Talk:List of state highways in Utah/Archive 1

Name Change

Propose we change the names of the highways FROM:

• Utah State Highway

TO:

• Utah SR

OR:

• Utah State Routes

The State of Utah Department of Transportation calls them "SR" (for state routes).

http://www.le.state.ut.us/~code/TITLE72/72_04.htm

Thoughts?

WikiDon 23:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd say Utah SR (with no dash). That's only because it's what is in the state law. However, I'd much rather prefer Utah State Route. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

How about State Route X (Utah)? The name of the road is State Route X, not Utah State Route X. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions/Numbered highways. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's [manual of style], all articles about state highways in Utah should be titled Utah State Route XXX. We are currently not using this convention. Should we change over to the approved convention, or should we leave our state routes as they are? VBlack 21:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

New Shield

I've been working on a SVG for the shield of utah. There is a complelete lack of images for utah shields out there, so i've been basically trying to make a high quality shield out of a extremey low quality gif. How is this?

This is only preliminary; but i will try to fix the spacing between the shapes tomorrow. atanamir 11:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks good :) Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 20:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Though might I suggest uploading it to the Wikimedia commons: Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 21:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll put them onto the commons once it was approved by you guys =P. Do you happen to have a picutr eof the 3 digit shields? Are they the same with a smaller font? atanamir 04:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[1] [2] Admrb♉ltz ( T | I | E ) 05:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hm, is there a difference in the shape between 2D and 3Digit ones? More humps on the beehive? Or is it the same? atanamir 05:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like 2 more humps Admrb♉ltz ( T | I | E ) 05:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, though you may want to make the two sides the same (assuming shields are actually symmetrical). Here are some photos that may help: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 01:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hm, from that it seems that both 2Digit and 3Dgiit shields use the same design? atanamir 02:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably - the photos Admrboltz posted are from a guide sign, which often use different shields. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 02:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

vs I tried to even stuff out on the left one. Does it look better? atanamir 03:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

for 3 digit? Testing thumbnail:

Competing entry

• 
• 
• 

Any comments? Which one do you prefer? --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 03:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Your's (spui) look more realistic, with that lil white space on the bottom part. Admrb♉ltz ( T | I | E ) 03:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I didnt' see the gashes on the bottom stand thing. I like yours better. They're a lot more symmetrical than mine. haha atanamir 03:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

commons:Category:Utah State Route shields - done. Ignore the way some of them look blank - to fix that I'd have to add ?action=purge to the URL of each bad one separately. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 06:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there some way that these could be made in to a template? I could see it be done by having a top, left, right and bottom that always remaing the same. The digits are put together from pieces that are a fixed width for each of the three sizes (number of digits). Fillers on the left and right would automatically be applied by the template. What about it? Val42 22:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Different digits are different widths, so that wouldn't work. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 22:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Calculating mileage

The U.S. Highway references include some concurrencies. Can they be calculated where they're not given? --NE2 07:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• US-6 is 89.402 on US-50. That matches US-6.
• The I-15 overlap is 9.461/10.093 on US-50. I can't get either of these to match up.

When were routes numbered?

The history PDF shows routes from as early as 1910, but this seems to be when they were taken over; a 1917 report makes no mention of numbers. By 1926, the numbers reached 17 (but note that what are shown as 16 and 17 are mostly 59 and 41 in the PDF). By 1938 they were into the triple digits. It looks like the first numbering probably went to 60 though; the stuff afterwards is mostly from 1931. --NE2 08:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know when they were first numbered. Utah had a great re-numbering in 1978 similar to California's in 1964. For me it has proven to be a mess just to get around the renumbering, forget trying to get to when they were first numbered. (it was pretty extensive, and worse then California's a lot of routes swapped numbers, rather than just new numbers for everything). I have 2 maps that pre-date the 1978 re-numbering that I am using for my edits. Unfortunately these maps still leave a lot of unanswered questions as one shows the inventory numbers Utah used to use, and in some cases doesn't show the signed number, just the inventory number. If you would like me to consult anything on those 2 maps let me know. I'm also working on Utah highways in my spare time but that's not much these days. Davemeistermoab 15:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually just created Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Utah/1977 renumbering, which should help. --NE2 18:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Do 900 and 901 exist?

