View
216
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
The Utah Department of Transportation develops a long-range transportation for rural areas that is designed to "Keep Utah Moving" now and into the future. This 2015 - 2040 plan forecasts transportation needs over the next 25 years, and identifies a list of projects that will strengthen Utah's economy and enhance our quality of life.
Citation preview
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.
2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN i
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.
ii 2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN
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.
2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN iii
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
iv 2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN
This page intentionally left blank.
2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN v
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
vi 2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN
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 35
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 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 vii
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
viii 2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN
This page intentionally left blank.
Introduction
2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN 1
UDOT increased the LRP update cycle from
every 6 years to 4 years to be consistent
with the MPO planning cycle.
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.
The LRP is written in close coordination with local communities and
within federal and state guidelines to support UDOT’s strategic
goals.
Rural
MPO
Requirements
2 2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN
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.
Requirements
2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN 3
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.
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.
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.
Requirements
4 2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN
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.
“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)
Requirements
2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN 5
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.
Requirements
6 2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN
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 decision-
making 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.
Requirements
2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN 7
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
4501 S. 2700 W.
PO Box 143200
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-3200
Phone: (801) 965-4486
Hearing impaired: 711 or 1-800-346-4128
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.
Not only does Title VI apply to specific projects funded by the
federal government, it also applies to state agencies who receive
federal funding. Therefore, UDOT is bound by Title VI in all aspects
of its operations. This means that UDOT transportation projects
completed with federal funds should not disproportionately affect
(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.
Requirements
8 2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN
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 [email protected] 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
Requirements
2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN 9
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
Goals
10 2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN
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.
Goals
2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN 11
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.
Challenges
12 2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN
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.
Source: Utah Governor’s Office of Management and Budget
and Utah Population Estimate Committee.
4% 2%
15%
64%
15%
4% 5%
19%
58%
15%
CMPO
4%
DMPO
8%
MAG
22%
WFRC
52%
Rural
14%
Urban Rural Population Share
1980, 2010, and 2040
2010
2040
1980
Challenges
2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN 13
Source: 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.
3% 7%10% 11%
26%
31%
32% 33% 34% 36% 38% 39% 42%
59% 59%
77%
89% 89% 96% 97%
120%
151%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
160%
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
Rural County Population Change 2010–2040
2010 2020 2030 2040 30 Yr. % Growth
Challenges
14 2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN
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.
Challenges
2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN 15
UTAH’S PRIMARY FREIGHT NETWORK
HIGHWAY MILEAGE
Interstate Routes 937
Critical Rural Freight Routes 711
Critical Urban Freight Routes 89
Energy Routes 255
TOTAL 1,992
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.
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.
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.
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
and a 155 percent increase in freight weight moved from 134.0
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.
-
50
100
150
200
250
$-
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
1997 2002 2007 2012
Weig
ht in
M
illion
To
nsV
alu
e in
Billion
U
SD
Total Freight Movements
1997 – 2012
-
100
200
300
400
$-
$200
$400
$600
$800
2012 2040
Weig
ht in
M
illion
To
ns
Valu
e in
Billion
USD
Total Freight Movements
2012 and 2040
-
50
100
150
200
250
$-
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
2012 2040
Weig
ht in
M
illion
To
nsV
alu
e in
Billion
USD
Freight Moved by Truck
Source: Freight Analysis Framework3, Federal Highway
Administration, 2014.
Challenges
16 2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN
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.
Challenges
2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN 17
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.
Challenges
18 2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN
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.
Challenges
2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN 19
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.
Role
20 2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN
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
system that will serve Utah’s mobility and freight needs into the
future. In keeping with the performance measure requirements of
MAP-21, UDOT will assess the overall contribution of LRP projects
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
years (2019) a new LRP will be published. Until then, UDOT will
evaluate its goals, run new forecast models for population,
economic development, and travel demands, and reassess Utah’s
transportation needs. In this manner the LRP process continually
adapts to evolving conditions.
Identify
Goals and
Objectives
Define Needs
Identify
Potential
Strategies
with Regions
Identify
Funding
Assumptions
Phase Plan
Based on
Prioritization
and Funding
Measure
Performance
Role
2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN 21
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, high-
priority 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.
Role
22 2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN
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.
Focus
2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN 23
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;
Focus
24 2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN
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 long-
term 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:
encourage integrated transportation planning,
support healthy communities,
promote tourism and recreation,
enhance law enforcement through education,
educate system users, and
encourage transit use.
Focus
2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN 25
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
Focus
26 2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN
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.
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
Rail Pipeline Truck Multiple Modes Air
Million
s
Freight Value by Type (2007 Dollars)
1997–2040
1997 2002 2007 2012 2040
Focus
2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN 27
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, I-
70, 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.
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
Rail Pipeline Truck Multiple Modes Air
Th
ou
sand
s
Freight Weight by Type (Tons)
1997–2040
1997 2002 2007 2012 2040
Focus
28 2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN
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.
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 out-
of-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.
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
Focus
2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN 29
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.
