2015 - 2040 long-range transportation plan

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


Funding and Trends 42

State Highway Capacity 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


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


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)

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/regional_models/case_studies/utah/index.cfm

Requirements


Local Government

Local public agencies are responsible for planning and

programming transportation improvements and maintenance for

local roads. UDOT has been authorized by FHWA to provide

oversight for local government projects that receive federal aid.

UDOT also works with Local public agencies to incorporate project

needs that require federal and state funding into the LRP and

Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) planning

process.

Private Sector

Combined efforts of UDOT and the private sector has brought creativity and efficiency to assist with addressing

complex transportation problems. Through public-private partnerships, UDOT has pioneered new construction

techniques, addressed the economic impacts of construction, and supported visioning studies.

Multistate

UDOT coordinates with neighboring states through several efforts:

I-15 Mobility Alliance – This is an alliance of state and local transportation officials, local and interstate

commerce authorities, port authorities, departments of aviation, freight and passenger rail authorities,

freight transportation services, public transportation service providers, environmental and natural resource

agencies from the states of Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah. The alliance was selected as one of six

corridor coalitions nationwide to receive $1,250,000 funding under the Multistate Corridor Operations and

Management Program to execute the delivery of the I-15 Dynamic Mobility Project. This project seeks to

obtain, exchange, and disseminate real-time data on all segments of I-15 and create a seamless ITS

backbone from San Diego, California, to the northern Utah border.

Western States Transportation Alliance (WSTA) – The WSTA, also known as the Multistate Highway

Transportation Agreement, is an alliance of the state DOTs from Oregon, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota,

Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico. The WSTA was designed to foster

collaboration and improve communication between the state legislators, state administrators, and private

industries.

I-80 Winter Operation Coalition – I-80 is a major east-west interstate corridor through the states of

California, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, and Nebraska. It is a major economic freight and travel corridor that

can better serve the public through improved and coordinated maintenance and traveler information.

Integration and continuity of winter maintenance operations across the United States are needed to

provide consistent traveler information and similar levels of service to achieve a higher degree of boundary

transparency and improved mobility, as seen by the traveling public. These five states have initiated a single

strategic planning effort to reach consensus on how best to link operational processes and data to

maximize winter mobility in the I-80 corridor.

Requirements


PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

UDOT has a long history of public participation and citizen

involvement in statewide transportation planning, project delivery,

and customer service initiatives. This participation began in the

1970s when federal mandates outlined the basics of public

involvement in the regional decision-making process. Since then

UDOT has worked to improve these activities in an effort to reach

out to and engage as many members of the public as possible and

engage them in the decision-making process. During this process

the dialogue between the public and decision-makers can develop

a vision for their community, county, or region.

Federal Public Involvement Requirements for the Long-Range Planning Process

Public participation is required by federal transportation legislation and is welcomed and embraced by UDOT.

Transportation legislation requirements increasingly focus on public participation in planning and the 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


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.

http://www.udot.utah.gov/main/f?p=100:pg::::1:T,V:3296

Requirements


Once the draft project list was compiled it was made available

during a 60-day formal public comment period. During this time

UDOT utilized an online mapping application to solicit public

comments, in addition to accepting comments through email and

more traditional means, such as by letter, fax, and phone. UDOT

also solicited comments on the Draft LRP from land and resource

managers and local government officials across the state through a

comprehensive email campaign.

In addition to traditional methods of accepting comments, UDOT

also made available electronic content on its website

(udot.utah.gov). Content included a video describing the long-range planning process, an interactive mapping

application, static maps, and a draft prioritized projects list. UDOT developed a separate mapping application that

allowed comments to be made within a dynamic map. Comments were also accepted by traditional email using

the [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

http://uplan.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Viewer/index.html?appid=5cfab24f5bac4d559572fd96cd915fe4

Requirements


The following state agencies (divisions) were contacted:

State History

Forestry, Fire, and State Lands

Parks and Recreation

Wildlife Resources

Utah Geological Survey

School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration

Local Governments

In addition to the aforementioned meetings, local governments were also contacted via email with requests to

participate in the public comment period and to share this information with their citizens. These entities included:

associations of governments

regional planning organizations

county governments

city governments

Goals


3. UDOT STRATEGIC GOALS AND PERFORMANCE

MANAGEMENT

In 2014 UDOT refined its visioning and strategic goals to better guide planning efforts. The growing demand on

Utah’s transportation system is substantial―the population will double by 2050―and finding ways to meet those

demands while keeping the current system running requires resourcefulness and innovative thinking. By focusing

on its strategic goals, UDOT is able to meet these challenges, improve quality of life, and strengthen Utah’s

economy. UDOT’s three strategic goals are:

1. Zero Crashes, Injuries, and Fatalities – UDOT is committed to safety and won’t rest until a status of zero

crashes, zero injuries, and zero fatalities is attained.

