Another article about Interstate 11. I know the freeway is decades away, but it looks like it is gaining support. One thing I don't understand is when people complain about it "Linking Las Vegas and Mexico", is that do these people not know I-15 exists? I-15 ends barely 12 miles north of the Mexico Border in San Diego at I-5 whcih goes to the Mexico Border. Also I-15 does go all the way to Canada.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/apr/22/mayor-interstate-11-project-could-be-commercial-bo/
Read that as linking Las Vegas and the major part of Mexico. You wouldn't use I-15 from Las Vegas to get anywhere east of the Colorado.
I'm more confused how I-11 would help get goods from the port at Long Beach to Las Vegas. From the article:
"The interstate would provide for a greater shipping flow of goods from the Southern California ports through the southwest, he said."
Going from Long Beach to Las Vegas via I-15 is 276 miles...going via Phoenix is 658 miles.
Quote from: DTComposer on April 28, 2011, 03:55:50 AM
I'm more confused how I-11 would help get goods from the port at Long Beach to Las Vegas. From the article:
"The interstate would provide for a greater shipping flow of goods from the Southern California ports through the southwest, he said."
Going from Long Beach to Las Vegas via I-15 is 276 miles...going via Phoenix is 658 miles.
I'm guessing that person has never opened a map. Or can't add numbers. Interstae 11 would actually act as an alternate to Interstate 5 in California.
If they extend it to Reno, or further. It's supposed to be a major trade route partially from a Possible to be built port in Mexico.
Quote from: Interstate Trav on April 28, 2011, 05:19:23 AM
If they extend it to Reno, or further. It's supposed to be a major trade route partially from a possibly-to-be-built port in Mexico.
Is it the border crossing at Lukeville AZ, on AZ 85?
Quote from: Interstate Trav on April 28, 2011, 05:18:13 AM
Quote from: DTComposer on April 28, 2011, 03:55:50 AM
I'm more confused how I-11 would help get goods from the port at Long Beach to Las Vegas. From the article:
"The interstate would provide for a greater shipping flow of goods from the Southern California ports through the southwest, he said."
Going from Long Beach to Las Vegas via I-15 is 276 miles...going via Phoenix is 658 miles.
I'm guessing that person has never opened a map. Or can't add numbers. Interstae 11 would actually act as an alternate to Interstate 5 in California.
Quote from: Interstate Trav on April 28, 2011, 05:19:23 AM
It's supposed to be a major trade route partially from a Possible to be built port in Mexico.
Looking at a map makes me even more confused.
First, this article indicates that the Mexican port that I-11 is supposed to connect to is Punta Colonet:
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/highway-project-102517649.html
Second, this article indicates that Punta Colonet is intended to compete with Long Beach:
http://www.dredgingtoday.com/2010/12/02/mexico-plan-for-mega-port-at-punta-colonet-moves-ahead/
Here's a link to a map that shows the locations of Punta Colonet (a little northwest of Camalu on the Mexican Pacific coast), Long Beach, Las Vegas, and Phoenix:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=punta+colonet+mexico&aq=&sll=33.782001,-84.415512&sspn=0.381235,0.614548&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Punta+Colonet&ll=33.495598,-115.059814&spn=6.346971,9.832764&z=7
I don't understand how I-11, if extended to Punta Colonet, would help Long Beach in any form or fashion.
And besides, I-11 is already suffering from "I-73-itis", being further east in the grid than it should be; but at least it will meet I-15 in Vegas.
I-71 is also mostly east of where it should be on the grid, but they solved it by having at least some of the route west of I-75. They could possibly take I-11 to Reno, thus having some of it west of I-15.
Of course, with I-99, I-238 and I-73 (as well as the proposed I-3), it seems the grid system isn't being followed all the rigidly anymore.
Quote from: ausinterkid on April 28, 2011, 05:44:56 AM
Quote from: Interstate Trav on April 28, 2011, 05:19:23 AM
If they extend it to Reno, or further. It's supposed to be a major trade route partially from a possibly-to-be-built port in Mexico.
Is it the border crossing at Lukeville AZ, on AZ 85?
I don't think so, from the other articles I have read it's supposed to run South then Southeast to Casa Grande, and meet up wiuth I-10 again. So I'm guessing it's supposed to connect to the border via I-19.
Quote from: Grzrd on April 28, 2011, 09:53:40 AM
Quote from: Interstate Trav on April 28, 2011, 05:18:13 AM
Quote from: DTComposer on April 28, 2011, 03:55:50 AM
I'm more confused how I-11 would help get goods from the port at Long Beach to Las Vegas. From the article:
"The interstate would provide for a greater shipping flow of goods from the Southern California ports through the southwest, he said."
Going from Long Beach to Las Vegas via I-15 is 276 miles...going via Phoenix is 658 miles.
I'm guessing that person has never opened a map. Or can't add numbers. Interstae 11 would actually act as an alternate to Interstate 5 in California.
Quote from: Interstate Trav on April 28, 2011, 05:19:23 AM
It's supposed to be a major trade route partially from a Possible to be built port in Mexico.
Looking at a map makes me even more confused.
First, this article indicates that the Mexican port that I-11 is supposed to connect to is Punta Colonet:
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/highway-project-102517649.html
Second, this article indicates that Punta Colonet is intended to compete with Long Beach:
http://www.dredgingtoday.com/2010/12/02/mexico-plan-for-mega-port-at-punta-colonet-moves-ahead/
Here's a link to a map that shows the locations of Punta Colonet (a little northwest of Camalu on the Mexican Pacific coast), Long Beach, Las Vegas, and Phoenix:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=punta+colonet+mexico&aq=&sll=33.782001,-84.415512&sspn=0.381235,0.614548&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Punta+Colonet&ll=33.495598,-115.059814&spn=6.346971,9.832764&z=7
I don't understand how I-11, if extended to Punta Colonet, would help Long Beach in any form or fashion.
That makes sense that it's going to compete with Long Beach. Also looking at the map you sent, the most direct route north is to San Diego to I-5. Have to cross a lot of land to get inland enough to go through Arizona, only to then drive NorthWest again.
I'm primarily for an Interstate connection for Phoenix and Las Vegas, as it seems to be needed. If traffic warrants it, then that part I can see.
Quote from: Henry on April 28, 2011, 11:04:31 AM
And besides, I-11 is already suffering from "I-73-itis", being further east in the grid than it should be; but at least it will meet I-15 in Vegas.
I always wondered why I-17 got the I-17 designation, why not I-19? To leave a number open between Phoenix and Los Angeles, for a North and South Interstate. It's almost as if they never planned for any Interstate between I-15 and I-17.
What I wish they would have done was just combine I-17 and I-19 into one long intrastate, via concurrency between Phoenix and Tucson. I drew up a map not too long ago that had a fictional Interstate from Las Vegas southeast to Nogales that would have used the US-93, I-17 and I-19 corridors. The entire thing could have been a much longer I-17, with the segment from approximately Wickenburg to Flagstaff becoming I-117.
It just seems having both I-17 and I-19 in the same state is a huge waste. And for the very reason being future expansion... Now, you either have to break the grid system by having I-11 out of place, or you just upgrade already existing highways and don't sign them as Interstates.
I think I-17 was conceived before I-19? Of course, that doesn't explain why 17 wasn't extended down 10.
I-19 came in the 1970s, IIRC. I'm pretty sure of this because when it was built all the guide signs were in metric units, as there was a huge push for metrification during the 1970s, and it wasn't until 1999 that some of the signs started to get replaced.
Quote from: Quillz on April 28, 2011, 01:47:32 PM
I-71 is also mostly east of where it should be on the grid, but they solved it by having at least some of the route west of I-75. They could possibly take I-11 to Reno, thus having some of it west of I-15.
Of course, with I-99, I-238 and I-73 (as well as the proposed I-3), it seems the grid system isn't being followed all the rigidly anymore.
And I-74.
Quote from: Henry on April 28, 2011, 11:04:31 AM
And besides, I-11 is already suffering from "I-73-itis", being further east in the grid than it should be; but at least it will meet I-15 in Vegas.
I-11 could end at the US 95/Clark County 215/Future I-215 interchange instead of just at I-15. It would at least put it west of I-15 and it would still follow the rule of connecting to an interstate at each end.
And just so that no one gets confused... I-11 would continue along the US 95 freeway (the section that is not part of I-515) and would end where Clark County 215 and US 95 meet.
^ That would put maybe 20 miles of I-11 west of I-15, but there'd still be nearly 300 miles of it that would violate the grid...
If the grander scheme for I-11 comes into play, with I-11 extending northward via US 95, then the violation wouldn't be as egregious. But that is much further off than the Vegas-to-Phoenix proposal...
A note on I-17 and I-19: both routes were part of the system approved in 1947. Though at the time, I-17's routing was proposed along today's AZ 89 corridor between Wickenburg and Ash Fork. I-17's realignment further east (as well as I-10's move to a more direct line between Phoenix and Quartzsite) came later.
I checked my 1957 and 1958 plans (well, not mine per se, but on my site) and sure enough yes, they're both on both.
Quote from: Quillz on April 29, 2011, 01:41:34 AMI-19 came in the 1970s, IIRC. I'm pretty sure of this because when it was built all the guide signs were in metric units, as there was a huge push for metrification during the 1970s, and it wasn't until 1999 that some of the signs started to get replaced.
I-19 was built in the 1960's and 1970's, but was planned well before then. The original signs weren't actually metric. There were a few small signing jobs which installed signs in English units (I have a copy of the plans for one of them). It is also likely that I-19 had temporary signs installed in advance of a permanent signing contract, as was done for other Interstates in Arizona. The metric conversion was done through a single contract in 1980.
Wikipedia has the details (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_19).
Quote from: roadfro on July 14, 2009, 06:00:29 AM
IMO, it doesn't need to be an Interstate. I see no problem with keeping it as US 93, as its already part of the CANAMEX high-priority corridor.
Above from "New Push for I-11" thread.
Quote from: Grzrd on April 28, 2011, 09:53:40 AM
the Mexican port that I-11 is supposed to connect to is Punta Colonet
Here's an article talking about the relationship between the Phoenix-Las Vegas segment of proposed I-11 and the CANAMEX Corridor; again, the connection to the proposed Punta Colonet port in Mexico figures prominently:
http://tucsoncitizen.com/national-news/2011/05/16/planners-see-value-in-canamex-corridor-for-southwest-valley/
"...The route would begin at a potential deep-water port in Punta Colonet, Mexico, where goods from Asia would begin their journey to the Valley before being transformed or sorted and moved again..."
The article refers to I-11 and CANAMEX as competing corridors (in a limited sense):
"The Canamex route would consist of four-lane roads and would pretty much follow existing roadways and rail.
In Arizona, the highway would follow:
-Interstate 19 from Nogales to Tucson.
-Interstate 10 from Tucson to Maricopa County.
-The connection between I-10 in the Valley to U.S. 93 is uncertain.
-But moving freight in the Southwest Valley to Wickenburg Road and then to Vulture Mine Road to the Wickenburg Bypass Southern Loop and then to U.S. 93 is the route favored by the Canamex Coalition.
However, there is a competing corridor that doesn't exist yet called Interstate 11 that would run through Buckeye east of Wickenburg Road..."
Here is a map that shows the locations of Wickenburg Road/Vulture Mine Road and "through Buckeye east of Wickenburg Road":
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Buckeye,+AZ&aq=0&sll=33.812549,-84.382287&sspn=0.189694,0.307274&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Buckeye,+Maricopa,+Arizona&ll=33.533382,-112.644196&spn=0.38062,0.614548&z=11
I am not familiar with CANAMEX Corridor. Is it safe to say that, aside from above minor discrepancy, CANAMEX and I-11 are the same corridor from Las Vegas southward?
It seems like I-11 would follow AZ 85 south to a completely different border crossing.
Quote from: Grzrd on May 24, 2011, 06:15:08 AM
I am not familiar with CANAMEX Corridor. Is it safe to say that, aside from above minor discrepancy, CANAMEX and I-11 are the same corridor from Las Vegas southward?
The original CANAMEX corridor in the United States was defined to run from Mexico to Vegas following I-19, I-10, and US 93--the necessary connection between I-10 and US 93 was not explicitly defined. First mentions of the proposed I-11 corridor initially relied upon a currently unconstructed route (proposed Hassayampa Freeway?) to connect the western suburbs of Phoenix near I-10 to US 93--there was little talk of extending I-11 south beyond Phoenix initially.
FWIW: North of Las Vegas, the CANAMEX corridor follows I-15 northward into Utah, Idaho and Montana towards Canada. The grander scheme for I-11 would have it following the US 95 corridor northward through Nevada and into Oregon and beyond.
Quote from: Interstate Trav on April 28, 2011, 02:43:05 PM
Quote from: Henry on April 28, 2011, 11:04:31 AM
And besides, I-11 is already suffering from "I-73-itis", being further east in the grid than it should be; but at least it will meet I-15 in Vegas.
I always wondered why I-17 got the I-17 designation, why not I-19? To leave a number open between Phoenix and Los Angeles, for a North and South Interstate. It's almost as if they never planned for any Interstate between I-15 and I-17.
It looks like an obvious oversight now, but remember how undeveloped the desert southwest was back when the Interstate system was being planned and numbered. From the 1950 census, the population of Phoenix was 107,000 and Las Vegas was only 25,000. It would be hard to imagine those cities growing by 1300% and 2000% in the space of 50 years!
I do think I-17 and I-19 should be merged into one longer Interstate, though. I'd personally go with I-19.
I-17 & I-19 should be one freeway, and I-10 should run to San Diego straight across. :)
Quote from: 2Co5_14 on October 16, 2011, 11:57:37 PM
Quote from: Interstate Trav on April 28, 2011, 02:43:05 PM
Quote from: Henry on April 28, 2011, 11:04:31 AM
And besides, I-11 is already suffering from "I-73-itis", being further east in the grid than it should be; but at least it will meet I-15 in Vegas.
I always wondered why I-17 got the I-17 designation, why not I-19? To leave a number open between Phoenix and Los Angeles, for a North and South Interstate. It's almost as if they never planned for any Interstate between I-15 and I-17.
It looks like an obvious oversight now, but remember how undeveloped the desert southwest was back when the Interstate system was being planned and numbered. From the 1950 census, the population of Phoenix was 107,000 and Las Vegas was only 25,000. It would be hard to imagine those cities growing by 1300% and 2000% in the space of 50 years!
You do make a good point. just like the idea of an Interstate along the Colorado River seems really un needed , but in 25 years from now, pressuming we don't run out of water, that idea might even be needed.
Quote correctly. I have no clue which of the quotes this goes with, and I don't care.
Post Merge: November 02, 2011, 01:50:20 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on October 18, 2011, 11:01:42 PM
I-17 & I-19 should be one freeway, and I-10 should run to San Diego straight across. :)
I dought Los Angeles would like that idea, and then what would you number the existing 10? To Los Angeles
Quote from: Interstate Trav on October 19, 2011, 02:27:06 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on October 18, 2011, 11:01:42 PM
I-17 & I-19 should be one freeway, and I-10 should run to San Diego straight across. :)
I dought Los Angeles would like that idea, and then what would you number the existing 10? To Los Angeles
Could bring I-40 farther southwest, or even do a long concurrency with I-10 and I-20.
But we're getting off-topic, I think.
so why not make 17 & 19 both 19, and then 17 is free to use?
Then you have a long multiplex with I-10 unless you build a seperate freeway.
If and when AZ 85 is ever upgraded to interstate standards, have 10 turn south at the 10/85 interchange west of Phoenix to Gila Bend and then supplant 8 going est back to the original alignment. Have 19 continue north of Tucson all the way to Flagstaff, there would be a mutiplex from Tucson to where 10 would go west to Gila Bend, but it think that is acceptable, have the balance of existing 10 from AZ 85 east through Downtown be an x10.
I understand that AZ 85 has been under contruction for many years to became an eventual I-810 to be a full freeway bypass of Phoenix
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on February 03, 2012, 10:07:12 AM
I understand that AZ 85 has been under contruction for many years to became an eventual I-810 to be a full freeway bypass of Phoenix
that is correct. the only thing separating it from full freeway are one traffic light at the north end (kind of a scary high-speed one too, especially if one thinks the whole thing is freeway!) and then at the south end there's about three miles of two-lane, and then you're actually shunted onto the business loop through Gila Bend, as opposed to a direct on-ramp to 8 west from 85, so that's another 3 or 4 miles of not being limited access.
overall, not a bad road at all. I have a friend who lives in Tempe and he takes AZ-347 to get to I-8 and San Diego, but I severely recommend AZ-85, as AZ-347 is traffic light hell.
Quote from: Interstate Trav on October 19, 2011, 02:26:24 AM
Quote from: 2Co5_14 on October 16, 2011, 11:57:37 PM
Quote from: Interstate Trav on April 28, 2011, 02:43:05 PM
Quote from: Henry on April 28, 2011, 11:04:31 AM
And besides, I-11 is already suffering from "I-73-itis", being further east in the grid than it should be; but at least it will meet I-15 in Vegas.
I always wondered why I-17 got the I-17 designation, why not I-19? To leave a number open between Phoenix and Los Angeles, for a North and South Interstate. It's almost as if they never planned for any Interstate between I-15 and I-17.
It looks like an obvious oversight now, but remember how undeveloped the desert southwest was back when the Interstate system was being planned and numbered. From the 1950 census, the population of Phoenix was 107,000 and Las Vegas was only 25,000. It would be hard to imagine those cities growing by 1300% and 2000% in the space of 50 years!
You do make a good point. just like the idea of an Interstate along the Colorado River seems really un needed , but in 25 years from now, pressuming we don't run out of water, that idea might even be needed.
Quote correctly. I have no clue which of the quotes this goes with, and I don't care.
Post Merge: December 31, 1969, 06:59:59 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on October 18, 2011, 11:01:42 PM
I-17 & I-19 should be one freeway, and I-10 should run to San Diego straight across. :)
I dought Los Angeles would like that idea, and then what would you number the existing 10? To Los Angeles
I'm sure LA will be outraged that I-10 runs to San Diego instead of LA :P
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 03, 2012, 10:46:43 AM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on February 03, 2012, 10:07:12 AM
I understand that AZ 85 has been under contruction for many years to became an eventual I-810 to be a full freeway bypass of Phoenix
that is correct. the only thing separating it from full freeway are one traffic light at the north end (kind of a scary high-speed one too, especially if one thinks the whole thing is freeway!) and then at the south end there's about three miles of two-lane, and then you're actually shunted onto the business loop through Gila Bend, as opposed to a direct on-ramp to 8 west from 85, so that's another 3 or 4 miles of not being limited access.
overall, not a bad road at all. I have a friend who lives in Tempe and he takes AZ-347 to get to I-8 and San Diego, but I severely recommend AZ-85, as AZ-347 is traffic light hell.
From what I have seen of AZDOT's plans, there will be a rerouting of AZ 85 to a new roadway just north of Gila Bend, leading to a new directional interchange with I-8 just east of that town.
And, HELL TO THE NO..Keep I-8 and I-10 exactly where they are, and reclassify AZ 85 as an I-x10 connector. Or, if you are feeling freaky, extend it northwards towards US 93 and make it the beginning of I-11/I-13 to Vegas.
Anthony
Quote from: texaskdog on February 03, 2012, 10:47:51 AM
Quote from: Interstate Trav on October 19, 2011, 02:26:24 AM
Quote from: 2Co5_14 on October 16, 2011, 11:57:37 PM
Quote from: Interstate Trav on April 28, 2011, 02:43:05 PM
Quote from: Henry on April 28, 2011, 11:04:31 AM
And besides, I-11 is already suffering from "I-73-itis", being further east in the grid than it should be; but at least it will meet I-15 in Vegas.
I always wondered why I-17 got the I-17 designation, why not I-19? To leave a number open between Phoenix and Los Angeles, for a North and South Interstate. It's almost as if they never planned for any Interstate between I-15 and I-17.
It looks like an obvious oversight now, but remember how undeveloped the desert southwest was back when the Interstate system was being planned and numbered. From the 1950 census, the population of Phoenix was 107,000 and Las Vegas was only 25,000. It would be hard to imagine those cities growing by 1300% and 2000% in the space of 50 years!
You do make a good point. just like the idea of an Interstate along the Colorado River seems really un needed , but in 25 years from now, pressuming we don't run out of water, that idea might even be needed.
Quote correctly. I have no clue which of the quotes this goes with, and I don't care.
Post Merge: December 31, 1969, 06:59:59 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on October 18, 2011, 11:01:42 PM
I-17 & I-19 should be one freeway, and I-10 should run to San Diego straight across. :)
I dought Los Angeles would like that idea, and then what would you number the existing 10? To Los Angeles
I'm sure LA will be outraged that I-10 runs to San Diego instead of LA :P
I would imagine so. Also then what would you number the Interstate between Phoenix and Los Angeles? Also I live near I-10 in the Palm Springs area, so it would mean a new number.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 03, 2012, 11:21:25 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 03, 2012, 10:46:43 AM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on February 03, 2012, 10:07:12 AM
I understand that AZ 85 has been under contruction for many years to became an eventual I-810 to be a full freeway bypass of Phoenix
that is correct. the only thing separating it from full freeway are one traffic light at the north end (kind of a scary high-speed one too, especially if one thinks the whole thing is freeway!) and then at the south end there's about three miles of two-lane, and then you're actually shunted onto the business loop through Gila Bend, as opposed to a direct on-ramp to 8 west from 85, so that's another 3 or 4 miles of not being limited access.
overall, not a bad road at all. I have a friend who lives in Tempe and he takes AZ-347 to get to I-8 and San Diego, but I severely recommend AZ-85, as AZ-347 is traffic light hell.
From what I have seen of AZDOT's plans, there will be a rerouting of AZ 85 to a new roadway just north of Gila Bend, leading to a new directional interchange with I-8 just east of that town.
And, HELL TO THE NO..Keep I-8 and I-10 exactly where they are, and reclassify AZ 85 as an I-x10 connector. Or, if you are feeling freaky, extend it northwards towards US 93 and make it the beginning of I-11/I-13 to Vegas.