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Commercial Motor Vehicle Crashes in Utah
On the Primary Freight Network All Commercial Motor Vehicle Crashes
Focus
30 2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN
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:
Iron County Rural Planning Organization
Tooele Valley Rural Planning Organization
Wasatch County Rural Planning Organization
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
32 2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN
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 INFORMATION BUDGET
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
Region 2
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
Foothill Drive/I-80/
I-215 Solution Study
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 I-
215 vehicles. Compounding the situation is the poor line of sight between I-80
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 east-
west routes through West Valley City (3500, 4100, 4700, and 5400 South).
$250,000
Region 3
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
I-15
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 4
S.R. 9 from Southern
Parkway to I-15
Develop a study to give range of alternatives along S.R. 9 from I-15 to the
Southern Parkway. Determine a range of alternatives with cost, environmental
impacts, right-of-way impacts, and expected date of project implementation.
$100,000
S.R. 9 Hurricane to
Springdale
The Eastern Washington County Rural Planning Organization completed a high-
level 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
lanes on 89, 191, 9,
6, 18
Use predictive methods to analyze these corridors for safety improvements such as
turning lanes, passing lanes, and RV pullouts. $150,000
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
Programs
2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN 33
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.
Programs
34 2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN
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
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.
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.
Programs
2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN 35
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
Programs
36 2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN
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.
Programs
2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN 37
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.
Programs
38 2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN
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.
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.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0
50
100
150
200
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Interstate Severe Cross-Median Crashes vs.
Total Miles of Median Cable Barrier Installed
Severe Crahes Miles of Cable Barrier
Programs
2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN 39
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.
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
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Traffic-Related Fatalities
2000 – 2014
Programs
40 2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN
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
and strategic maintenance of those assets over time. Physical
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, cost-
effective 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.
UDOT PHILOSOPHY
“Good roads cost less.”
UDOT PHILOSOPHY
“A plan for every section of every road.”
Programs
2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN 41
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:
Interstate – Utah’s Interstate Highways are I-15, I-215, I-
70, I-80, and I-84935 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-NHS1,330 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.
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT LEVELS
Interstate
Level 1
o AADT >1,000
o Truck volume >200
Level 2
o AADT <1,000
o Truck volume <200
Programs
42 2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN
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.
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.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040
% o
f M
iles
Interstate Pavement (935 miles)
Level of Service Distribution with existing $70 million/yr – 4% project cost inflation
% with Good Ride Quality (IRI < 95 in/mi)
% with Fair Ride Quality
% with Poor Ride Quality (IRI > 170 in/mi)
CONDITION MEASURES
Pavement Condition Bridge Condition
Poor IRI >170 Poor OCI <55
Fair IRI 95-170 Fair OCI 55–90
Good IRI <95 Good OCI >90
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Pavement Condition Bridges
Interstate >95% ≥Fair Structures >90% Good
Level 1 >90% ≥Fair
Level 2 >80% ≥Fair
Programs
2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN 43
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.
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 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
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040
% o
f M
iles
National Highway System Pavement (1,720 miles)
Level of Service Distribution with existing $60 million/yr – 4% project cost inflation
% with Good Ride Quality (IRI < 95 in/mi)
% with Fair Ride Quality
% with Poor Ride Quality (IRI > 170 in/mi)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040
% o
f M
iles
Level 1 Pavement (AADT > 1,000) – Non NHS (1,330 miles)
Level of Service Distribution with existing $45 million/yr – 4 % project cost inflation
% with Good Ride Quality (IRI < 95 in/mi)
% with Fair Ride Quality
% with Poor Ride Quality (IRI > 170 in/mi)
Programs
44 2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN
$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.
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.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040
% o
f M
iles
Level 2 Pavement (AADT < 1,000) – Non NHS (1,875 miles)
Level of Service Distribution with existing $10 million/yr – 4% project cost inflation
% with Good Ride Quality (IRI < 95 in/mi)
% with Fair Ride Quality
% with Poor Ride Quality (IRI > 170 in/mi)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040
State Bridges (1,888 Bridges)
Condition Distribution with Existing 20 Million/Year – 4% Project Cost Inflation
Good Fair Poor
Programs
2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN 45
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.
Programs
46 2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN
GENERALIZED LEVEL OF SERVICE C AND D VALUES BY ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASS
Functional Class Area Type Total Travel Lanes (both directions) Max LOS C Volume
Threshold (vehicle/day)
Max LOS D Volume
Threshold (vehicle/day)
Freeway All
4 43,000 55,000
6 64,000 79,000
8 85,000 103,000
Arterial
Rural
2 11,500 14,500
4 23,000 25,000
Small Urban
2 (assuming a two-way left turn lane) 12,500 16,000
4 (assuming a two-way left turn lane) 28,500 35,000
Collector
Rural
2 7,500 9,500
4 16,000 20,500
Small Urban
2 (assuming a two-way left turn lane) 8,500 10,500
4 (assuming a two-way left turn lane) 26,000 31,000
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:
Programs
2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN 47
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 traffic-
loading-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.
