DOCSLIB.ORG

UTAH INTERSECTION SAFETY Recurrent Crash Sites: Identification, Issues and Factors

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
UTAH INTERSECTION SAFETY Recurrent Crash Sites: Identification, Issues and Factors UTAH INTERSECTION SAFETY Recurrent Crash Sites: Identification, Issues and Factors Wayne D. Cottrell, Ph.D., P.E. Sichun Mu, M.S. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering University of Utah 122 S. Central Campus Drive Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 December 2005 Disclaimer The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation, University Transportation Centers Program, in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. ABSTRACT A study of collisions occurring at intersections along state routes in Utah was conducted. The number of crashes, the crash severity score and, for selected locations, the crash rate were determined and “ranked” for intersections within the Utah Department of Transportation’s Region 1, Region 2, Region 3, Region 4’s three districts, and the entire state. Study periods of ten years (1994-2003) and three years (2001- 2003) were used. The Crash Data Delivery System (CDDS) was used to identify intersections, determine crash frequencies and severities, and find other collision-related statistics. The intersection of Bangerter Highway and 5400 South in Taylorsville experienced the largest number of crashes between 1994 and 2003 (949) and between 2001 and 2003 (296). The intersection of 700 East and 3300 South in South Salt Lake had the state’s highest crash severity score between 1994 and 2003 (9,524.8); the score assigns 1,000 points to a fatal crash, 100 points to an incapacitating injury crash, and so forth. This intersection also witnessed the largest number of fatal crashes between 1994 and 2003 (5). The intersection of 31st and Wall Avenue in Ogden had the highest severity score between 2001 and 2003 (3,394.5). The intersection of Main Street and 800 East in Hyrum had the highest crash rate among intersections between two state routes, at 4.54 per million entering vehicles, based on 2001-2003 data. University Avenue and 900 North in Provo experienced the greatest number of crashes among non-signalized intersections between 1994 and 2003 (623), while Riverdale Road and Pacific Avenue in Riverdale had the highest number between 2001 and 2003 (156). The intersection of U.S. 89 and an unnamed road in Sanpete County, at milepoint 216.54, had the highest severity scores among non-signalized intersections for both the ten- and three- year study periods. Detailed examinations of individual crash sites were not performed in this study, although the report contains some general recommendations. For example, signalization may be a mitigating strategy at certain non-signalized intersections. Red light cameras, pedestrian facilities, bicycling facilities, and the removal of on-street parking are among the numerous interventions that could be considered for reducing and “calming” crashes. Additional analysis should investigate collision types by crash severity at a variety of intersections, crash rates at intersections between state and non-state routes, and variable functional influence areas. The research team considered the CDDS to be a useful tool, and encourage its continued development, including the customization of certain database search procedures. i ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Research Overview..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Research Goals and Objectives .......................................................................................... 1 1.2 Research Scope, Approach and Limitations....................................................................... 1 1.3 Crash Data Delivery System............................................................................................... 2 1.4 Definition of an Intersection............................................................................................... 2 1.5 Identification of Hazardous Intersections........................................................................... 3 1.6 Intersection Crash Contributing Factors............................................................................. 4 2. Utah Intersection Safety Overview ........................................................................................... 7 2.1 General Discussion............................................................................................................. 7 2.2 Statewide Intersection Crash Statistics............................................................................... 7 2.3 Fatal Crashes..................................................................................................................... 10 2.4 Intersection Crash Rates ................................................................................................... 11 3. Intersection Crash Statistics by UDOT Region ..................................................................... 