Anthony
I like keeping I-8 and I-10 where they are. Personally I always thought extending I-17 along AZ 85 to I-8 would be a good idea. Just personal opinion. Either that or have the I-11 extended south, as we all know I-13 will never get built as Las Vegas would never want the number 13 going into Las Vegas
Quote from: Interstate Trav on February 03, 2012, 03:05:16 AM
Then you have a long multiplex with I-10 unless you build a seperate freeway.
About as long I-39/90 in Illinois and Wisconsin. Still far shorter than I-80/90 in Indiana and Ohio.
Quote from: Interstate Trav on February 04, 2012, 12:51:23 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on February 03, 2012, 10:47:51 AM
Quote from: Interstate Trav on October 19, 2011, 02:26:24 AM
Quote from: 2Co5_14 on October 16, 2011, 11:57:37 PM
Quote from: Interstate Trav on April 28, 2011, 02:43:05 PM
Quote from: Henry on April 28, 2011, 11:04:31 AM
And besides, I-11 is already suffering from "I-73-itis", being further east in the grid than it should be; but at least it will meet I-15 in Vegas.
I always wondered why I-17 got the I-17 designation, why not I-19? To leave a number open between Phoenix and Los Angeles, for a North and South Interstate. It's almost as if they never planned for any Interstate between I-15 and I-17.
It looks like an obvious oversight now, but remember how undeveloped the desert southwest was back when the Interstate system was being planned and numbered. From the 1950 census, the population of Phoenix was 107,000 and Las Vegas was only 25,000. It would be hard to imagine those cities growing by 1300% and 2000% in the space of 50 years!
You do make a good point. just like the idea of an Interstate along the Colorado River seems really un needed , but in 25 years from now, pressuming we don't run out of water, that idea might even be needed.
Quote correctly. I have no clue which of the quotes this goes with, and I don't care.
Post Merge: December 31, 1969, 06:59:59 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on October 18, 2011, 11:01:42 PM
I-17 & I-19 should be one freeway, and I-10 should run to San Diego straight across. :)
I dought Los Angeles would like that idea, and then what would you number the existing 10? To Los Angeles
I'm sure LA will be outraged that I-10 runs to San Diego instead of LA :P
I would imagine so. Also then what would you number the Interstate between Phoenix and Los Angeles? Also I live near I-10 in the Palm Springs area, so it would mean a new number.
A western I-12 ha ha!!!
Keep I-8 & I-10 where they are. Renumbering I-10 to LA makes no sense, especially changing it to I-40...since CA 58 will probably extend I-40 to Bakersfield eventually.
But yeah, renumber I-17 to I-19 & make the connection between Phoenix & Vegas I-19.
Quote from: Mark68 on March 07, 2012, 03:21:39 AM
But yeah, renumber I-17 to I-19 & make the connection between Phoenix & Vegas I-19.
Surely you mean I-17 (and no, I won't call you Shirley).
Quote from: Interstate Trav on April 28, 2011, 02:41:20 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on April 28, 2011, 09:53:40 AM
Quote from: Interstate Trav on April 28, 2011, 05:18:13 AM
Interstae 11 would actually act as an alternate to Interstate 5 in California.
Quote from: Interstate Trav on April 28, 2011, 05:19:23 AM
It's supposed to be a major trade route partially from a Possible to be built port in Mexico.
this article indicates that the Mexican port that I-11 is supposed to connect to is Punta Colonet:
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/highway-project-102517649.html
this article indicates that Punta Colonet is intended to compete with Long Beach:
http://www.dredgingtoday.com/2010/12/02/mexico-plan-for-mega-port-at-punta-colonet-moves-ahead/
Here's a link to a map that shows the locations of Punta Colonet (a little northwest of Camalu on the Mexican Pacific coast), Long Beach, Las Vegas, and Phoenix:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=punta+colonet+mexico&aq=&sll=33.782001,-84.415512&sspn=0.381235,0.614548&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Punta+Colonet&ll=33.495598,-115.059814&spn=6.346971,9.832764&z=7
That makes sense that it's going to compete with Long Beach.
This March 26 TV video report (http://www.8newsnow.com/story/17257618/interstate-to-phoenix-could-make-nevada-shipping-hub) mentions the construction of the Punta Colonet port as a compelling reason to build Interstate 11 because freight traffic coming from Punta Colonet could help Nevada become a freight hub:
Quote
... that's just for planning a new interstate, let alone building it. But what gives extra urgency to Interstate 11 is freight that's getting clogged in California's ports.
"They're talking about ports in Mexico being expanded in the years ahead. Those goods, we'd rather not see them go up the congested corridor of Interstate 5 along California's border or coast. We'd rather see them come up inland, through an area that would be available to carry all this traffic and all this freight. A lot of jobs, a lot of warehousing, a lot of construction jobs to build this type of system," said NDOT Deputy Director Rudy Mafalbon.
The proposed super-port of Punta Colonet in Baja California, Mexico could have a direct line north to Las Vegas, if an interstate was built through western Arizona ....
Federal numbers show that building a mile of freeway through rural areas costs around $8 million, which would make Interstate 11 cost more than $2 billion.
Quote from: Grzrd on April 11, 2012, 05:04:40 PM
Quote from: Interstate Trav on April 28, 2011, 02:41:20 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on April 28, 2011, 09:53:40 AM
Quote from: Interstate Trav on April 28, 2011, 05:18:13 AM
Interstae 11 would actually act as an alternate to Interstate 5 in California.
Quote from: Interstate Trav on April 28, 2011, 05:19:23 AM
It's supposed to be a major trade route partially from a Possible to be built port in Mexico.
this article indicates that the Mexican port that I-11 is supposed to connect to is Punta Colonet:
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/highway-project-102517649.html
this article indicates that Punta Colonet is intended to compete with Long Beach:
http://www.dredgingtoday.com/2010/12/02/mexico-plan-for-mega-port-at-punta-colonet-moves-ahead/
Here's a link to a map that shows the locations of Punta Colonet (a little northwest of Camalu on the Mexican Pacific coast), Long Beach, Las Vegas, and Phoenix:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=punta+colonet+mexico&aq=&sll=33.782001,-84.415512&sspn=0.381235,0.614548&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Punta+Colonet&ll=33.495598,-115.059814&spn=6.346971,9.832764&z=7
That makes sense that it's going to compete with Long Beach.
This March 26 TV video report (http://www.8newsnow.com/story/17257618/interstate-to-phoenix-could-make-nevada-shipping-hub) mentions the construction of the Punta Colonet port as a compelling reason to build Interstate 11 because freight traffic coming from Punta Colonet could help Nevada become a freight hub:
Quote
... that's just for planning a new interstate, let alone building it. But what gives extra urgency to Interstate 11 is freight that's getting clogged in California's ports.
"They're talking about ports in Mexico being expanded in the years ahead. Those goods, we'd rather not see them go up the congested corridor of Interstate 5 along California's border or coast. We'd rather see them come up inland, through an area that would be available to carry all this traffic and all this freight. A lot of jobs, a lot of warehousing, a lot of construction jobs to build this type of system," said NDOT Deputy Director Rudy Mafalbon.
The proposed super-port of Punta Colonet in Baja California, Mexico could have a direct line north to Las Vegas, if an interstate was built through western Arizona ....
Federal numbers show that building a mile of freeway through rural areas costs around $8 million, which would make Interstate 11 cost more than $2 billion.
So basically I=11 would be an alternate to I-5? I always thought the Phoenix Las Vegas portion should be built if the traffic volumes warrant it, but I really wonder if past Las Vegas it would be needed given how little is between Las Vegas and Reno.
^ The last time I looked at some AADT numbers for US 95 between Vegas and the Reno area, it was somewhere on the order of 5000vpd or less. Not really enough to justify Interstate, and why much of the route is still a two-lane road.
Quote from: roadfro on April 12, 2012, 03:46:18 AM
^ The last time I looked at some AADT numbers for US 95 between Vegas and the Reno area, it was somewhere on the order of 5000vpd or less. Not really enough to justify Interstate, and why much of the route is still a two-lane road.
indeed, it is wide open. I never have any trouble averaging 75-77mph on that road. Cruise control on about 83 except for a very strict adherence to 25 in the small towns... and the sight lines are good enough that I can generally plan out my suicide passes without taking off cruise control, using only the accelerator, to about 100-105mph, to time things correctly.
the only modification I'd make to US-95 is to bypass Fallon, or at least instruct the cops to quit following people from one end of town to the other with an eye on the radar gun. that's just harassment: I know how to go 23mph through your shitty town.
the highway patrol seems to set their tolerance to 85mph (as in, I've gone 83-84 past a cop coming the opposite direction many, many times) - it's the small towns that are revenue-seeking assholes.
Quote from: texaskdog on October 18, 2011, 11:01:42 PM
I-17 & I-19 should be one freeway, and I-10 should run to San Diego straight across. :)
I remember reading on Wikipedia a few years back that someone suggested combining I-17 and I-19 into one, but then, it would be renumbered to I-21. Nothing was ever said about I-10.
I agree with the idea to extend I-11 up to Reno. Then you have an interstate connecting the 2 main population centers in NV. Besides, Reno is a large enough area to warrant a second interstate coming in.
I-11 news on LandLine: http://www.landlinemag.com/Story.aspx?StoryID=23591
Rick
Wouldn't I-13 fit the grid better? The north-south interstates, starting with I-5, would be:
- I-5 existing
- I-7 (future upgrade of US-97, from Weed through Bend to Wenatchee)
- I-9 (future upgrade of CA-99 from Grapevine through Sacramento to Red Bluff)
- I-11 (future upgrade of CA-14 to US-395 to Reno)
- I-13 (future upgrade of US-93, Phoenix to Las Vegas, possibly north to Twin Falls)
I-15 south of Las Vegas would still be too far west, but at least the rest of them would fit.
The number 13 + Las Vegas = ?
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 03, 2012, 10:24:16 PM
The number 13 + Las Vegas = ?
An added advantage to numbering it I-13!
Surprised a Las Vegas freeway isnt I-777
Quote from: kkt on May 03, 2012, 05:23:03 PM
Wouldn't I-13 fit the grid better? The north-south interstates, starting with I-5, would be:
- I-5 existing
- I-7 (future upgrade of US-97, from Weed through Bend to Wenatchee)
- I-9 (future upgrade of CA-99 from Grapevine through Sacramento to Red Bluff)
- I-11 (future upgrade of CA-14 to US-395 to Reno)
- I-13 (future upgrade of US-93, Phoenix to Las Vegas, possibly north to Twin Falls)
I-15 south of Las Vegas would still be too far west, but at least the rest of them would fit.
I still think southwest of I-15 hitting I-70 it should be I-70. I believe most of the traffic heading northeast is going to be heading east instead of north.
Not really, I-15 inherited its major, x5, odd designation from the fact it absorbed much of the north-south US 91 and later, the southern end of US 395. (What would be the point of I-70 meeting I-40 in Barstow and I-10 in Ontario, CA? :hmmm: :confused:)
Anyway, regarding the 15/13 thing, Las Vegas would probably fight the 13 number as hard as it could–you and I know it's a stupid objection, but to some degree casinos cater to the stupid. Working at a casino, I can definitely imagine what would happen if the road out front was designated as OK-13. Casino patrons are serious about their "luck". (There was one guy who insisted that one particular housekeeper continue to vacuum the same square of carpet over and over for hours because she was "lucky" and he won when she was nearby. Correlation does not imply causation, dumbfuck!)
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 05, 2012, 12:36:50 AM
Anyway, regarding the 15/13 thing, Las Vegas would probably fight the 13 number as hard as it could–you and I know it's a stupid objection, but to some degree casinos cater to the stupid. Working at a casino, I can definitely imagine what would happen if the road out front was designated as OK-13. Casino patrons are serious about their "luck". (There was one guy who insisted that one particular housekeeper continue to vacuum the same square of carpet over and over for hours because she was "lucky" and he won when she was nearby. Correlation does not imply causation, dumbfuck!)
Having grown up in Vegas, I can attest that the concept of a major highway into the city carrying the number 13 would be hotly contested--the concept of I-11 seemst to have started in the Vegas area, so it's obvious why it's proposed as I-11 instead of 13.
The superstition about the number 13 is very prevalent in Vegas-area establishments. There are very few (if any) hotel-casinos with a labeled 13th floor in the hotel tower. The superstitions in Vegas and the gambling culture run very deep. (For example, many Asian tourists to Las Vegas will not stay on the 4th floor of a hotel or in a room with the number "4" in it--supposedly the pronunciation of "4" sounds similar to the pronunciation of the word for "death".)
What about an even number - after all look at I-24 and I-26 - I-32 would be no more diagonal than those...
Not that there's anything wrong with I-11.
Quote from: roadfro on May 05, 2012, 06:18:40 AM
(For example, many Asian tourists to Las Vegas will not stay on the 4th floor of a hotel or in a room with the number "4" in it--supposedly the pronunciation of "4" sounds similar to the pronunciation of the word for "death".)
That's Japanese; the word for 4 that sounds like death is
shi, while there is an alternate word for 4 as well,
yon.
^ Should've specified *East* Asian, I guess...
Quote from: english si on May 05, 2012, 07:04:29 AM
What about an even number - after all look at I-24 and I-26 - I-32 would be no more diagonal than those...
Not that there's anything wrong with I-11.
There has been further talk about taking the I-11 designation further north of Las Vegas, along the US 95 corridor up to Reno and/or up along the entire stretch of 95. If such a scheme were to happen (and I think that'd be highly unlikely for at least the Nevada portions), an odd number designation would be more appropriate. Even still, the stretch of US 93 proposed to become I-11 is slightly more north-south than it is east-west.
Does anyone think I-11 will actually ever become a reality?
I wonder if it would be like I-15 on Friday afternoons headed to Las Vegas, major traffic problems as everyone in the Phoenix area heading to Las Vegas for the weekend, just like on I-15 when everyone in Southern California, it seems like is headed to Las Vegas on I-15
I think there is sufficient momentum to get a continuous Interstate corridor between Las Vegas and Phoenix, it will just be several years down the road. Extending I-11 (or whatever the number ends up being) further north in Nevada is much more unlikely.
Quote from: roadfro on May 05, 2012, 06:18:40 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 05, 2012, 12:36:50 AM
Anyway, regarding the 15/13 thing, Las Vegas would probably fight the 13 number as hard as it could–you and I know it's a stupid objection, but to some degree casinos cater to the stupid. Working at a casino, I can definitely imagine what would happen if the road out front was designated as OK-13. Casino patrons are serious about their "luck". (There was one guy who insisted that one particular housekeeper continue to vacuum the same square of carpet over and over for hours because she was "lucky" and he won when she was nearby. Correlation does not imply causation, dumbfuck!)
Having grown up in Vegas, I can attest that the concept of a major highway into the city carrying the number 13 would be hotly contested--the concept of I-11 seemst to have started in the Vegas area, so it's obvious why it's proposed as I-11 instead of 13.
The superstition about the number 13 is very prevalent in Vegas-area establishments. There are very few (if any) hotel-casinos with a labeled 13th floor in the hotel tower. The superstitions in Vegas and the gambling culture run very deep. (For example, many Asian tourists to Las Vegas will not stay on the 4th floor of a hotel or in a room with the number "4" in it--supposedly the pronunciation of "4" sounds similar to the pronunciation of the word for "death".)
I think the 13th floor thing is more widespread than just Vegas. I've heard of many tall buildings where either the floor numbering goes from 12 to 14, or the 13th floor is not rentable/usable space (elevator machinery, storage, etc.) accessible only by stairwell.
One other interesting casino superstition I don't understand at all is the phobia of $50 bills. Casinos don't even bother stocking them; if you go to cash chips or slot vouchers out and request $50s you just get a blank look from the cashier. Although some cashiers try to use this to their advantage... I know one who, if she gets a $50 from someone wanting change, likes to slip it at the tail end of a jackpot for an amount like $1,950, in the hopes that the winner will grab the "unlucky" $50 and give it back to the floor attendant as a tip!
Quote from: texaskdog on May 04, 2012, 10:16:12 AM
Surprised a Las Vegas freeway isnt I-777
Don't give Harry Reid, or anyone else from the Nevada delegation, any Bud Schuster-esque ideas!
Quote from: Takumi on May 05, 2012, 09:13:08 AM
Quote from: roadfro on May 05, 2012, 06:18:40 AM
(For example, many Asian tourists to Las Vegas will not stay on the 4th floor of a hotel or in a room with the number "4" in it--supposedly the pronunciation of "4" sounds similar to the pronunciation of the word for "death".)
That's Japanese; the word for 4 that sounds like death is shi, while there is an alternate word for 4 as well, yon.
IIRC, it has something to do with Chinese numerology as opposed to the sound of the word. 44 is worse than 4, and 444 is even worse.
With that in mind, several Asiatic groups place stock in 82nd Ave in Portland, because 8+2=10. Imagine for a moment if Portland had I-82 instead of I-84.
Actually it's because 8 (八, baat) is phonologically similar to (發, faat) which means 'prosperous' in Cantonese.
And 2 (二, yi) is similar to (易, yi), which means 'easy'
Therefore any combination with 2 and 8 means 'easy to get rich'.
(BTW, I am actually of Chinese descent)
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 05, 2012, 10:32:54 PM
Quote from: roadfro on May 05, 2012, 06:18:40 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 05, 2012, 12:36:50 AM
Anyway, regarding the 15/13 thing, Las Vegas would probably fight the 13 number as hard as it could–you and I know it's a stupid objection, but to some degree casinos cater to the stupid. Working at a casino, I can definitely imagine what would happen if the road out front was designated as OK-13. Casino patrons are serious about their "luck". (There was one guy who insisted that one particular housekeeper continue to vacuum the same square of carpet over and over for hours because she was "lucky" and he won when she was nearby. Correlation does not imply causation, dumbfuck!)
Having grown up in Vegas, I can attest that the concept of a major highway into the city carrying the number 13 would be hotly contested--the concept of I-11 seemst to have started in the Vegas area, so it's obvious why it's proposed as I-11 instead of 13.
The superstition about the number 13 is very prevalent in Vegas-area establishments. There are very few (if any) hotel-casinos with a labeled 13th floor in the hotel tower. The superstitions in Vegas and the gambling culture run very deep. (For example, many Asian tourists to Las Vegas will not stay on the 4th floor of a hotel or in a room with the number "4" in it--supposedly the pronunciation of "4" sounds similar to the pronunciation of the word for "death".)
I think the 13th floor thing is more widespread than just Vegas. I've heard of many tall buildings where either the floor numbering goes from 12 to 14, or the 13th floor is not rentable/usable space (elevator machinery, storage, etc.) accessible only by stairwell.
The apartment house I live in doesn't have an Apartment 13.
Quote from: Brandon on May 05, 2012, 10:46:13 PM
Quote from: Takumi on May 05, 2012, 09:13:08 AM
Quote from: roadfro on May 05, 2012, 06:18:40 AM
(For example, many Asian tourists to Las Vegas will not stay on the 4th floor of a hotel or in a room with the number "4" in it--supposedly the pronunciation of "4" sounds similar to the pronunciation of the word for "death".)
That's Japanese; the word for 4 that sounds like death is shi, while there is an alternate word for 4 as well, yon.
IIRC, it has something to do with Chinese numerology as opposed to the sound of the word. 44 is worse than 4, and 444 is even worse.
Every so often at the county GIS office where I work, we get a call from a Chinese-American who has bought a house with the number 44, wanting us to change the number. (And invariably, this resident will have 42 on one side and 46 on the other.)
It seems like I-11 still might gain traction, but I'm guessing is decades away.
Quote from: texaskdog on May 04, 2012, 10:16:12 AM
Surprised a Las Vegas freeway isnt I-777
When the Nevada area code which formerly covered the entire state (702) was scheduled to be divided because of population growth in southern Nevada, some lobbied for area code 777. NANPA (North American Numbering Plan Administration) denied this because it is reserving identical-digit area codes, but did allow 775.
What are they reserving them for?
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 05, 2012, 10:32:54 PM
I think the 13th floor thing is more widespread than just Vegas. I've heard of many tall buildings where either the floor numbering goes from 12 to 14, or the 13th floor is not rentable/usable space (elevator machinery, storage, etc.) accessible only by stairwell.
Indeed, any apartment building in New York City is virtually guaranteed to have no 13th floor. Most office buildings won't, either, although the one I work in actually does. Making 13 a mechanical floor is something you do see on occasion although in my experience it isn't terribly common.
You can also fudge it without skipping it, as the folks who designed this building did:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg341.imageshack.us%2Fimg341%2F9650%2Fimg1993yl.jpg&hash=fabdafbba7f9b1248daeb6215e01e40f86b63f0d)
Quote from: deanej on June 06, 2012, 12:13:05 PM
What are they reserving them for?
NANPA has reserved a number of special combinations, including nxx codes for...something special. Toll free are in this category, but they're setting aside other code combinations as well for uses not currently identified. Keep in mind that in the 90s-00s, there were a lot of new local exchanges created, which in turn exhausted area codes probably earlier than the actual number of phone numbers assigned would have technically created. So, certain types of combinations are set aside for future uses. Since that time, the number of new exchanges assigned have decreased dramatically.
As an exercise, try to figure out why no area codes have the second digit "9".
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on June 06, 2012, 11:15:32 PM
As an exercise, try to figure out why no area codes have the second digit "9".
okay, google was no help. I'll bite.
my only guess is that having middle digit "9" would cause more people to accidentally dial "999", which is an emergency number in some places that use the North American area code system (Jamaica?)
IIRC, 999 works in the US as an emergency number, like how 911 and 112 (international/european number) work in the UK. Not the one they want you to use, but we better redirect them anyway.
How hard would it be to mandate that landlines use the same calling interface as cell phones? Landlines auto-dial once they see a complete number, making some codes unusable, but cell phones don't, so anything from 000 to 999 would work as an area code. On the plus side, there would be no need to dial 1 before an area code any more.
Quote from: english si on June 07, 2012, 11:41:17 AM
IIRC, 999 works in the US as an emergency number, like how 911 and 112 (international/european number) work in the UK. Not the one they want you to use, but we better redirect them anyway.
I had no idea this was the case. very interesting, and indeed a good thing to redirect.
that said, does that validate my guess from earlier?