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
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
Programs
48 2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN
might be needed based on capacity constraints. No-build scenarios were run for the following years:
o 2024–2024 socioeconomic, 2019 highway network
o 2034–2034 socioeconomic, 2019 highway network
o 2040–2040 socioeconomic, 2019 highway network
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 2024–2024 socioeconomic, 2024 unconstrained highway network
o 2034–2034 socioeconomic, 2034 unconstrained highway network
o 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 2024–2024 socioeconomic, 2024 fiscally constrained highway network
o 2034–2034 socioeconomic, 2034 fiscally constrained highway network
o 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.
Plan
2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN 49
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.
Plan
50 2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN
PERCENT
UDOT
REVENUES
GROWTH
RATES FOR
PREVIOUS UNIFIED
TRANSPORTATION
PLAN (2011)
REVISED RATES REVISED RATES SOURCES
UDOT Revenue Assumptions
20.47% Federal
Revenues 2.00% 1.50%
Congressional Budget Office Testimony, “The Highway Trust
Fund and Paying for Highways”
27.30% Motor Fuel 2.50%
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
8.19% Special Fuel 5.00%
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
6.80%
Registration
Fees and
Permits
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
6.17
Registration
Increases
(Transportation
Investment
Fund)
1.96% 4.04% See above “Registrations and Permits”
31.08% 5.00%
2014: 3.00% Consensus
2015: 4.66% Consensus
100.00%
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
Plan
2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN 51
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%
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.
Registration
Fees (County
Revenues)
4.04% 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
2018–2040: 4.5% Provided by UDOT and represents construction cost
inflation and the addition of lane miles to the system.
a 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 15-
year 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
Plan
52 2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE 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
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 2015–2024 2025–2034 2035–2040 2015–2040
Existing Revenues 4,030,710,347 3,980,201,535 2,169,069,436 10,179,981,319
New Revenues 267,356,502 502,457,708 418,099,350 1,187,913,560
Total 4,298,066,849 4,482,659,244 2,587,168,786 11,367,894,879
12.6
1.8
13.7
3.7
8.4
2.9
4.1
0.2
4.7
0.6
2.9
0.8
0.6
0.0
0.8
0.1
0.5
0.1
1.0
0.2
1.3
0.4
0.8
0.3
4.0
0.3
4.0
0.5
2.2
0.4
$0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25
2015-
2024
2025-
2034
2035-
2040
BILLIONS
Highway and Transit Funding by Region
2015–2040
WFRC MAG CMPO DMPO Rural
Highway
Transit
Highway
Transit
Highway
Transit
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Plan
2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN 53
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 &
Map #
UDOT
Region County
Fiscally
Constrained
Phase a
Improvement
Type Project Name Project Description
2015
Cost
UDOT Region 1
1 1 Box Elder/
Cache 1 Passing Lane SR-30 MP 97 to MP 101
Add one travel lane in each
direction 5.0m
2 1 Cache 1 Passing Lane
US-89 Widen NB from 1 lane to 2 lanes
from MP 486.82 to MP 489.10, SR-243 to
Amazon Hollow Dugway, Climbing
Add one climbing lane in
NB direction 19.0m
3 1 Cache 1 Passing Lane
US-89 Widen NB from 1 lane to 2 lanes
from MP 489.1 to MP 490.0, Amazon
Hollow Dugway to Swan Creek, Climbing
Add one climbing lane in
NB direction 7.3m
4 1 Weber 1 Planning
Study SR-39 MP 9 to MP 22, Ogden Canyon Planning Study 1.0m
5 1 Morgan/
Weber 1
Planning
Study SR-167 MP 0.0 to 11.1, Trapper's Loop Planning Study 1.0m
6 1 Morgan 1 Widening SR-66 MP 12.7 to MP 13.6, from Morgan
City to I-84
Add one travel lane in each
direction 7.8m
7 1 Cache 1 Widening
SR-30 MP 102.3 to MP 108.7, SR-23 to SR-
252 (Cache MPO Boundary at MP 106 to
108.7)
Add one travel lane in each
direction 38.0m
8 1 Weber 2 Widening SR-158, MP 0 to MP 3.8, Pineview Dam to
Eden
Add one travel lane in each
direction 24.5m
9 1 Box Elder/
Cache 2 Widening
SR-30 MP 95.1 to MP 102.3, SR-38 to SR-
23
Add one travel lane in each
direction 33.8m
10 1 Box Elder 2 Passing Lane I-84 Widen WB from MP 17.3 to MP 19.9 Add one travel lane in WB
direction 9.0m
11 1 Box Elder 2 Passing Lane I-84 Widen EB from MP 6.8 to MP 17.7 Add one travel lane in EB
