

53.4m

208

4

Millard

2

Passing Lane

209

4

Carbon

2

210

4

San Juan

211

4

212

Add one travel lane in each direction

I-15 Widen NB from 2 lanes to 3 lanes from Widen NB from 2 lanes to MP 180.2 to MP 187.1 3 lanes

22.6m

Widening

US-6 Widen from MP 230.0 to MP 232.5, from US-191 to Helper

Add one travel lane in each direction

15.4m

2

Widening

US-191 Widen from MP 110.1 to MP 118.2, from south of San Juan/Grand County to existing 4-lane (south of Moab)

Widen NB/SB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes

71.7m

Sevier

2

Widening

SR-118 Widen from MP 10.0 to MP 14.0

4

Kane

2

Widening

US-89A Widen from MP 0.0 to MP 2.9, from Arizona/Utah State Line to Kanab

213

4

Iron

2

214

4

Washington

2

Corridor SR-274 MP 0.6 to MP 1.2, Parowan Main Improvement St., 500 N to I-15 Widening

I-15 Widen from MP 28.5 to MP 40.0

Widen NB/SB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes Widen NB/SB from 1 lane to 2 lanes Widen NB/SB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes Widen to a consistent 6 lane section including 5 bridges

18.8m 13.6m 0.5m 79.9m

215

4

Washington

2

SR-9 MP 9.9 to MP 32.6, Additional Corridor corridor improvements from Hurricane to Improvement Zion National Park (DMPO from 9.9 to 16.1)

216

4

Multiple

2

US-89 Widen from 1 lane to 2 lanes at Widen from 1 lane to 2 Passing Lane various locations from MP 0 to I-70 to build lanes to complete a 2+1 to 2+1 corridor facility

15.0m

217

4

Multiple

2

US-191 Widen from 1 lane to 2 lanes at Passing Lane various locations from MP 0 to I-70 (MP 157.0) to build to 2+1 corridor

Widen from 1 lane to 2 lanes to complete a 2+1 facility

15.0m

218

4

Carbon

2

Corridor US-191 MP251.2 to MP 260, US-6 to MP Improvement 260 (Indian Canyon)

Corridor Improvement

15.0m

219

4

Iron

3

220

4

Multiple

3

US-89 Widen additional locations from 1 Passing Lane lane to 2 lanes from MP 0 to I-70 to build to 2+1 corridor

221

4

Multiple

3

US-191 Widen additional locations from 1 Widen additional locations Passing Lane lane to 2 lanes from MP 0 to I-70 (MP from 1 lane to 2 lanes to 157.0) to build to 2+1 corridor complete a 2+1 facility

62

Widening

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

I-15 Widen from MP 40.0 to MP 56.0

Additional corridor improvements

Widen to a consistent 6 lane section including 4 bridges Widen additional locations from 1 lane to 2 lanes to complete a 2+1 facility

15.0m

102.4m

10.0m

10.0m


Plan

Line & UDOT Map # Region

a

County

Fiscally Improvement Constrained Type Phase a

Project Name

2015 Cost

Project Description

222

4

Iron

3

Upgrade I-15 at MP 51.1, 4000 South (Kanarraville) Upgrade Interchange Interchange

223

4

Emery

3

Passing Lane

I-70 Widen WB from 2 lanes to 3 lanes from MP 135.5 to MP 143.0

Widen WB from 2 lanes to 3 lanes

224

4

Millard/ Sevier

3 and 4

Passing Lane

I-70 Widen EB/WB from 2 lanes to 3 lanes from MP 3.0 to MP 18.0

225

4

Iron

4

Widening

I-15 Widen from MP 56.0 to MP 63.0

147.1m

226

4

Iron

4

Widening

SR-143 Widen from MP 0.0 to MP 2.4, from I-15 to Parowan

Widen EB/WB from 2 lanes to 3 lanes Widen to a consistent 6 lane section including 2 interchange upgrades Widen NB/SB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes

227

4

Iron

4

Construct new interchange

38.0m

228

4

Sevier/ Emery

4

Widen EB/WB from 2 lanes to 3 lanes

96.4m

229

4

Emery

4

Passing Lane

I-70 Widen EB from 2 lanes to 3 lanes from Widen EB from 2 lanes to MP 109.9 to MP 122.8 3 lanes

43.1m

230

4

Iron

4

Passing Lane

SR-14 Widen travel lane at various locations Add one travel lane at form MP 1 to MP 17 various locations

49.4m

231

4

Sevier

4

Passing Lane

232

4

Sevier

4

New I-15 at MP 66.7, Ravine Road (Enoch) Interchange I-70 Widen EB/WB from 2 lanes to 3 lanes Passing Lane from MP 64.1 to MP 97.2

25.0m

SR-24 MP 16.0 to MP 30.0, Peterson Creek Add one travel lane at to Koosharem Res. at various locations various locations New I-70 at MP 54.6, Lost Creek Road (Sevier Construct new interchange Interchange Co.)

Phase 1 2015-2024; Phase 2 2025-2034; Phase 3 2035-2040; Phase 4 Unfunded.

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

63

20.6m 53.9m

14.9m

32.9m 38.0m


Plan

64

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN


Plan

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

65


66

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN


Plan

2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN

67


APPENDIX A. PROJECT FACT SHEETS AND PEL REPORTS


APPENDIX B. RURAL PLANNING ORGANIZATION PLANS

2015 - 2040 Long-Range Transportation Plan  

The Utah Department of Transportation develops a long-range transportation for rural areas that is designed to "Keep Utah Moving" now and in...

2015 - 2040 Long-Range Transportation Plan  

The Utah Department of Transportation develops a long-range transportation for rural areas that is designed to "Keep Utah Moving" now and in...