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on June 06, 2012, 11:15:32 PM
As an exercise, try to figure out why no area codes have the second digit "9".
This one I knew off the top of my head... I was a bit of a phone geek before I became a road geek. The second digit 9 is being reserved for expanding the NANP with more digits (say 11 or 12 digit dialing instead of 10). Wikipedia has an article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Numbering_Plan_expansion) about it.
Between living in an overlay area for several years and using my cell phone exclusively thereafter, I was really confused when I got my office phone and it *doesn't* support 10 digit dialing. Not sure why it isn't at least permissive everywhere.
As for the topic at hand. I'm just glad they finally got the bridge over the colorado built and the bypass in place. The last time I went from Phoenix to Vegas, I had to cross over the Hoover Dam and the traffic was awful. Really, the rest of the trip isn't bad. US-93 is actually a pretty good road, even without a limited access alignment.
Quote from: Compulov on June 07, 2012, 06:04:51 PM
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on June 06, 2012, 11:15:32 PM
As an exercise, try to figure out why no area codes have the second digit "9".
This one I knew off the top of my head... I was a bit of a phone geek before I became a road geek. The second digit 9 is being reserved for expanding the NANP with more digits (say 11 or 12 digit dialing instead of 10). Wikipedia has an article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Numbering_Plan_expansion) about it.
Between living in an overlay area for several years and using my cell phone exclusively thereafter, I was really confused when I got my office phone and it *doesn't* support 10 digit dialing. Not sure why it isn't at least permissive everywhere.
As for the topic at hand. I'm just glad they finally got the bridge over the colorado built and the bypass in place. The last time I went from Phoenix to Vegas, I had to cross over the Hoover Dam and the traffic was awful. Really, the rest of the trip isn't bad. US-93 is actually a pretty good road, even without a limited access alignment.
To expand on that, not having a '9' as the second digit of an area code in North America (more accurately 'World Zone 1') allows for a permissive dialing period for such a numbering pool expansion - existing area code (called the 'Numbering Plan Area' or 'NPA' code within the telecom industry) numbers would be expanded to four digits with '9' being the second digit. For example, the '213' area code in downtown Los Angeles would become '2913', keeping the system from getting confused during the transition. My own home '920' would become '9920', and so forth.
Also, in response to english si, '999' does
not work as an emergency call number in North America - '999' is used as a local number prefix (the second group of digits in a North American phone number - xxx-XXX-xxxx) in many World Zone 1 area codes. For example, in my home '920' area code here in Wisconsin, '920-999-xxxx' is an active local number block - local landlines in Saint Cloud, WI (just northeast of Fond du Lac, WI) use it and if you are in or close to that town, a call can be made to those numbers by just dialing the last seven digits of the phone number ('999-xxxx').
Only '911' works for emergency access here.
Mike
Quote from: Compulov on June 07, 2012, 06:04:51 PM
As for the topic at hand. I'm just glad they finally got the bridge over the colorado built and the bypass in place. The last time I went from Phoenix to Vegas, I had to cross over the Hoover Dam and the traffic was awful. Really, the rest of the trip isn't bad. US-93 is actually a pretty good road, even without a limited access alignment.
not only that, but the bypass isn't nearly as "kill a Mexican for the Homeland!" as the old road was.
It looks like the House and the Senate may pass a transportation reauthorization bill tonight. From looking at the current text of the bill (http://www.rules.house.gov/Media/file/PDF_112_2/LegislativeText/CRPT-112hrpt-HR4348.pdf) (page 23/599 of the pdf), it appears that "I-11" will have a Congressionally mandated route designation:
Quote
(2) ROUTE DESIGNATION.–Section 1105(e)(5)(C)(i) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2032; 109 Stat. 598) is amended by adding at the end the following: "˜"˜The routes referred to subparagraphs (A)(iii) and(B)(i) of subsection (c)(26) are designated as Interstate Route I-11.''.
I assume this provision will survive if the bill is passed.
EDIT
The FHWA website (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm) has the description of the corridor:
Quote
26. The CANAMEX Corridor ... as follows:
A.In the State of Arizona, the CANAMEX Corridor shall generally follow-- ...
iii.United States Route 93 in the vicinity of Phoenix to the Nevada Border.
B.In the State of Nevada, the CANAMEX Corridor shall follow-
i.United States Route 93 from the Arizona Border to Las Vegas
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 07, 2012, 10:26:19 AM
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on June 06, 2012, 11:15:32 PM
As an exercise, try to figure out why no area codes have the second digit "9".
okay, google was no help. I'll bite.
my only guess is that having middle digit "9" would cause more people to accidentally dial "999", which is an emergency number in some places that use the North American area code system (Jamaica?)
It's bad enough already, calling from the office:
Call your colleague in Philly: 9-1-215-...
Fatfinger the "2": 9-1-1-["Hello, what is your emergency?"]
wouldn't you need to do "9-911"? or does 911 bypass the "dial 9 for an outside line" in a corporate phone network?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 29, 2012, 02:04:16 PM
wouldn't you need to do "9-911"? or does 911 bypass the "dial 9 for an outside line" in a corporate phone network?
In my experience, PBXs tend to bypass the 9 requirement for 911. Where I work, though, 911 routes to campus public safety rather than the local PSAP. I think I'd rather call it from my cell phone in an emergency and get the state police, frankly.
Quote from: Grzrd on June 29, 2012, 12:13:36 PM
It looks like the House and the Senate may pass a transportation reauthorization bill tonight. From looking at the current text of the bill (http://www.rules.house.gov/Media/file/PDF_112_2/LegislativeText/CRPT-112hrpt-HR4348.pdf) (page 23/599 of the pdf), it appears that "I-11" will have a Congressionally mandated route designation:
Quote
(2) ROUTE DESIGNATION.–Section 1105(e)(5)(C)(i) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2032; 109 Stat. 598) is amended by adding at the end the following: "˜"˜The routes referred to subparagraphs (A)(iii) and(B)(i) of subsection (c)(26) are designated as Interstate Route I-11.''.
Will this actually *fund* the upgrade to Interstate standards, or does that just sort of put it higher on the list for funding?
Quote from: Compulov on June 29, 2012, 02:22:00 PM
Will this actually *fund* the upgrade to Interstate standards, or does that just sort of put it higher on the list for funding?
I believe that, in this part of the bill, Arizona and Nevada joined the Texas effort to have I-69 signage on interstate-grade sections of the I-69 Corridor that are currently not connected to the current interstate system (primarily along the Mexican border for Texas). As I read the language of the bill, I think all of I-69, not just Texas I-69, and I-11 will be able to have signed segments that are not connected to the current interstate system as long as they plan to have a connection within 25 years:
Quote
(1) IN GENERAL.–Section 1105(e)(5)(A) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2031;109 Stat. 597; 115 Stat. 872) is amended–
(A) in the first sentence, by striking "˜"˜and in subsections(c)(18) and (c)(20)'' and inserting "˜"˜, in subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20), and in subparagraphs (A)(iii) and (B) of subsection(c)(26)''; and
(B) in the second sentence, by striking "˜"˜that the segment'' and all that follows through the period and inserting "˜"˜that the segment meets the Interstate System design standards approved by the Secretary under section 109(b) of title 23, United States Code, and is planned to connect to an existing Interstate System segment by the date that is 25 years after the date of enactment of the MAP—21.''.
Above said, I would not be surprised if Harry Reid inserted an I-11 funding provision elsewhere in the bill (I have not read all 599 pages of the pdf X-( )
I think this provision would also give Mississippi and Tennessee the green light to immediately sign both current interstate-grade sections of I-269 and other sections of I-269 as they are opened to traffic. The Monticello Bypass in Arkansas could probably be signed as I-69 as sections are opened since it is planned to be connected to I-530 within the next 25 years.
It seems like Arkansas and Louisiana would have wanted their sections of I-49 to be included in this provision (it would have been a nice option to have).
^^
If that's the case, I wonder what portions of US-93 would be labled as I-11. I also wonder if this could affect anything on I-515 as well.
Quote from: Rover_0 on June 29, 2012, 04:12:15 PM
If that's the case, I wonder what portions of US-93 would be labled as I-11. I also wonder if this could affect anything on I-515 as well.
I wonder if they'll sign the whole thing as Future I-11 until they at least upgrade the section through Boulder City to a full freeway up to the existing freeway on both sides of the bridge. Then at least they'd have a continuous section from I-515 (or maybe all the way up to I-215?) into Arizona. Then it'd be up to AZ to upgrade sections and sign them as they were able to fund them.
It might be overkill, but I wonder if perhaps I-515 should be designated I-11 all the way to I-15. Seems a bit odd to have the end of a mainline Interstate be a child route. Not to mention I think it's confusing to change the designation of a through-route at a seemingly arbitrary point -- of course there's plenty of that in the Interstate system as it is.
I think the best route, at least for the short-mid term would to designate I-11 between I-15 and I-40... connecting two major Interstates certainly gives I-11 the credentials to be numbered with a mainline designation.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on June 29, 2012, 02:04:16 PM
wouldn't you need to do "9-911"? or does 911 bypass the "dial 9 for an outside line" in a corporate phone network?
Both work equally, by law, at least around here. Oh, and, fuck yes, I-11.
Why didn't they allow any of the other interstates under construction (I-86, I-73/I-74, I-99, etc.) to use the same power? It would really speed things along here in NY. Actually, we'd be able to sign most of I-86 if we had greater leeway in the endpoints of 2dis.
Article in the AZ Republic about future I-11, including a reference it may be toll.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/06/28/20120628phoenix-vegas-freeway-bill-advances.html
After reading that article, I'm rather surprised that I-11 would be routed to Casa Grande south of I-10. Though why wouldn't they just end it at I-8?
I would be looking forward to the construction of this highway. For sure, it would be done in my lifetime.
It would be nice if this sped up the southern part of US 93 to a least a 4-lane divided highway.
I wonder how US 93 will be upgraded through Kingman. That will be interesting to see.
Quote from: AZDude on June 30, 2012, 01:23:00 AM
I wonder how US 93 will be upgraded through Kingman. That will be interesting to see.
ADOT is looking to place a interchange for I-11 W of the Beale Street Interchange.
Quote from: Compulov on June 29, 2012, 05:33:51 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on June 29, 2012, 04:12:15 PM
If that's the case, I wonder what portions of US-93 would be labled as I-11. I also wonder if this could affect anything on I-515 as well.
I wonder if they'll sign the whole thing as Future I-11 until they at least upgrade the section through Boulder City to a full freeway up to the existing freeway on both sides of the bridge. Then at least they'd have a continuous section from I-515 (or maybe all the way up to I-215?) into Arizona. Then it'd be up to AZ to upgrade sections and sign them as they were able to fund them.
It might be overkill, but I wonder if perhaps I-515 should be designated I-11 all the way to I-15. Seems a bit odd to have the end of a mainline Interstate be a child route. Not to mention I think it's confusing to change the designation of a through-route at a seemingly arbitrary point -- of course there's plenty of that in the Interstate system as it is.
I think the best route, at least for the short-mid term would to designate I-11 between I-15 and I-40... connecting two major Interstates certainly gives I-11 the credentials to be numbered with a mainline designation.
I - 515 will be replaced with I - 11
Quote from: Compulov on June 29, 2012, 05:33:51 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on June 29, 2012, 04:12:15 PM
If that's the case, I wonder what portions of US-93 would be labled as I-11. I also wonder if this could affect anything on I-515 as well.
I wonder if they'll sign the whole thing as Future I-11 until they at least upgrade the section through Boulder City to a full freeway up to the existing freeway on both sides of the bridge. Then at least they'd have a continuous section from I-515 (or maybe all the way up to I-215?) into Arizona. Then it'd be up to AZ to upgrade sections and sign them as they were able to fund them.
It might be overkill, but I wonder if perhaps I-515 should be designated I-11 all the way to I-15. Seems a bit odd to have the end of a mainline Interstate be a child route. Not to mention I think it's confusing to change the designation of a through-route at a seemingly arbitrary point -- of course there's plenty of that in the Interstate system as it is.
I think the best route, at least for the short-mid term would to designate I-11 between I-15 and I-40... connecting two major Interstates certainly gives I-11 the credentials to be numbered with a mainline designation.
I agree with renumbering I-515 as I-11 since I-11 is going to be there anyways if this gets built, and since I-515 is cosigned it's entire run. To me it always just added confusion to the route. The only thing I wonder is if the exit numbers would stay the same to reflect US 95 or change for I-11 to the HooverDam? Since I-11 would be the main Interstate it should take over, but then you have all the exits south of I-15 being renumbered, and they change pretty largely at I-15 since, then US 95 takes over.
But would it be better to have exit numbers based on US 95 or I-11 through Las Vegas?
Also Sign the I-515 as I-11 then past that have it signed at Future I-11.
Quote from: Interstate Trav on June 30, 2012, 03:23:49 PM
I agree with renumbering I-515 as I-11 since I-11 is going to be there anyways if this gets built, and since I-515 is cosigned it's entire run. To me it always just added confusion to the route. The only thing I wonder is if the exit numbers would stay the same to reflect US 95 or change for I-11 to the HooverDam? Since I-11 would be the main Interstate it should take over, but then you have all the exits south of I-15 being renumbered, and they change pretty largely at I-15 since, then US 95 takes over.
But would it be better to have exit numbers based on US 95 or I-11 through Las Vegas?
Also Sign the I-515 as I-11 then past that have it signed at Future I-11.
Right now, the exit numbering on I-515/US 93/US 95 follows mileposts for US 95. The reason for this is that US 95 is the through route (as I-515 ends at I-15 and US 93 switches freeways to follow I-15), so it made sense to keep the exit numbers with US 95 for continuity. Also, historically, as the 515/93/95 freeway was built, new mileposts used US 95 (to tie into the freeway segments of US 95 west of I-15, which came first) while the old route (now SR 582) continued to use US 93 mileposts.
If I-11 actually does move forward closer to actual reality, NDOT would renumber I-515 as I-11. I would guess that they would continue to use US 95 exit numbering due to the continuity issue, avoiding having an approximate gap of 40 in the numbering in the middle of Vegas. However, if the long term idea of extending I-11 north along US 95 through Nevada towards Canada gained any traction into reality, then renumbering all exits to follow I-11 would make much more sense.
NDOT probably isn't apt to sign "Future I-11" at all. They didn't post "future" shields for I-515, leaving it unposted until the freeway was constructed to its current limit around 1994. NDOT hasn't posted any "future I-580" shields either, despite the fact that they refer to I-580 quite frequently in press releases and project documentation.
I'm not too happy about Congress mandating interstate route numbers or deciding which specific routes should get funding. Congress should lay out overall criteria for funding and let the agencies administer them. That's their job.
Phoenix to Las Vegas is only 285 miles and only connects two major cities. I don't think it's long enough or important enough to use a primary interstate number. I'd make the whole stretch I-515 (if it's worth making it an interstate route at all).
Making it I-11 would be out of the grid. And why is there no appropriate number within the grid available? Because too many short routes of only regional importance have been allowed to take up primary interstate numbers.
Quote from: kkt on June 30, 2012, 11:48:46 PM
I'm not too happy about Congress mandating interstate route numbers or deciding which specific routes should get funding. Congress should lay out overall criteria for funding and let the agencies administer them. That's their job.
Most of the time this happens because a legislator from the affected state(s) inserts the language into the bill. I-99 is a great example: it was done by Bud Shuster, representative to the House from...Altoona, Pennsylvania. It happens because the legislator believes it's in the interest of their constituency for that project to happen, but needs federal dollars to get done. So these corridors get written into law so that funding can be diverted specifically to them. And if you're already doing that, why not mandate that it becomes an interstate, and give it a number so you can refer to it as that instead of something cheesy like "CANAMEX Corridor"?
Quote from: kkt on June 30, 2012, 11:48:46 PM
Phoenix to Las Vegas is only 285 miles and only connects two major cities. I don't think it's long enough or important enough to use a primary interstate number. I'd make the whole stretch I-515 (if it's worth making it an interstate route at all).
The I-11 corridor is definitely a viable candidate for a two-digit Interstate number, and traffic volumes could certainly justify full Interstate improvements to stretches not built to that standard.
By contrast, I-17 connects two major cities, is wholly in Arizona, and is only about 145 miles long. I-19 is also wholly in Arizona, connects one major city to the Mexico border, and is only about 63 miles long. At least I-11 would cross a state line...
Quote
Making it I-11 would be out of the grid. And why is there no appropriate number within the grid available? Because too many short routes of only regional importance have been allowed to take up primary interstate numbers.
If the long-term idea to take I-11 up the US 95 corridor north as far as Canada comes to fruition, I-11 will definitely be a good fit inside the grid.
Quote from: roadfro on June 30, 2012, 10:23:07 PM
Quote from: Interstate Trav on June 30, 2012, 03:23:49 PM
I agree with renumbering I-515 as I-11 since I-11 is going to be there anyways if this gets built, and since I-515 is cosigned it's entire run. To me it always just added confusion to the route. The only thing I wonder is if the exit numbers would stay the same to reflect US 95 or change for I-11 to the HooverDam? Since I-11 would be the main Interstate it should take over, but then you have all the exits south of I-15 being renumbered, and they change pretty largely at I-15 since, then US 95 takes over.
But would it be better to have exit numbers based on US 95 or I-11 through Las Vegas?
Also Sign the I-515 as I-11 then past that have it signed at Future I-11.
Right now, the exit numbering on I-515/US 93/US 95 follows mileposts for US 95. The reason for this is that US 95 is the through route (as I-515 ends at I-15 and US 93 switches freeways to follow I-15), so it made sense to keep the exit numbers with US 95 for continuity. Also, historically, as the 515/93/95 freeway was built, new mileposts used US 95 (to tie into the freeway segments of US 95 west of I-15, which came first) while the old route (now SR 582) continued to use US 93 mileposts.
If I-11 actually does move forward closer to actual reality, NDOT would renumber I-515 as I-11. I would guess that they would continue to use US 95 exit numbering due to the continuity issue, avoiding having an approximate gap of 40 in the numbering in the middle of Vegas. However, if the long term idea of extending I-11 north along US 95 through Nevada towards Canada gained any traction into reality, then renumbering all exits to follow I-11 would make much more sense.
NDOT probably isn't apt to sign "Future I-11" at all. They didn't post "future" shields for I-515, leaving it unposted until the freeway was constructed to its current limit around 1994. NDOT hasn't posted any "future I-580" shields either, despite the fact that they refer to I-580 quite frequently in press releases and project documentation.
I actually am on the fence about I-11 exit numbering, considering your point that US 95 is the primary Route, but once a two digit Interstate takes over to I-15, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to have the exit numbers reflect that, considering the control point along that freeway is Phoenix, isn't it?
But I do agree that 40 mile gap in numbering would be a little confusing, but the long term plan I had heard was to extend I-11 further, but I'm sure that is not going to happen for some time. I'm shocked that this part is actually gaining traction.
How possible would it be to combine I-11 and I-19 into a single numbered route?
:hmmm:
Also, yes, I can also easily foresee 'I-11' being extended north and northwestward to supplant I-580 and so forth, ultimately into Washington.
OTOH, I also agree that route numbering for these new 'interstate' designations should be handled in the manner that is being done with US 41 here in eastern Wisconsin - let AASHTO and the FHWA, not Congress, pick the number.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on July 01, 2012, 12:10:28 PM
OTOH, I also agree that route numbering for these new 'interstate' designations should be handled in the manner that is being done with US 41 here in eastern Wisconsin - let AASHTO and the FHWA, not Congress, pick the number.
Mike
In this one case, I might be able to see why. For an Interstate to Las Vegas, your best numbering choices are 7 and 11, and your worst choice is 13.
Quote from: roadfro on July 01, 2012, 03:11:56 AM
Quote from: kkt on June 30, 2012, 11:48:46 PM
Phoenix to Las Vegas is only 285 miles and only connects two major cities. I don't think it's long enough or important enough to use a primary interstate number. I'd make the whole stretch I-515 (if it's worth making it an interstate route at all).
The I-11 corridor is definitely a viable candidate for a two-digit Interstate number, and traffic volumes could certainly justify full Interstate improvements to stretches not built to that standard.
Traffic volumes on the less busy parts of US-93 between I-40 and Wickenburg are around 6,000 vehicles per day in both directions. That's pretty low volume for building to interstate standards. By comparison, the least busy part of I-19 that's not right next to the border is 16,000 per day both directions. I-17 is even busier.
Quote
By contrast, I-17 connects two major cities, is wholly in Arizona, and is only about 145 miles long. I-19 is also wholly in Arizona, connects one major city to the Mexico border, and is only about 63 miles long. At least I-11 would cross a state line...
I agree. If numbering those as primary interstates was being proposed now, I'd complain about them too. :D
Quote
Quote
Making it I-11 would be out of the grid. And why is there no appropriate number within the grid available? Because too many short routes of only regional importance have been allowed to take up primary interstate numbers.
If the long-term idea to take I-11 up the US 95 corridor north as far as Canada comes to fruition, I-11 will definitely be a good fit inside the grid.
Yeah, but that's not very likely. US-95 north of Nellis Air Force Base is a pretty lonely road. If any north-south highway were to be developed into interstate east of the Sierra and west of I-15, it would probably be US-395 in California and Nevada or US-97 in California, Oregon, and Washington.
Quote from: Steve on July 01, 2012, 12:20:37 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 01, 2012, 12:10:28 PM
OTOH, I also agree that route numbering for these new 'interstate' designations should be handled in the manner that is being done with US 41 here in eastern Wisconsin - let AASHTO and the FHWA, not Congress, pick the number.
In this one case, I might be able to see why. For an Interstate to Las Vegas, your best numbering choices are 7 and 11, and your worst choice is 13.
I didn't realize promoting craps was one of the criteria for interstate numbering.
Quote from: kkt on July 01, 2012, 02:53:08 PM
Quote from: Steve on July 01, 2012, 12:20:37 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 01, 2012, 12:10:28 PM
OTOH, I also agree that route numbering for these new 'interstate' designations should be handled in the manner that is being done with US 41 here in eastern Wisconsin - let AASHTO and the FHWA, not Congress, pick the number.
In this one case, I might be able to see why. For an Interstate to Las Vegas, your best numbering choices are 7 and 11, and your worst choice is 13.