direction 37.2m
12 1 Rich 2 Widening
US-89/SR-30 Widen US-89 MP 500.1 to SR-
30 MP 110.8, Marina to Buttercup in
conjunction with 300 W Bypass
Add one travel lane in each
direction 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)
Add one travel lane in each
direction 31.5m
14 1 Box Elder 3 Passing Lane I-84 Widen WB from MP 29.3 to MP 32.3 Add one travel lane in WB
direction 8.3m
15 1 Morgan/
Weber 3 Widening
SR-167 MP 0 to MP 1.6, from I-84 to new
I-84 extension
Add one travel lane in each
direction 14.7m
16 1 Morgan 3 and 4 New
Interchange
I-84 at MP 94.0, with southern extension
of SR-167
Construct new interchange
and extend SR-167 35.0m
17 1 Box Elder 4 Passing Lane I-84 Widen EB from MP 25.3 to MP 29.7 Add one travel lane in EB
direction 13.9m
18 1 Box Elder 4 Passing Lane I-84 Widen WB from MP 33.5 to MP 35.6 Add one travel lane in WB
direction 5.8m
19 1 Weber 4 Widening
SR-39 MP 8.6 to MP 21.9, Wasatch
National Forest Boundary to 9900 E
(Huntsville)
Add one travel lane in each
direction 500m
Plan
54 2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN
Line &
Map #
UDOT
Region County
Fiscally
Constrained
Phase a
Improvement
Type Project Name Project Description
2015
Cost
20 1 Box Elder 4 Widening
I-15 Widen from MP 365.7 to MP 372.6,
SR-13 to Honeyville (WFRC boundary from
MP 365.7 to 368.3)
Add one travel lane in each
direction 23.7m
21 1 Morgan/
Weber 4 Widening
SR-167 Widen MP 1.6 to 11.1, from new I-
84 extension to SR-39
Add one travel lane in each
direction 44.7m
22 1 Box Elder 4 Widening I-15 Widen from MP 372.6 to MP 379.5,
Honeyville to Tremonton
Add one travel lane in each
direction 56.0m
23 1 Morgan 4 New
Interchange
New Interchange at Trappers Loop Rd and
I-84 to replace 1/2 interchange
New interchange at
Trappers Loop Rd to
replace 1/2 interchange
38.0m
24 1 Morgan 4 New
Interchange SR-66 at MP 14.3, I-80
Re-open east interchange
at I-84 38.0m
UDOT Region 2
25 2 Summit/
Wasatch 1 Widening
SR-248 MP 0 to MP 2.1, from SR-224 to
Richardson Flats
Add one travel lane in each
direction 9.9m
26 2 Summit 1 Corridor
Improvement
SR-224 MP 5.7 to MP 11.5, from SR-248 to
I-80 Corridor improvement 13.6m
27 2 Summit/
Wasatch 1 Widening
SR-248 MP 3.3 to MP 4.9, from US-40 to
Browns Canyon
Add one travel lane in each
direction 10.0m
28 2 Tooele 1 Widening SR-36 MP 55.7 to MP 57.3, SR-112 to
2400 N
Add one travel lane in each
direction 11.1m
29 2 Tooele 1 Widening SR-36 MP 62.9 to MP 65.8, from SR-138 to
I-80
Add one travel lane in each
direction 13.6m
30 2 Summit 1 Intersection
Improvement SR-32 at MP 10.4, SR-35 Intersection improvements 5.0m
31 2 Summit 1 Passing Lane I-80 Widen WB from MP 139 to MP 142,
from Summit to Jeremy Ranch
Add one travel lane in WB
direction 11.9m
32 2 Tooele 1 and 2 Upgrade
Interchange I-80 at MP 98.7, SR-36 Upgrade Interchange 38.0m
33 2 Summit 1 and 2 Upgrade
Interchange I-80 at MP 144.2, Kimball Junction Upgrade Interchange 38.0m
34 2 Tooele 1 and 2 New
Interchange
I-80 at MP 94.5, Midvalley Highway
Interchange (refer to local plan) Construct new interchange 38.0m
35 2 Tooele 2 Widening SR-138 MP 11.2 to MP 15.3, from
Grantsville to Sheep Lane
Extending existing 5-lane
section 19.3m
36 2 Tooele 2 Widening SR-36 MP 57.3 to MP 62.9, 2400 N to SR
138
Add one travel lane in each
direction 26.3m
37 2 Tooele 2 Widening SR-36 MP 53.6 to MP 55.7, Skyline Dr. to
SR-112
Add one travel lane in each
direction 9.9m
38 2 Summit/
Wasatch 2 Widening
SR-248 MP 6.3 to MP 9.4, from Deer
Mountain Blvd to Wasatch/Summit CL
Extending existing 4-lane
section/BRT 14.6m
39 2 Summit 2 Intersection
Improvement SR-32 at MP 10.2, Hilltop Road (Francis)
Realign skewed
intersection 4.0m
40 2 Summit 2 Passing Lane I-80 Widen EB from MP 168 to 169.8 Add one travel lane in EB
direction 5.0m
41 2 Summit 2 Passing Lane I-80 Widen EB from MP 188.9 to MP 191.9 Add one travel lane in EB
direction 10.1m
42 2 Summit 2 Passing Lane I-80 Widen WB from MP 165.5 to MP
167.3
Add one travel lane in WB
direction 7.6m
43 2 Summit 2 and 3 New
Interchange
I-80 at MP 143.0, View Area – High Ute
Interchange Construct new interchange 38.0m
Plan
2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN 55
Line & Map #
UDOT Region
County Fiscally
Constrained Phase a
Improvement Type
Project Name Project Description 2015 Cost
44 2 Summit 3 Auxiliary
Lanes US-40 Widen from 2 lanes to 3 lanes from MP 1.3 to MP 4.0, SR-248 to Silver Summit
Construct EB and WB auxiliary lane
12.7m
45 2 Tooele 3 Auxiliary
Lanes I-80 MP 99 to MP 101.2, from SR-36 to SR-201 (Blackrock)
Add one travel lane in each direction and widen EB structure.