2. Optimize Mobility – UDOT continuously strives to make the transportation system work better while quickly

and efficiently moving people to their destinations by optimizing operations; improving connections for

transit, biking and pedestrians; and increasing capacity.

3. Preserve Infrastructure – UDOT believes good roads cost less, and through proactive preservation, UDOT

will maximize the value of Utah’s infrastructure investment for today and the future.

In addition to the strategic goals, UDOT has identified several emphasis areas for its efforts:

integrated transportation

collaboration

education

transparency

quality

ZERO CRASHES, INJURIES, AND FATALITIES

This is an important mission for UDOT, and so the first strategic goal centers on safety. The Strategic Highway

Safety Plan, required by MAP-21, is adopted by each state to set goals for highway safety. Through UDOT’s Zero

Fatalities campaign, its partnering efforts with local communities and law enforcement, and by programmatically

identifying safety improvement needs across the state as part of long-range planning, UDOT is helping make Utah

a safer place for its customers.

Goals


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

Safety – UDOT is dedicated to building and maintaining road facilities that are safe for its customers. UDOT

tracks this performance by looking at traffic fatalities, contributing factors, and workplace safety incidents

measured by annual workers compensation claims.

OPTIMIZE MOBILITY

As Utah grows, the demand on the transportation system will only increase. Transportation needs are not the

same for all regions of Utah. Population growth, freight, traffic demands, safety, air quality, and other factors vary

significantly from place to place in rural Utah. UDOT is committed to finding innovative transportation solutions to

improve the transportation system’s capacity and efficiency into the future. UDOT has identified the following

performance measures listed by category to meet this strategic goal:

Manage System – UDOT manages transportation through a number of systems. UDOT tracks this

performance by estimating traveler information distribution, setting and tracking snow removal targets,

and tracking incident management.

Optimize System – UDOT strives to make the current system more efficient through innovative design

solutions and integrated transportation. UDOT tracks this performance through signal optimization

improvements and managed lanes improvements.

Capacity – Adding capacity to the current transportation system decreases traveler delays. UDOT tracks this

performance measure through capacity increases, travel-delay forecasts, and Transportation Investment

Fund expenditures.

PRESERVE INFRASTRUCTURE

UDOT maintains nearly 16,000 lane miles of state highway across Utah, which amounts to a multibillion-dollar

investment in roads, bridges, and assets. With proper planning, well-timed preservation treatments and other

technologies can greatly extend the life of the roadway and postpone costly reconstruction projects. Preservation

and rehabilitation efforts make efficient use of taxpayer money. UDOT has identified the following performance

measures listed by category to meet this strategic goal:

Pavement Condition – UDOT uses distress surveys and modeling techniques to forecast pavement conditions.

UDOT tracks ride quality for interstates and Level 1 and Level 2 roads (see Asset Management/Maintenance

Section) based on assumed annual funding.

Bridge Condition – UDOT inspects all bridges in Utah on a 2-year cycle. UDOT tracks bridge condition, age

distribution, and pavement and bridge expenditures.

Maintenance – UDOT’s Maintenance Division is always seeking ways to proactively approach maintenance

activities. The Central Maintenance Division’s Maintenance Management Quality Assurance Program is used to

identify the performance of 19 state highway assets.

For more information on UDOT’s Strategic Direction and to view performance metrics, please see the 2015

Strategic Direction document.

http://www.udot.utah.gov/main/uconowner.gf?n=19974707633468335


Challenges


4. UTAH’S UNIQUE CHALLENGES

Developing a Statewide LRP requires an understanding of Utah’s unique characteristics and challenges. Future

needs for Utah’s transportation system are determined by looking at growth trends in population, housing, and

economic development, and gathering local input. In addition to addressing future capacity needs for

automobiles, the LRP also identifies needs and projects designed to improve Utah’s transportation system as a

whole. This includes projects that facilitate efficient freight movement both within and through the state and

projects that enhance roadway safety or provide multimodal transportation options such as bus systems and

bicycle facilities.

POPULATION GROWTH

When planning and implementing improvements to Utah’s

existing transportation system, the crucial issue of population

growth and resulting transportation needs must be addressed.