They are not mentioned in Utah code here: http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE72/72_04.htm Or in UDOT's route logs here: http://www.dot.utah.gov/main/f?p=100:pg:5546707862863886654:::1:T,V:814,

How did these get here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davemeistermoab (talk • contribs) 01:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Davemeistermoab#SR-900 and SR-901 --NE2 02:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Images in infobox

I'll give you my reasons for using I-15, US-89, and SR-201 for the examples. The former two represent the longest and arguably best-known routes of their type in the state. The latter is the only state route that is a freeway for most of its length. CL — 02:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the change was vandalism, not a good faith effort (by the author's failed effort to use the US-666 shield, which hasn't existed since 2003). But absolutely, those are the most "representative" routes of the state, no contest. Dave (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this is the editor who created Utah State Route 121 editing under an IP address as per the editing patterns btw. What a shame... CL — 14:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

New type of shield for Utah

Well, looks like UDOT's began using a new type of shield. Oh boy, what a mess. We have 300+ shields to update. I'm not sure where we can find an image of it, but I've seen them somewhere. Ah ha, here it is (notice how they put an 89 in an SR shield btw). Anyway, what do you say? Should we update the shields? If anyone has the time and the resources (gosh, I sure wish we had SPUI still around, I can't believe how good his shields look), we should go ahead and do it. CL — 07:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

That's most likely a contractor not building shields to specifications. It's fairly common. US-50 in Nevada has some that make me cringe. I also don't think those are new. I recall seeing funny looking shields like that when I last drove US-89 through southern Utah and that's been many years now. I wouldn't worry just yet.Dave (talk) 07:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

For some reason, contractors can usually never get them right on interstate signs, but they always used the right ones with shields. Perhaps that was some test period of the new shields, I don't know...But now every new shield that is now being posted (for example, jct of US-89 and SR-201 guiding people to the SR-201 freeway, jct of SR-68 and 500 South guiding people to SR-67, SR-201 shields, jct SR-266 and US-89, etc. etc.) is this new-style shield. CL — 07:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

CL - I have not seen these new shields out there, though I am in Salt Lake county. I think I have to agree with Dave and chill out for a moment because I also believe its non-standard signs from sub-contractors. If we can find a ref sheet that supports this from UDOT, then... well that should be fun :) --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 14:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, they are everywhere. Example: drive along State St from 53rd north to Downtown, they've posted new shields at the intersections of 53rd, 45th, 33rd, and 21st. So either every contractor is mistaken, or we have a new shield on our hands. I could email UDOT if no one else wants to for the specs to the shields and ask them about what shield they are now using, though if anyone else would like to do this, go ahead and do so. Well, you said it Ad, if UDOT can supply us with something, we're going to have an interesting time. CL — 19:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It almost looks like the new numbers are Clearview... if that is the case, I bet they did tweak the signs. I would recommending contacting UDOT... and find someone to help us w/ new SVG files... --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 19:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Where did you see Clearview on the numbers? They, like other states who are switching over, are keeping the numbers inside the shields at the Highway Gothic, at least from what I've seen. CL — 19:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I was guessing, the numbers just don't seem right in the picture you linked, nevermind the fact that they have 89 in a SR shield... --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 19:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

CL, there's one possibility you're missing. I'm sure the signs are farmed out to a sub-contractor and not built by the same company that's laying the asphalt. There could be some el-cheapo sign company that's low-balling their prices to displace the company that has traditionally has made signs for UDOT projects, and they aren't in compliance. I'm almost positive that's what's going on in Nevada, with my above mentioned example. Literally every US highway resurfaced in the last few years has shields that are just awful. I wish I had a pic to show youDave (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess so. I've never really thought of that, but it's a strong possibility. I tried emailing UDOT about it but so far, no reply. CL — 23:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Two items to be resolved in the handling of this page

Howdy, With Admrb♉ltz's overhaul of this page (which I support), I think there are three issues that need to be hammered out. I'll list them and give my opinion. with space for everbody else who wants to opine to do so. Dave (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

1- The naming of these pages: List of numbered highways in Utah for US and interstate routes and List of state highways in Utah for the list of state routes.