21 3.1 Region 1............................................................................................................................ 22 3.2 Region 2............................................................................................................................ 23 3.3 Region 3............................................................................................................................ 24 3.4 Region 4 – Cedar City District ......................................................................................... 25 3.5 Region 4 – Price District................................................................................................... 26 3.6 Region 4 – Richfield District............................................................................................ 27 3.7 Discussion......................................................................................................................... 27 4. Non-Signalized Intersections ................................................................................................... 53 5. Discussion of Intersection Safety Issues ................................................................................. 59 6. Study Intersections................................................................................................................... 61 6.1 Crash Types ...................................................................................................................... 61 6.2 Crash Severities ................................................................................................................ 61 6.3 Direction of Travel ........................................................................................................... 63 6.4 Crash Rates....................................................................................................................... 63 6.5 Collision Types................................................................................................................. 64 6.6 Functional Radius of Influence......................................................................................... 64 7. Usage of the Crash Data Delivery System.............................................................................. 79 7.1 Ranking Intersections by Total Number of Crashes......................................................... 79 7.2 Ranking Intersections by Crash Severity Scores .............................................................. 81 7.3 Locating Intersections with Fatal Crashes........................................................................ 83 7.4 Crash Rates....................................................................................................................... 84 7.5 Non-Signalized Intersections............................................................................................ 84 7.6 Collision Statistics ............................................................................................................ 85 8. References ................................................................................................................................. 87 iii LIST OF TABLES 1.1 Intersection Functional Areas (Distances) ....................................................................................... 3 2.1 Utah Geographical Regions ............................................................................................................. 7 2.2 50 Utah Intersections with a Large Number of Crashes: 1994-2003............................................. 12 2.3 50 Utah Intersections with a Large Number of Crashes: 2001-2003............................................. 13 2.4 50 Utah Intersections with High Crash Severity Scores: 1994-2003............................................. 14 2.5 50 Utah Intersections with High Crash Severity Scores: 2001-2003............................................. 16 2.6 32 Utah Intersections with > 2 Fatal Crashes 1994-2003 & > 1 Fatal Crash 2001-2003 .............. 18 2.7 29 Utah State Route Intersections with Crash Rates > 2: 2001-2003 Data ................................... 19 3.1 UDOT Region 1: 25 Intersections with a Large Number of Crashes: 1994-2003......................... 28 3.2 UDOT Region 1: 25 Intersections with a Large Number of Crashes: 2001-2003......................... 29 3.3 UDOT Region 1: 25 Intersections with High Crash Severity Scores: 1994-2003......................... 30 3.4 UDOT Region 1: 25 Intersections with High
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2018-2023 TIP Project Table Listing