I didn't realize promoting craps was one of the criteria for interstate numbering.
Well imagine the stink that would be raised if AASHTO picked 13.
Quote from: Interstate Trav on July 01, 2012, 05:15:30 AM
Quote from: roadfro on June 30, 2012, 10:23:07 PM
Quote from: Interstate Trav on June 30, 2012, 03:23:49 PM
I agree with renumbering I-515 as I-11 since I-11 is going to be there anyways if this gets built, and since I-515 is cosigned it's entire run. To me it always just added confusion to the route. The only thing I wonder is if the exit numbers would stay the same to reflect US 95 or change for I-11 to the HooverDam? Since I-11 would be the main Interstate it should take over, but then you have all the exits south of I-15 being renumbered, and they change pretty largely at I-15 since, then US 95 takes over.
But would it be better to have exit numbers based on US 95 or I-11 through Las Vegas?
Also Sign the I-515 as I-11 then past that have it signed at Future I-11.
Right now, the exit numbering on I-515/US 93/US 95 follows mileposts for US 95. The reason for this is that US 95 is the through route (as I-515 ends at I-15 and US 93 switches freeways to follow I-15), so it made sense to keep the exit numbers with US 95 for continuity. Also, historically, as the 515/93/95 freeway was built, new mileposts used US 95 (to tie into the freeway segments of US 95 west of I-15, which came first) while the old route (now SR 582) continued to use US 93 mileposts.
If I-11 actually does move forward closer to actual reality, NDOT would renumber I-515 as I-11. I would guess that they would continue to use US 95 exit numbering due to the continuity issue, avoiding having an approximate gap of 40 in the numbering in the middle of Vegas. However, if the long term idea of extending I-11 north along US 95 through Nevada towards Canada gained any traction into reality, then renumbering all exits to follow I-11 would make much more sense.
NDOT probably isn't apt to sign "Future I-11" at all. They didn't post "future" shields for I-515, leaving it unposted until the freeway was constructed to its current limit around 1994. NDOT hasn't posted any "future I-580" shields either, despite the fact that they refer to I-580 quite frequently in press releases and project documentation.
I actually am on the fence about I-11 exit numbering, considering your point that US 95 is the primary Route, but once a two digit Interstate takes over to I-15, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to have the exit numbers reflect that, considering the control point along that freeway is Phoenix, isn't it?
But I do agree that 40 mile gap in numbering would be a little confusing, but the long term plan I had heard was to extend I-11 further, but I'm sure that is not going to happen for some time. I'm shocked that this part is actually gaining traction.
I reckon once the Boulder City bypass is complete and I-11 is eventually signed, let US 95's exit numbers continue off I-11's exit numbers north of I-15 as if I-11 were to be extended up US 95. Not really much confusion unless US 95 between Needles and Henderson is upgraded to a freeway.
Quote from: Steve on July 01, 2012, 04:08:22 PM
Well imagine the stink that would be raised if AASHTO picked 13.
It's a number. It comes after 12.
-- Jim Lovell, Apollo 13 commander
Quote from: national highway 1 on July 02, 2012, 12:05:43 AM
Quote from: Interstate Trav on July 01, 2012, 05:15:30 AM
Quote from: roadfro on June 30, 2012, 10:23:07 PM
Quote from: Interstate Trav on June 30, 2012, 03:23:49 PM
I agree with renumbering I-515 as I-11 since I-11 is going to be there anyways if this gets built, and since I-515 is cosigned it's entire run. To me it always just added confusion to the route. The only thing I wonder is if the exit numbers would stay the same to reflect US 95 or change for I-11 to the HooverDam? Since I-11 would be the main Interstate it should take over, but then you have all the exits south of I-15 being renumbered, and they change pretty largely at I-15 since, then US 95 takes over.
But would it be better to have exit numbers based on US 95 or I-11 through Las Vegas?
Also Sign the I-515 as I-11 then past that have it signed at Future I-11.
Right now, the exit numbering on I-515/US 93/US 95 follows mileposts for US 95. The reason for this is that US 95 is the through route (as I-515 ends at I-15 and US 93 switches freeways to follow I-15), so it made sense to keep the exit numbers with US 95 for continuity. Also, historically, as the 515/93/95 freeway was built, new mileposts used US 95 (to tie into the freeway segments of US 95 west of I-15, which came first) while the old route (now SR 582) continued to use US 93 mileposts.
If I-11 actually does move forward closer to actual reality, NDOT would renumber I-515 as I-11. I would guess that they would continue to use US 95 exit numbering due to the continuity issue, avoiding having an approximate gap of 40 in the numbering in the middle of Vegas. However, if the long term idea of extending I-11 north along US 95 through Nevada towards Canada gained any traction into reality, then renumbering all exits to follow I-11 would make much more sense.
NDOT probably isn't apt to sign "Future I-11" at all. They didn't post "future" shields for I-515, leaving it unposted until the freeway was constructed to its current limit around 1994. NDOT hasn't posted any "future I-580" shields either, despite the fact that they refer to I-580 quite frequently in press releases and project documentation.
I actually am on the fence about I-11 exit numbering, considering your point that US 95 is the primary Route, but once a two digit Interstate takes over to I-15, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to have the exit numbers reflect that, considering the control point along that freeway is Phoenix, isn't it?
But I do agree that 40 mile gap in numbering would be a little confusing, but the long term plan I had heard was to extend I-11 further, but I'm sure that is not going to happen for some time. I'm shocked that this part is actually gaining traction.
I reckon once the Boulder City bypass is complete and I-11 is eventually signed, let US 95's exit numbers continue off I-11's exit numbers north of I-15 as if I-11 were to be extended up US 95. Not really much confusion unless US 95 between Needles and Henderson is upgraded to a freeway.
Even if US 95 is upgraded to a freeway, it still isn't a mainline Interstate, and it doesn't connect any heavily populated areas. Just Needles, Blythe, Yuma, and indirectly Laughlin. I doubt it would ever get an Interstate Number.
I agree with having I-11 exit numbers take over, as most of the tourist traffic will seem to most likely be on I-11 headed Back to Arizona, similair to I-15 heading back to California, and someone mentioned a good idea of having I-11 extend along US 95 further to future I-215 current CC 215. Then you could have all the exit numbers follow I-11.
One thing I was wondering is why was I-515 even signed to begin with, it is always multiplexed, and the same goes for futre I-580 in Reno. Is it only for the Interstate funding? It seems like it just adds another route number.
I read somewhere that Carson City is the only state capitol not connected to the Interstate system. I-580 would finally do that.
Quote from: Interstate Trav on July 01, 2012, 05:15:30 AM
I actually am on the fence about I-11 exit numbering, considering your point that US 95 is the primary Route, but once a two digit Interstate takes over to I-15, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to have the exit numbers reflect that, considering the control point along that freeway is Phoenix, isn't it?
The control city is indeed Phoenix, but that has no bearing on the mileage or exit numbering.
Another point to consider is whether it's really necessary to renumber exits in Las Vegas just because the route number has changed...is it worth the cost and confusion when some of these exit numbers have been in place for nearly 30 years.
Quote from: Interstate Trav on July 02, 2012, 12:35:56 AM
I agree with having I-11 exit numbers take over, <...> and someone mentioned a good idea of having I-11 extend along US 95 further to future I-215 current CC 215. Then you could have all the exit numbers follow I-11.
If I-11 were to extend to the northern 215 interchange, that would still pose a gap in exit numbering for the three or four exits north of the beltway on US 95...the gap would just affect fewer interchanges...
Quote from: mgk920 on July 01, 2012, 12:10:28 PM
How possible would it be to combine I-11 and I-19 into a single numbered route?
Also, yes, I can also easily foresee 'I-11' being extended north and northwestward to supplant I-580 and so forth, ultimately into Washington.
This boarders on "fictional highways" territory, but... It would be much more feasible to combine I-19 with I-17.
Quote from: kkt on July 01, 2012, 02:50:20 PM
Quote from: roadfro on July 01, 2012, 03:11:56 AM
Quote from: kkt on June 30, 2012, 11:48:46 PM
Phoenix to Las Vegas is only 285 miles and only connects two major cities. I don't think it's long enough or important enough to use a primary interstate number. I'd make the whole stretch I-515 (if it's worth making it an interstate route at all).
The I-11 corridor is definitely a viable candidate for a two-digit Interstate number, and traffic volumes could certainly justify full Interstate improvements to stretches not built to that standard.
Traffic volumes on the less busy parts of US-93 between I-40 and Wickenburg are around 6,000 vehicles per day in both directions. That's pretty low volume for building to interstate standards. By comparison, the least busy part of I-19 that's not right next to the border is 16,000 per day both directions. I-17 is even busier.
Quote
By contrast, I-17 connects two major cities, is wholly in Arizona, and is only about 145 miles long. I-19 is also wholly in Arizona, connects one major city to the Mexico border, and is only about 63 miles long. At least I-11 would cross a state line...
I agree. If numbering those as primary interstates was being proposed now, I'd complain about them too. :D
Quote
Quote
Making it I-11 would be out of the grid. And why is there no appropriate number within the grid available? Because too many short routes of only regional importance have been allowed to take up primary interstate numbers.
If the long-term idea to take I-11 up the US 95 corridor north as far as Canada comes to fruition, I-11 will definitely be a good fit inside the grid.
Yeah, but that's not very likely. US-95 north of Nellis Air Force Base is a pretty lonely road. If any north-south highway were to be developed into interstate east of the Sierra and west of I-15, it would probably be US-395 in California and Nevada or US-97 in California, Oregon, and Washington.
US 95 doesn't go north of Nellis AFB...it swings far west of it. Unless you're talking about the test range way northwest of Vegas, which has lands under a jurisdiction by a combination of AFB, Dept. of Energy, Area 51, and other assorted government agencies.
Talking strictly about US 95, and without looking at any NDOT traffic counts, I would hazard a guess that US 95 constitutes some of the more regularly traveled two-lane US highway in the state. Certainly nothing that would warrant going out an building a freeway tomorrow, though.
Quote from: Interstate Trav on July 02, 2012, 12:37:10 AM
One thing I was wondering is why was I-515 even signed to begin with, it is always multiplexed, and the same goes for futre I-580 in Reno. Is it only for the Interstate funding? It seems like it just adds another route number.
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 02, 2012, 01:31:51 AM
I read somewhere that Carson City is the only state capitol not connected to the Interstate system. I-580 would finally do that.
Funding certainly plays a part, although the highway can still be designated and funded without being signed (see I-305 in CA).
I don't know the rationale for signing I-515 to be honest--I believe it was technically on the books for some time while being constructed throughout the 80s and early 90s, but it wasn't actually signed until the freeway was completed to its current extent in late 1994/early 1995.
But for I-580, having the "prestige" of an I-shield to connect Carson City to the Interstate system has been a desire for quite some time, and part of the draw for building it in the first place.
Carson City is not the only state capital without an Interstate highway. The four other capitals Juneau, Alaska; Dover, Delaware; Jefferson City, Missouri and Pierre, South Dakota. (Of the other four, it appears all but the Alaska one could be fairly easily connected to the system with the establishment of a spur route.)
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 02, 2012, 01:31:51 AM
I read somewhere that Carson City is the only state capitol not connected to the Interstate system. I-580 would finally do that.
I guess I could understand that, but aren't the locals still going to refer to I-580/US 395 as "the 395"? I just always found it to be a pointless multiplex, to a certain extent.
Quote from: roadfro on July 02, 2012, 05:18:13 AM
Quote from: Interstate Trav on July 01, 2012, 05:15:30 AM
I actually am on the fence about I-11 exit numbering, considering your point that US 95 is the primary Route, but once a two digit Interstate takes over to I-15, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to have the exit numbers reflect that, considering the control point along that freeway is Phoenix, isn't it?
The control city is indeed Phoenix, but that has no bearing on the mileage or exit numbering.
Another point to consider is whether it's really necessary to renumber exits in Las Vegas just because the route number has changed...is it worth the cost and confusion when some of these exit numbers have been in place for nearly 30 years.
Quote from: Interstate Trav on July 02, 2012, 12:35:56 AM
I agree with having I-11 exit numbers take over, <...> and someone mentioned a good idea of having I-11 extend along US 95 further to future I-215 current CC 215. Then you could have all the exit numbers follow I-11.
If I-11 were to extend to the northern 215 interchange, that would still pose a gap in exit numbering for the three or four exits north of the beltway on US 95...the gap would just affect fewer interchanges...
I was also thinking that if it is numbered primarily as I-11 wouldn't NDOT sign Phoenix on mileage signs leaving Las Vegas? Also since that is the main control point from Las Vegas, from torusim and trucking route, it seems that it would make sense to change the numbers to reflect that. If most traffic is staying on I-11 and headed for Phoenix or other parts of Arizona.
I also just realised that continuing I-11 to Future I-215, would probably add confusion, in the sense that US 95 is Signed for Reno, and if I-11 is signed for Reno, I wonder if that would make people unfamiliar with the area think of that as a new freeway to Reno, and when I-11 signs dissapear, be kinda confusing.
Quote from: roadfro on July 02, 2012, 05:36:16 AM
US 95 doesn't go north of Nellis AFB...it swings far west of it. Unless you're talking about the test range way northwest of Vegas, which has lands under a jurisdiction by a combination of AFB, Dept. of Energy, Area 51, and other assorted government agencies.
Several of the smaller airfields of Nellis AFB are along 95, northwest of Las Vegas. They generate some traffic, but once you're past them there's very little traffic until you get to Fallon.
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 02, 2012, 01:31:51 AM
I read somewhere that Carson City is the only state capitol not connected to the Interstate system. I-580 would finally do that.
Don't forget Dover (DE), Jefferson City (MO), Juneau (AK), and Pierre (SD).
Quote from: roadfro on July 02, 2012, 05:36:16 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 01, 2012, 12:10:28 PM
How possible would it be to combine I-11 and I-19 into a single numbered route?
Also, yes, I can also easily foresee 'I-11' being extended north and northwestward to supplant I-580 and so forth, ultimately into Washington.
This boarders on "fictional highways" territory, but... It would be much more feasible to combine I-19 with I-17.
Quote from: kkt on July 01, 2012, 02:50:20 PM
Quote from: roadfro on July 01, 2012, 03:11:56 AM
Quote from: kkt on June 30, 2012, 11:48:46 PM
Phoenix to Las Vegas is only 285 miles and only connects two major cities. I don't think it's long enough or important enough to use a primary interstate number. I'd make the whole stretch I-515 (if it's worth making it an interstate route at all).
The I-11 corridor is definitely a viable candidate for a two-digit Interstate number, and traffic volumes could certainly justify full Interstate improvements to stretches not built to that standard.
Traffic volumes on the less busy parts of US-93 between I-40 and Wickenburg are around 6,000 vehicles per day in both directions. That's pretty low volume for building to interstate standards. By comparison, the least busy part of I-19 that's not right next to the border is 16,000 per day both directions. I-17 is even busier.
Quote
By contrast, I-17 connects two major cities, is wholly in Arizona, and is only about 145 miles long. I-19 is also wholly in Arizona, connects one major city to the Mexico border, and is only about 63 miles long. At least I-11 would cross a state line...
I agree. If numbering those as primary interstates was being proposed now, I'd complain about them too. :D
Quote
Quote
Making it I-11 would be out of the grid. And why is there no appropriate number within the grid available? Because too many short routes of only regional importance have been allowed to take up primary interstate numbers.
If the long-term idea to take I-11 up the US 95 corridor north as far as Canada comes to fruition, I-11 will definitely be a good fit inside the grid.
Yeah, but that's not very likely. US-95 north of Nellis Air Force Base is a pretty lonely road. If any north-south highway were to be developed into interstate east of the Sierra and west of I-15, it would probably be US-395 in California and Nevada or US-97 in California, Oregon, and Washington.
US 95 doesn't go north of Nellis AFB...it swings far west of it. Unless you're talking about the test range way northwest of Vegas, which has lands under a jurisdiction by a combination of AFB, Dept. of Energy, Area 51, and other assorted government agencies.
Talking strictly about US 95, and without looking at any NDOT traffic counts, I would hazard a guess that US 95 constitutes some of the more regularly traveled two-lane US highway in the state. Certainly nothing that would warrant going out an building a freeway tomorrow, though.
Quote from: Interstate Trav on July 02, 2012, 12:37:10 AM
One thing I was wondering is why was I-515 even signed to begin with, it is always multiplexed, and the same goes for futre I-580 in Reno. Is it only for the Interstate funding? It seems like it just adds another route number.
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 02, 2012, 01:31:51 AM
I read somewhere that Carson City is the only state capitol not connected to the Interstate system. I-580 would finally do that.
Funding certainly plays a part, although the highway can still be designated and funded without being signed (see I-305 in CA).
I don't know the rationale for signing I-515 to be honest--I believe it was technically on the books for some time while being constructed throughout the 80s and early 90s, but it wasn't actually signed until the freeway was completed to its current extent in late 1994/early 1995.
But for I-580, having the "prestige" of an I-shield to connect Carson City to the Interstate system has been a desire for quite some time, and part of the draw for building it in the first place.
Carson City is not the only state capital without an Interstate highway. The four other capitals Juneau, Alaska; Dover, Delaware; Jefferson City, Missouri and Pierre, South Dakota. (Of the other four, it appears all but the Alaska one could be fairly easily connected to the system with the establishment of a spur route.)
And of those remaining four, South Dakota DOT could barely justify building the second set of two lanes on US83 to Pierre, much less make an interstate spur of it. And the DE 1 toll road could easily be, say, I-795, if DelDOT was intersted in pursuing such a thing.
Which brings us to Jefferson City. It's highly doubtful MoDOT is going to spend the hundreds of millions of dollars it would cost to build up the last couple mile of US54 at the service-heavy I-70 interchange.
So Carson City may be, effectively, the last state capital to be connected to the Interstate highway system.
Quote from: kkt on July 02, 2012, 12:23:57 AM
Quote from: Steve on July 01, 2012, 04:08:22 PM
Well imagine the stink that would be raised if AASHTO picked 13.
It's a number. It comes after 12.
-- Jim Lovell, Apollo 13 commander
That is a logical point of view that would be entirely, utterly lost on 80% of casino patrons. Not that that matters to AASHTO, of course, but you can bet it matters to the City of Las Vegas, who knows where its money comes from, and they could certainly put pressure up the chain to NDOT and AASHTO.
(I-21 would also be an acceptable, in-grid number, at least for the parts southeast of Las Vegas. But 11 works.)
Quote from: Interstate Trav on July 02, 2012, 09:09:03 AM
I also just realised that continuing I-11 to Future I-215, would probably add confusion, in the sense that US 95 is Signed for Reno, and if I-11 is signed for Reno, I wonder if that would make people unfamiliar with the area think of that as a new freeway to Reno, and when I-11 signs dissapear, be kinda confusing.
Dwelling on what the control cities are used on the highway isn't really a valid point with this. Not all control cities on signs are actually on the route they are signed on.
Case in point: US 95 north is signed for Reno leaving Las Vegas, despite the fact that the closest it gets to Reno is Fallon, nearly 60 miles east. Similarly, I-15 south leaving Vegas is signed southbound for Los Angeles, and it never gets to LA either.
I think Interstate Trav may be referring more to the idea that if a freeway has control city X, you can take all freeways to get to X.
for example, I-15 does not make it to LA, but you can get on a freeway that does, and the signage continues. In this case, it's I-10.
US-95 is a good example heading out of Vegas - except there really are no other cities along the freeway... so you may as well sign the historic control city.
a problematic application of this is I-710 with a Pasadena control city! good luck getting there without using some very unintuitive surface streets.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 03, 2012, 10:07:38 AM
I think Interstate Trav may be referring more to the idea that if a freeway has control city X, you can take all freeways to get to X.
Much more interesting than "my god, this control city isn't on the numbered route, so let's use BFE instead".
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 03, 2012, 10:07:38 AM
I think Interstate Trav may be referring more to the idea that if a freeway has control city X, you can take all freeways to get to X.
for example, I-15 does not make it to LA, but you can get on a freeway that does, and the signage continues. In this case, it's I-10.
US-95 is a good example heading out of Vegas - except there really are no other cities along the freeway... so you may as well sign the historic control city.
a problematic application of this is I-710 with a Pasadena control city! good luck getting there without using some very unintuitive surface streets.
That's actually exactly what I meant, yeah Los Angeles is signed on I-15 and I-15 doesn't enter Los Angeles, but there is overhead signage on I-15 all the way to I-10 in Ontario, and then you take I-10 west to Los Angeles. You can keep on the main freeways basically.
Also good point about I710, but I think it's because Caltrans still plans to finish I-710.
710s northbound control city should either be Alhambra or Monterey Park.
Quote from: roadfro on July 02, 2012, 05:18:13 AM
Another point to consider is whether it's really necessary to renumber exits in Las Vegas just because the route number has changed...is it worth the cost and confusion when some of these exit numbers have been in place for nearly 30 years.
If Pittsburgher's can handle the renumbering on all three parkways several times, the people of Las Vegas can handle one.
Quote from: brad2971 on July 02, 2012, 06:30:20 PM
Quote from: roadfro on July 02, 2012, 05:36:16 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on July 01, 2012, 12:10:28 PM
How possible would it be to combine I-11 and I-19 into a single numbered route?
Also, yes, I can also easily foresee 'I-11' being extended north and northwestward to supplant I-580 and so forth, ultimately into Washington.
This boarders on "fictional highways" territory, but... It would be much more feasible to combine I-19 with I-17.
Quote from: kkt on July 01, 2012, 02:50:20 PM
Quote from: roadfro on July 01, 2012, 03:11:56 AM
Quote from: kkt on June 30, 2012, 11:48:46 PM
Phoenix to Las Vegas is only 285 miles and only connects two major cities. I don't think it's long enough or important enough to use a primary interstate number. I'd make the whole stretch I-515 (if it's worth making it an interstate route at all).
The I-11 corridor is definitely a viable candidate for a two-digit Interstate number, and traffic volumes could certainly justify full Interstate improvements to stretches not built to that standard.