According to a 2012 report by the Governor’s Office of

Management and Budget (GOMB), Utah’s population is expected

to reach 4.5 million people by 2040, up from 2.7 million in 2010

(rural and metropolitan populations based on county population,

not actual MPO jurisdictional areas). While the majority of Utah’s

population growth will occur within the urban areas of the state,

population growth contributed by the rural areas is nonetheless

significant at just over 450,000. Over this same time period, the

proportion of urban to rural population remains constant at 86

percent to 14 percent respectively.

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


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


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


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.

http://www.udot.utah.gov/main/f?p=100:pg:0:::1:T,V:4368

Challenges


ADDITIONAL CHALLENGES FOR RURAL AREAS

Utah’s rural transportation needs differ from urban transportation

needs and have additional anticipated system influences. This

section reviews these differences and the potential drivers for travel

demand and network change in Utah. Future chapters address

how these needs are being met.

Freight

As discussed above, Utah plays a vital role in the national freight

network, and rural areas have the bulk of the freight network.

Although vital to the economy and lifeblood of both the nation

and the state, this presents challenges for the rural areas related to

the impact that trucks can have on the transportation system from

a maintenance and capacity perspective. These challenges are

especially apparent on rural main streets and recreational routes

across Utah.

Recreation

Utah is home to a diverse landscape including 5 national parks, 7

national monuments, 2 national recreation areas, 44 state parks,

and numerous recreational places in between including 15 ski

resorts. The access by local, state, national, and international

visitors adds a seasonal variation component to many of the

roadways across Utah.

Connecting Communities

Because of the dispersal of small communities over vast stretches

of land in rural Utah, the transportation system provides a vital

connection to small communities by connecting goods and

services, including emergency and medical services not available in

each small community.

Energy Development in the Uinta Basin

Despite recent drops in the cost of energy, long-term demand for energy is increasing. According to the World

Energy Outlook 2014 published by the International Energy Agency, global demand for oil is predicted to increase

by 37 percent by 2040 and demand for natural gas is likely to grow by 50 percent over the same period.

Oil, natural gas, and other nonconventional energy sources are plentiful in Utah but specifically in the Uinta Basin.

The continued demand for energy in the coming decades will drive further development of energy in the region.

With energy development comes the need for sufficient transportation facilities to support the extraction industry.

This includes not just freighting equipment and materials into the region and capacity to deliver energy out of the

region but also facilities to support the increased demand of the local growing population.

Challenges


Small Urban Development

Urban development consisting of housing, businesses, parks,

schools, and other built infrastructure is needed to support human

habitation spread across the landscape around the Utah’s

population centers. While the majority of urban development is

occurring in areas along the Wasatch Front and in Washington

County, other areas like Cedar City, Park City, Heber Valley, and

Tooele County are rapidly growing, too. The proximity to current

urban areas may be influencing this growth.

Urban development is an important consideration for long-range

transportation planning because as urban areas spread the

supporting transportation system must also grow. As new

roadways are needed to service new urban development, the

capacity of existing roadways must also expand. The future

transportation system should improve the connections and

carrying capacity from Utah’s existing population centers to the

rural areas of the state. Freight and transit needs to service these

areas should be considered when planning these connections.

FUTURE TRENDS AND INNOVATIONS IN TRANSPORTATION

Transportation demand is always evolving and presents a major challenge to long-range planning. It is imperative

that UDOT understands and accommodates future transportation demands. This is a challenging task: While some

factors affecting transportation demand may or may not follow predictable trends, the results of the trends that

seem to be predictable on transportation are not always obvious. For example, the populations of Utah’s urban

areas are predictably increasing, which would normally increase demand on roadways and public transportation.

However, technological advancements, such as automated vehicles and wirelessly connected vehicles, and new

transportation services, such as car sharing, may or may not increase the number of total vehicles on the road.

There are several emerging trends in the transportation sector that have potential to substantively impact the

nature of future travel. The technological advancements mentioned above, demand-responsive technologies, and

socioeconomic trends in millennial lifestyle and travel patterns are just a few examples. These could cause

“disruptive change” in the transportation sector, resulting in shifts that fundamentally alter previous patterns. As

such, they must be considered in any substantive, forward-thinking approach such as that envisioned in this LRP.

Although the effects of these emerging trends on transportation demands is unclear, it is UDOT’s intent to

anticipate any shifts that may fundamentally alter previous patterns and find methods to eliminate risk.