    2018 – 202 3 Tra nspo rtation Improvement Program (TIP) TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP) 2018-2023 PR OJECTS For the WASATCH FRONT REGIONAL COUNCIL (WFRC) AREA Including a separate listing of the following programs Urban Surface Transportation Program (STP), Congestion Mitigation/ Air Quality Program (CMAQ), Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) Other Federal Highway Federal Transit Administration Funds State Funds Administration Funds National Highway Performance Sec. 5303 – MPO & Statewide Planning Interstate Maintenance (IM) Sec. 5307 – Urbanized Area Formula National Highway System (NHS) Bridge On State System State Construction Sec. 5309 – Capital Investment Program Bridge Replace ment Off Centenn ial Highway Funds – New Starts System – Local Critical Highway Need Funds Sec. 5309 – Capital Investment Program Off System – Op ti on al Highway Cons tructi on - – Bus Minimum Guarantee Program Sec. 5309 – Capital Investment –Fixed Highway Safety Improvement State General Funds Guide-way Modernization Safety Any Area State Traffic Corr idor - Sect. 5310 – Elderly Persons and Rail/ Highway Crossing – Preservati on Persons with Disabilities Hazard Elimination Transportation Inv estment Sec. 5320 – Transit in Parks Program Rec reati on al Trail s Program - Fund (TIF) Safe Routes to Schoo l STP - Any Area Statewide Sec. 5337 – State of Good Repair TIGER Discretionary Funds Other Federal Funds Sec. 5339 – Buses and Bus Facilities Section includes; • Glossary of Federal Funding Types • Projects included in the 2018-2023 Transportation
    [Show full text]
  • Utah's 2011-2040 Unified Transportation Plan
    2011 - 2040 udot.utah.gov 131949.indd 1 7/31/13 2:23 PM UTah’S UNifieD PLaN ParTNerS CaChe MPO 179 North Main, Suite 305 Logan, UT 84321 (435) 716-7154 www.cachempo.org Dixie MPO 1070 West 1600 South, Bldg. B St. George, UT 84770 (435) 673-3548 www.dixiempo.org MOUNTaiNLaND aSSOCiaTiON Of GOverNMeNTS 586 east 800 North Orem, UT 84097 (801) 229-3800 www.mountainland.org UTah DeParTMeNT Of TraNSPOrTaTiON Systems Planning and Programming 4501 South 2700 West – Box 143600 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 (801) 965-4129 www.udot.utah.gov UTah TraNSiT aUThOriTy 669 West 200 South Salt Lake City, UT 84101 (801) 262-5626 www.rideuta.com WaSaTCh frONT reGiONaL COUNCiL 295 North Jimmy Doolittle road Salt Lake City, UT 84116 (801) 363-4250 www.wfrc.org 131949.indd 2 7/31/13 2:23 PM TaBLe Of CONTeNTS introduction 2 - Letter from the Chairs of the Utah Transportation Commission and Utah’s Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) - Letter from the Directors of the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and Utah’s MPOs - Purpose of Unified Transportation Planning UDOT’s Long range Plan 8 Utah MPO Long range Plans 12 - Wasatch Choices 2040 (Weber, Davis, Salt Lake and Utah Counties) - envision Cache valley (Cache County) - vision Dixie (Washington County) Utah’s Population Growth Challenge 16 Utah’s Project Planning & funding Process 20 - Project Development Process - Utah’s Transportation Needs and Preferences - financial Plan and assumptions - Continuous, Cooperative and Comprehensive Planning highway Projects by region 34 regionally important Transportation Projects 34 Utah highway Projects Map 35 highway Projects Phase One (2011-2020) 36- 41 highway Projects Phase Two (2021-2030) 42-46 highway Projects Phase Three (2031-2040) 47-50 highway Projects Unfunded 51 -52 Cache valley highway Projects Map 53 Wasatch front Ogden/Layton area highway Projects Map 54 Wasatch front Salt Lake valley highway Projects Map 55 Utah valley area highway Projects Map 56 Dixie area highway Projects Map 57 Transit Projects by region 58 Transit Projects Phase One (2011-2020) 59.
    [Show full text]
  • June 8, 2017 to Members of Trans
    June 8, 2017 To Members of Trans Com and Other Interested Persons: A meeting of Trans Com will be held on Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 2:00 p.m. at the Wasatch Front Regional Council offices located at 295 North Jimmy Doolittle Road in Salt Lake City. The agenda will be as follows: 1. ACTION on minutes of April 20, 2017 meeting 2. Opportunity for public comment 3. Transportation Improvement Program a. Board Modifications to the 2017-2022 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) b. ACTION: Board Modifications to the 2017-2022 TIP c. ACTION: Release of Draft 2018-2023 TIP and Air Quality Conformity Analysis for Public Comment 4. Utah Transit Authority State of Good Repair Priority 5. Active Transportation Plan Standards 6. Traffic Signal Performance Metrics 7. Other business Sincerely, Mayor Karen Cronin Chair Note: Informational materials can be located on WFRC’s website at www.wfrc.org Public participation is solicited without regard to age, sex, disability, race, color or national origin. Persons who require translation for a meeting should contact the WFRC’s Title VI Administrator at 801-363-4250 or [email protected] at least 72 hours in advance. Se solicita la participación del público, sin importar la edad , el sexo , la discapacidad, la raza, color o nacionalidad. Personas que requieren servicios de traducción deben contactar a WFRC’s Administrador de Titulo VI al teléfono 801-363-4250 o [email protected] por lo menos 72 horas antes de la reunión. Trans Com April 20, 2017 Page 1 DRAFT TRANSPORTATION COORDINATING COMMITTEE (Trans Com) Minutes Meeting of April 20, 2017 Mayor Karen Cronin, Chair, called Trans Com to order at 2:01 p.m.
