Arizona Loop 202 Extension

[swbrotha100]

I'm hoping this year, ADOT and other parties involved get a resolution together to build the South Mountain Freeway section of Loop 202. The background for this is here:

http://www.southmountainfreeway.com/

Two flyover videos cover the right-of-way of Loop 202 if it gets built.

http://wwwa.azdot.gov/asfroot/ccp/flyover-vid1/flyover-vid1.html

http://wwwa.azdot.gov/asfroot/ccp/flyover-vid2/flyover-vid2.html

[Rover_0]

So it looks like it's going to meet back up with Loop 101 should it happen. Heck, if it does, you could take 101 and a little piece of 202 and make it a 3di loop if you wanted. Whether AzDOT wants to do such a thing or not is another.

Either way, it's interesting.

[TheStranger]

So it looks like it's going to meet back up with Loop 101 should it happen.

Actually, from looking at the planning map...it seems the one corridor currently preferred is a few miles to the east of the current 101/10 interchange (unless I'm misinterpreting).

[roadfro]

Actually, from looking at the planning map...it seems the one corridor currently preferred is a few miles to the east of the current 101/10 interchange (unless I'm misinterpreting).

That was what I saw on the map. Interesting proposal.

[Rover_0]

I figured that you cou

Actually, from looking at the planning map...it seems the one corridor currently preferred is a few miles to the east of the current 101/10 interchange (unless I'm misinterpreting).

That was what I saw on the map. Interesting proposal.

Even if the route runs along the W59 alignment, using I-10 could close the loop.

Not to make too big of a tangent, but here's a map showing Loop 101, part of existing Loop 202, and this proposed extension of Loop 202 as a 3di (I-810, to be exact):




I don't know why they wouldn't try to at least do something like making this loop all Loop 101, though.

[Speedway99]

I like the 810 number the best, not using 410 or 610 to distinguish it from the San Antonio and Houston beltways, although they're in different states. I would like to see the extension use the W101 alternative, which I think is the best because it forms a complete connected loop. I sure hope they make it an 3di loop. And, though off subject, the El Paso loop should become I-210 when complete, sharing the section from MM 6 to MM 13 with I-10, also forming a complete loop.

[corco]

I'd be stunned if they went for an interstate designation- that really doesn't have any value and 101 and 202 are very well established in the Phoenix area.

[triplemultiplex]

Beltlines should always be interstates.  (I'm looking at you CO E-470 and TN 840.)

[corco]

The thing is that 101 and 202 aren't really bypasses of anything- the only interstate to interstate movement a person would logically do by way of 101 is 10 east to 17 north and 17 south to 10 west, but that's not even really a movement that interstate traffic would be making anyway. Flagstaff-Los Angeles traffic would just use I-40. Even if you're headed from Prescott or something you would either take 89-71-60 or whatever to get to I-10 or if that's too windy (that's a pretty mountainous drive) going back up to I-40 is only two miles further than I-10 and you get to bypass Phoenix traffic.

I guess traffic headed to San Diego from like Flagstaff or Albuquerque might use it, but then they're on 85 which isn't an interstate anyway.

It's not like Indianapolis or something where you can get on the beltway and you're far enough out that traffic isn't too bad. Traffic on the east leg of 101 through Scottsdale is typically worse than I-17.

470 is an exorbitantly priced tollway and marking it as an interstate, implying it as a reasonable through route would probably piss a lot of people off because a lot of people don't see spending $15 to save 20 minutes as reasonable. Don't know enough about 840.

[Brandon]

Beltlines should always be interstates.  (I'm looking at you CO E-470 and TN 840.)

Why?  An interstate-standard freeway is fine for many locales.  Not everything needs an interstate shield (I-99, I-238, I-795 NC, etc).

[triplemultiplex]

Because beltlines are logical components of the interstate highway system.

I'm not saying every freeway on the Planet Mercury in Phoenix needs an I number, just where they make logical sense, like that nice looking beltline they've got there.  Then it would conform to standard practice in the rest of the country.  I've spit out fantasy I-promotions from time to time, but the beltline thing is very reasonable and it's a short list: Phoenix, Denver and Nashville.


(Sorry for the cheap shot, Phoenix, but you gotta admit, it's hot down there!)

[TheStranger]

Because beltlines are logical components of the interstate highway system.

Not much navigational benefit in switching from a number that has been in use locally for about two decades.

[myosh_tino]

Not much navigational benefit in switching from a number that has been in use locally for about two decades.

Interesting point *although* California did the same to CA-17 renumbering it to I-880 back in the 80's.  Granted, California primary reason in doing this was to secure federal funds to help upgrade the freeway.  The need for federal funds for freeway construction doesn't appear to be an issue in Arizona.

