Interstate 11

[FightingIrish]

Why all the I-11 hate? I think it's a very adequate designation.

[MikeSantNY78]

[/quote]
(Provided of course that I-11 isn't already Shustered into existence)
[/quote]
[/quote]
The I-11 number is Congressionally designated.
[/quote]
So it was already Shustered into existence - so much for sense (but then, this is Congress we're talking about here)...

[kkt]

Why all the I-11 hate? I think it's a very adequate designation.

- Designated by Congress instead of by the AASHTO
- too short to be a primary interstate number
- not enough traffic to justify an interstate at all.  It's funded by Congressional pork rather than actual need.
- a higher number would fit the grid better. Doesn't leave enough low N-S interstate numbers for routes forseeably needed in California, Oregon, and Washington.  For instance, I-13 is available and would be a little better.

Does that about cover it?

[roadman65]

How about an I-15E?  Being congress is going back to what FHWA got rid of in Texas with the letter suffixes on I-69.  It is no different than I-81E was for I-81 back in the day for I-380 between Scranton and Mt. Pocono.  This too would be a spur like that connecting another interstate running perpendicular and not connecting its parent again.

[kkt]

I have no problem with making US 93 an expressway, or even an expressway with freeway sections.  Complete freeway is far from needed at this time, and an interstate is unnecessary.

Look at http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/images/hi_res_jpg/nhslnghultrktraf2040.jpg.  Noninterstate roads east of I-5 that are busier than US 93 include CA 99 as you mentioned, but also US 97 through most of Oregon and from Goldendale to Toppenish, US 395 from Kennewick to Ritzville, even US 95 from Las Vegas to Needles and Blythe get more traffic.

Population does not necessarily imply traffic.  Big cities does not necessarily imply a huge demand for travel between them, as the Las Vegas-Phoenix example shows.

AASHTO isn't perfect, but it's their job and their track record for assigning reasonable interstate numbers is lots better than Congress's.  (I-69EWC?)

[Molandfreak]

- too short to be a primary interstate number

Whatever you have to say about that, it isn't. It's longer than I-17 even, and no one complains about that being too short. Seriously, a primary number is adequate for Phoenix-Vegas.

[FightingIrish]

- too short to be a primary interstate number

Whatever you have to say about that, it isn't. It's longer than I-17 even, and no one complains about that being too short. Seriously, a primary number is adequate for Phoenix-Vegas.

Molandfreak gets it. Seriously, for all those concerned about reserving numbers for vague future West Coast interstates, in the last 5 decades, the only realistic suggestions for new routes have been CA 99 and the Phoenix-Las Vegas route. Is someone really suggesting that the US 395 corridor or some obscure route snaking through the Oregon mountains is more deserving of a 2di interstate designation than a direct Phoenix to Las Vegas route?

[roadfro]

Why all the I-11 hate? I think it's a very adequate designation.

- Designated by Congress instead of by the AASHTO
- too short to be a primary interstate number
- not enough traffic to justify an interstate at all.  It's funded by Congressional pork rather than actual need.
- a higher number would fit the grid better. Doesn't leave enough low N-S interstate numbers for routes forseeably needed in California, Oregon, and Washington.  For instance, I-13 is available and would be a little better.

Does that about cover it?

This stretch between Las Vegas and Phoenix has been designated part of the CANAMEX High Priority trade corridor since the 1990s. If I recall correctly, it's also the only portion of the CANAMEX corridor that is not currently Interstate highway (and the only parts that were two lanes when the corridor was originally designated).

The Hoover Dam bypass/bridge was put in motion in part due to the CANAMEX designation and the traffic backups over the dam. This was an issue before 9/11 closed the dam to commercial traffic, but 9/11 restrictions certainly elevated the priority.

I'll also note that the I-11 number did not come from Congress specifically. It was the proposed number that Nevada and Arizona officials started using when talking about the proposed Interstate corridor. Congress used that number in their legislation.

