Agreed! Something similar happened to me. Had to slam on the brakes to avoid getting creamed by a semi. The downwind leg needs to be lengthened so that vehicles can gain more speed as they merge, instead of trying to merge at speeds 20 mph or more below the traffic. Ridiculous, and unsafe.

Thanks for contacting UDOT. We are aware of this ramp and the concerns you have about it. We are trying to obtain funding to make structural changes to the Weber River bridge it immediately crosses, but until that happens we have to continue with it as it is. I do know exactly what you're talking about-- I drove this ramp every day for six years. The only suggestion I can make until the funding is provided for the ramp/bridge project required to extend the ramp, is be aware of traffic approaching the ramp as you get close to the freeway and be prepared slow down and let traffic pass before you merge on to the interstate.

How about some signs ? Dangerous Entry Ramp !
Or on the Interstate “please merge left ” about 2 miles up the road?
“ Short Entry Ramp”
There is nothing here to warn the driving public of the danger!!!
Something needs to be done!!!

Agreed, or have the right lane merge into the left prior to the merge spot, in both directions.

There is already a sign on WB I-84 already that advises thru traffic and trucks to use the left lane as they exit the canyon. Its a short ramp but I have rarely have a problem accelerating to freeway speeds within the allotted space. Sure, it could be better; but I believe UDOT has done what they can at this point already. There are environmental impacts (the river) that they must have appropriate time to review beforw taking action. Also, there is no 'quick fix' to what is being asked here. Please try to be patient. They can and should 'close' issues that are not fixable within a reasonable timeframe. This requires an impact study, engineering review, planning and scheduling. Its not a short process. It sounds like it is being reviewed already.

It’s been that way for many years.....that does not prove that it’s safe ?
Also, if it’s been that way for many years why hasen’t something been done before now?
Plenty of time for all the red tape to have taken place.
If this gets someone hurt and killed the state has liability !!!

JT, I drive this multiple times every week and, while I don't run into conflicts on a weekly basis, I do have to pay attention to the freeway traffic far ahead of what an average person is used to because of the short merge lane. For anybody who doesn't know of the short on-ramp distance while entering the freeway, it can cause a very unsafe situation as trucks (and others) don't always get over. I have had a few dangerous situations that I've encountered while merging. Signage on the on-ramp would warn those who are unfamiliar with the on-ramp that it is not the average on-ramp.
Signs are cheap.

UDOT has not done what they can to this point. This has been unsafe for years and has been ignored. While it does take time to get the funding and approvals to do a project like this, there is no time like the present to get started.

Your original issue stated they needed a longer onramp. Maybe you should modify your request/report asking, without being accusatory; that they add signs to addrrss the issue? I understand the emotion behind the request, but if you added the issue using the verbiage you just replied to me with, I think you would have a far more likely chance of seeing a result.

I do think that signs would help on the on-ramp, but it really needs to be fixed correctly with a longer on-ramp. My tone from the original post on this string stems from the fact that I started a post on this issue prior to this string that was summarily dismissed and closed by UDOT. I felt like I had been pretty much blown-off.

Why was my post rejected?

Brian, I do not know what was in the post that was rejected, but this site has a filter built into it that will automatic reject certain words, or combinations of words it determines are "objectionable." So something in your post above tripped that filter, and your post was rejected, as a result. Again, I can't see what was said so I don't know what you said, Sorry.

Zeb, JT is exactly right. There are things we can handle immediately here and we mark those as "acknowledged" if there is a process involved that is underway, and close them when the process is complete. If its out of our control, however, to make a resolution through this site (and unfortunately, there are many things suggested here that are not within our immediate power to undertake), we give the best explanation we can and close them because there is a cost, a legislative action, or some other requirement that makes your request unresolvable through this site. We make note of the issue you raised and try to solve it by other means as soon as we can. But its closed here because there is little we can do. Even putting up additional signs have costs attached to them-- sometimes its just not something we can immediately do for a variety of reasons.

Now, as for the request for signs, we are looking into that.

If anyone is interested, there is a public site that has a map with data for traffic incidents dating back to 2014 for all of Utah. ( https://crashmapping.utah.gov/) in the last 4 years, there have been a total of 10 incidents in the freeway near that entrance ramp, but only 3 of which were indicated as 'sideswipe' and only one had injuries. The other 7 incidents were weather related or loss of cargo. I'm not trying to say your feelings about the safety are not relevant, but they typically give priority to issues where a higher number of traffic incidents, or incidents with injuries have been recorded. Granted, the site only provides data for actual reported collisions; and not close calls; but I found the information on that map for areas I travel often quite enlightening; and there are areas I actually tend to avoid at certain times of day due to the number of incidents reported.

I used the words state may have L I A b I l I t y for not fixing a rodeway that some one posted as potential unsafe!!!

Also, I drove past that area today, and to use the river as a reason is a bit over the top
The river is on the other side of the freeway & there is a stream 1000 yards to the north ???

Brian - I really am not sure what issue you are having with this site. You did make a comment and I can see that comment; it's above Zed's reply from yesterday. The word liability isn't a 'flagged word' - however I will say that in your first comment you stated "If this gets someone hurt and killed the state has liability !!!" but just now you said "may have liability"... I would just ask that as a frequent user of this site that you try to be less accusatory and stop embellishing statements like that anyway. The proof is in the crash statistics, of which there are very few at this location. As to your 'claim' that the river can't be used as a reason, I would encourage you instead of arguing sematics with UDOT here; maybe do a little bit of reading in this thing called the internet with regards to environmental impact studies that are actually required by law anytime construction is being looked at within a certain distance of any major lake, river, stream, channel, etc... Don't be that guy. Do your research first.

Brian, to length the onramp before it goes on to I-84, UDOT would either have to widen the Weber River Bridge on I-84 WB, or build a new bridge for the ramp to continue on to enter I-84 WB further west. Either way, no money has been appropriated for either alternative. This is why I explained how the river comes into play. It's not an excuse, but a simple fact. For now, all I can do is encourage all motorists to be more observant as they approach the ramp and understand that you must yield to vehicles already in the WB lanes, if they haven't or can't move left.

.

JT unless you currently work for UDOT or your misteriously my mother....I suggest you buttox out of my complaint.

Others are comparing in a separate thread same place???