While the results of these trends are unclear, the method of analyzing them is well established (although rarely

used in the transportation planning context). Unlike conventional transportation models that rely on historical

trends and stated or revealed behavior to forecast future conditions, analytical processes for considering disruptive

change must use methods that employ expert opinion to support policy creation and risk analysis. For the Wasatch

Front Central Corridor Study, UDOT is using the WFRC/MAG and UDOT transportation models to understand

baseline trend behavior and forecast future demand, and other methods to analyze the impact of disruptive

changes to the transportation sector.

Challenges


As a part of these study efforts, UDOT is tracking the following

emerging trends that have potential to influence future

transportation demand on Utah’s highways.

Labor force participation rate – Jobs recovery brings return

of commuting and other travel.

Driving-age population – Postmillennials come of age, baby

boomers retire but remain active.

Vehicle ownership – Recent urban trend to living car free

and sharing cars, bikes, and rides.

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

teen driving.

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

discretionary driving.

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

reduce travel distances.

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

Emergent alternative travel options – Demand-response transit, car and bike sharing, and complete streets

shift choices from driving.

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

Telecommuting, teleconferencing – Increasingly realistic virtual presence further reduces in-person

meetings and commute travel.

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

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

travel patterns.

Goods and services home delivery – Same-day home delivery becomes widespread, increasing the vehicle

miles traveled associated with deliveries.

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

and entertainment.

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

Challenges


Autonomous cars (with driver aboard) – Self-driving cars reduce stress, give freedom to multitask, and

increase acceptance of longer travel times.

Driverless cars (operating unoccupied on public streets) – Unoccupied vehicles are in continuous circulation,

serving on-demand travel needs.

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

Role


5. ROLE OF LONG-RANGE PLAN IN LISTING

PROJECTS AND IDENTIFYING EVOLVING ISSUES

UDOT’s Long-Range Plan process analyzes Utah’s rural transportation needs over a 25-year planning horizon by

following a process guided by federal and state laws, UDOT’s strategic goals, Utah’s unique transportation needs,

and the local community. To accomplish this task, UDOT follows a process that begins by identifying goals and

objectives of the overall transportation system for the next 25 to 30 years. Next, a series of forward-looking

modeling tools are used to define future transportation needs with considerations of Utah’s unique characteristics

and challenges. UDOT then works with regional transportation planners and local officials to identify potential

projects that meet forecasted travel demands. Funding sources are identified to estimate total available budget.

Projects are prioritized based on need and funding constraints. Finally, performance management is used to assess

the success of projects relative to goals and objectives. Every 4 years the LRP process recommences, allowing UDOT

to adapt to the ever-changing and increasingly challenging needs of Utah.

As mentioned previously, UDOT has three strategic goals: Zero Crashes, Injuries, and Fatalities; Preserve

Infrastructure; and Optimize Mobility. All projects identified in the LRP are consistent with these goals to

encourage and promote safety and efficient management,

operation, and development of a cost-efficient transportation

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


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


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


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


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


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


http://uplan.maps.arcgis.com/apps/PublicGallery/index.html?appid=2d1250231f9e4ec184c983b62e0dcd33&group=9e6283b349a5446c95a63bbbc948e1e9

Focus


FREIGHT

As the “Freight Crossroads of the West,” Utah relies on an efficient

and complex freight transportation network. Utah’s freight

transportation system plays a critical role in fostering economic

vitality and competitiveness in regional and global markets. Trucks

move the majority of freight in Utah, but all modes of freight

transport are important. In 2015 UDOT completed its first Utah

State Rail Plan since 1996. Further, UDOT is developing the Utah

Freight Plan, its first ever freight plan (2015), to ensure that the

transportation system in Utah supports and enhances trade and

sustainable economic growth.

Freight is defined as any good, product, or raw material carried by a commercial means of transportation, which

includes highway, rail, pipeline, air, and water. The activities involved in the management of how and where

freight moves is defined as “logistics.” Logistics is becoming a significant challenge due to the growing need for

freight services resulting from increasing consumer demand in Utah and increasing congestion, as well as the

ability of transportation infrastructure to support such demand. In light of existing market forces, fuel prices, and

other factors that will affect the cost of moving goods, freight planning, and especially truck freight, is an

important component of the statewide and metropolitan planning process.

Freight Analysis Framework

The Freight Analysis Framework (FAF) consists of FHWA data compiled from multiple sources to outline freight

movements for all states. The data provides an estimate for the tonnage, value, and ton miles for a number of

factors, including origin, destination, mode, and commodities. UDOT has chosen to use value and weight by

transportation mode for forecasts. The data used to determine the past trends and forecasts for 2040 are given in

increments of 5 years from 1997 to 2012.

Note: All FAF data in this document referring to the value of freight is based on the 2007 constant of the US dollar

and is in millions of US dollars unless otherwise stated. All data referring to the weight of freight are in thousand

tons unless otherwise stated.