13.9m
46 2 Tooele 3 Widening I-80 MP 94.5 to MP 99, from Midvalley Highway to SR-36
Add one travel lane in each direction
24.8m
47 2 Tooele 3 Widening SR-112 Widen MP 0.0 to MP 5.9, from SR-138 to Utah Avenue
Add one travel lane in each direction
27.7m
48 2 Summit 3 and 4 Passing Lane US-40 Widen EB from MP 4.0 to MP 6.10, from beyond the crest of the vertical curve (county line) to SR-248
Add one climbing lane in EB direction
10.3m
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
UDOT Region 3 52 3 Duchesne 1 Passing Lane
US-40 Widen EB from MP 97.7 to MP 99.1, Bridgeland and Myton
Add one travel lane in EB 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
Improvement US-40 at MP 82.07, MP 111.47, and SR-87 at MP 1.14
Intersection improvements 5.0m
56 3 Wasatch 1 Passing Lane US-40 Widen WB from MP 35.1 to MP 39.0, West of Strawberry Reservoir
Add one travel lane in WB direction
11.0m
57 3 Uintah 1 Passing Lane US-40 Widen EB and add center turn lane from MP 122.4 to MP 125.0, Gusher
Construct EB passing lane with center turn lane (additional two lanes)
12.0m
58 3 Wasatch 1 Widening US-189 MP 22 to MP 28.9, Wallsburg to Heber
Add one travel lane in each direction
27.0m
59 3 Utah 1 Widening US-6 MP 195.0 to MP 197.0, SF Canyon Widening Sheep Creek to Mill Fork (to existing 5-lanes)
Add one travel lane in each direction 23.0m
60 3 Uintah 2 Widening US-40 MP 115.4 to MP 125.0, Ballard to Gusher
Construct four lane facility with center turn lane
66.2m
61 3 Wasatch 2 Passing Lane US-40 Widen EB from MP 43.5 to MP 44.2, Strawberry Reservoir
Extend EB passing lane over the hill crest
2.2m
62 3 Duchesne 1 Passing Lane US-40 Widen EB from MP 65.2 to MP 67.6, East of Fruitland
Assist EB vehicles up two 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
Plan
56 2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN
Line & Map #
UDOT Region
County Fiscally
Constrained Phase a
Improvement Type
Project Name Project Description 2015 Cost
66 3 Wasatch 2 Passing Lane US-40 Widen EB from MP 48.5 to MP 51.3, Soldier Creek Area
Lengthen short EB passing lane, connect with previous
23.5m
67 3 Duchesne 2 Passing Lane US-40 Widen EB from MP 93.0 to 94.9, Bridgeland
Add one travel lane in EB direction
4.9m
68 3 Utah 2 and 3 Widening US-6 MP 189.3 to MP 194.0, Red Narrows to Billies Mt.
Add one travel lane in each direction
118.3m
69 3 Utah 3 and 4 Widening US-6 MP 178.0 to MP 184.1, from Powerhouse Road in SF to Diamond Fork Road (to existing five lanes)
Add one travel lane in each direction
110.3m
70 3 Juab 1 and 2 Passing Lane I-15 Widen NB from MP 230 to MP 233, between Nephi and Mona
Add one travel lane in NB direction
10.1m
71 3 Duchesne 4 Passing Lane US-40 Widen WB from MP 136.0 to MP 138.2, Twists West of Vernal
Add one travel lane in WB direction
9.4m
72 3 Wasatch 4 Turn Lane US-40 Widen from 1 to 2 lanes from MP 18.4 to MP 19.8, Heber 1500 S to Center Creek Road
Construct center turn lane 1.1m
73 3 Uintah 4 Turn Lane SR-121 MP 37.8 to MP 40.3, 2500 West to US-40 in Vernal
Construct center turn lane 15.0m
74 3 Duchesne 4 Intersection Improvement
SR-35 at MP 62.01, SR-87
Add NB left, SB left, acceleration lanes, shift graded dirt road to line up with SR-35 at SR-87
1.9m
75 3 Uintah 4 Intersection
Improvement SR-88 at MP 9.98, Randlett Road
Shift intersection to the east for improved geometry at Randlett Rd, add NB acceleration lane coming out of gravel pit, add left turn lane into the pit
4.0m
76 3 Uintah 4 Intersection
Improvement SR-121 at MP 17.49, White Rocks Highway Add SB left, NB right, WB right at White Rocks Highway
1.3m
77 3 Uintah 4 Intersection Improvement
SR-121 at MP 22.49, LaPoint and 9500 East
Add WB/ EB left at LaPoint 1.1m
78 3 Wasatch 4 Intersection
Improvement US-189 at MP 28.9, US-40 Heber Hub 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 US-40 Widen EB from MP 59.4 to MP 60.5, East of Current Creek
Add one travel lane in EB direction
2.0m
82 3 Duchesne 4 Passing Lane US-40 Widen EB from MP 68.3 to MP 70.7, Tabiona Turnoff Eastward