With that said, I am still of the belief that not all freeways should be interstates.  Would I be upset if CA-905 and CA-210 weren't resigned as interstates?  In the case of CA-905, definitely not.  In the case of CA-210, probably not although for the sake of route continuity, CA-210 should become I-210.

[agentsteel53]

Not much navigational benefit in switching from a number that has been in use locally for about two decades.

Interesting point *although* California did the same to CA-17 renumbering it to I-880 back in the 80's.  Granted, California primary reason in doing this was to secure federal funds to help upgrade the freeway.  The need for federal funds for freeway construction doesn't appear to be an issue in Arizona.

what about the 7 and 11 renumberings in LA?  were those for the securing of federal funds too?  I had thought those were done so that LA had more interstates in preparation for the 1984 Olympics.  Some branding thing.

[TheStranger]

Not much navigational benefit in switching from a number that has been in use locally for about two decades.

Interesting point *although* California did the same to CA-17 renumbering it to I-880 back in the 80's.  Granted, California primary reason in doing this was to secure federal funds to help upgrade the freeway.  The need for federal funds for freeway construction doesn't appear to be an issue in Arizona.

what about the 7 and 11 renumberings in LA?  were those for the securing of federal funds too?  I had thought those were done so that LA had more interstates in preparation for the 1984 Olympics.  Some branding thing.

Route 11 (excluding the Pasadena Freeway) was submitted as an Interstate in 1978 (and signed in 1981) -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_110_and_State_Route_110_(California)

Route 7 was submitted in 1983 (approved/signed 1984).

[corco]

Granted, California primary reason in doing this was to secure federal funds to help upgrade the freeway.

The thing is that having an interstate shield has very little to do with securing federal funds at this point

[agentsteel53]

Route 11 (excluding the Pasadena Freeway) was submitted as an Interstate in 1978 (and signed in 1981) -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_110_and_State_Route_110_(California)

Route 7 was submitted in 1983 (approved/signed 1984).

but why? 

1978 actually seems to early to be Olympic preparation.

[english si]

not really - London found out in 2005, for 2012. LA didn't even have competition, so would have known before that. Work on the QE2 Olympic Park* began in 2006, so various legal/administrative things like Compulsory Purchase Orders and so on needed to be done before then (we did it in 2005, having needed pretty detailed plans for the bid).

*as it will be when reopened next year.

[swbrotha100]

Beltlines should always be interstates.  (I'm looking at you CO E-470 and TN 840.)

I-470 was planned to loop around Denver. When that project was killed, it eventually led to what you have in the Denver area today (CO 470, E-470, Northwest Tollway).

[agentsteel53]

not really - London found out in 2005, for 2012. LA didn't even have competition, so would have known before that. Work on the QE2 Olympic Park* began in 2006, so various legal/administrative things like Compulsory Purchase Orders and so on needed to be done before then (we did it in 2005, having needed pretty detailed plans for the bid).

*as it will be when reopened next year.

ah okay.  for some reason I had this idea that olympic selection only became a Major Thing, Starring Mitt Romney in the last ~20 years.

[TheStranger]

Granted, California primary reason in doing this was to secure federal funds to help upgrade the freeway.

The thing is that having an interstate shield has very little to do with securing federal funds at this point

Exactly.  He was only pointing out that in the early 1980s, this was one of the primary reasons Glenn Anderson stumped for the Nimitz Freeway becoming I-880. 

[swbrotha100]

I like the idea of a state route number being used that could convert to an interstate number in the future, if warranted. Using examples as CO 470 or TN 840. Some of the freeways in the Phoenix area were originally going to have numbers like 510, 517, 417 and 117. But since the current numbers have been established for over 20 years now, I think it's best to leave them alone.

[Alps]

Converting an existing Loop to an I- number may face the same fate as Route 128 in Massachusetts. (I-95)

[Speedway99]

Some of the freeways in the Phoenix area were originally going to have numbers like 510, 517, 417 and 117. But since the current numbers have been established for over 20 years now, I think it's best to leave them alone.

Try telling that to Houston, which has had the US 59 number well established for much longer than 20 years, and is in the process of getting that replaced with I-69.

[TheStranger]

Try telling that to Houston, which has had the US 59 number well established for much longer than 20 years, and is in the process of getting that replaced with I-69.

As of now, I wouldn't consider that "replacement" so much as "addition" (though this very well could change in the future, given Texas's history of truncations).  As long as it's 59/69 co-signed, it's a different situation from a full number switch.