$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


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

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2008/ps1.cfm

Focus


Water

There is no freight moving on Utah waterways.

Air

There are two air cargo facilities located at the Salt Lake City

International Airport―one at the south end and one at the

northwest end. Sixteen cargo carriers handled more than 328

million pounds of air cargo and airmail in 2014. The main air

cargo carriers in Utah include FedEx, UPS, Delta, and Southwest.

Among the 46 public use airports in Utah, eight of them have air

cargo service.

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

http://www.slcairport.com/air-traffic-statistics.asp

http://www.slcairport.com/air-traffic-statistics.asp

Focus


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


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.


Focus


CURRENT AND FUTURE PLANNING STUDIES

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

reference.

REGION STUDY AREA 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


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


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.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAAahUKEwibkuP33-zGAhXJM4gKHUFqBQ0&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.udot.utah.gov%2Fmain%2Fuconowner.gf%3Fn%3D3497031346116062&ei=doGuVZv_N8nnoATB1JVo&usg=AFQjCNE9EapbAmldFj8v1TZr3rq2oqDV0g

Programs


Section 5329 Funds – State Safety Oversight Program

The Safety Oversight Program was authorized by MAP 21 for states with rail systems not already regulated by the

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), which is the agency responsible for the safety of freight rail systems and

Amtrak. These Section 5329 FTA funds are provided for UDOT to perform the State Safety Oversight Program for

fixed-guideway public transportation light rail systems and streetcars. In 2014 the Section 5329 funds provided to

UDOT amounted to $469,576.

Unfunded Transit Concepts in Development

Several transit concepts are under development as a part of the ongoing UTA Mountain Accord Study, of which

UDOT is a partner. These are currently outside of the MPO area and the UTA service area, but they are important

connections to and from the MPO area from the growing Wasatch Back. The unfunded concepts that are a part of

this plan are:

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

connection to Cottonwood Canyons,

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

connection to Cottonwood Canyons,

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

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

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

TRAFFIC OPERATIONS/HIGHWAY MODERNIZATION

The next two decades will see transformational changes in transportation brought about by technological

progress. Automakers are incrementally adding automated “smart” features and connectivity to vehicles―such as

adaptive cruise controls, lane change warnings, automated parallel parking, collision warning with automated

braking, and others―all of which will ultimately lead to fully autonomous vehicles. It has been said that the

coming change in vehicle automation will be as transformational as the conversion from horses to horsepower.

Automakers are also about to add vehicle connectivity, or

communication between vehicles, to enhance safety.

Transportation agencies are joining this revolution by adding

roadside communication infrastructure, thus creating the ability to

inform the driver, through the vehicle systems, about collision risk,

sharp curves, route conditions, and hazards, and manage traffic

operations through enhanced information provided by vehicles on

the road.

These advancements are concurrent with, and are fueling, changes

in vehicle ownership patterns, car-sharing technologies, the

evolution of electric vehicles, transit use, and the interface between transportation modes. Younger people appear

to be less interested in car ownership and more open to ride sharing, car sharing, bike sharing, and active

transportation. Wireless connectivity of everything provides the information to facilitate these uses. The way people

Programs


think about transportation and how they use it is changing, and

the result will be an entirely different landscape.

Today, drivers are provided information largely through three

mechanisms: fixed and dynamic signs along the roadways,

information from the web and on hand-held applications (which

the driver “pulls”), and by providing information to third-party

sources who provide information back to the driver over a variety

of media. In the near future, we will “push” information to the

driver through in-vehicle systems. In some cases this information

may be audible or visible; in other cases, vehicle manufacturers

may choose to give information to the driver in tactile ways (e.g.,

shaking a seat or vibrating a steering wheel) or by taking control of

automobile functions. This new approach will both generate and

require enormous amounts of data and will require a higher level

of accuracy and security than we now have, as messages must be

correct and reliable. This new transportation future portends a

different role for operations for agencies like UDOT.

Over the past two decades, UDOT has aggressively pursued

intelligent transportation systems (ITS), which is the use of

technology to assess traffic conditions, make traffic management decisions, and provide information to the drivers

to aid their decisions and influence behavior. It has been clearly demonstrated that this information can, in

essence, add capacity to Utah’s existing roadway network. Managing traffic demand and traffic flow using ITS

makes the system work more efficiently. Further, the assessment of traffic flow is much easier today because of

technology. Average speeds and travel times, congestion patterns, arrivals on green lights, queue lengths, and

many other measures are currently used to drive engineering decisions. The increased capabilities that will be

realized through advanced ITS systems, connected vehicles, and vehicle automation will accelerate this ability to

monitor, measure, and improve traffic conditions. UDOT is working to leverage these advancements.