I don't see much of any need for more than two other interstate corridors westward, such that I-11 would be stealing a number from another potential Interstate. California could potentially turn CA 99 into an Interstate corridor (many like to think it would be I-9). I don't quite see US 395 doing much, and US 95 in Nevada isn't more trafficked (even I think I-11 following US 95 northward seems premature, and that route as an Interstate could benefit me).

[andy3175]

I don't see much of any need for more than two other interstate corridors westward, such that I-11 would be stealing a number from another potential Interstate. California could potentially turn CA 99 into an Interstate corridor (many like to think it would be I-9). I don't quite see US 395 doing much, and US 95 in Nevada isn't more trafficked (even I think I-11 following US 95 northward seems premature, and that route as an Interstate could benefit me).

I too think I-11 is a decent designation for the Phoenix-Las Vegas freeway, and it would suffice for the extension up US 395. If other north-south Interstates are designated west of here, one could assign Interstate 7 to California SR 99 and US 97 if those become freeways (both have been mentioned as potential future freeway and/or Interstate corridors), and Interstate 9 to US 395 (from southern terminus north to somewhere near Mono Lake, then send it into Nevada to meet Interstate 11 .... I doubt US 395 from north of Mono Lake to around Topaz Lake could ever become an Interstate highway due to the narrow canyons and high cost of widening, and any connecting freeway need could be done by sending through traffic east to Hawthorne to join US 95 from there north to Reno). And for Interstate 13 lovers, you can always reserve that number for the US 93 corridor north of Las Vegas and for the US 95 corridor south of Las Vegas, should one ever be needed. Keep in mind US 95 south of Las Vegas is now expressway (excluding the urban stretch through Searchlight) all the way south to the Nevada-California state line.

[kkt]

- too short to be a primary interstate number

Whatever you have to say about that, it isn't. It's longer than I-17 even, and no one complains about that being too short.

Well, I do.  I-17 should be a spur off I-10.  So should I-19.

[corco]

- too short to be a primary interstate number

Whatever you have to say about that, it isn't. It's longer than I-17 even, and no one complains about that being too short.

Well, I do.  I-17 should be a spur off I-10.  So should I-19.

I-17 is longer than I-82!

[Molandfreak]

Hey, let's also renumber I-78 to I-395, since it's two miles shorter than I-17 and fuck NYC amirite?

[national highway 1]

Is someone really suggesting that the US 395 corridor or some obscure route snaking through the Oregon mountains is more deserving of a 2di interstate designation than a direct Phoenix to Las Vegas route?

That would be FritzOwl, who wants to make EVERYTHING an interstate. 

[english si]

No: FritzOwl would still consider US93 as more important than U395, even if he'd want both of them as interstates (as part of Operation Get Rid of US Routes and Make Interstates A Multi Country System).

[kkt]

I-17 is longer than I-82!

I would consider I-82 kind of borderline too. 

But it's not just length, it's also traffic and size of the communities it serves along the way.  I-82 is busier and serves some medium-sized cities along the way.  I-11, not so much.

This stretch between Las Vegas and Phoenix has been designated part of the CANAMEX High Priority trade corridor since the 1990s. If I recall correctly, it's also the only portion of the CANAMEX corridor that is not currently Interstate highway (and the only parts that were two lanes when the corridor was originally designated).

CANAMEX is not so much about freight between Mexico and Canada as about pork barrel local projects for the intermountain west.  Freight that travels by ocean to the new port planned in Sonora can travel by existing I-8 and I-10 to the west coast, by existing I-10 and I-40 to the east coast, by existing I-15 to Calgary.  I-11 is a small shortcut to a lightly used freight path.  If it was really about freight mobility to the Canadian midwest, I-17 would be extended north  along US 89 to meet I-15 somewhere in Utah.

The Hoover Dam bypass/bridge was put in motion in part due to the CANAMEX designation and the traffic backups over the dam. This was an issue before 9/11 closed the dam to commercial traffic, but 9/11 restrictions certainly elevated the priority.

Great, the bypass was long overdue.  I was all for it.  It didn't need an interstate number to happen.

[FightingIrish]

- too short to be a primary interstate number

Whatever you have to say about that, it isn't. It's longer than I-17 even, and no one complains about that being too short.