Lengthen EB passing lane; convert to 5-lane section to accommodate access points
8.7m
83 3 Juab 4 Passing Lane SR-132 Widen EB from MP 36.5 to MP 37.7 in Salt Creek Canyon
Add one travel lane in EB direction
2.9m
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
Plan
2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN 57
Line &
Map #
UDOT
Region County
Fiscally
Constrained
Phase a
Improvement
Type Project Name Project Description
2015
Cost
86 3 Duchesne 4 Passing Lane
US-191 Widen NB from MP 261.7 to MP
263.3, Indian Canyon Near Carbon County
Line
Add one travel lane in NB
direction 5.2m
87 3 Duchesne 4 Passing Lane SR-191 Widen SB from MP 267.8 to MP
269.1 Add new SB climbing lane 4.1m
88 3 Uintah 4 Passing Lane SR-191 Widen NB from MP 367.5 to MP
368.2, North of Simplot Switchbacks
Connect 2 existing NB
(uphill passing) lanes with
new section of climbing
lane
1.8m
89 3 Uintah 4 Passing Lane SR-191 Widen SB from MP 363.6 to MP
365.2, Red Fleet Reservoir Area
Construct new SB
(downhill) passing lane for
a four-lane section, 4-foot
buffer, 8-foot shoulders
6.1m
90 3 Uintah 4 Passing Lane SR-191 Widen NB from MP 371.7 to MP
373.1, North of Simplot
Connect three existing NB
passing lanes to make one
continuous
4.2m
91 3 Wasatch 4 Passing Lane US-40 Widen WB from MP 5.8 to MP 13.2
Construct WB climbing
lane from SR-32 signal to
beyond the crest of the
vertical curve (county line)
19.2m
92 3 Juab 4 Passing Lane I-15 Widen SB 2 lanes to 3 lanes from MP
205.2 to MP 206.2
Widen SB 2 lanes to 3
lanes 2.8m
93 3 Uintah 4 Passing Lane
US-191 Widen NB from 1 to 2 lanes from
MP 375.2 to 376.4, North of Simplot
Switchbacks
Add new NB uphill lane
incorporating existing 0.1
mile section; eliminate
piece at MP 374.8
3.7m
94 3 Duchesne 4 Passing Lane US-191 Widen SB from MP 259.7 to MP
261.3, Indian Canyon near Carbon County
Construct new SB passing
lane 6.8m
95 3 Uintah 4 Passing Lane SR-45 Widen NB from MP 15.4 to MP 16.2,
North of Bonanza
Add one travel lane in NB
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,
West of Altamont
Extend EB passing lane
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, US-
40 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
2+1 facility
Construct 5 lane section as
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
Construct WB passing lane
as part of 2+1 facility. 2.3m
Plan
58 2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN
Line &
Map #
UDOT
Region County
Fiscally
Constrained
Phase a
Improvement
Type Project Name Project Description
2015
Cost
107 3 Wasatch 4 Passing Lane US-40 Widen EB from 1 to 2 lanes from MP
40.3-46.0, part of 2+1 facility
Construct EB passing lane
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,
part of 2+1 facility
Construct EB passing lane
as part of 2+1 facility 8.9m
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,
part of 2+1 facility
Construct EB passing lane
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,
part of 2+1 facility
Construct EB passing lane
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
83.2, part of 2+1 facility
Construct EB passing lane
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
Construct 5 lane section as
part of 2+1 facility 10.3m
120 3 Duchesne 4 Widening SR-121 Widen from 1 lane to 2 lanes MP
0.0 to MP 0.6
Construct four lane facility
with center turn lane from
US-40 to 200 North
2.8m
121 3 Wasatch 4 New
Interchange US-40 at MP 13.24, SR-32 Construct new interchange 38.0m
122 3 Wasatch 4 Widening SR-113 (Midway Lane) from MP 4.2 to 6.2,
300 East Midway to South Field Rd
Add one travel lane in each
direction 13.0m
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 Intersection
Improvement
US-40, SR-88 Intersection, Signalize US-
40/SR-88 intersection Signalize intersection 4.0m
127 3 Duchesne 4 Intersection
Realignment
US-40 MP 85.8 to MP 88.0, Duchesne
urban area, Realign SR-191 with SR-87
when US-40/SR-191 signal meets warrant
criteria.