While it is impossible to imagine the scope of future capabilities that technology will yield, a few initiatives that are

currently being pursued are given below.

Integrated Corridor Management/Freeway Control

These efforts consist of several elements to maximize the throughput of all modes of transportation in a given

corridor. Elements include managed motorways to avoid freeway capacity degradation, transit and park-and-ride

information for freeway and arterial users, integrated signal timing to support ramp metering, arterial travel time

measurement to improve traveler information, express lanes and travel demand management, and future

technologies as yet identified. A key element is the effort to coordinate these disparate elements so they reinforce

each other rather than cancel each other out.

The expected cost for this project is $150–250 million plus or minus. Costs include geometric improvements to

improve ramps for metering, automated park and ride parking occupancy measurements, additional variable

message signs (VMS), dedicated and specialized staff to manage and maintain the systems, etc.

Programs


Connected Vehicle Initiative

These efforts are broad initiatives to install communications infrastructure to support a variety of safety, mobility,

and environmental applications. In the near term, this infrastructure will be in limited corridors and will support

only a few applications, like smart transit signal priority, weather probe data collection, and truck platooning.

These applications use small, controllable fleets. As early as 2017, however, light vehicles may start coming with

standard vehicle-to-vehicle communication equipment. By about 2020 all new light vehicles are likely to be built

with such equipment. In preparation for this, and building on the success of limited applications in early phases of

the initiative, UDOT will deploy additional communication infrastructure and applications and cooperate with

automakers and other private-sector entities to advance this technology. It is expected that connected vehicle

technology will enable significant progress toward UDOT’s goal of zero fatalities and crashes.

The short term budget (0–5 years) is expected to be between $400 thousand to $6.5 million. The longer-term

budget will be at least an order of magnitude larger.

SAFETY/ZERO FATALITIES

While fatal crashes have trended downward in recent history, the future remains uncertain. Roadway safety

features, such as rumble strips and cable barriers, have become common on Utah highways. This development has

resulted by direct effort because the benefit of such features was clearly recognized. Additionally, advanced vehicle

safety features are developing at a rapid pace. However, some of these gains could be offset by increased driver

distraction, both from hand-held devices and features within vehicles themselves. Further on the horizon is the

potential for self-driving cars or connected vehicles. If proven reliable, this technology could drastically reduce

human error, one of the most significant factors in roadway crashes.

Funding

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

Federal Funding Sources

o Highway Safety Improvement Program ($21.2 million)

o Railway-Highway Grade Crossing Program ($1.6 million)

o Safe Routes to School ($1 million)

State Funding Sources

o Spot Safety Improvement Program ($2 million)

o New Traffic Signals ($7 million)

o Sign Modification and Replacement ($400 thousand)

o Small Area Lighting ($300 thousand)

Federal safety funds may be used for improvements on any public road in Utah, not just on the state-owned

roadways. The Traffic and Safety Division works to fully allocate each year’s funding on safety projects to

continually improve safety across Utah.

Programs


Future Funding

Historically, the Traffic and Safety Division has identified and funded projects primarily on the basis of finding spot

locations where history shows repeated fatal and serious-injury crashes. Improving safety by implementing this

method becomes more difficult each year as more and more problem spots are treated. Also, the randomized

nature of crashes means that, although crashes may share very similar attributes, they often do not naturally

aggregate themselves by location.

UDOT is increasingly turning to systemic safety analysis to identify future projects as a result of the aforementioned

considerations. Systemic analysis methods look at roadway and crash attributes to identify common conditions

across the state (as opposed to looking at spot aggregations of crashes) that lead to fatal and serious-injury

crashes. One benefit of this method is that it allows UDOT to systemically implement safety improvements at

locations before crashes occur.

Rumble strips are a good example of a systemic treatment implemented by UDOT. Many fatal and serious-injury

crashes occur in rural areas where motorists drive off roads because they are drowsy or distracted. UDOT

implements rumble strips systemically on these types of roads, whether or not crashes have already occurred,

because the safety concern is related to the type of condition present rather than any location-specific

considerations.

An additional example is cable barrier installation. The figure below shows the relationship between the decrease

in severe cross-median crashes and the total miles of median cable barrier installed. UDOT continues to install

median cable barrier where appropriate to prevent future crashes despite the dramatic decrease in cross-median

crashes that has already been observed.


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


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.