Well, I do.  I-17 should be a spur off I-10.  So should I-19.

Okay, that's the dumbest thing I've ever read here.

[kkt]

- too short to be a primary interstate number

Whatever you have to say about that, it isn't. It's longer than I-17 even, and no one complains about that being too short.

Well, I do.  I-17 should be a spur off I-10.  So should I-19.

Okay, that's the dumbest thing I've ever read here.

Really?  Dumber than "poop is cool"?

[roadfro]

The Hoover Dam bypass/bridge was put in motion in part due to the CANAMEX designation and the traffic backups over the dam. This was an issue before 9/11 closed the dam to commercial traffic, but 9/11 restrictions certainly elevated the priority.

Great, the bypass was long overdue.  I was all for it.  It didn't need an interstate number to happen.

And it didn't have an Interstate number to happen. The Hoover Dam Bypass was planned and construction was largely complete before "I-11" became an actual idea put out by any powers that be.

[myriad1973]

I think the best solution to make I-11 fit into the grid is to renumber the connector from Las Vegas to Phoenix and make that I-15. In Las Vegas the present day I-15 would be renumbered I-11 all the way to San Diego.

[adventurernumber1]

I think the best solution to make I-11 fit into the grid is to renumber the connector from Las Vegas to Phoenix and make that I-15. In Las Vegas the present day I-15 would be renumbered I-11 all the way to San Diego.

Well that sounds good it's just that might be a little odd. If I-11 ends up being extended from Las Vegas to Reno then it'll fit in the grid fine despite it being east of I-15 from Las Vegas to Phoenix.

[sdmichael]

In fairness... While the introduction of I-11 doesn't quite fit the grid, neither did US 91. It went west of US 101 after 1947.

[jakeroot]

I don't really give a rats ass whether or not a freeway is constructed between Phoenix and LV, because the maps indicate that it's not a highly desirable route.

What I do care about is the interstate designation . . . why can't this proposed route continue to use US-93? US-93 is more well known and already fits within the grid.

If this conversation has already taken place, please excuse my ignorance.

[Molandfreak]

I don't really give a rats ass whether or not a freeway is constructed between Phoenix and LV, because the maps indicate that it's not a highly desirable route.

What I do care about is the interstate designation . . . why can't this proposed route continue to use US-93? US-93 is more well known and already fits within the grid.

Because U.S. routes suggest nothing about the type of road to an average driver.  Without an intermediate system, Interstate designations are highly desired.  But there are other ways of suggesting a freeway/expressway... if AASHTO would roll with it:

[roadfro]

In fairness... While the introduction of I-11 doesn't quite fit the grid, neither did US 91. It went west of US 101 after 1947.

You're talking about a small portion of US 91 being west of US 101 in Southern California, despite the fact that both routes stretched northward for several hundred miles beyond that (near to or reaching Canada) in perfect grid order.

The southern extensions of US 93 and US 95 south of Las Vegas in relation to US 91 is a better example (and appropriate since these highways involve similar corridors). US 91 ended up being west of the extensions of both US 93 and US 95 south of Las Vegas. However, the vast majority of all three highways' lengths fell within the US Highway numbering grid, so it's not nearly as egregious. If I-11 ends up getting extended north of Las Vegas, it would be a similar situation with respect to the Interstate numbering grid.

[jakeroot]

I don't really give a rats ass whether or not a freeway is constructed between Phoenix and LV, because the maps indicate that it's not a highly desirable route.

What I do care about is the interstate designation . . . why can't this proposed route continue to use US-93? US-93 is more well known and already fits within the grid.

Because U.S. routes suggest nothing about the type of road to an average driver.  Without an intermediate system, Interstate designations are highly desired.  But there are other ways of suggesting a freeway/expressway... if AASHTO would roll with it:

As far as I'm concerned, the average driver has a GPS when driving long distance, which would tell them to use the US-93 freeway. The average driver, if without a GPS, would still follow the signs for "Las Vegas" or "Phoenix" regardless of the road designation.

That said, I agree that we could do a better job to advertise freeways . . . this could be a pilot project for AASHTO should they go through with said proposal.