• Comment by Dave - I'm ok with these names, but it does strike me as odd. If somebody were to opine to rename them I'd probably support that.

The other list is poorly named, it should be List of Interstate and U.S. Highways in Utah or something --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 01:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)Comment by CL - I agree; there's no better way to rename these than what Ad has said already.
  • This one is poorly named too, since Interstates and U.S. Routes are state highways. I also disagree with the split, since it keeps someone from finding out what the actual longest state highway is (US-89), and where the other Interstates and U.S. Routes fit. --NE2 01:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
    • While what you say is true, the name Admrboltz proposed is still accurate. I-15 is both a state highway and an interstate highway, the fact that it is one does not negate the other. However, NE2 makes a larger point. If the pages are to remain separate it should be sure to state that the US highways and Interstate highways are mantained by UDOT and treated like any other state highway by the state legislature. Just checked, it does essentially say that.Dave (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I pretty much used the same block of text regarding UDOT and its predecessor on both lists, and if we were to create an overview page. Numbered highways in Utah as a all prose article, and no list, we could mention it there as well. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 03:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

2- Multiplexes 'er uh, Concurrencies 'er uh whatever the politically correct term is these days. (amazing the things we fight about in this forum) UDOT does not include mileage figures for route concurrencies on Utah state routes. Should we? Where this comes into play is the page currently claims that SR-24 is the longest state route. I suspect that if we were to count the implied connections necessary to drive SR-30 it would be the longest.

• Dave's Opinion - I don't have one, only that we be consistent
• I'd say if UDOT doesn't count it, then we shouldn't --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 01:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• CL - I second that; if UDOT hates concurrencies, we should probably reflect that in keeping SR-24 as longest route in the system; perhaps we add a note for SR-30 saying "Longest route in the system with implied connections", though I wouldn't know how

3- How to handle the Former routes. The current situation is kinda goofy. If the route designation has been re-used it's included in the main table under the column of "former uses". However if the designation is not in current use, it's mentioned below the main table in a seperate identically formatted table. This causes the odd situation of most of this second table being blank with a column labeled "Former Uses" which is really describing "years active". The current iteration of List of numbered highways in Utah handles this differently, two separate tables, with slightly different columns in the table.

• Comment by Dave: We could do this a couple of ways. I like how List of numbered highways in Utah page handles this, and am currently leaning towards this option, although we should probably discuss which columns should be used. I would also be open to merging the tables to have one table in sequential order, using the "former uses" as the non-current route links, with something like "Not Currently Assigned" to fill the other entries for a route number no longer in use (this is what Dan Stober's website essentially does).
• I am not sure how to handle this one. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 01:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• CL - I say we merge all the former routes into the current routes table and perhaps put a different color for the decommissioned routes; something like List of state highways in California CL — 01:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm ok with that, but let's not follow the CA page too closely, Column heading is "Became a state highway" then has two dates I.E. 1910-1951 What's up with that? That's just awful.Dave (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I just wanted to copy the color from that list, but retain the way we do our list already, if that makes any sense - CL — 01:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I think there should be some changes. If we literally just merged the two tables, we'd have a big inconsistency. I'm going to use just SR-7 and SR-9 for this example. SR-7 a non-current route whose designation was never re-used would have an entire line dedicated to it. SR-9, which was re-used after the original usage was eliminated would only be mentioned in a cell of the row for current SR-9. I would say if we're going to merge the two tables, we should either have two rows for SR-9, one for each iteration. Or only have one row for SR-9 and the row for SR-7 say "Designation not currently in use" except for the "Former Uses" column. Of those two ideas, I'd rather go with the first and have separate entries for each iteration of a route, and eliminate the Former Uses column. Dave (talk) 02:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I like the California list, because I made it :) "Became a state highway" is more useful in California than Utah, because of the 1964 renumbering. Here there wasn't any comparable renumbering. --NE2 01:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Oh Good, then you're the right person to ask, if we're going to use that page as a model, what does "Became a state highway:1910-1951" mean? The footnote says it's the date approved by the legislature? The legislature schizophrenically took 41 years to approve the route? I'm not trying to be cynical, trying to figure this out as Utah routes are legislatively defined too.Dave (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
        • Let's take SR 70 as an example. Under the 1910 bond issue, the California Highway Commission created Route 30 from Oroville to Quincy. It was extended east to US 395 in 1931 (as Route 21), and in 1933 a new Route 87 included the part from Marysville to Oroville. Finally, in 1949, the road from Sacramento directly north to Marysville became Route 232. At times, portions of this were signed as SR 24 and US 40A. The SR 70 designation did not come about until the 1964 renumbering, when the state legislature adopted existing sign route numbers in place of the old legislative routes (21, 30, 87, 232) and assigned new numbers to some. So that's what "1910-1949" means - the route that is now SR 70 was added between those dates. The "formed" column shows that the SR 70 designation, itself, was defined by the legislature in 1964.
        • Now this isn't necessary in Utah. It may be worthwhile to include notes for routes like SR-16 and SR-38 that were straight renumberings of earlier routes, but otherwise it will usually match the date the designation was assigned. --NE2 03:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(reset)That's not how I would have done it, but if that's what consensus agreed upon, so be it.Dave (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