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


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


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

http://le.utah.gov/~2015/bills/static/HB0362.html

http://le.utah.gov/~2015/bills/static/HB0362.html

Programs


Goals and Measures

Performance measures for pavement and bridges are based on

measurable criteria that are unique to each asset type. These

criteria are summarized into categories of good, fair, and poor.

Pavement criteria is based on the International Roughness Index,

which is a measure of the surface roughness of the roadway to

quantify ride quality. Bridge performance is based on the Overall

Condition Index (OCI). The OCI value is based on the condition of

six components of each bridge: wearing surface, deck, girder, joint,

painting system on steel members, and substructure.

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


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)





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




Programs


$50 million per year is forecasted to gradually increase the condition of Level 2 pavements to almost 50 percent in

good condition by 2040. The increased investment of $50 million per year would require a new funding source to

avoid negative impacts to other UDOT assets.

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)





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


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


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


Collector

Rural

2 7,500 9,500

4 16,000 20,500

Small Urban



Localized LOS Analysis

More refined LOS analyses are performed after projects are identified for the LRP for further analysis and reported

in the project fact sheet. In addition, an in-depth LOS analysis is conducted as project enters the concept

development phase.

Recreational/Seasonal Fluctuation Analysis

Development of screening-level LOS volume thresholds for capacity analysis accounted for the typical seasonal

variation exhibited on rural Utah highways. However, a few select areas in rural Utah exhibit seasonal fluctuation

well beyond the statewide average. The abnormal seasonal fluctuation in these regions is usually due to tourism

travel patterns or winter road closures. These areas were assessed and factors considered when corridor capacity

needs were determined.

Forecasts

To produce the future volume forecasts used in 2015 LRP development, UDOT applied the Utah State Travel Model

(USTM ) version 1.3. The USTM is a behaviorally based, travel-demand forecasting tool that predicts travel based

on the location of jobs, housing, and transportation infrastructure. Version 1.3 included the following updates:

more refined Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ);

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

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

The USTM version 1.3 also included a robust update to socioeconomic projections for the rural counties in Utah.

The following sequence summarizes the process followed to develop new socioeconomic data sets:

Programs


1. The updated jobs and housing data used the updated

TAZ system developed for USTM 1.3. The updated TAZ

included a much finer geographic resolution from the

previous USTM version and provides a better 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


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

o 2024–2024 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



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



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


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


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


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%



2016–2018:


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%



100.00%

2016–2018:


After reviewing various historic growth rates 1978–2013, a

conservative estimate of 5% that matches UTA’s rate is

recommended

Plan


METROPOLITAN ORGANIZATION REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS

Highway

Quarter

Cent Sales

Tax (County

Revenues)a

Salt Lake County: 5.00%

Davis County: 5.00%

Weber County: 5.00%

Utah County: 5.50%

Cache County: none

Washington County: 1.96%

Salt Lake County: 4.28%

Davis County: 5.47%

Weber County: 4.17%

Utah County: 5.96%

Cache County: 5.05%

Washington County: 5.96%

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


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


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


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)


direction 38.0m

8 1 Weber 2 Widening SR-158, MP 0 to MP 3.8, Pineview Dam to

Eden


direction 24.5m

9 1 Box Elder/

Cache 2 Widening

SR-30 MP 95.1 to MP 102.3, SR-38 to SR-

23


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


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)


direction 31.5m


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


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


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)


direction 500m

http://uplan.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Viewer/index.html?appid=8465e972c4ae42e18cc775149f79edcf

Plan


Line &

Map #

UDOT

Region County

Fiscally

Constrained

Phase a

Improvement


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)


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


direction 44.7m

22 1 Box Elder 4 Widening I-15 Widen from MP 372.6 to MP 379.5,

Honeyville to Tremonton


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


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


direction 10.0m

28 2 Tooele 1 Widening SR-36 MP 55.7 to MP 57.3, SR-112 to

2400 N


direction 11.1m

29 2 Tooele 1 Widening SR-36 MP 62.9 to MP 65.8, from SR-138 to

I-80


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


direction 26.3m

37 2 Tooele 2 Widening SR-36 MP 53.6 to MP 55.7, Skyline Dr. to

SR-112


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


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


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


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


61.7m

50 2 Summit 4 Widening SR-32 Widen MP 10.4 to MP 16.8, SR-35 to New Lane (Oakley)


30.1m

51 2 Tooele 4 Widening SR-138 Widen MP 15.3 to MP 20.4, from Sheep Lane to SR-36


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


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


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


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


5.5m

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


4.9m

68 3 Utah 2 and 3 Widening US-6 MP 189.3 to MP 194.0, Red Narrows to Billies Mt.