Realign SR-191 with SR-87
when US-40/SR-191 signal
meets warrant criteria
5.2m
128 3 Duchesne 4 Intersection
Improvement
US-40, SR-87 Intersection, Signalize US-
40/SR-87 intersection Signalize intersection 4.0m
129 3 Uintah 4 Turn Lane SR-45 MP 36.2 to MP 40.3, Construct
center turn lane. Construct center turn lane 9.6m
130 3 Wasatch 4 Turn Lane SR-113, Construct center turn lane MP 0 to
MP 3.9, US-189 to Midway Main Street Construct center turn lane 11.0m
Plan
2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN 59
Line &
Map #
UDOT
Region County
Fiscally
Constrained
Phase a
Improvement
Type Project Name Project Description
2015
Cost
131 3 Wasatch 4 Turn Lane SR-113, Construct center turn lane MP 6.2
to MP 7.1, South Field Rd to US-40 Construct center turn lane 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
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 2.5m
137 4 San Juan 1 Passing Lane US-191 Widen NB/SB as various locations
from MP 80 to MP 96
Widen NB/SB as various
locations 6.0m
138 4 Iron 1 Widening SR-130 MP 6.30 to MP 9.0
Widen roadway both
directions from 1 lane to 2
lanes
4.5m
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
290.7 to MP 291.7
Widen WB from 1 lane to
2 lanes 1.5m
142 4 Emery 1 Passing Lane US-6 Widen EB from 1 lane to 2 lanes from
MP 294.0 to MP 295.0
Widen EB from 1 lane to 2
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
Widen WB from 1 lane to
2 lanes 1.5m
144 4 Carbon 1 Widening SR-10 MP 65.36 to MP 67.66, 3000 South
(Carbon Co.) to US-6
Add one travel lane in each
direction 8.0m
145 4 Carbon 1 Widening SR-10 MP 66.16 to MP66.75, 2000 South
to 2500 South in Price
Add one travel lane in each
direction 2.6m
146 4 Washington 1 Passing Lane I-15 Widen NB from 2 lanes to 3 lanes from
MP 38.0 to MP 40.0
Widen NB from 2 lanes to
3 lanes 5.5m
147 4 Millard 1 Passing Lane I-15 Add NB/SB Climbing lanes from MP
135.0 to MP 142.5
Add climbing/passing lanes
both directions 22.4m
148 4 San Juan 1 Passing Lane
US-191 Widen NB/SB at various locations
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
Plan
60 2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN
Line &
Map #
UDOT
Region County
Fiscally
Constrained
Phase a
Improvement
Type 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 US-191 Widen NB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes
from MP 41.0 to MP 42.0
Widen NB from 1 lanes to
2 lanes 2.4m
157 4 Grand 1 Widening
US-191 Widen from MP 126.3 to MP
128.4, from Moab (existing 4-lanes) to
Colorado River Bridge
Widen roadway both
directions from 1 lane to 2
lanes
13.5m
158 4 Sanpete 1 Widening US-89 Widen from MP 259.9 to MP 262,
Airport Road to Ephraim
Widen NB/SB from 1 lanes
to 2 lanes 9.9m
159 4 Iron 1 Passing Lane SR-20 Widen WB from 1 lane to 2 lanes
from MP 7.5 to MP 10.0
Widen WB from 1 lane to
2 lanes 5.9m
160 4 Carbon 1 Widening
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
Corridor
Improvement US-6 MP 221.0 to MP 230.0 (Price Canyon) Corridor Improvement 10.0m
162 4 Washington 1 Corridor
Improvement
SR-9 MP 9.9 to MP 32.6, from Hurricane to
Zion National Park (DMPO from 9.9 to
16.1)
Corridor Improvement 15.0m
163 4 Washington 1 Passing Lane SR-59 Widen SB from 1 lane to 2 from MP
15.7 to MP 17.0
Widen SB from 1 lane to 2
lanes 3.1m
164 4 San Juan 1 Passing Lane US-191 Extend SB passing lane from MP
79.0 to MP 79.2 Extend SB passing lane 0.5m
165 4 Washington 1 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
166 4 Garfield 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
167 4 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
168 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
to 71.0 Extend SB passing lane 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
Plan
2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN 61
Line &
Map #
UDOT
Region County
Fiscally
Constrained
Phase a
Improvement
Type Project Name Project Description
2015
Cost
177 4 Washington 1 Passing Lane SR-59 Widen SB from MP 17.3 to MP 17.8 Widen SB from 1 lane to 2
lanes 1.2m
178 4 San Juan 1 Passing Lane US-191 Extend SB passing lane from MP
86.1 to MP 86.5 Extend SB passing lane 0.9m
179 4 Washington 1 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
180 4 Washington 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
181 4 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
182 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 “The Tank” 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 SR-9 Widen both EB and WB from 1 lane to
2 lanes from MP 20.6 to MP 23.5