4. For the record the Navajo Bridge is in Arizona, yet we have a picture of it on List of numbered highways in Utah. I personally don't care, but if we want to stick to "Utah Pride" may want to sub it for a picture of Monument Valley or something on the Utah side of the line =-).Dave (talk) 02:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I grabbed it cause it was a US-89A image; I was looking for a third US route image for the section. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 04:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

But what was your intent, Is the picture of Navajo Bridge OK because it is the "flagship" landmark along a highway that does extend into Utah, or should an article about Utah highways only use pictures of objects inside state lines?Dave (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, if it makes Utah look good I say keep it :) CL — 03:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I must admit part of the reason why I brought this up is personal. I've given lots of people in Arizona crap about how Arizona loves to claim Monument Valley and Lake Powell as theirs. Including HolderCA1, whom I worked with on the U.S. Route 163 article. So I don't want them to come back on me. =-) Dave (talk) 04:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I know exactly what you're talking about. I always see "Monument Valley, Arizona" in books and such, and then I see people refer to Lake Powell as if it's only in Arizona, but hey, we can swallow our pride just this once right? CL — 04:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If anyone has a photo of the part of State Street that's still US-89, facing the capitol, that might be a good third photo. --NE2 04:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, are you talking about the area south of 4th South? I'll put it on my to-do list - CL — 04:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - Image:Utah State Capitol seen from State Street.jpg would have worked a few years ago. --NE2 04:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Page Revamp

In the above section, we did not come to a consensus on how to re-do this page, but we did seem to agree that how the "former routes" section is handled is goofy. Currently we have two standards, if the route designation is active, a redirect is listed in "former uses" if the route designation is no longer active, it's in a seperate table. Therefore here's what I'm going to start. Feel free to make changes.

• Merge the two tables into one, with one line for each iteration of a route number in reverse chronological order. (i.e. two entries for SR-9, first the current definition, then the former). Replace the "former Uses" with years active. For the current generation this would say "Current".

If you think this sucks, you know what to do..... Dave (talk) 05:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd just distinguish former routes from current by giving them a shade of gray. What do you think? CL — 16:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, why not. Dave (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

OK with Ryan's help, the two tables are merged. Thanks. I did add the legislative designations for US and interstate routes. Hopefully that's ok with everybody, even though its somewhat redundant with the list page for those routes, I do see value in listing them here also. CL, you want to play with your suggestions for the formatting?Dave (talk) 05:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing, I'll put it on my non-existent to-do list (which for some reason I always seem to misplace ). But I will get to it though. Good job on the list, by the way, you and Ryan. CL — 05:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

State Route 7

An editor has recently added details for a State Route 7, implying the route exists already. A quick google search will confirm that such a route is being proposed. However all hits imply the discussions are at a high level, with neither funding nor even designs secured, much less having a route number assigned. I can find no portion of UDOT's or the legislature's site noting that route 7 has been assigned to this project. Does anybody have a source for this, or should it be removed? Dave (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; I've removed it. --NE2 21:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the following was left on my talk page, I've blanked out the email addresses to keep spambots from finding them:

Hi there, I'm new to Wikipedia and am trying to put in info on the under-construction Southern Corridor near St. George, Utah. I have been in contact with Kevin Kitchen of UDOT's Region 4, and he emailed me with the announcement of the Southern Corridor's number, 7. I have attached an email of his announcement.