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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


Line &

Map #

UDOT

Region County

Fiscally

Constrained

Phase a

Improvement


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


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


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


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


Line &

Map #

UDOT

Region County

Fiscally

Constrained

Phase a

Improvement


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




109 3 Wasatch 4 Passing Lane US-40 Widen WB from MP 51.3 to MP




110 3 Duchesne 4 Passing Lane US-40 Widen EB from MP 65.2 to MP 68.2,

part of 2+1 facility















114 3 Wasatch/

Duchesne 4 Passing Lane

US-40 Widen EB from MP 58.3 to MP 59.4,




115 3 Duchesne 4 Passing Lane US-40 Widen EB from MP 60.5 to MP 62.0,




116 3 Duchesne 4 Passing Lane US-40 Widen EB lanes from MP 80.8 to MP




117 3 Wasatch 4 Widening US-40 Widen MP 46.0 to MP 51.3 Construct 5 lane section as


118 3 Duchesne 4 Widening US-40 MP 59.4 to MP 60.5, part of 2+1

facility



119 3 Duchesne 4 Widening US-40 MP 68.2 to MP 70.4, part of 2+1

facility



120 3 Duchesne 4 Widening SR-121 Widen from 1 lane to 2 lanes MP

0.0 to MP 0.6


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


direction 13.0m

123 3 Uintah 4 Widening US-191 Widen MP 352.6 to MP 354.1 Construct four lane facility


124 3 Duchesne 4 Widening US-40 Widen MP 88.0 to MP 103.0 Construct four lane facility


125 3 Uintah 4 Widening US-191 Widen MP 371.1 to MP 373.4 Construct four lane facility



Improvement

US-40, SR-88 Intersection, Signalize US-

40/SR-88 intersection Signalize intersection 4.0m


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


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


Line &

Map #

UDOT

Region County

Fiscally

Constrained

Phase a

Improvement


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


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



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


direction 8.0m

145 4 Carbon 1 Widening SR-10 MP 66.16 to MP66.75, 2000 South

to 2500 South in Price


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


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


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


Line &

Map #

UDOT

Region County

Fiscally

Constrained

Phase a

Improvement


2015

Cost

153 4 San Juan 1 Passing Lane US-191 Widen SB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes


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



2 lanes 2.4m




2 lanes 4.7m

156 4 San Juan 1 Passing Lane US-191 Widen NB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes



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


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



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.)


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



165 4 Washington 1 Passing Lane SR-59 Widen travel lane in each direction


Widen travel lane in each

direction 5.2m




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



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


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


2 lanes 0.7m

175 4 Kane 1 Passing Lane US-89 Widen NB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes



2 lanes 9.4m




2 lanes 7.1m

Plan


Line &

Map #

UDOT

Region County

Fiscally

Constrained

Phase a

Improvement


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






direction 3.5m




direction 2.1m


73.0 to MP 73.9


2 lanes 2.1m


74.4 to MP 74.9


2 lanes 1.2m






2 lanes 2.4m

185 4 Kane 1 Passing Lane US-89 Widen SB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes



2 lanes 2.4m



187 4 Garfield 1 Passing Lane US-89 Widen SB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes



2 lanes 1.6m

188 4 Sanpete 1 Passing Lane US-89 Widen NB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes



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




2 lanes 1.2m

191 4 Sanpete 1 Passing Lane US-89 Widen SB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes



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



2 lanes 2.4m


from MP 252.0 to MP 252.40


2 lanes 0.9m




2 lanes 1.4m

197 4 Garfield 1 Passing Lane US-89 Widen SB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes



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


lanes

5.0m




2 lanes 3.8m

Plan


Line &

Map #

UDOT

Region County

Fiscally

Constrained

Phase a

Improvement


2015

Cost




2 lanes 5.9m




2 lanes 2.4m

203 4 Piute 2 Passing Lane US-89 Widen SB from 1 lanes to 2 lanes



2 lanes 2.4m

204 4 Washington 2 Passing Lane SR-9 Widen WB from 1 lane to 2 lanes



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


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


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


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


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)


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


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


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



bridges

102.4m


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


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


Line &

Map #

UDOT

Region County

Fiscally

Constrained

Phase a

Improvement


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


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


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



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


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


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


APPENDIX A. PROJECT FACT SHEETS

AND PEL REPORTS

APPENDIX B. RURAL PLANNING ORGANIZATION

PLANS

2015 - 2040 long-range transportation plan

Documents