Widen both EB and WB
from 1 lane to 2 lanes 13.6m
193 4 Washington 1 Widening SR-59 Widen NB from MP 12.3 to MP 12.7 Widen NB from 1 lane to 2
lanes 1.9m
194 4 Piute 1 Passing Lane US-89 Widen NB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes
from MP 170.4 to MP 171.4
Widen NB from 1 lanes to
2 lanes 2.4m
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 Widen WB and add bike
accommodations 1.9m
199 4 Emery 2 Widening SR-155 Widen from MP 4.65 to MP 4.94,
Main Street to 300 North
Widen roadway both
directions from 1 lane to 2
lanes
5.0m
200 4 Sanpete 2 Passing Lane US-89 Widen NB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes
from MP 286.7 to MP 288.3
Widen NB from 1 lanes to
2 lanes 3.8m
Plan
62 2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN
Line &
Map #
UDOT
Region County
Fiscally
Constrained
Phase a
Improvement
Type 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,
Ephraim to Pigeon Hollow Junction
Widen NB/SB from 1 lanes
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
Add one travel lane in each
direction 53.4m
208 4 Millard 2 Passing Lane I-15 Widen NB from 2 lanes to 3 lanes from
MP 180.2 to MP 187.1
Widen NB from 2 lanes to
3 lanes 22.6m
209 4 Carbon 2 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
210 4 San Juan 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
211 4 Sevier 2 Widening SR-118 Widen from MP 10.0 to MP 14.0 Widen NB/SB from 1 lanes
to 2 lanes 18.8m
212 4 Kane 2 Widening US-89A Widen from MP 0.0 to MP 2.9,
from Arizona/Utah State Line to Kanab
Widen NB/SB from 1 lane
to 2 lanes 13.6m
213 4 Iron 2 Corridor
Improvement
SR-274 MP 0.6 to MP 1.2, Parowan Main
St., 500 N to I-15
Widen NB/SB from 1 lanes
to 2 lanes 0.5m
214 4 Washington 2 Widening I-15 Widen from MP 28.5 to MP 40.0
Widen to a consistent 6
lane section including 5
bridges
79.9m
215 4 Washington 2 Corridor
Improvement
SR-9 MP 9.9 to MP 32.6, Additional
corridor improvements from Hurricane to
Zion National Park (DMPO from 9.9 to
16.1)
Additional corridor
improvements 15.0m
216 4 Multiple 2 Passing Lane
US-89 Widen from 1 lane to 2 lanes at
various locations from MP 0 to I-70 to build
to 2+1 corridor
Widen from 1 lane to 2
lanes to complete a 2+1
facility
15.0m
217 4 Multiple 2 Passing Lane
US-191 Widen from 1 lane to 2 lanes at
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
Improvement
US-191 MP251.2 to MP 260, US-6 to MP
260 (Indian Canyon) Corridor Improvement 15.0m
219 4 Iron 3 Widening I-15 Widen from MP 40.0 to MP 56.0
Widen to a consistent 6
lane section including 4
bridges
102.4m
220 4 Multiple 3 Passing Lane
US-89 Widen additional locations from 1
lane to 2 lanes from MP 0 to I-70 to build
to 2+1 corridor
Widen additional locations
from 1 lane to 2 lanes to
complete a 2+1 facility
10.0m
221 4 Multiple 3 Passing Lane
US-191 Widen additional locations from 1
lane to 2 lanes from MP 0 to I-70 (MP
157.0) to build to 2+1 corridor
Widen additional locations
from 1 lane to 2 lanes to
complete a 2+1 facility
10.0m
Plan
2015 UDOT LONG-RANGE PLAN 63
Line &
Map #
UDOT
Region County
Fiscally
Constrained
Phase a
Improvement
Type Project Name Project Description
2015
Cost
222 4 Iron 3 Upgrade
Interchange I-15 at MP 51.1, 4000 South (Kanarraville) Upgrade Interchange 25.0m
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 20.6m
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
Widen EB/WB from 2 lanes
to 3 lanes 53.9m
225 4 Iron 4 Widening I-15 Widen from MP 56.0 to MP 63.0
Widen to a consistent 6
lane section including 2
interchange upgrades
147.1m
226 4 Iron 4 Widening SR-143 Widen from MP 0.0 to MP 2.4,
from I-15 to Parowan
Widen NB/SB from 1 lanes
to 2 lanes 14.9m
227 4 Iron 4 New
Interchange I-15 at MP 66.7, Ravine Road (Enoch) Construct new interchange 38.0m
228 4 Sevier/
Emery 4 Passing Lane
I-70 Widen EB/WB from 2 lanes to 3 lanes
from MP 64.1 to MP 97.2
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
MP 109.9 to MP 122.8
Widen EB from 2 lanes to
3 lanes 43.1m
230 4 Iron 4 Passing Lane SR-14 Widen travel lane at various locations
form MP 1 to MP 17
Add one travel lane at
various locations 49.4m
231 4 Sevier 4 Passing Lane SR-24 MP 16.0 to MP 30.0, Peterson Creek
to Koosharem Res. at various locations
Add one travel lane at
various locations 32.9m
232 4 Sevier 4 New
Interchange
I-70 at MP 54.6, Lost Creek Road (Sevier
Co.) Construct new interchange 38.0m
a Phase 1 2015-2024; Phase 2 2025-2034; Phase 3 2035-2040; Phase 4 Unfunded.
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