Re: Southern Corridor's Number ‏

From: Kevin Kitchen

Sent: Wed 1/14/09 4:53 PM

To: (Floyd)

(Floyd), And the lucky number is. . . SR-7. Just found out today.

Kevin Kitchen

Public Involvement Manager

UDOT Region Four

Office: 435.893.4702

I will admit that the Southern Corridor's site hasn't been updated yet, but I do believe that they are building it, along with the new St. George Airport. If you do have any questions, just email Kevin.

Now my response, Thanks Kevin. I have no problem with mentioning that the highway is being proposed. I would be careful about listing it on the list of state highways as if it's a done deal. A lot can happen between now and when first shovelful of dirt is turned over. Look no further than how many project are being canceled or postponed due to the current financial situation. Dave (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, it's Floyd again. I have another email, this time from Peter Jager, who is in charge of Route Numbering. He again confirms that the Southern Corridor's number is 7 and that the number was assigned "in anticipation" of the first segment being opened this summer. He also says that "construction is continuing." Here is the email he sent to me:

--Start Email--
RE: Southern Corridor's Number‏
Sent: Fri 1/16/09 2:12 PM

Yes, its true. Lucky #7. It was just designated this week as construction is continuing. They requested a sr# in anticipation of opening the first part of it this summer. I understand exit #2 is already open, but I haven't been down yet.

Regards,Peter
--End Email--

TheFlyingFloyd389 (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFlyingFloyd389 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I just checked the Utah State Legislature's website, and doing a search for the Highway code shows no proposed updates. However the website also has a disclaimer that the 2009 legislative session is still ongoing, and many bills have not yet been loaded into the system. I'm not concerned about this, as Utah State Route 67 similarly does not show up in the Utah code defining highways, and yet that one is signed, on the map and open to traffic. [15] and [16]. So I guess I'd say go ahead and start work on the article. I'll fix it so Utah State Route 7 no longer redirects to US-189. However, I'd caution to make very clear this is based from preliminary information and neither UDOT nor the Utah State Legislature has formally announced this.Dave (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I'm also blanking out the email addresses in your previous response, I hope you don't mind. I just don't want spambots to find these email addresses and start slamming the affected people's inboxes with spam.

There I got you started, Utah State Route 7 now has a starter article, please fill in the details. Good Luck.Dave (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding back in SR-15 etc.

Question, When List of Interstate and U.S. Highways in Utah was created, the entries for SR-6, SR-15, etc. were removed from this page. Would there be any objection to adding them back in? I've wondered this for a while, just never bothered to ask. Here's my rationale:

• Listing SR-15 etc. here does not diminish the purpose of the separate list page for Interstate Highways in Utah
• SR-15 does exist. Route 15 is both an interstate highway and a state route. The fact that it is one does not negate the other.
• Although I-15 is the more common reference, the highway does get mentioned as SR-15 in government paperwork, and on occasion by mainstream media sources.
• Although in states like Utah the general public is is well trained on the difference between I-15 and US-40 and SR-41, this is not true in other states where the public is less informed about roads. For example, in some states, _cough_ California _cough_, "the 15" is in common use by the general public, and even many signs and government publications are en error about weather the highway is I-15, US-15 or SR-15. I've noticed this spread as the other states in the west get Californicated. Dave (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't, simply because that would be duplicating. But I wouldn't be too miffed if you did anyway. Actually, I'd be in favor of just merging list of interstates etc. into this list. CL (T · C) — 00:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. That's why I asked first, wanted a second opinion.Dave (talk) 07:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Merging of this list with I-/US- route list