Traffic volumes on the less busy parts of US-93 between I-40 and Wickenburg are around 6,000 vehicles per day in both directions. That's pretty low volume for building to interstate standards. By comparison, the least busy part of I-19 that's not right next to the border is 16,000 per day both directions. I-17 is even busier.
Quote
By contrast, I-17 connects two major cities, is wholly in Arizona, and is only about 145 miles long. I-19 is also wholly in Arizona, connects one major city to the Mexico border, and is only about 63 miles long. At least I-11 would cross a state line...
I agree. If numbering those as primary interstates was being proposed now, I'd complain about them too. :D
Quote
Quote
Making it I-11 would be out of the grid. And why is there no appropriate number within the grid available? Because too many short routes of only regional importance have been allowed to take up primary interstate numbers.
If the long-term idea to take I-11 up the US 95 corridor north as far as Canada comes to fruition, I-11 will definitely be a good fit inside the grid.
Yeah, but that's not very likely. US-95 north of Nellis Air Force Base is a pretty lonely road. If any north-south highway were to be developed into interstate east of the Sierra and west of I-15, it would probably be US-395 in California and Nevada or US-97 in California, Oregon, and Washington.
US 95 doesn't go north of Nellis AFB...it swings far west of it. Unless you're talking about the test range way northwest of Vegas, which has lands under a jurisdiction by a combination of AFB, Dept. of Energy, Area 51, and other assorted government agencies.
Talking strictly about US 95, and without looking at any NDOT traffic counts, I would hazard a guess that US 95 constitutes some of the more regularly traveled two-lane US highway in the state. Certainly nothing that would warrant going out an building a freeway tomorrow, though.
Quote from: Interstate Trav on July 02, 2012, 12:37:10 AM
One thing I was wondering is why was I-515 even signed to begin with, it is always multiplexed, and the same goes for futre I-580 in Reno. Is it only for the Interstate funding? It seems like it just adds another route number.
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 02, 2012, 01:31:51 AM
I read somewhere that Carson City is the only state capitol not connected to the Interstate system. I-580 would finally do that.
Funding certainly plays a part, although the highway can still be designated and funded without being signed (see I-305 in CA).
I don't know the rationale for signing I-515 to be honest--I believe it was technically on the books for some time while being constructed throughout the 80s and early 90s, but it wasn't actually signed until the freeway was completed to its current extent in late 1994/early 1995.
But for I-580, having the "prestige" of an I-shield to connect Carson City to the Interstate system has been a desire for quite some time, and part of the draw for building it in the first place.
Carson City is not the only state capital without an Interstate highway. The four other capitals Juneau, Alaska; Dover, Delaware; Jefferson City, Missouri and Pierre, South Dakota. (Of the other four, it appears all but the Alaska one could be fairly easily connected to the system with the establishment of a spur route.)
And of those remaining four, South Dakota DOT could barely justify building the second set of two lanes on US83 to Pierre, much less make an interstate spur of it. And the DE 1 toll road could easily be, say, I-795, if DelDOT was intersted in pursuing such a thing.
Which brings us to Jefferson City. It's highly doubtful MoDOT is going to spend the hundreds of millions of dollars it would cost to build up the last couple mile of US54 at the service-heavy I-70 interchange.
So Carson City may be, effectively, the last state capital to be connected to the Interstate highway system.
Actually, they could run the Interstate spur for Jefferson City, MO down US 63 from Columbia, MO...most of that is already freeway standard and it wouldn't take much to upgrade it to Interstate standard
I-11 is official. The future corridor even has a website:
http://interstate11.org/
Now that I-11 is official, what parts of it are going to be signed first? My guess is I-515 in Vegas. Also, would US-93 now be truncated to Las Vegas and/or its junction with I-15 because I-11 basically takes over it from Wickenburg up?
I think when signage happens it will be in Nevada first. i don't think it will happen anytime soon. I also think 93 will remain for now. Current US 93 hasn't seen any work to widen the road between Wickenburg and the Santa Maria River.
Quote from: swbrotha100 on July 04, 2012, 01:21:39 AM
I-11 is official. The future corridor even has a website:
http://interstate11.org/
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Finterstate11.org%2Fimages%2Fmaster%2Finterstate11-2.png&hash=f8eafdb84ddd99c55befaf6d6584d25d53819b17)
what a disaster. who's their graphics designer, Mitt Romney?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 04, 2012, 10:52:56 AM
Quote from: swbrotha100 on July 04, 2012, 01:21:39 AM
I-11 is official. The future corridor even has a website:
http://interstate11.org/
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Finterstate11.org%2Fimages%2Fmaster%2Finterstate11-2.png&hash=f8eafdb84ddd99c55befaf6d6584d25d53819b17)
what a disaster. who's their graphics designer, Mitt Romney?
Not perfect, but miles better than the alternative :)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 04, 2012, 10:52:56 AM
Quote from: swbrotha100 on July 04, 2012, 01:21:39 AM
I-11 is official. The future corridor even has a website:
http://interstate11.org/
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Finterstate11.org%2Fimages%2Fmaster%2Finterstate11-2.png&hash=f8eafdb84ddd99c55befaf6d6584d25d53819b17)
what a disaster. who's their graphics designer, Mitt Romney?
Probably the folks who brought us Clearview.
Quote from: Brandon on July 04, 2012, 01:52:47 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 04, 2012, 10:52:56 AM
what a disaster. who's their graphics designer, Mitt Romney?
Probably the folks who brought us Clearview.
Mitt may have been responsible for Clearview? One more reason to vote Obama.
So what can we expect? Will current two lane sections be upgraded to interstate standards from the start or will it be upgraded to divided highway status first?
http://interstate11.org/exhibits/Interstate%2011%20Corridor%20Map%202-09.pdf
Interesting stuff in the map exhibit:
- It appears I-515 will be superseded by I-11 in Clark County.
- The I-11 corridor doesn't end at Wickenburg, but goes south, past the White Tanks and through Buckeye before heading southeast to meet another proposed freeway near Coolidge.
- Several other proposed freeway corridors are listed -- AZ 30 (I-10 Reliever), an extension of Loop 303 beyond Goodyear to meet I-11, an upgraded AZ 74, a freeway to replace AZ 87 from I-10 to US 60, a freeway to replace AZ 89 and AZ 69 from I-11 to I-17, and spurs running from I-11 to Loop 303 near Surprise and I-11 to I-8 near Vekol Valley Road.
- It also appears I-11 and I-40 will run concurrent from Kingman to the current US 93 junction. If that's the case, that would be Arizona's first concurrent Interstate.
If I-11 runs south and east toward Coolidge, one wonders if that eliminates the need for the South Mountain Freeway, as I-11 would intersect I-10 twice and create a Phoenix bypass. The corridor goes between the Ak-Chin, Gila and Tohono O'odham Reservations, and runs to the north of any real developed areas in Casa Grande.
Quote from: Zonie on July 04, 2012, 09:04:13 PM
If I-11 runs south and east toward Coolidge, one wonders if that eliminates the need for the South Mountain Freeway, as I-11 would intersect I-10 twice.
That means I-11 will ditto what I-17 does in Phoenix. :wow: :-o I'm quite happy for I-11 to end at I-8 in Gila Bend by using AZ 85. :spin:
Well, now it's time to wonder how long it will take for I-11 to replace I-515.
I did see on that map how far south Loop 303 is proposed to go to. It would make sense because what currently exists has high mile markers and exit numbers. One example is exit 125 for Happy Valley Parkway.
Quote from: swbrotha100 on July 04, 2012, 01:21:39 AM
I-11 is official. The future corridor even has a website:
http://interstate11.org/
The route itself seems to have been made official in the transportation funding legislation. However, the website listed above is by no means official from FHWA or either state's DOT--it's run by a coalition to promote the idea of I-11...
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 04, 2012, 10:52:56 AM
Quote from: swbrotha100 on July 04, 2012, 01:21:39 AM
I-11 is official. The future corridor even has a website:
http://interstate11.org/
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Finterstate11.org%2Fimages%2Fmaster%2Finterstate11-2.png&hash=f8eafdb84ddd99c55befaf6d6584d25d53819b17)
what a disaster. who's their graphics designer, Mitt Romney?
in case you need a "real" Interstate 11 shield...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F1%2F1e%2FI-11.svg%2F200px-I-11.svg.png&hash=252beb66d5045a2711e6f073b8c2e5e3cb09be91)
Or for those who like the old specs...
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FZH7WD.png&hash=3f86dabe4fab7b259214a5b61fe07a7557408f3f)
I'd imagine what ends up going in the field is the '70 spec, but with the state name, as both states use it.
I'd put a little additional space between the '1's.
:nod:
Mike
11's always been a tough number to figure out how to kern.
narrow:
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/MS/MS19460111i2.jpg)
medium:
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/TN/TN19340111i1.jpg)
wide:
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/AL/AL19260112i1.jpg)
A Phoenix-area map posted on the I-11 site:
http://interstate11.org/documents/Interstate-11.pdf
Arizona (and Nevada, I think) still use the state name consistently on their interstate shields, so I think that's what will be out on the road in the future.
^ Nevada can be a mixed bag. I think I've been seeing state name more on newer signs.
Arizona is becoming more right wing anti-California so I'd expect the state name to disappear soon.
Quote from: blawp on July 07, 2012, 02:56:54 PM
Arizona is becoming more right wing anti-California so I'd expect the state name to disappear soon.
That has nothing to do with the state name appearing in the interstate shield one way or another. Massachusetts, Illinois, Wisconsin, et.al., don't have the state name in the shield.
Knock it off with the Arizona knocking.
Quote from: blawp on July 07, 2012, 02:56:54 PM
Arizona is becoming more right wing anti-California so I'd expect the state name to disappear soon.
Yeah, this will get you banned.
Quote from: Steve on July 11, 2012, 08:05:08 PM
Quote from: blawp on July 07, 2012, 02:56:54 PM
Arizona is becoming more right wing anti-California so I'd expect the state name to disappear soon.
Yeah, this will get you banned.
the premise is generally true (see: 1080), but the conclusion is iffy at best. right-wing tends to have a connotation of states' rights, so you'd expect them to prominently feature the state name, even at the expense of the federal designation. like seen here.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA20054051i1.jpg)
well, shit.
^
who's idea was that? :ded:
o.0
Well, I know of a certain member that would be very excited to see that x.x
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 11, 2012, 09:04:03 PM
Quote from: Steve on July 11, 2012, 08:05:08 PM
Quote from: blawp on July 07, 2012, 02:56:54 PM
Arizona is becoming more right wing anti-California so I'd expect the state name to disappear soon.
Yeah, this will get you banned.
the premise is generally true (see: 1080), but the conclusion is iffy at best. right-wing tends to have a connotation of states' rights, so you'd expect them to prominently feature the state name, even at the expense of the federal designation. like seen here.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA20054051i1.jpg)
well, shit.
So where on the 405 (or off the 405) is this particular sign?
Quote from: swbrotha100 on July 13, 2012, 01:18:08 AM
So where on the 405 (or off the 405) is this particular sign?
Jefferson Blvd exit.
Interesting sign design.
Quote from: Grzrd on July 11, 2012, 02:33:50 PM
Quote
Q Does NDOT know why I-11 was included with I-69 in the MAP-21 provision that allows interstate signage for disconnected segments of those two interstates?
A We do not. Most of I-11 will be in AZ. NV share is only 7 miles. FHWA and ADOT are driving this project
Why did anyone even bother to include I-11 with I-69 in the provision allowing signage of disconnected segments?
(above quote from Will I-515 Be Renumbered as I-11 ... (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7057.msg160369#msg160369) thread)
I emailed Arizona DOT and asked who bothered to include I-11 with I-69 in the provision allowing signage of disconnected segments. To make a long story short, a representative called me back today and said that they have no idea who added I-11 to that provision. They were aware that another MAP-21 provision designated the I-11 corridor, but they had been unaware that this provision exists.
My guess is that there was some sort of overkill from one of the AZ or NV Congressional offices to make sure that I-11 was officially designated as an interstate corridor.
While I'm glad the Provision is bringing I-11 to life, this wrinkle's making me raise my eyebrows.
Left hand, meet right hand.
==BUMP==
I've emailed AzDOT about I-11 and the two-year Phoenix-Las Vegas feasibility study, and when I asked in the case that I-11 wasn't feasible, they said that some of the variables weren't identified. Granted, I don't know how a Phoenix-Las Vegas Interstate would not be viable when much of US-93 is near-standard, but what other alternatives would there be?
Also, looking at the I-11/Intermountain West Corridor Study page, I find it hard to think that an Interstate could run along US-93 through eastern Nevada. I still think that if I-11 reaches north of Las Vegas, it would go along US-95 and eventually utilize I-580/US-395 to connect to I-80 at Reno.
Is any part of future I-11 currently built to full Interstate standards apart from Hoover Dam bypass and I-515?
And is there any freeway that could be used in possible long-term extensions (to Reno, Canada or Mexico)?
Quote from: albertocsc on June 05, 2013, 10:17:38 PM
Is any part of future I-11 currently built to full Interstate standards apart from Hoover Dam bypass and I-515?
The I-40 overlap. Probably the SR 68 interchange near Kingman.
Quote from: albertocsc on June 05, 2013, 10:17:38 PM
And is there any freeway that could be used in possible long-term extensions (to Reno, Canada or Mexico)?
I-GOAT.
Quote from: albertocsc on June 05, 2013, 10:17:38 PM
And is there any freeway that could be used in possible long-term extensions (to Reno, Canada or Mexico)?
A couple of things....
* Bringing I-11 to Mexico is certainly possible but not probable at this point.
* Any kind of extension of I-11 north of I-15 in Las Vegas is purely fictional as traffic counts don't warrant a new freeway connection between Las Vegas and Reno and points north. Any such discussion should be done in the Fictional Highways board.
Quote from: NE2 on June 05, 2013, 10:30:45 PM
I-GOAT.
:rofl:
US 93 meets AZ 68 as a trumpet interchange. Obviously, the I-40 overlap is interstate standard.
There are plans to upgrade the I-40/US 93 interchange in Kingman. Link to site: http://www.azdot.gov/highways/projects/I40_US93_WestKingmanTI/index.asp
Anything else planned for now is just a simple widening of US 93 from I-40 to Wickenburg.
http://www.azdot.gov/highways/projects/US93/Index.asp
I did the drive a few days ago (Phoenix area to Las Vegas). If 93 was made interstate standard, the town of Wikieup would probably have to be bypassed. I believe ADOT would redo the eastern I-40/US 93 interchange (I-40 exit 71). Most of the rest could be built on the exisitng alignment. Maybe some frontage roads for the few businesses between I-40 and the Hoover Dam Bypass.
So, with I-11 moving closer to reality, will all of US-93 south of Vegas essentially be truncated?
I don't like I-11 at all: what's wrong with US-93? It's been around since 1926 and it's a well known number through the Southwest. I suppose Interstates have a sense of brand name recognition, but renumbering for the sake of renumbering just annoys me. Unless I-11 will be federally funded, I see no reason why US-93 can't just continue to go on existing.
Quote from: Quillz on June 22, 2013, 12:45:26 AM
So, with I-11 moving closer to reality, will all of US-93 south of Vegas essentially be truncated?
I don't like I-11 at all: what's wrong with US-93? It's been around since 1926 and it's a well known number through the Southwest. I suppose Interstates have a sense of brand name recognition, but renumbering for the sake of renumbering just annoys me. Unless I-11 will be federally funded, I see no reason why US-93 can't just continue to go on existing.
I see your point, as I'd like to see US-93 stay around in some capacity south of Las Vegas, though I feel that an Interstate does (rightfully) bring some "brand recognition" to the route. I feel that this is one place where my "2-tier" Interstate system* would come in handy. Yes, it would bring in I-11 (perhaps renumbering for the sake of renumbering), but it wouldn't be as expensive as trying to upgrade all of US-93 between Las Vegas and Phoenix.
Of course, you could reroute US-93 along NV-319, UT-56, and UT-18 to end at I-15 in St. George. That, or take it south (along WB I-40) from Kingman and then along AZ-95 to I-10 at Quartzite. Outside of those, however, US-93 would probably be truncated to its current junction with I-15.
*Basically, substandard roads, such as substandard expressways, Super-2s, and the occasional Breezewood are part of the lower, 2nd tier.
Another thought: why not a 3di? There is no rule that 3di's have to be short in nature, they just generally are. But here is an example where a spur 3di could work out perfectly. "515" works perfectly, in that it not only exists, but odd-numbered prefixes are generally used as spurs. Plus, the future I-11 is set to replace I-515 anyway, so why not?
Taking use of an unused 3di would not violate the system. Nor would just leaving US-93 as is. At the very least, why not I-13? At least that makes it closer to I-17...
Quote from: Quillz on July 04, 2013, 04:58:38 PM
Another thought: why not a 3di? There is no rule that 3di's have to be short in nature, they just generally are. But here is an example where a spur 3di could work out perfectly. "515" works perfectly, in that it not only exists, but odd-numbered prefixes are generally used as spurs. Plus, the future I-11 is set to replace I-515 anyway, so why not?
Apparently it's some sort of status symbol for a city to be on as many 2dis as possible...
Quote
Taking use of an unused 3di would not violate the system. Nor would just leaving US-93 as is. At the very least, why not I-13? At least that makes it closer to I-17...
13 is an unlucky number, and that might make gamblers chose to lose their money in Reno instead. After all, if they weren't superstitious, they wouldn't be gambling in the first place.
Quote from: kkt on July 04, 2013, 07:50:55 PM
13 is an unlucky number, and that might make gamblers chose to lose their money in Reno instead. After all, if they weren't superstitious, they wouldn't be gambling in the first place.
Then they should argue to make it Interstate 7.
Quote from: Quillz on July 04, 2013, 09:46:31 PM
Quote from: kkt on July 04, 2013, 07:50:55 PM
13 is an unlucky number, and that might make gamblers chose to lose their money in Reno instead. After all, if they weren't superstitious, they wouldn't be gambling in the first place.
Then they should argue to make it Interstate 7.
An 11 is as good as a 7 in craps!
Of course, this could be a good place for my "Multiples of 100 are Diagonal" idea...here, I-11 could be I-100.
Of course, that's a fictional idea.
Quote from: Rover_0 on July 05, 2013, 04:14:41 AM
Of course, this could be a good place for my "Multiples of 100 are Diagonal" idea...here, I-11 could be I-100.
Of course, that's a fictional idea.
That could be a good use for the otherwise not-used 100, 200, 300, etc.
Quote from: myosh_tino on June 06, 2013, 02:55:27 AM
Quote from: albertocsc on June 05, 2013, 10:17:38 PM
And is there any freeway that could be used in possible long-term extensions (to Reno, Canada or Mexico)?
A couple of things....
* Bringing I-11 to Mexico is certainly possible but not probable at this point.
* Any kind of extension of I-11 north of I-15 in Las Vegas is purely fictional as traffic counts don't warrant a new freeway connection between Las Vegas and Reno and points north. Any such discussion should be done in the Fictional Highways board.
Quote from: NE2 on June 05, 2013, 10:30:45 PM
I-GOAT.
:rofl:
I wonder though if an I-11 from Las Vegas to Reno/Carson City would stimulate traffic and development in that corridor (as if the desert really needs that much more development). Reno is a very fast-growing city. Plus, it would give a more direct interstate route from Las Vegas to Northern California (Sacramento, Bay Area, etc.).
Quote from: FightingIrish on July 06, 2013, 09:15:19 AM
Plus, it would give a more direct interstate route from Las Vegas to Northern California (Sacramento, Bay Area, etc.).
Ummm... I don't think so.
As someone who makes that drive from the San Francisco Bay Area to Las Vegas at least once a year, the route you propose is hardly a "direct" route. The direct route from anywhere in central California is to take either I-5 or CA-99 south to Bakersfield, turn east on CA-58 to Barstow and then head north on I-15 to Las Vegas. I'll concede that this route is not an all-freeway route but it is the shortest and probably the fastest route even if a freeway is built between Las Vegas and Reno.
Yeah. For that you'd need an Interstate through Yosemite.
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 06, 2013, 03:17:31 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on July 06, 2013, 09:15:19 AM
Plus, it would give a more direct interstate route from Las Vegas to Northern California (Sacramento, Bay Area, etc.).
Ummm... I don't think so.
As someone who makes that drive from the San Francisco Bay Area to Las Vegas at least once a year, the route you propose is hardly a "direct" route. The direct route from anywhere in central California is to take either I-5 or CA-99 south to Bakersfield, turn east on CA-58 to Barstow and then head north on I-15 to Las Vegas. I'll concede that this route is not an all-freeway route but it is the shortest and probably the fastest route even if a freeway is built between Las Vegas and Reno.
This.
Quote from: NE2 on July 06, 2013, 03:54:14 PM
Yeah. For that you'd need an Interstate through Yosemite.
Even if it wasn't protected land, it would be the stupidest interstate route ever. There's a reason Tioga Pass is closed six months of the year, and it's not that Caltrans is lazy.
Quote from: FightingIrish on July 06, 2013, 09:15:19 AM
I wonder though if an I-11 from Las Vegas to Reno/Carson City would stimulate traffic and development in that corridor (as if the desert really needs that much more development). Reno is a very fast-growing city. Plus, it would give a more direct interstate route from Las Vegas to Northern California (Sacramento, Bay Area, etc.).
That stretch is not exactly in a situation to stimulate economic development or traffic. The majority of the towns between Las Vegas and Reno have populations well under 10,000 (only Fernley is above, and that would not be on a proposed I-11 routed through Carson City).
All these towns have little industry to offer other than tourism, mining and farming/ranching. Even Hawthorne, with an US Army munitions depot, only has about 3k-4k population. Fallon, with the Naval Air Station, has about 8k population (that town would also be bypassed by an I-11 passing through Carson City).
The Vegas to Reno corridor is not really in need of development. With some scarce water resources, most of these towns have little resources to expand anyway.
The "Draft I-11 Corridor Justification Report" has been released for public review:
http://i11study.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/I11_CJR_07_02_13_DRAFT.pdf
LV to Reno could be upgraded as 395 between I-15 and the Cal-Nev border has been done to a better-than-average expressway capable of being driven at 80+. Toss in a few interchanges as needed and voila, there's your Nevada main connector N-S route without undue expense and more safety for all concerned.