    [Show full text]
  • OPPORTUNITY ZONE - INLAND PORT Foxboro Davis County North North Salt Lake County Salt INDUSTRIAL LAND 16-140 ACRES | SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH Lake AB67
    Valentine Estates Cottage Homes AB93 OPPORTUNITY ZONE - INLAND PORT Foxboro Davis County North North Salt Lake County Salt INDUSTRIAL LAND 16-140 ACRES | SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH Lake AB67 Mystical LOCATION North of I-80 (exit S River 7200 W), west of Airport SIZE 140 Acres Davis CountyPRICE Salt Lake County $6 per square foot Wasatch Parcel A: 22.54 ac. = $5,891,760.07National G r e a t Parcel B: 16.57 ac. = $4,331,179.51Forest S a l t Parcel C: 33.40 ac. = $8,730,887.58 L a k e Subject Parcel D: $5 per square foot 75.98 LDS Store Storehouse CAPITAL ac.= $16,548,44 Easton Distribution Center AB68 ZONE Industrial SLC Port Salt Lake City Global Logistics International Center, a 7.5 Million Airport Square Foot Development 268 186 Utah School and AB AB Institutional Trust Lands Administration ¨¦§15 ¨¦§80 ¨¦§215 Salt Lake City AB269 AB154 AB270 State St State Lee Kay State Wildlife Center ¤¡89 AB71 South AB201 Salt ¨¦§80 Lake AB172 AB111 Zachary Hartman | [email protected] 6443 North Business Park Loop Road, Suite 12, Park City, Utah 84098 ph. 801.573.9181 | www.landadvisors.com The information contained herein is from sources deemed reliable. We have no reason to doubt its accuracy but do not guarantee it. It is the responsibility of the person reviewing this information to independently verify it. This package is subject to change, prior sale or complete withdrawal. UTSaltLake192642 - 12.19.19 PROPERTY DETAIL MAP Zachary Hartman | 801.573.9181 | www.landadvisors.com Parcel D 75.98 acres Parcel A 22.54 acres 1700 N New State Prison Under Construction Parcel B 16.57 SLC Road acres 8000W 1400 N Parcel C 33.40 acres HaulRoad 7200W 7600W UDOTRoad 1200 N Legend Future Roads K 0 500 1,000 8400W Feet 192642-33764 02-13-19 While Land Advisors Organization® makes every effort to provide accurate and complete information, there is no warranty, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy, reliability or completeness of furnished data.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Utah Bicycle Master Plan
    2011 University of Utah Bicycle Master Plan PREPARED BY: Alta Planning + Design and Psomas PREPARED FOR: University of Utah Facilities Department Cory Higgins Director for Plant Operations John McNary Director for Campus Design & Construction Michael G. Perez Associate Vice President for Facilities Management Gordon Wilson Assistant Vice President for Auxiliary Services Alma Allred Director for Commuter Services Tami Cleveland Project Manager - Campus Planner Joseph Harman Campus Design & Construction Manager Chad Larsen Commuter Services Bicycle Manager Ray Wheeler Assoc. Director for Space Planning and Management Myron Willson Director for Office of Sustainability Robert Miles Utah Department of Transportation - Region 2 Tom Millar Mayor's Bicycle Advisory Committee Chad Mullins Salt Lake County Bicycle Advisory Committee Lisa Pascadlo - Detective Salt Lake City Police - Bicycle Liaison Becka Roolf Salt Lake City Transportation Julianne Sabula UTA - Engineering and Construction Planner Lynette Seebohm University of Utah Health Care - Asst. V.P. Garth Smith University of Utah Police Department Steve Panish University of Utah Health Sciences – Asst. V.P. Charles Evans Director for Research Park This Page Intentionally Left Blank 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 2 Goals & Objectives........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • BRIGHAM CITY TRANSIT CORRIDOR STUDY Prepared for the Utah Transit Authority and Brigham City Corporation
    BRIGHAM CITY TRANSIT CORRIDOR STUDY Prepared for the Utah Transit Authority and Brigham City Corporation Final Report November 2007. Project Number 060158 Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................1 Introduction.................................................................................................1 Process ......................................................................................................1 Study Area Characteristics .........................................................................2 Purpose and Need......................................................................................4 Corridor Analysis ........................................................................................4 Modal Analysis ...........................................................................................6 Station Planning .........................................................................................7 Recommendations......................................................................................8 Chapter One: Process........................................................................1 Committees ................................................................................................2 Management Group ............................................................................................... 2 Study Team...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 1995 Statewide Long Range Transportation Plan
    Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository) Depository) 1995 1995 Statewide Long Range Transportation Plan UDOT Program Development Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs Part of the Environmental Indicators and Impact Assessment Commons Recommended Citation UDOT Program Development, "1995 Statewide Long Range Transportation Plan" (1995). All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository). Paper 477. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/477 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository) at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All U.S. Government Documents (Utah Regional Depository) by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ..- .——. ‘c c c c c c 1995 c c Statewidelong Range c c TransportationPlan c c Preparedfor Me Stateof Utah c, c c c c c c c “c c c ‘c c’ c“ c c’ c ~;. c, c“ Q c c c c ~c @ L c c. ~, .< 1995 Statewidelong Range TransportationPlan Prepared for the Sfafe of Utah by UDOTProgram Deve/optnent Table of Contents MISSION STATEMENT AND STRATEGIC GOALS . .1 EARLY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION . ...1 UDOT MISSION STATEMENT 3 INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATlOti &TtiTE&”GoA~s ~~~” - ““-- “- ““ STRATEGIES 3 STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION PUNNING PROCESS” :::::::::::::7 HIGHWAY TRANSPORTATION PLANNING . .9 TRANSIT PLANNING . ...9 AVIATION PIANNING . ...10 RAIL PLANNING. 11 SUMMARY OF STIPPROCESS ””::::::: :::: :::: :::: :::: :::: ::: :12 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT . ...12 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT FOR1995 . ...13 THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IN UTAH .= . ...15 HIGHWAYS 17 URBAN AND SMALL URBAN”ROUTES”:: :::: :::: :::: :::: :::: ::17 RURAL ROUTES .