Upon reflection, I think the most efficient thing to do is have one singe list with all Interstate, U.S. and state routes present. The current system isn't all that preferable. Of course, the best thing to do is for me to merge the lists myself, but not before input. CL (T · C) — 01:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I definitely think that, at a minimum, the US and Interstate highways should be listed here, as they are also state highways. I could be convinced either way about having a separate list just for the US and I highways. The plus of having a separate list is having the nice formatted table and pictures, which would not be possible to do on a list with all the state routes included. However, if the US and I highways are listed here, the other list will be redundant. If the US and I highways are not also listed here (as is current) we have potential confusion. The problem with our current setup is is a non-roadgeek could see this list and think, "I know there's a Highway 15 in Utah and it's a big freeway in Salt Lake, but this list says it was a short highway decommissioned in 1977. What gives?" Dave (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As nobody has opposed to at least replacing the U.S and Interstate designations here, I will do it. I'll leave question of a complete merge for someone else.Dave (talk) 02:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope you don't mind that I changed SR- to US- and I-. I just thought since we're trying to lessen confusion that would be the best way to go. CL (T · C) — 04:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for noticing that.Dave (talk) 05:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I've got the content back, but have 2 observations where I would like some feedback:

1. the former (i.e. decommissioned) US Routes and Interstate routes don't quite fit in this table. All other entries in the table use Utah state legislature dates, however prior to 1977 the US and Interstate highways were not designated as such by the legislature. Perhaps they should be kept on the other list? Or perhaps it's not that big of deal? Or perhaps all of the US and Interstate highways on this list should use the dates as approved by the FWHA, not the state legislature?
2. This page is a formatting nightmare. I started to standardize it, but it has a long way to go. There are several conventions for the routes that touch state lines, from listing the connecting highway, to just saying state line, to listing a near or "toward" city. Another inconsistency is for the routes that lead toward another state, do we use the state abbreviation or not for "out of state" control cities? I started to standardize on the conventions that I think are best. However, if anybody has objections or other ideas please state them.Dave (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't object to any of what you said. Let's keep former U.S. routes on the other list, for now. As for out-of-state locales, the state abbreviation should be used IMO. CL (T · C) — 01:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I already added the decommissioned US and Interstate highways. However, feel free to remove them (something has come up, and I don't think I'll be able to get back to this for a few days).Dave (talk) 07:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Another thing we need to decide, should we use "old routing" or "former" in describing state routes that are descendent of a larger route?Dave (talk) 07:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I assumed the former routes weren't added yet. Since they are, keep them there. This way we're being consistent. And I think we should just use former, though I don't have a strong opinion about it. CL (T · C) — 01:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The following routes are broken

• SR-9 in Zion National Park (included in mileage)
• SR-30 via I-84, I-15, US-91, US-89
• SR-48 via SR-68
• SR-79 via US-89; also includes a westbound piece
• SR-104 includes a westbound piece
• SR-118 via SR-120
• SR-137 includes a spur in Mayfield
• SR-190 includes a spur to Brighton
• SR-210 includes a bypass at Alta
• SR-228 includes a spur in Leeds
• SR-269 includes a westbound piece
• SR-276 in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (included in mileage)
• SR-282 is a multi-segment facility route
• SR-284 is a multi-segment facility route
• SR-286 is a multi-segment facility route
• SR-292 is a multi-segment facility route

--—Preceding unsigned comment added by NE2 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 24 July 2007

• SR-85 is broken as well, connected by SR-68. --Roadguy2 (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

Given the vast length of this list leading to unread-ability, and the steady proportion of out of use routes to in use, I propose that the former routes in this list be split into a new page titled List of former state highways in Utah. At this point it just makes sense to do so given how many no longer used numbers there are. I would be happy to undertake this split should the consensus direct me to do so. Thank you for your opinions. BRES2773 (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I have no opinion either way. I would say that yes, it's a long list, and perhaps splitting would make it more useful, especially to those only interested in the current routes. However, this list isn't difficult to maintain, even in its current state. With a few exceptions, when the state legislature's web site updates with the new laws each year, someone parses the highway section and updates this page accordingly. The one beef I have with how this list is currently organized is there the exclusion of the US and Interstate highways. Utah code treats them all the same. Interstate 15 is defined in Utah code as if it were state route 15, just the same as State Route 14 is defined. So the fact that Route 15 is an Interstate Highway does not change the fact that it is also a state highway. I see this as especially important to include them with visitors from places like California, where the public is not used to distinguishing between them (i.e. in California it's "the 5" or "the 134" without distinction.). I think regardless of weather the former routes are split off or not, this should be addressed. Dave (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@Moabdave: Thanks for the feedback. I'll clarify my position a bit. My grievance isn't that the article is difficult to maintain, I agree that it isn't, it's more so that, per WP:AS, the split could be made to make it easier for the reader. If not into a separate main space page, at least into a separate list on this existing page; simply because there are so many former routes. As for your other point, that's definitely something I'll look into now. My initial reaction is to keep the current system to make it consistent with the rest of the country. My opinion is loosely based around WP:MTAU, as we don't need to confuse the reader with discussion of how the road is assigned or why this format of routes is different from other states, but I will definitely seek further review on that subject. Thanks again. BRES2773 (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