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on July 10, 2013, 03:20:44 PM
LV to Reno could be upgraded as 395 between I-15 and the Cal-Nev border has been done to a better-than-average expressway capable of being driven at 80+. Toss in a few interchanges as needed and voila, there's your Nevada main connector N-S route without undue expense and more safety for all concerned.
Rick
Are you referring to US-395 north of, south of, or on both sides of the NV/CA border?
Assuming you're talking about both sides of, the southern section of US-395 in California is largely divided, using an upgraded CA-58 and US-395 as part of a Las Vegas/Reno connector isn't a terrible idea. The question is, how much longer would it be than a hypothetical upgraded US-95? Would you then have a 100-plus-mile wrong-way concurrency with I-15, or would US-395 become I-9?
Quote from: Rover_0 on July 10, 2013, 04:38:32 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on July 10, 2013, 03:20:44 PM
LV to Reno could be upgraded as 395 between I-15 and the Cal-Nev border has been done to a better-than-average expressway capable of being driven at 80+. Toss in a few interchanges as needed and voila, there's your Nevada main connector N-S route without undue expense and more safety for all concerned.
Rick
Are you referring to US-395 north of, south of, or on both sides of the NV/CA border?
Assuming you're talking about both sides of, the southern section of US-395 in California is largely divided, using an upgraded CA-58 and US-395 as part of a Las Vegas/Reno connector isn't a terrible idea. The question is, how much longer would it be than a hypothetical upgraded US-95? Would you then have a 100-plus-mile wrong-way concurrency with I-15, or would US-395 become I-9?
The US 95/Alt US 50/I-80 route to Reno is 452 miles, while I-15 to Route 58 to US 395 is 568 miles (and two hours longer).
On the other hand, cutting over to Bishop from US 95 is only 475 miles.
Quote from: Grzrd on July 10, 2013, 02:34:08 PM
The "Draft I-11 Corridor Justification Report" has been released for public review:
http://i11study.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/I11_CJR_07_02_13_DRAFT.pdf
And what a bunch of BS it is... talking about economic development in general while dancing around that the traffic volumes on US 93 do not justify an interstate now or in the reasonably near future.
Additionally, it appears some in Tucson desire a southerly extension of Interstate 11 into their city:
http://azstarnet.com/business/local/tucson-may-see-another-interstate/article_826cbc8a-059d-5e30-b25e-613adc5e6a7d.html
QuoteA new interstate could loop around Tucson's west side if local officials can marshal community support.
The southern end of the proposed Interstate 11, which would become part of the Canamex trade corridor, initially was to stop in Casa Grande.
The assumption was that Pima County's 2007 resolution opposing a bypass highway to accommodate freight trucks meant excluding Pima County.
That resolution stemmed from environmental concerns because the previously proposed routes ran through the Avra, San Pedro or Aravaipa valleys.
But the combination of an economic crisis, Mexico's booming manufacturing industry, renewed interest in creating a regional distribution hub and an environmentally friendly route could wipe out that opposition. At least that's what county officials are hoping as they prepare to present a proposed Interstate 11 route in Southern Arizona.
QuoteIts 56-mile Pima County path would loop west, behind the Tucson Mountains and the San Xavier District of the Tohono O'odham Nation, then connect to I-19 near Sahuarita. From there, it would veer east as part of the proposed Aerospace Parkway on the city's southeast side and connect to I-10 near Rita Road, where the University of Arizona Tech Park, Port of Tucson and Target Fulfillment Center are located.
Southbound exports could travel I-19 to Mexico and - from the Port of Guaymas - to markets in Latin America, Europe and Asia.
Quote"The current corridor is as good as it's going to get without double-decking it," John Moffatt, director of strategic planning for Pima County, said of the I-10 segment that runs through the city.
Regards,
Andy
Quote from: NE2 on July 06, 2013, 03:54:14 PM
Yeah. For that you'd need an Interstate through Yosemite.
Which will never, ever happen for obvious reasons.
Quote from: Henry on July 12, 2013, 11:40:43 AM
Quote from: NE2 on July 06, 2013, 03:54:14 PM
Yeah. For that you'd need an Interstate through Yosemite.
Which will never, ever happen for obvious reasons.
Those reasons being that you and FritzOwl disagree on which side of the valley it uses?
Quote from: NE2 on July 12, 2013, 12:00:23 PM
Quote from: Henry on July 12, 2013, 11:40:43 AM
Quote from: NE2 on July 06, 2013, 03:54:14 PM
Yeah. For that you'd need an Interstate through Yosemite.
Which will never, ever happen for obvious reasons.
Those reasons being that you and FritzOwl disagree on which side of the valley it uses?
Run it up the Hetch Hetchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetch_Hetchy). Ten lanes per direction might just do it. :spin:
Quote from: myosh_tino on July 06, 2013, 03:17:31 PM
As someone who makes that drive from the San Francisco Bay Area to Las Vegas at least once a year, the route you propose is hardly a "direct" route. The direct route from anywhere in central California is to take either I-5 or CA-99 south to Bakersfield, turn east on CA-58 to Barstow and then head north on I-15 to Las Vegas. I'll concede that this route is not an all-freeway route but it is the shortest and probably the fastest route even if a freeway is built between Las Vegas and Reno.
Hmm, looks like another reason to support upgrading CA 58 into an extension of I-40 :)
Quote from: andy3175 on July 10, 2013, 09:48:43 PMAdditionally, it appears some in Tucson desire a southerly extension of Interstate 11 into their city:
http://azstarnet.com/business/local/tucson-may-see-another-interstate/article_826cbc8a-059d-5e30-b25e-613adc5e6a7d.html
This idea would be better numbered using a northern extension/relocation of I-19 and a new three digit route.
Yes, the loop around Tucson, if there's need for it to be built at all, would make a good state route or maybe 3di. What does Arizona have against 3dis, anyway?
Quote from: kkt on July 13, 2013, 03:50:36 PM
Yes, the loop around Tucson, if there's need for it to be built at all, would make a good state route or maybe 3di. What does Arizona have against 3dis, anyway?
Arizona does not have 3-di's because the roads are built with city, county or state moneys.
If they're going to do that, why not make I-11 an I-19 extension? Sure, it may be west of I-17, but why not go all-out and use a single number to Las Vegas if they want the Canamex corridor?
The current segment from I-10 down to the proposed I-11 junction becomes something like I-119 while the proposed segment from current I-19 to I-10 becomes something like I-910.
Heck, this could also be a way to make I-17 and I-19 the same route (I-11 would remain).
Quote from: mapman1071 on July 13, 2013, 05:07:43 PM
Quote from: kkt on July 13, 2013, 03:50:36 PM
Yes, the loop around Tucson, if there's need for it to be built at all, would make a good state route or maybe 3di. What does Arizona have against 3dis, anyway?
Arizona does not have 3-di's because the roads are built with city, county or state moneys.
Given that the interstate system was decoupled from funding mechanisms a while ago, I don't think that's a problem any more.
Given that there's no 100% federal funding for re-signing a state route as an Interstate, I think that's still a problem.
Quote from: mapman1071 on July 13, 2013, 05:07:43 PM
Quote from: kkt on July 13, 2013, 03:50:36 PM
Yes, the loop around Tucson, if there's need for it to be built at all, would make a good state route or maybe 3di. What does Arizona have against 3dis, anyway?
Arizona does not have 3-di's because the roads are built with city, county or state moneys.
If they're not going to use federal money, they don't really need interstate numbers, do they?
Quote from: kkt on July 14, 2013, 01:35:39 AM
Quote from: mapman1071 on July 13, 2013, 05:07:43 PM
Quote from: kkt on July 13, 2013, 03:50:36 PM
Yes, the loop around Tucson, if there's need for it to be built at all, would make a good state route or maybe 3di. What does Arizona have against 3dis, anyway?
Arizona does not have 3-di's because the roads are built with city, county or state moneys.
If they're not going to use federal money, they don't really need interstate numbers, do they?
Never stopped Illinois. We have one assigned a number before completion as a tollway (I-355). They also want an interstate number for what will be another tollway (West O'Hare ByPass).
Quote from: Brandon on July 15, 2013, 03:57:09 PM
Quote from: kkt on July 14, 2013, 01:35:39 AM
Quote from: mapman1071 on July 13, 2013, 05:07:43 PM
Quote from: kkt on July 13, 2013, 03:50:36 PM
Yes, the loop around Tucson, if there's need for it to be built at all, would make a good state route or maybe 3di. What does Arizona have against 3dis, anyway?
Arizona does not have 3-di's because the roads are built with city, county or state moneys.
If they're not going to use federal money, they don't really need interstate numbers, do they?
Never stopped Illinois. We have one assigned a number before completion as a tollway (I-355). They also want an interstate number for what will be another tollway (West O'Hare ByPass).
Agreed. As I've said before, there's nothing really stopping Arizona from pursuing potential 3di designations should this new road reach Tucson. Of course, there doesn't appear to be anything stopping Arizona from making I-11 (besides the portion east of current I-19) an extension of I-19 or from using this proposed freeway to Tucson to merge I-17 and I-19.
If Interstate 11 never extends to Reno, I think it should at least extend down the US 95 corridor in Las Vegas so at least a portion of it will not violate the grid!!
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 07, 2013, 06:18:51 PM
If Interstate 11 never extends to Reno, I think it should at least extend down the US 95 corridor in Las Vegas so at least a portion of it will not violate the grid!!
Since we already have I-26 and I-2 that spur off, why not?
Quote from: Rover_0 on August 07, 2013, 08:03:30 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 07, 2013, 06:18:51 PM
If Interstate 11 never extends to Reno, I think it should at least extend down the US 95 corridor in Las Vegas so at least a portion of it will not violate the grid!!
Since we already have I-26 and I-2 that spur off, why not?
Yeah but I-2 is not technically a spur, at least it has a bigger idea. But it is not a violation.
why is I-2 a violation? as far as I can tell, it is south of I-4.
Quote from: Rover_0 on August 07, 2013, 08:03:30 PM
Since we already have I-26 and I-2 that spur off, why not?
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 07, 2013, 08:43:33 PM
Yeah but I-2 is not technically a spur, at least it has a bigger idea. But it is not a violation.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 07, 2013, 09:42:58 PM
why is I-2 a violation? as far as I can tell, it is south of I-4.
I-2 has a "spur" going from I-69C westward similar to the I-26 "spur" going from I-81 to the Virginia state line.
I-26 ends at US 11W (and sillily the exit numbers begin there).
holy crap I-10 is a spur to Santa Monica
Quote from: NE2 on August 07, 2013, 09:55:20 PM
I-26 ends at US 11W (and sillily the exit numbers begin there).
Why sillily? I posted "to" (http://www.google.com/#bav=on.2,or.&fp=c140b16290ac724c&q=definition+of+to)*, not "ending at". Doesn't I-26 go in the direction of the Virginia state line from I-81 to US 11W? I didn't bother identifying the current western terminus of I-2, either.
*
Quote
to
/to͞o/
Preposition
Expressing motion in the direction of (a particular location): "my first visit to Africa".
Quote from: NE2 on August 07, 2013, 09:55:20 PM
holy crap I-10 is a spur to Santa Monica
I-5 is a spur to Tijuana.
If not ending at another interstate highway was a "violation", half the routes in the system would be "violations". Like I-44 Wichita Falls, I-55 Chicago, I-39 Wausau, I-43 Green Bay, I-27 Lubbock, I-37 Corpus Christi...
I-2 and I-69C/I-69E are in violation for collectively not connecting to the rest of the Interstate system, but that will be remedied at some point.
Speaking of I-69, where are all the complaints of "violation" of everything south (and west) of I-65?
Quote from: swbrotha100 on August 07, 2013, 11:31:43 PM
Speaking of I-69, where are all the complaints of "violation" of everything south (and west) of I-65?
Ehhh, I have been okay with it for years.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 07, 2013, 06:18:51 PM
If Interstate 11 never extends to Reno, I think it should at least extend down the US 95 corridor in Las Vegas so at least a portion of it will not violate the grid!!
Quote from: Rover_0 on August 07, 2013, 08:03:30 PM
Since we already have I-26 and I-2 that spur off, why not?
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 07, 2013, 08:43:33 PM
Yeah but I-2 is not technically a spur ... But it is not a violation.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 07, 2013, 09:42:58 PM
why is I-2 a violation? as far as I can tell, it is south of I-4.
Quote from: Grzrd on August 07, 2013, 09:49:23 PM
I-2 has a "spur" going from I-69C westward
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 07, 2013, 10:29:12 PM
I-5 is a spur to Tijuana.
Quote from: Grzrd on August 07, 2013, 10:57:10 PM
But it is not a violation.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 07, 2013, 11:22:59 PM
If not ending at another interstate highway was a "violation", half the routes in the system would be "violations".
Who's on I-1? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who's_on_First%3F)
Quote from: Grzrd on August 07, 2013, 10:18:04 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 07, 2013, 09:55:20 PM
I-26 ends at US 11W (and sillily the exit numbers begin there).
Why sillily?
Because the freeway begins at the state line, and now the interchange there has no exit number.
Quote from: Grzrd on August 07, 2013, 10:18:04 PM
I posted "to" (http://www.google.com/#bav=on.2,or.&fp=c140b16290ac724c&q=definition+of+to)*, not "ending at". Doesn't I-26 go in the direction of the Virginia state line from I-81 to US 11W? I didn't bother identifying the current western terminus of I-2, either.
*
Quote
to
/to͞o/
Preposition
Expressing motion in the direction of (a particular location): "my first visit to Africa".
What a shitty-ass definition. You don't say you're going to Africa if you're taking a trip from Paris to Gibraltar. And you don't say a highway goes to the state line if it actually ends at a major crossing several miles from the border.
Quote from: NE2 on August 08, 2013, 07:49:26 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on August 07, 2013, 10:18:04 PM
Why sillily?
Because the freeway begins at the state line, and now the interchange there has no exit number.
US 11W is a logical, not silly, terminus. To argue otherwise is, well, silly.
It's silly to have the exit numbers begin at US 11W rather than the state line...
Quote from: NE2 on August 08, 2013, 09:36:44 AM
It's silly to have the exit numbers begin at US 11W rather than the state line...
Depends on where the start of the interstate is considered to be.
It's a bit ridiculous anyway as I-26 should be an odd, not even numbered interstate.
Exit numbers don't have to begin where the Interstate begins. In this case it's silly not to begin them where the freeway begins at the state line.
Quote from: NE2 on August 08, 2013, 10:27:34 AM
Exit numbers don't have to begin where the Interstate begins. In this case it's silly not to begin them where the freeway begins at the state line.
I-17 is the prime example, as there is no mile/exit 0/1 anywhere (in fact, IIRC, they both begin at 194).
Quote from: NE2 on August 08, 2013, 10:27:34 AM
Exit numbers don't have to begin where the Interstate begins. In this case it's silly not to begin them where the freeway begins at the state line.
Since the Carters Valley Road interchange (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Kingsport,+TN&hl=en&ll=36.591584,-82.572362&spn=0.011267,0.026157&sll=34.470335,-82.836914&sspn=5.922105,13.392334&oq=kingsport+tn&t=h&hnear=Kingsport,+Sullivan,+Tennessee&z=16) is the only non-numbered freeway interchange at issue, there really isn't a need for a number. In this locally-specific case it is logical to not begin the exit numbers at the Carters Valley Road interchange and to begin them on I-26. This is especially true when one considers the March 2007 exit renumbering (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/economic_development/assistance/i26tn.cfm) from I-181 to I-26. Putting a number at a non-"logical terminus" interchange (admittedly interstate grade) only a few miles miles from the beginning of the interstate can certainly be seen as possibly confusing the public, especially since the change was from
Interstate 181 to
Interstate 26. Logic would also support what NE2 has suggested; however, it does not necessarily follow that the alternative currently in place is silly.
Quote from: NE2 on August 08, 2013, 07:49:26 AM
What a shitty-ass definition. You don't say you're going to Africa if you're taking a trip from Paris to Gibraltar.
Then why do I laugh
all of the way to the bank when you gratuitously curse instead of laughing
to the bank? Here's a good deal on some light reading (http://www.amazon.com/All-Way-Berlin-Paratrooper-Europe/dp/0891418369) if you are considering invoking Godwin's Law again.
Quote from: NE2 on August 08, 2013, 07:49:26 AM
you don't say a highway goes to the state line if it actually ends at a major crossing several miles from the border.
Yawn 2.0. See Reply #202 in this very thread.......
Quote from: NE2 on August 08, 2013, 07:49:26 AM
And you don't say a highway goes to the state line if it actually ends at a major crossing several miles from the border.
Sure you do, your local DOT does it all the time with control cities.
I'll give I-80 as an example. It goes to Chicago and New York City, yet never enters neither. Ditto with I-294 in Illinois. It goes to Wisconsin and Indiana, but stops short of both - in the case of Wisconsin, about 30 miles short.
Quote from: Brandon on August 08, 2013, 01:37:03 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 08, 2013, 07:49:26 AM
And you don't say a highway goes to the state line if it actually ends at a major crossing several miles from the border.
Sure you do, your local DOT does it all the time with control cities.
I'll give I-80 as an example. It goes to Chicago and New York City, yet never enters neither. Ditto with I-294 in Illinois. It goes to Wisconsin and Indiana, but stops short of both - in the case of Wisconsin, about 30 miles short.
Don't forget Cleveland on that I-80 trip!!
The reverse of this argument is I-37 in San Antonio. After it ends the mile markers continue down US 281. Same can be said about I-45 in Dallas, when I-345 starts the mile markers from I-45 continue, and even the exit numbers continue. The. When US 75 Central Expressway starts, the exit numbers start at 0, but the mile posts still continue from I-45.
Quote from: Henry on August 08, 2013, 11:10:54 AM
Quote from: NE2 on August 08, 2013, 10:27:34 AM
Exit numbers don't have to begin where the Interstate begins. In this case it's silly not to begin them where the freeway begins at the state line.
I-17 is the prime example, as there is no mile/exit 0/1 anywhere (in fact, IIRC, they both begin at 194).
In the case of I-17, it inherited its mileposts (and exit numbers) from when it used to be AZ 69.
Quote from: swbrotha100 on August 08, 2013, 04:27:55 PM
In the case of I-17, it inherited its mileposts (and exit numbers) from when it used to be AZ 69.
furthermore, the Arizona mileage scheme is in place. AZ 69 didn't go all the way down to number 0 either.
What the fuck is going on here? Did Obama decide to redefine 'to' when I was sleeping?
Quote from: NE2 on August 08, 2013, 07:50:53 PM
What the fuck is going on here? Did Obama decide to redefine 'to' when I was sleeping?
Yes, you missed it. It was a Senate bill, passed unanimously by the House and signed by Obama. It's already been upheld by the SCOTUS as well.
Quote from: Brandon on August 08, 2013, 10:15:41 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 08, 2013, 07:50:53 PM
What the fuck is going on here? Did Obama decide to redefine 'to' when I was sleeping?
Yes, you missed it. It was a Senate bill, passed unanimously by the House and signed by Obama. It's already been upheld by the SCOTUS as well.
The definition of pi would not be passed unanimously by the House.
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on August 08, 2013, 10:21:26 PM
The definition of pi would not be passed unanimously by the House.
Certainly "poo" would eventually be passed unanimously by the House, no?
Quote from: Grzrd on August 08, 2013, 10:26:47 PM
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on August 08, 2013, 10:21:26 PM
The definition of pi would not be passed unanimously by the House.
Certainly "poo" would eventually be passed unanimously by the House, no?
There would be poo, and then there would be poo. Since you have the Hastert rule, it could not be brought up. It would not be unanimous. It would not be cool, either. There is the remote chance of a discharge petition, in which case there could be a lot of poo at one time.
FWIW, a Sparks-based newspaper mentions I-11 and the possibility of Reno, bad grammar and all:
http://dailysparkstribune.com/view/full_story/23208379/article-Future-interstate-study-potentially-worth--billions- (http://dailysparkstribune.com/view/full_story/23208379/article-Future-interstate-study-potentially-worth--billions-)
Quote from: Rover_0 on August 09, 2013, 03:42:51 PM
FWIW, a Sparks-based newspaper mentions I-11 and the possibility of Reno, bad grammar and all:
http://dailysparkstribune.com/view/full_story/23208379/article-Future-interstate-study-potentially-worth--billions- (http://dailysparkstribune.com/view/full_story/23208379/article-Future-interstate-study-potentially-worth--billions-)
STOP BEING ON TOPIC
Quote from: Rover_0 on August 09, 2013, 03:42:51 PM
FWIW, a Sparks-based newspaper mentions I-11 and the possibility of Reno, bad grammar and all:
http://dailysparkstribune.com/view/full_story/23208379/article-Future-interstate-study-potentially-worth--billions- (http://dailysparkstribune.com/view/full_story/23208379/article-Future-interstate-study-potentially-worth--billions-)
First time I've heard of any I-11 routing option connecting to I-5 (second paragraph).
Quote from: Steve on August 09, 2013, 07:07:16 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on August 09, 2013, 03:42:51 PM
FWIW, a Sparks-based newspaper mentions I-11 and the possibility of Reno, bad grammar and all:
http://dailysparkstribune.com/view/full_story/23208379/article-Future-interstate-study-potentially-worth--billions- (http://dailysparkstribune.com/view/full_story/23208379/article-Future-interstate-study-potentially-worth--billions-)
STOP BEING ON TOPIC
STOP MAKING SENSE! :bigass:
Bumping the thread with an article out of Las Vegas:
New Interstate could be Beneficial, but Costly (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/aug/26/new-interstate-freeway-could-mean-riches-vegas-itl/)
Quote from: Rover_0 on August 27, 2013, 11:40:39 AM
Bumping the thread with an article out of Las Vegas:
New Interstate could be Beneficial, but Costly (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/aug/26/new-interstate-freeway-could-mean-riches-vegas-itl/)
Why not use tolls on it in a classic Vegas fashion? Keep puting quarters in until the wheel hits all 7s and the gate goes up.