    [Show full text]
  • Board of Trustees of the Utah Transit Authority
    Regular Meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Utah Transit Authority Wednesday, October 21, 2020, 9:00 a.m. Remote Electronic Meeting – No Anchor Location – Live-Stream at https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=utaride NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING CIRCUMSTANCES DUE TO COVID-19 PANDEMIC: In keeping with recommendations of Federal, State, and Local authorities to limit public gatherings in order to control the continuing spread of COVID-19, and in accordance with the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act, specifically Utah Code § 52-4-207(4), the UTA Board of Trustees will make the following adjustments to our normal meeting procedures. • All members of the Board of Trustees and meeting presenters will participate electronically via phone or video conference. • Public Comment will not be taken during the meeting but may be submitted through the means listed below. Comments submitted before 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 20th, will be distributed to board members prior to the meeting: o online at https://www.rideuta.com/Board-of-Trustees o via email at [email protected] o by telephone at 801-743-3882 option 5 (801-RideUTA option 5) – specify that your comment is for the board meeting. • Meeting proceedings may be viewed remotely through YouTube live-streaming. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=utaride 1. Call to Order and Opening Remarks Chair Carlton Christensen 2. Safety First Minute Sheldon Shaw 3. Consent Chair Carlton Christensen a. Approval of October 7, 2020 Board Meeting Minutes 4. Agency Report Carolyn Gonot 5. Approval of UTA Policy 02.03 - Fares Monica Morton 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Improvement Program
    Transportation Improvement Program 1 The TIP 2 Transportation Improvement Program is . 1. Six Year Program of Highway & Transit • Four Years Funded - Two Years Concept 2. In the Urban Areas • Salt Lake/ West Valley - Ogden/ Layton 3. Funded by • Federal, State, & Local Programs 4. For All Cities, Counties, UDOT & UTA 3 Transportation Improvement Program will . 1. Implement the Long Range Plans • Highway, Transit, & Active Transportation Projects for the Region 2. Help Meet the Short Range Needs • Of the Wasatch Front Area 3. Provide for the Maintenance • Of the Existing Transportation System 4 Transportation Improvement Program’s Dynamics . 1. Periodic Modifications due to • Project Timing & Funding Amounts 2. Modifications Require Board Action • WFRC or Trans Com as Delegated 3. Updated Annually with • New Projects/ Funding Strategies 5 Transportation Improvement Program - Today . 6a. Report on Approved Board Modification • Trans Com – April 19, 2018 6b. Approve New Board Modification • To the 2018-2023 TIP 6c. Review New Projects • To Be Included in the Draft Programs • STP, CMAQ, and TAP • for the Draft 2019-2024 TIP 6 6a - 2018-2023 TIP Board Modification Report on Trans Com Meeting April 19, 2018 7 2018-2023 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) (Amendment Six) Board Modification Project Scope Change Salt Lake/ West Valley Urban Area Currently Project County Sponsor Facility PIN Project Location Concept/ Type of Improvement Funding Source Funded Action Funding Amount Year Estimated Cost Amount - Original Scope - Construct Additional Bike Docking Stations and Purchase TAP_URB_WFRC No Funding Salt Lake Salt Lake City Var 13631 Bike Share Expansion Additional Bikes (Transportation Alternatives Program - $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 2018 - Scope Change to include the Purchase (WFRC)) Increase of a Re-balancing Vehicle 0 This request is to enable SLC Bike Share to use some of the TAP funds to purchase a rebalancing vehicle in additon to the construction of the new bike stations and the purchasing of additional bicycles.