@BRES2773: This has sat for 2 weeks. Nobody has opposed, and there is merit to your argument. If someone is only interested in current routes this page has a lot of clutter by including the former routes. So I say go ahead if you wish. The one thing I would say is, as this is a sortable table, clicking on the header to sort by the Deleted column puts all the current routes first. However, one has to know to do that, and I'm not sure weather it's fair or not to expect the reader to know how to manipulate wikipedia's markup functions in order to remove clutter to get the information they want. Dave (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. I wouldn't be opposed to creating a separate section within this page for the former state routes, but I would definitely be against moving them to another article. The current article is fine for that purpose, and as others have mentioned, it's not difficult to maintain or navigate. On the other hand, I strongly oppose putting the Interstate and US Highways on this page. While the official Utah legislative code does treat them the same, we already have the articles List of Interstate Highways in Utah and List of U.S. Highways in Utah for that purpose, and note that both of those pages include former routes. --Roadguy2 (talk) 06:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Another issue is the seperate list of Utah State Route less than 1 mile serves no purpose that I can tell. All of the articles on that list already have articles, so it is redundant. I asked at WT:USRD if there was any other reason why that list should exist, and nobody could come up with one. I plan to delete that list one of these days if nobody objects. Dave (talk) 08:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

It's also redundant because anyone could just get that list themselves by sorting the table on this page by mileage. I added the new SR-231 to that other list yesterday just because the page exists, but I would support deleting that whole page. Roadguy2 (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Sounds an excellent idea. Anyone looking for the current road network will find navigation easier, as will anyone looking for historical information. Narky Blert (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose (at least for now). While separating the lists will make it easier for those searching for information on the current routes, this (as previously mentioned) can be achieved through sorting. Since the list does not yet include all former highways, the current (combined) list greatly facilitates adding the former highways.An Errant Knight (talk) 02:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

SR-504

shown on some old maps as going from SR-82 & SR-13 to SR-30 & SR-81. Followed part of SR-154's pre-1969 routing. Did it exist?Alexlatham96 (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Strange. It doesn't fit with anything else UDOT has ever done in the past, at least that we know of. For what it's worth, this 504 does show up on Google Maps near the SR-82 and SR-13 junction (note that SR-82 is incorrectly shown there). I would have guessed it was a mislabeled county road number, but who knows? There aren't any SR-504 highway resolutions, but that's true of several other routes that do/did exist. --Roadguy2 (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Either error or copyright trap (yes Google Maps uses them) Dave (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

SR-105

SR-105 is still on the I-15 exit signs, but SR-105 does not show on intersection signs anymore and it appears Google Maps is in the process of removing it from the map. Did UDOT delete SR-105? If so, when?Alexlatham96 (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Highly doubt it. I would not trust anything Google says with regard to route designations -- there are countless state route changes that haven't been made to Google's map. (See SR-48, 73, 129, etc.) As for the 105 designation itself, there hasn't been any motion in recent transportation commission meetings to return it to Centerville. In addition, I was just there a few weeks ago, and I didn't notice any changes in signage from previous: 105 is still on all the newer street blades, and there is still ground-level 105 signage at the eastern terminus (which Street View observed in July 2018). Similar to its neighbor SR-93, signage for SR-105 has always been a bit spotty.

We'll have to check this legislature's update of official designations, but I find it extremely unlikely they'd eliminate a state route without it getting approved first by the Transportation Commission. Roadguy2 (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, SR-105 is most definitely not being deleted. HB 0157 makes no mention of it. Roadguy2 (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)