Quote from: Brandon on August 27, 2013, 02:00:10 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on August 27, 2013, 11:40:39 AM
Bumping the thread with an article out of Las Vegas:
New Interstate could be Beneficial, but Costly (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/aug/26/new-interstate-freeway-could-mean-riches-vegas-itl/)
Why not use tolls on it in a classic Vegas fashion? Keep puting quarters in until the wheel hits all 7s and the gate goes up.
(Most) Vegas machines don't accept quarters anymore.
You gotta insert $20, get 80 credits and spin until you get the 7's. Any remaining credits will be paid via a Cash Out coupon that needs to be redeemed at the nearest casino (or inserted into a real slot machine for continued enjoyment). :-D
Quote from: Brandon on August 27, 2013, 02:00:10 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on August 27, 2013, 11:40:39 AM
Bumping the thread with an article out of Las Vegas:
New Interstate could be Beneficial, but Costly (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/aug/26/new-interstate-freeway-could-mean-riches-vegas-itl/)
Why not use tolls on it in a classic Vegas fashion? Keep puting quarters in until the wheel hits all 7s and the gate goes up.
Oh man, how about your toll is anywhere between $1 and $3 depending on where the little roulette ball falls?
Quote from: Brandon on August 27, 2013, 02:00:10 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on August 27, 2013, 11:40:39 AM
Bumping the thread with an article out of Las Vegas:
New Interstate could be Beneficial, but Costly (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/aug/26/new-interstate-freeway-could-mean-riches-vegas-itl/)
Why not use tolls on it in a classic Vegas fashion? Keep puting quarters in until the wheel hits all 7s and the gate goes up.
The slot attendant in me feels compelled to point out that they are called reels. :P
Why not do video poker instead? If you make a hand, your toll is discounted. A royal flush means free tolls for a year!
^ This might be a fun way to get around the state law forbidding tolled highways...
Actually, the Boulder City Bypass segment of proposed I-11 was supposed to be the first demonstration project in the state that would allow active tolling of roads--I'm not sure where the legislature went with that bill... I seem to remember reading about a feasibility study that revealed that tolls on the bypass would not bring in the expected revenue needed to construct under that plan. I'm assuming that's why this article talks about raising gas taxes in Clark County and other means to fund the project.
^^ Screw raising gas taxes. Just build rest areas that include slots and video poker and use that revenue for building and maintaining the roads. Since they're gambling devices and fully legal in Nevada, they are not concessions and not a commercialization if owned by the state DOT. :cool:
Quote from: Brandon on August 29, 2013, 09:47:11 AM
^^ Screw raising gas taxes. Just build rest areas that include slots and video poker and use that revenue for building and maintaining the roads. Since they're gambling devices and fully legal in Nevada, they are not concessions and not a commercialization if owned by the state DOT. :cool:
As long as they don't do that in Boulder City proper - gambling is banned there.
Quote from: Brandon on August 29, 2013, 09:47:11 AM
^^ Screw raising gas taxes. Just build rest areas that include slots and video poker and use that revenue for building and maintaining the roads. Since they're gambling devices and fully legal in Nevada, they are not concessions and not a commercialization if owned by the state DOT. :cool:
Actually not too far-fetched, as they have slots at the airport in Vegas.
Quote from: Thing 342 on August 30, 2013, 03:33:49 PM
Quote from: Brandon on August 29, 2013, 09:47:11 AM
^^ Screw raising gas taxes. Just build rest areas that include slots and video poker and use that revenue for building and maintaining the roads. Since they're gambling devices and fully legal in Nevada, they are not concessions and not a commercialization if owned by the state DOT. :cool:
Actually not too far-fetched, as they have slots at the airport in Vegas.
I'm very well of aware of them. They're everywhere in McCarron International Airport. Can't walk more than 20 feet before you run into one of them. It's where I got the idea for rest areas with slots and video poker. :-D
"Yeah well, I'll just go build my own rest area... with slot machines! and hookers! You know what, screw the rest area!"
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foutskirtsbattledome.wikispaces.com%2Ffile%2Fview%2FBender.jpg%2F125149777%2FBender.jpg&hash=f2b503bacbe8e563cd2fd334d97d79aaa41c4994)
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 31, 2013, 11:23:10 PM
"Yeah well, I'll just go build my own rest area... with slot machines! and hookers! You know what, screw the rest area!"
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foutskirtsbattledome.wikispaces.com%2Ffile%2Fview%2FBender.jpg%2F125149777%2FBender.jpg&hash=f2b503bacbe8e563cd2fd334d97d79aaa41c4994)
Ha! I thought you had your own plan for Interstate 11, but that's pretty funny. :D
What, no blackjack?
I'm surprised that this hasn't been mentioned yet...
Possible I-11 Routes through Las Vegas (circa October 2013) (http://m.reviewjournal.com/news/way-through-valley-public-mulls-interstate-11-routes)
So, I-515 may not be replaced by I-11, as I-11 will hitch a ride on future I-215, or I-11 may run along US-95 or US-93 north of the city.
I'll be absolutely shocked if I-11 follows US-93 through eastern Nevada, even if it takes 50 years.
The article doesn't say anything about it using US 93 (except for the BS "starting at the Mexican border and continuing all the way to Canada"), and the map simply shows it uselessly overlapping I-15 to end at the US 93 split.
Would AASHTO/FHWA approve an endpoint on US 95 northwest of Vegas? This doesn't seem like a "logical terminus" for a 2DI.
PS: lol Agenda 21
Quote from: Rover_0 on January 03, 2014, 02:20:04 AM
I'm surprised that this hasn't been mentioned yet...
Possible I-11 Routes through Las Vegas (circa October 2013) (http://m.reviewjournal.com/news/way-through-valley-public-mulls-interstate-11-routes)
"One man, Dick Bonar, was adamant that the new route should not come through the center of town."
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dumpt.com%2Fimg%2Ffiles%2Fqrpcwv3h3dvyecll31ld_thumb.jpg&hash=fb23ab37f63d53fef56cf6423fdb8cb723c64c5b)
Quote from: NE2 on January 03, 2014, 02:44:55 AM
The article doesn't say anything about it using US 93 (except for the BS "starting at the Mexican border and continuing all the way to Canada"), and the map simply shows it uselessly overlapping I-15 to end at the US 93 split.
Would AASHTO/FHWA approve an endpoint on US 95 northwest of Vegas? This doesn't seem like a "logical terminus" for a 2DI.
PS: lol Agenda 21
I don't see anywhere where it doesn't mention just ending anywhere. While I-11 north(west) of Las Vegas doesn't seem likely for a long time, this seems to imply that I-11's going northward out of Las Vegas is being given serious consideration.
I don't see anywhere where it does mention continuing across the middle of nowhere, other than the BS about continuing to Canada (which is probably talking about the Canamex Corridor using I-15 to Montana).
If you are building an eastern loop, just do something like this (https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?mid=z5oS94aIHog8.kzYw_YXUQJ1M) and have I-11 on the east side and I-215 on the other three sides.
It makes no sense to cross I-15 to merely end at the far side of the Vegas urban area. Nor does it make sense to hit I-15 to the south of the city, as it is a N-S route's northern end. Either serve the city by taking over I-515, or take a freeway bypassing the city to the east.
If you do eventually build a US95 freeway beyond Vegas far enough to be an interstate, then I-11 can cross I-15. It makes sense, given there's a more direct freeway than round the loop, to relocate I-11 through Vegas if it took the eastern belt.
Run I-11 to I-15 along the current I-515/US 95. Loop all of Vegas and call it I-711...LOL! Terminate I-11 at the US 95 end of the loop.
Yeah, I know I broke an Interstate numbering convention but it's all in the name of lucky numbers :-)
Rick
Stupid convention anyway. There NEEDS to be an I-711. It's bad enough that we got doofed on I-420 and I-666.
Quote from: Molandfreak on January 08, 2014, 12:09:14 PM
Stupid convention anyway. There NEEDS to be an I-711. It's bad enough that we got doofed on I-420 and I-666.
And I-13 too. Nobody in Vegas wants that number anywhere near there. I totally agree on the I-711 thing as well.
A very long report (4,500 words plus accompanying video) about I-11 in today's Las Vegas Review-Journal:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/long-road-interstate-11
Nothing new in there that I can see, but it surveys the state of the project and presents interesting voices both for and against the project.
Quote from: Molandfreak on January 08, 2014, 12:09:14 PM
Stupid convention anyway. There NEEDS to be an I-711. It's bad enough that we got doofed on I-420 and I-666.
The US 95 Freeway west of I-15 could be I-711.
Quote from: Thing 342 on January 14, 2014, 09:47:37 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on January 08, 2014, 12:09:14 PM
Stupid convention anyway. There NEEDS to be an I-711. It's bad enough that we got doofed on I-420 and I-666.
The US 95 Freeway west of I-15 could be I-711.
But wouldn't that be the same as I-345 in Dallas? (a 3di that picks up where its parent 2di leaves off)
Quote from: Henry on January 15, 2014, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on January 14, 2014, 09:47:37 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on January 08, 2014, 12:09:14 PM
Stupid convention anyway. There NEEDS to be an I-711. It's bad enough that we got doofed on I-420 and I-666.
The US 95 Freeway west of I-15 could be I-711.
But wouldn't that be the same as I-345 in Dallas? (a 3di that picks up where its parent 2di leaves off)
And is that a problem? 2dis generally have to end at Interstates, or at least at... someone correct me here... primary civil defense network routes? I forget what the exact designation is. 3dis have much more latitude.
Quote from: Steve on January 15, 2014, 09:56:56 PM
And is that a problem? 2dis generally have to end at Interstates, or at least at... someone correct me here... primary civil defense network routes? I forget what the exact designation is. 3dis have much more latitude.
There doesn't seem to be a difference between 2DIs and 3DIs.
QuoteThe proposed route should connect to the Interstate System at each end, with the exception of Interstate routes that connect with continental routes at an international border, or terminate in a "major highway traffic generator" that is not served by another Interstate route. In the latter case, the terminus of the Interstate route should connect to routes of the National Highway System that will adequately handle the traffic. The proposed route also must be functionally classified as a principal arterial and be a part of the National Highway System system.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/fapg/cfr0470a.htm
So I-26 could have continued to the state line, since US 23 is an NHS route that can handle the traffic.
Quote from: Steve on January 15, 2014, 09:56:56 PM
Quote from: Henry on January 15, 2014, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on January 14, 2014, 09:47:37 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on January 08, 2014, 12:09:14 PM
Stupid convention anyway. There NEEDS to be an I-711. It's bad enough that we got doofed on I-420 and I-666.
The US 95 Freeway west of I-15 could be I-711.
But wouldn't that be the same as I-345 in Dallas? (a 3di that picks up where its parent 2di leaves off)
And is that a problem? 2dis generally have to end at Interstates, or at least at... someone correct me here... primary civil defense network routes? I forget what the exact designation is. 3dis have much more latitude.
Both Interstate 37 and 45 end into their southern downtown control cities into city streets.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on January 16, 2014, 08:43:26 AM
Both Interstate 37 and 45 end into their southern downtown control cities into city streets.
If I'm not mistaken, I-40 and I-15 are the only California 2dis to actually end at another Interstate. I-8, I-10 both end near the ocean, I-5 of course has a border terminus to the south, and I-80 ends at US 101 in San Francisco.
(I-80 was proposed at one point to end at the originally planned I-280 route along Route 1 in Golden Gate Park, though)
Quote from: TheStranger on January 16, 2014, 11:41:08 AM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on January 16, 2014, 08:43:26 AM
Both Interstate 37 and 45 end into their southern downtown control cities into city streets.
If I'm not mistaken, I-40 and I-15 are the only California 2dis to actually end at another Interstate. I-8, I-10 both end near the ocean, I-5 of course has a border terminus to the south, and I-80 ends at US 101 in San Francisco.
(I-80 was proposed at one point to end at the originally planned I-280 route along Route 1 in Golden Gate Park, though)
Whee, random thoughts: NJ also has two such (76 and 80) and every other route crosses borders, so we're 100% on ending at another Interstate. (You could also count I-95's twin endings at I-295 and I-276, but those are going away soon.) Is there any other state at 100% with more than two such Interstates?
~ PA: 78, 83, 84 all end at 81, and 79 ends at 90, so it's a question of how you look at 99. Double Breezewood = fail in my book. Once it's extended north to NY, I might reconsider letting the south end slide.
~ OH: I-71 and I-77 end at I-90. I-76 ends at I-71. I-74 ends at I-75.
~ This is getting OT.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on January 16, 2014, 08:43:26 AM
Quote from: Steve on January 15, 2014, 09:56:56 PM
Quote from: Henry on January 15, 2014, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on January 14, 2014, 09:47:37 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on January 08, 2014, 12:09:14 PM
Stupid convention anyway. There NEEDS to be an I-711. It's bad enough that we got doofed on I-420 and I-666.
The US 95 Freeway west of I-15 could be I-711.
But wouldn't that be the same as I-345 in Dallas? (a 3di that picks up where its parent 2di leaves off)
And is that a problem? 2dis generally have to end at Interstates, or at least at... someone correct me here... primary civil defense network routes? I forget what the exact designation is. 3dis have much more latitude.
Both Interstate 37 and 45 end into their southern downtown control cities into city streets.
As do I-83 and I-95, among others (although, ironically, the former route was once proposed to terminate at the latter before it got cancelled).
That's not even rain on your wedding day league.
Quote from: NE2 on January 17, 2014, 12:41:54 PM
That's not even rain on your wedding day league.
However, it may, under certain circumstances, be a traffic jam when you're already late.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 20, 2014, 02:45:04 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 17, 2014, 12:41:54 PM
That's not even rain on your wedding day league.
However, it may, under certain circumstances, be a traffic jam when you're already late.
Isn't it ironic, don'tcha think?
Another article on the I-11 proposal:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2014/mar/05/interstate-linking-las-vegas-phoenix-faces-tough-g/
QuoteLas Vegas and Phoenix are linked by a road that narrows to two lanes, hits stoplights in a Depression-era town and until recently backed up traffic over the Hoover Dam. Despite being two of the largest cities in the Southwest, they aren't directly connected by an interstate freeway. There have been halting advances toward creating a slick, new highway to cover the 300 miles of desert between Sin City and the Valley of the Sun, but if it's ever going to happen, according to Steve Betts, leader of a coalition of project supporters, "everyone would have to be very creative."
An effort to improve what's now a 4 1/2-hour drive with a more reliable road has heavy-hitting allies, including business leaders and the Republican governor of each state. "Long-term jobs are created by our connectivity," Betts said, noting that the stretch would be the first piece of a new shipping route between Mexico and Canada.
But critics ask whether such a multibillion dollar development would be more than a vanity project that would take resources away from more immediate concerns. The cities already "are connected by U.S. 93. Whether they need an interstate is a question," said transportation historian Earl Swift.
QuoteThe main talking points now are how the interstate would create more efficient freight flows and boost the regional economy. "It's not a matter of functionality," said Tom Skancke, president and CEO of the Las Vegas Global Economic Alliance.
"Looking from a global competitiveness standpoint, does it compete better globally?" he asked. "Or do we want to bounce along the bottom?"
An interstate could link Los Angeles, Phoenix and Las Vegas as partners in a "megaregion" that competes with other regions, and could open a trade route from Mexico to Pacific Ocean ports and Canada. Arizona and Nevada are currently losing much of that flow and its attendant development to Texas and California, according to Betts, chairman of CAN-DO, an acronym for Connecting Arizona and Nevada-Delivering Opportunities.
Proponents warn about the consequences of doing nothing, pointing to projections that the cities will add a combined 4 million people by 2025.
QuoteArizona is well on its way to widening a 200-mile stretch of two-lane road between Phoenix and the Nevada line. All but 40 of those miles are now four-lane, divided highway, addressing most congestion problems there, said Michael Kies, the Interstate 11 project manager for the Arizona Department of Transportation.
In Nevada, county leaders recently approved a local fuel tax increase to pay for the $300 million Boulder City Bypass, aimed at loosening the most notable bottleneck between Las Vegas and the Arizona border. The 12-mile route will allow drivers to avoid Boulder City's quaint but often congested downtown streets. The bypass is expected to be complete in late 2017.
Also, in a joint Nevada-Arizona project, a bridge went up in late 2010 allowing travelers to bypass tourist traffic on top of the Hoover Dam.
QuoteStill, other critics worry that pushing further toward the interstate dream would contribute to urban sprawl and hurt the environment. "The last thing we need is another freeway," said Sandy Bahr, president of the Arizona chapter of the Sierra Club. "We need to look for other transportation modes."
Regards,
Andy
What is wrong about an expressway with bypasses around towns... or at least Boulder City and Kingman?
Quote from: sdmichael on March 07, 2014, 01:45:33 PM
What is wrong about an expressway with bypasses around towns... or at least Boulder City and Kingman?
Some people are hypnotized by that red/white/blue interstate shield.
Me? A good road is a good road regardless of the shield.
That's how it should be, but unfortunately a U.S. route suggests nothing to the average driver as it stands. Which is why an intermediate system should be in place. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4397.0)
KTVK 3 Phoenix
http://www.azfamily.com/home/Signs-mark-proposed-freeway-linking-Vegas-Phoenix-251474421.html
video of the press conference from Hoover Dam unavailing of both the Future I-11 Corridor and Nevada I-11 Signs.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.azfamily.com%2Fimages%2F600%2A338%2F3-21-14-INTERSTATE-11-ELISE-WILSON-2.jpg&hash=de459ae1db0ce90701f0e9d521b733bd4303886a)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.azfamily.com%2Fimages%2F600%2A338%2FGovernors_unveil_Interstate_11_sign-4.jpg&hash=242a67b5fe917fef36e8ef0c0e00371db259b734)
Quote from: mapman1071 on March 22, 2014, 02:01:55 AM
KTVK 3 Phoenix
http://www.azfamily.com/home/Signs-mark-proposed-freeway-linking-Vegas-Phoenix-251474421.html
video of the press conference from Hoover Dam unavailing of both the Future I-11 Corridor and Nevada I-11 Signs.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.azfamily.com%2Fimages%2F600%2A338%2F3-21-14-INTERSTATE-11-ELISE-WILSON-2.jpg&hash=de459ae1db0ce90701f0e9d521b733bd4303886a)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.azfamily.com%2Fimages%2F600%2A338%2FGovernors_unveil_Interstate_11_sign-4.jpg&hash=242a67b5fe917fef36e8ef0c0e00371db259b734)
Nice. Hope to be able to check them out in person when I do the Phoenix-to-Vegas ride again.
Quote from: mapman1071 on March 22, 2014, 02:01:55 AM
KTVK 3 Phoenix
http://www.azfamily.com/home/Signs-mark-proposed-freeway-linking-Vegas-Phoenix-251474421.html
video of the press conference from Hoover Dam unavailing of both the Future I-11 Corridor and Nevada I-11 Signs.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.azfamily.com%2Fimages%2F600%2A338%2F3-21-14-INTERSTATE-11-ELISE-WILSON-2.jpg&hash=de459ae1db0ce90701f0e9d521b733bd4303886a)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.azfamily.com%2Fimages%2F600%2A338%2FGovernors_unveil_Interstate_11_sign-4.jpg&hash=242a67b5fe917fef36e8ef0c0e00371db259b734)
Super Awesome!! Have to drive out there to see it...............and the Hover Dam.
Something tells me a hovering dam wouldn't be too useful for its intended purpose... :-D
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 25, 2014, 07:30:12 AM
Something tells me a hovering dam wouldn't be too useful for its intended purpose... :-D
No, but a hoovering dam would definitely suck! :rofl:
Quote from: myosh_tino on March 25, 2014, 01:24:13 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 25, 2014, 07:30:12 AM
Something tells me a hovering dam wouldn't be too useful for its intended purpose... :-D
No, but a hoovering dam would definitely suck! :rofl:
:clap: :clap: :clap:
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 25, 2014, 07:30:12 AM
Something tells me a hovering dam wouldn't be too useful for its intended purpose... :-D
And yet you could get to it on a hovercraft.
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on March 26, 2014, 04:27:10 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on March 25, 2014, 07:30:12 AM
Something tells me a hovering dam wouldn't be too useful for its intended purpose... :-D
And yet you could get to it on a hovercraft.
Funi guise.
Quote from: Alps on January 16, 2014, 08:08:36 PM
~ PA: 78, 83, 84 all end at 81, and 79 ends at 90, so it's a question of how you look at 99. Double Breezewood = fail in my book. Once it's extended north to NY, I might reconsider letting the south end slide.
Since when does I-79 end @ I-90? Hasn't in my lifetime. It ends @ PA-5/290.
I have relatives in the area who attended public hearings in Henderson. Mildly surprised to hear that I-11 might _not_ use the existing I-515/US 95 freeway through Las Vegas: http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/proposed-interstate-11-route-raises-concerns-henderson (includes map of eastern bypass I-11 might take)
I think it's because Nevada is gung ho about the Canamex idea. I wonder if they ended up in a situation like Indiana where they had to tie their interstate proposal into NAFTA to get it through congress.
Quote from: Henry on January 08, 2014, 12:32:46 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on January 08, 2014, 12:09:14 PM
Stupid convention anyway. There NEEDS to be an I-711. It's bad enough that we got doofed on I-420 and I-666.
And I-13 too. Nobody in Vegas wants that number anywhere near there. I totally agree on the I-711 thing as well.
At least we got I-69.
Looking ahead, what should ADOT work on first when it comes to Interstate 11 (not including what's currently under construction on US 93)? Should it be an existing section of US 93? Should it be a bypass of the Kingman area or Wickenburg? What about the section that will bypass Phoenix?
I'd do it in the following order
1) Bypass Kingman (I hate that breezewood)
2) Improve Loop 303->Future I-11 connections on US 60
3) Improve two lane sections
4) Bypass Wickenburg (the current route is fairly new already, and does a pretty good job bypassing town)
distant
5) Build the section that bypasses Phoenix
Quote from: corco on May 09, 2014, 10:36:23 PM
I'd do it in the following order
1) Bypass Kingman (I hate that breezewood)
2) Improve Loop 303->Future I-11 connections on US 60
3) Improve two lane sections
4) Bypass Wickenburg (the current route is fairly new already, and does a pretty good job bypassing town)
distant
5) Build the section that bypasses Phoenix
1: ADOT is doing a study of placing a I-11/I-40 Trumpet interchange West of Beal Street/US93 North
2: There are plans for the interchange to be upgraded to a full or twisted stack at US60 - Grand Avenue /AZ Loop 303
3: Currently all 2 lane sections remaining of US 93 between I-40 and AZ89 are being twined with a bypass of Wikiup and replacement of the interchange with AZ71.