    [Show full text]
  • Brief of Appellant Utah Court of Appeals
    Brigham Young University Law School BYU Law Digital Commons Utah Court of Appeals Briefs 2010 B.A.M. Development, L.L.C. v. Salt Lake County : Brief of Appellant Utah Court of Appeals Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_ca3 Part of the Law Commons Original Brief Submitted to the Utah Court of Appeals; digitized by the Howard W. Hunter Law Library, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah; machine-generated OCR, may contain errors. Donald H. Hansen; Deputy Salt Lake County District Attorney; Attorney for Appellee. Stephen G. Homer; Attorney for Appellant. Recommended Citation Brief of Appellant, B.A.M. Development v. Salt Lake County, No. 20100923 (Utah Court of Appeals, 2010). https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/byu_ca3/2602 This Brief of Appellant is brought to you for free and open access by BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Utah Court of Appeals Briefs by an authorized administrator of BYU Law Digital Commons. Policies regarding these Utah briefs are available at http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/utah_court_briefs/policies.html. Please contact the Repository Manager at [email protected] with questions or feedback. IN THE UTAH SUPREME COURT B.A.M. DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C., a Utah limited liability company, Plaintiff-Appellant vs SALT LAKE COUNTY, a body politic and a political subdivision of the State of Utah, ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED Defendant-Appellee Docket No. 20100923SC APPELLANT'S BRIEF ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR SALT LAKE COUNTY The Honorable Kate A Toomey, District Judge STEPHEN G HOMER Attorney at Law 2877 West 9150 South West Jordan, Utah 84088 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellant B.A.M.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4 Designation of State Highways Act Part 1 State Highways
    Utah Code Chapter 4 Designation of State Highways Act Part 1 State Highways 72-4-101 Title. This chapter is known as the "Designation of State Highways Act." Enacted by Chapter 270, 1998 General Session 72-4-102 Additions to or deletions from state highway system -- Designation of highways as state highways between sessions. (1) (a) The Legislature may add to or delete highways or sections of highways from the state highway system. (b) The department shall annually submit to the Legislature a list of highways or sections of highways the commission recommends for addition to or deletion from the state highway system. (c) All recommendations under Subsection (1)(b) shall be based on: (i) the criteria for state highways under Section 72-4-102.5; (ii) funding and operational considerations identified under Subsection (3); (iii) efficiency of highway operations and maintenance; and (iv) other factors the commission determines are appropriate, in consultation with the department and the highway authorities involved in the transfer. (2) Between general sessions of the Legislature, highways may be designated as state highways or deleted from the state highway system if: (a) approved by the commission in accordance with: (i) the criteria for state highways under Section 72-4-102.5; (ii) funding and operational considerations identified under Subsection (3); (iii) efficiency of highway operations and maintenance; and (iv) other factors the commission determines are appropriate, in consultation with the department and the highway authorities involved in the transfer; (b) a deletion is agreed upon by all highway authorities involved in the transfer; and (c) the highways are included in the list of recommendations submitted to the Legislature in the next year for legislative approval or disapproval.
    [Show full text]
  • Salt Lake-West Valley Project List
    Projects to Be Evaluated for the 2020-2025 STP and CMAQ Funds and the 2021 TAP Programs Funding Region County City Agency Project Name From Street To Street Project Improvement Description Tot Cost Fed Fund Type The project will upgrade approximately 50 of the highest ridership bus stop locations in need of improvement Utah Transit 2 Salt Lake Multi CMAQ Bus Stop Improvements NA NA Transit Capital throughout the Salt Lake Valley at an average of $22k per stop. The project may include concrete ADA landings, $ 1,072,617 $ 1,000,000 Authority shelter pads, shelters, benches, right of way and other amenities as warranted. Bike share provides commuters options to link local destinations with regional transit via bicycle. GREENbike Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Bike Share 2 Salt Lake Salt Lake City CMAQ Salt Lake City Salt Lake City Other CMAQ reduces carbon emissions and vehicle miles traveled by providing alternatives to short car trips. In 2016, $ 643,570 $ 600,000 Corporation (GREENbike) Expansion GREENbike users removed nearly 741,000 lbs of CO2 from the airshed by biking instead of driving. Salt Lake City's recently adopted Transit Master Plan calls for increased service and related capital improvements. The city council has also allocated funding to support that service. Much of the service will have lines ending in Utah Transit 2 Salt Lake Salt Lake City CMAQ SLC West Intermodal North Temple Redwood Road Transit Capital the Redwood Road and North Temple area. To facilitate these connections between bus routes as well as $ 4,200,300 $ 3,915,940 Authority connections to the TRAX Green Line, an intermodal center/bus hub is needed.
    [Show full text]