4: I-11 planned route is currently West of Vulture Mine Road curving to the West of Wickenburg Airport.
5. From US 60 I-11 is planned to Curve SE then South along the West bank of the Hassayampa River to I-10.
Quote from: mapman1071 on May 10, 2014, 02:08:20 AM
Quote from: corco on May 09, 2014, 10:36:23 PM
I'd do it in the following order
1) Bypass Kingman (I hate that breezewood)
2) Improve Loop 303->Future I-11 connections on US 60
3) Improve two lane sections
4) Bypass Wickenburg (the current route is fairly new already, and does a pretty good job bypassing town)
distant
5) Build the section that bypasses Phoenix
1: ADOT is doing a study of placing a I-11/I-40 Trumpet interchange West of Beal Street/US93 North
2: There are plans for the interchange to be upgraded to a full or twisted stack at US60 - Grand Avenue /AZ Loop 303
3: Currently all 2 lane sections remaining of US 93 between I-40 and AZ89 are being twined with a bypass of Wikiup and replacement of the interchange with AZ71.
4: I-11 planned route is currently West of Vulture Mine Road curving to the West of Wickenburg Airport.
5. From US 60 I-11 is planned to Curve SE then South along the West bank of the Hassayampa River to I-10.
I know it's not in current plans and slightly off-topic, but I can see the AZ-85 route becoming part of I-11 should ADOT want to cut costs. Am I right to think this?
Quote from: Rover_0 on May 10, 2014, 02:15:41 AM
Quote from: mapman1071 on May 10, 2014, 02:08:20 AM
Quote from: corco on May 09, 2014, 10:36:23 PM
I'd do it in the following order
1) Bypass Kingman (I hate that breezewood)
2) Improve Loop 303->Future I-11 connections on US 60
3) Improve two lane sections
4) Bypass Wickenburg (the current route is fairly new already, and does a pretty good job bypassing town)
distant
5) Build the section that bypasses Phoenix
1: ADOT is doing a study of placing a I-11/I-40 Trumpet interchange West of Beal Street/US93 North
2: There are plans for the interchange to be upgraded to a full or twisted stack at US60 - Grand Avenue /AZ Loop 303
3: Currently all 2 lane sections remaining of US 93 between I-40 and AZ89 are being twined with a bypass of Wikiup and replacement of the interchange with AZ71.
4: I-11 planned route is currently West of Vulture Mine Road curving to the West of Wickenburg Airport.
5. From US 60 I-11 is planned to Curve SE then South along the West bank of the Hassayampa River to I-10.
I know it's not in current plans and slightly off-topic, but I can see the AZ-85 route becoming part of I-11 should ADOT want to cut costs. Am I right to think this?
Put it this way: That Hassayampa River routing is there to facilitate a potential development named Douglas Ranch. Supposedly 290000 people would live there over the next 50 years.
http://douglasranch.info/LandPlan.aspx
The developers of this insane plan have been trying to get AZ's Washington delegation to support both routing I-11 through there AND building it so that they can start the development. So far, both Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake (both R-AZ) have adamantly declined to do so, with Jeff Flake surviving an attempt to defeat him in the '12 election from that same development group. At some point, the developers of Douglas Ranch are going to come to the point that it is easier for EVERYONE to sell that land back to the NPS as part of the Sonoran Desert National Monument than to try to add extra lots to a Phoenix metro area that has a glut of them.
Which means you would be right to see a potential rerouting of I-11 down the N-S portion of Sun Valley Pkwy and SR-85 to I-8 as a solid bypass of metro Phoenix.
Quote from: Rover_0 on May 10, 2014, 02:15:41 AM
Quote from: mapman1071 on May 10, 2014, 02:08:20 AM
Quote from: corco on May 09, 2014, 10:36:23 PM
I'd do it in the following order
1) Bypass Kingman (I hate that breezewood)
2) Improve Loop 303->Future I-11 connections on US 60
3) Improve two lane sections
4) Bypass Wickenburg (the current route is fairly new already, and does a pretty good job bypassing town)
distant
5) Build the section that bypasses Phoenix
1: ADOT is doing a study of placing a I-11/I-40 Trumpet interchange West of Beal Street/US93 North
2: There are plans for the interchange to be upgraded to a full or twisted stack at US60 - Grand Avenue /AZ Loop 303
3: Currently all 2 lane sections remaining of US 93 between I-40 and AZ89 are being twined with a bypass of Wikiup and replacement of the interchange with AZ71.
4: I-11 planned route is currently West of Vulture Mine Road curving to the West of Wickenburg Airport.
5. From US 60 I-11 is planned to Curve SE then South along the West bank of the Hassayampa River to I-10.
I know it's not in current plans and slightly off-topic, but I can see the AZ-85 route becoming part of I-11 should ADOT want to cut costs. Am I right to think this?
I think ADOT would want a freeway bypass of Phoenix, regardless of whether it's a single route (I-11) or a combination of routes (AZ 85 and I-8). AZ 85 will probably be a full freeway by the time any part of I-11 is started south of I-10 west of Phoenix.
This article suggests a power line corridor may be constructed to follow Interstate 11 in Arizona:
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060000284
QuoteBut BLM has considered nonfederal lands in other energy projects, most notably in Arizona with the Restoration Design Energy Project in which the agency designated 192,100 acres of renewable energy development areas on BLM land.
"That same type of analysis would be good on these transmission corridors," said Ian Dowdy, the Sonoran Institute's sun corridor program director in Phoenix.
The Sonoran Institute participates in a solar working group that includes electricity utilities in the state like Tucson Electric Power, solar energy developers such as First Solar Inc., and other conservation groups liked the Wilderness Society and Sierra Club.
"The West-wide Energy Corridor is one of the main topics on our agenda the last few years," Dowdy said. "We've come up with some really great solutions."
One would be to alter the route of the corridor in Arizona to follow the proposed Interstate 11 highway that's planned to connect Phoenix and Las Vegas.
The working group of Arizona officials has identified tens of thousands of acres in the Restoration Design Energy Project area that are within 20 miles of the proposed I-11, meaning solar development in these zones would be relatively near the transmission lines in the West-wide Energy Corridor, Dowdy said.
"People have not wanted to see power lines between cities on highways," he said. "But that's got to be one of the better ideas."
Quote from: mapman1071 on May 10, 2014, 02:08:20 AM
Quote from: corco on May 09, 2014, 10:36:23 PM
I'd do it in the following order
1) Bypass Kingman (I hate that breezewood)
2) Improve Loop 303->Future I-11 connections on US 60
3) Improve two lane sections
4) Bypass Wickenburg (the current route is fairly new already, and does a pretty good job bypassing town)
distant
5) Build the section that bypasses Phoenix
1: ADOT is doing a study of placing a I-11/I-40 Trumpet interchange West of Beal Street/US93 North
2: There are plans for the interchange to be upgraded to a full or twisted stack at US60 - Grand Avenue /AZ Loop 303
3: Currently all 2 lane sections remaining of US 93 between I-40 and AZ89 are being twined with a bypass of Wikiup and replacement of the interchange with AZ71.
4: I-11 planned route is currently West of Vulture Mine Road curving to the West of Wickenburg Airport.
5. From US 60 I-11 is planned to Curve SE then South along the West bank of the Hassayampa River to I-10.
According to the AZ 303 update study now ongoing by AZDOT, the interchange with US 60 will not be a stack, but a 3-level SPUI with the left-turn movements crossing at-grade due to the proximity of the BNSF railroad line that parallels US 60. Also, US 60 is scheduled to be upgraded only to an "enhanced arterial/limited expressway", not a full freeway. More than likely, I-11 will have to be constructed on new alignment to the west of AZ 303, with either a direct connection to an upgraded AZ 85 or a totally new alignment to the west. At least, that's my totally cracked impression.
Quote from: andy3175 on June 18, 2014, 01:32:23 AM
This article suggests a power line corridor may be constructed to follow Interstate 11 in Arizona:
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060000284
QuoteBut BLM has considered nonfederal lands in other energy projects, most notably in Arizona with the Restoration Design Energy Project in which the agency designated 192,100 acres of renewable energy development areas on BLM land.
"That same type of analysis would be good on these transmission corridors," said Ian Dowdy, the Sonoran Institute's sun corridor program director in Phoenix.
The Sonoran Institute participates in a solar working group that includes electricity utilities in the state like Tucson Electric Power, solar energy developers such as First Solar Inc., and other conservation groups liked the Wilderness Society and Sierra Club.
"The West-wide Energy Corridor is one of the main topics on our agenda the last few years," Dowdy said. "We've come up with some really great solutions."
One would be to alter the route of the corridor in Arizona to follow the proposed Interstate 11 highway that's planned to connect Phoenix and Las Vegas.
The working group of Arizona officials has identified tens of thousands of acres in the Restoration Design Energy Project area that are within 20 miles of the proposed I-11, meaning solar development in these zones would be relatively near the transmission lines in the West-wide Energy Corridor, Dowdy said.
"People have not wanted to see power lines between cities on highways," he said. "But that's got to be one of the better ideas."
Why? Highways are a great place for power lines. Would they rather power lines go through residential subdivisions instead?
Quote from: Anthony_JK on June 18, 2014, 03:40:38 PM
Quote from: andy3175 on June 18, 2014, 01:32:23 AM
This article suggests a power line corridor may be constructed to follow Interstate 11 in Arizona:
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060000284
QuoteBut BLM has considered nonfederal lands in other energy projects, most notably in Arizona with the Restoration Design Energy Project in which the agency designated 192,100 acres of renewable energy development areas on BLM land.
"That same type of analysis would be good on these transmission corridors," said Ian Dowdy, the Sonoran Institute's sun corridor program director in Phoenix.
The Sonoran Institute participates in a solar working group that includes electricity utilities in the state like Tucson Electric Power, solar energy developers such as First Solar Inc., and other conservation groups liked the Wilderness Society and Sierra Club.
"The West-wide Energy Corridor is one of the main topics on our agenda the last few years," Dowdy said. "We've come up with some really great solutions."
One would be to alter the route of the corridor in Arizona to follow the proposed Interstate 11 highway that's planned to connect Phoenix and Las Vegas.
The working group of Arizona officials has identified tens of thousands of acres in the Restoration Design Energy Project area that are within 20 miles of the proposed I-11, meaning solar development in these zones would be relatively near the transmission lines in the West-wide Energy Corridor, Dowdy said.
"People have not wanted to see power lines between cities on highways," he said. "But that's got to be one of the better ideas."
According to the AZ 303 update study now ongoing by AZDOT, the interchange with US 60 will not be a stack, but a 3-level SPUI with the left-turn movements crossing at-grade due to the proximity of the BNSF railroad line that parallels US 60. Also, US 60 is scheduled to be upgraded only to an "enhanced arterial/limited expressway", not a full freeway. More than likely, I-11 will have to be constructed on new alignment to the west of AZ 303, with either a direct connection to an upgraded AZ 85 or a totally new alignment to the west. At least, that's my totally cracked impression.
Take a look at the recent 303 Study covering the segment between US-60 to Happy Valley. They just switched the 60/303 interchange to a partial cloveleaf instead of the tri-level SPUI. I think they collapsed to the demands of the senior communities around that area. (Link to document: http://bit.ly/1iJ0Ok0)
Ahhhh, so they did. Probably makes a lot more sense, since they have no plans to upgrade US 60 beyond a "superstreet", and it relieves the BNSF of having to construct a "shoofly" detour. But, what does that do for the proposed I-11?? A new alignment further west which connects directly to AZ 85 at I-10??
Quote from: Anthony_JK on June 19, 2014, 09:56:52 AM
Ahhhh, so they did. Probably makes a lot more sense, since they have no plans to upgrade US 60 beyond a "superstreet", and it relieves the BNSF of having to construct a "shoofly" detour. But, what does that do for the proposed I-11?? A new alignment further west which connects directly to AZ 85 at I-10??
I-11 wasn't going to be in the area of the current Loop 303/US 60 interchange. From all the proposals I've seen, US 60 east (or southeast) of Wickenburg was pretty much going to remain the same.
In the event I-11 gets routed along current AZ 85, I think it's more likely I-10 and I-11 would share the same roadway from current AZ 85 to some point west of there than a new north-south alignment directly connecting to the current I-10/AZ 85 interchange.
Quote from: mapman1071 on May 10, 2014, 02:08:20 AM
Quote from: corco on May 09, 2014, 10:36:23 PM
I'd do it in the following order
1) Bypass Kingman (I hate that breezewood)
2) Improve Loop 303->Future I-11 connections on US 60
3) Improve two lane sections
4) Bypass Wickenburg (the current route is fairly new already, and does a pretty good job bypassing town)
distant
5) Build the section that bypasses Phoenix
1: ADOT is doing a study of placing a I-11/I-40 Trumpet interchange West of Beal Street/US93 North
2: There are plans for the interchange to be upgraded to a full or twisted stack at US60 - Grand Avenue /AZ Loop 303
3: Currently all 2 lane sections remaining of US 93 between I-40 and AZ89 are being twined with a bypass of Wikiup and replacement of the interchange with AZ71.
4: I-11 planned route is currently West of Vulture Mine Road curving to the West of Wickenburg Airport.
5. From US 60 I-11 is planned to Curve SE then South along the West bank of the Hassayampa River to I-10.
So basically we'd have another I-17? (which crosses I-10, then loops around before meeting it again)
Quote from: Anthony_JK on June 19, 2014, 09:56:52 AM
Ahhhh, so they did. Probably makes a lot more sense, since they have no plans to upgrade US 60 beyond a "superstreet", and it relieves the BNSF of having to construct a "shoofly" detour. But, what does that do for the proposed I-11?? A new alignment further west which connects directly to AZ 85 at I-10??
Correct, though there's a planned "White Tanks Freeway" going from the I-11 corridor to 60/303 interchange. Not sure what the status of that freeway is-- is it still planned for the distant future, or written off?
Quote from: frozen on June 24, 2014, 12:36:39 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on June 19, 2014, 09:56:52 AM
Ahhhh, so they did. Probably makes a lot more sense, since they have no plans to upgrade US 60 beyond a "superstreet", and it relieves the BNSF of having to construct a "shoofly" detour. But, what does that do for the proposed I-11?? A new alignment further west which connects directly to AZ 85 at I-10??
Correct, though there's a planned "White Tanks Freeway" going from the I-11 corridor to 60/303 interchange. Not sure what the status of that freeway is-- is it still planned for the distant future, or written off?
I'm not that familiar with that project, so I can't tell for sure. But it would've been nice to upgrade US 60 all the way to I-17 to freeway, and we'll never know that now.
Quote from: Henry on June 24, 2014, 02:30:15 PM
Quote from: frozen on June 24, 2014, 12:36:39 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on June 19, 2014, 09:56:52 AM
Ahhhh, so they did. Probably makes a lot more sense, since they have no plans to upgrade US 60 beyond a "superstreet", and it relieves the BNSF of having to construct a "shoofly" detour. But, what does that do for the proposed I-11?? A new alignment further west which connects directly to AZ 85 at I-10??
Correct, though there's a planned "White Tanks Freeway" going from the I-11 corridor to 60/303 interchange. Not sure what the status of that freeway is-- is it still planned for the distant future, or written off?
I'm not that familiar with that project, so I can't tell for sure. But it would've been nice to upgrade US 60 all the way to I-17 to freeway, and we'll never know that now.
I realize the reasons why it was cancelled, but that Paradise Parkway would have been a very nice thing to have in the Phoenix grid. Central Phoenix is desperately lacking in a good east-west high capacity road. The Northern Parkway out west is a great idea, wish it was possible to extend that further east into Phoenix proper.
Is it too late to merge I-19 into I-17 and then make the Phoenix to Vegas route I-19? :hmmm:
Quote from: billtm on June 30, 2014, 02:25:11 PM
Is it too late to merge I-19 into I-17 and then make the Phoenix to Vegas route I-19? :hmmm:
The problem is that I-19 uses kilometers rather than miles and the local businesses don't want it changed.
Quote from: US 41 on June 30, 2014, 06:58:51 PM
Quote from: billtm on June 30, 2014, 02:25:11 PM
Is it too late to merge I-19 into I-17 and then make the Phoenix to Vegas route I-19? :hmmm:
The problem is that I-19 uses kilometers rather than miles and the local businesses don't want it changed.
I don't think the kilometer based reference points make a difference here.
Current I-19 is further east than current I-17. Putting I-19 along the Phoenix to Vegas route would intentionally introduce a more egregious numbering grid violation--it would be less problematic to give the Phoenix to Vegas route the I-17 number. However, if I-11 extends north from Las Vegas as the corridor studies are looking, then I-11 eventually makes more sense in the national grid than either 17 or 19.
Quote from: billtm on June 30, 2014, 02:25:11 PM
Is it too late to merge I-19 into I-17 and then make the Phoenix to Vegas route I-19? :hmmm:
I say (Provided of course that I-11 isn't already Shustered into existence) do the reverse: extend I-19 to include present I-17 (yes, that'd mean a big concurrency with I-10), and make this new I-11 a relocated I-17. Fits the grid, and I-11 can be either Vegas-to-Reno, or re-designation of (at least the lower part of) CA 99 - admittedly a possible "Fictional Interstate" shift, but not impossible...
Quote from: MikeSantNY78 on July 27, 2014, 04:29:09 PM
Quote from: billtm on June 30, 2014, 02:25:11 PM
Is it too late to merge I-19 into I-17 and then make the Phoenix to Vegas route I-19? :hmmm:
I say (Provided of course that I-11 isn't already Shustered into existence) do the reverse: extend I-19 to include present I-17 (yes, that'd mean a big concurrency with I-10), and make this new I-11 a relocated I-17. Fits the grid, and I-11 can be either Vegas-to-Reno, or re-designation of (at least the lower part of) CA 99 - admittedly a possible "Fictional Interstate" shift, but not impossible...
The I-11 number is Congressionally designated.
Why all the I-11 hate? I think it's a very adequate designation.
[/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)...
Quote from: FightingIrish on July 27, 2014, 09:12:22 PM
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?
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.
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 (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?)
Quote from: kkt on July 28, 2014, 12:40:19 AM
- 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. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Molandfreak on July 28, 2014, 07:40:06 PM
Quote from: kkt on July 28, 2014, 12:40:19 AM
- 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. :rolleyes:
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?
Quote from: kkt on July 28, 2014, 12:40:19 AM
Quote from: FightingIrish on July 27, 2014, 09:12:22 PM
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).
Quote from: roadfro on July 28, 2014, 10:50:50 PM
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.
Quote from: Molandfreak on July 28, 2014, 07:40:06 PM
Quote from: kkt on July 28, 2014, 12:40:19 AM
- 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.
Quote from: kkt on July 30, 2014, 04:27:53 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on July 28, 2014, 07:40:06 PM
Quote from: kkt on July 28, 2014, 12:40:19 AM
- 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!
Hey, let's also renumber I-78 to I-395, since it's two miles shorter than I-17 and fuck NYC amirite? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Quote from: FightingIrish on July 28, 2014, 09:17:33 PM
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. :sleep:
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).
Quote from: corco on July 30, 2014, 04:46:24 PM
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.
Quote from: roadfro on July 28, 2014, 10:50:50 PM
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.
Quote
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.
Quote from: kkt on July 30, 2014, 04:27:53 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on July 28, 2014, 07:40:06 PM
Quote from: kkt on July 28, 2014, 12:40:19 AM
- 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.
Quote from: FightingIrish on July 31, 2014, 05:17:34 PM
Quote from: kkt on July 30, 2014, 04:27:53 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on July 28, 2014, 07:40:06 PM
Quote from: kkt on July 28, 2014, 12:40:19 AM
- 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"?
Quote from: kkt on July 31, 2014, 01:33:42 PM
Quote from: 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.
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.
Quote from: myriad1973 on August 07, 2014, 02:10:05 PM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: jake on August 08, 2014, 01:53:58 AM
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 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4397.0), Interstate designations are highly desired. But there are other ways of suggesting a freeway/expressway... if AASHTO would roll with it:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Ffroggie%2FUS-52MN-newstyle3.png&hash=bf4831ccd3809eae80ca0faa8ccc139fcc63ab52)
Quote from: sdmichael on August 08, 2014, 01:14:16 AM
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.
Quote from: Molandfreak on August 08, 2014, 02:59:39 AM
Quote from: jake on August 08, 2014, 01:53:58 AM
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 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4397.0), Interstate designations are highly desired. But there are other ways of suggesting a freeway/expressway... if AASHTO would roll with it:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vahighways.com%2Ffroggie%2FUS-52MN-newstyle3.png&hash=bf4831ccd3809eae80ca0faa8ccc139fcc63ab52)
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.
I just wish they would only build the Kingman to Vegas part for now and call it I-17 with the required cosign on 40.
Quote from: jake on August 09, 2014, 02:15:49 AM
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.
Just to throw fuel onto this fire, isn't that what an Interstate designation is for? To advertise freeways? From that perspective, the Interstate 11 designation makes perfect sense. US 93 made sense while that connection was via two-lane highways. But as that corridor increases in importance with its expansion and sees commercial traffic increase as part of the intention to expand trade corridors beyond Interstates 5 and 15, Interstate 11 makes perfect sense.
My personal belief, which is not shared by many on this Forum, is that if a freeway meets the Interstate criteria and connects to the rest of the system, the freeway should be strongly considered for promotion to Interstate status. Interstate 11, which would connect two major metropolitan areas (both of which are growing), would be a logical addition once the corridor is improved to Interstate standards. Other ideas of extending Interstate 11 north of Las Vegas should remain a long-term proposal, but it's unclear if commercial traffic ("If you build it, they will come") will be sufficient enough to justify the costs of expansion in the near term. (I will also note that my opinion is that tolled segments of Interstate-standard freeway -- regardless of initial funding sources -- should also be considered and allowed for inclusion in the Interstate Highway System especially as tolls may be considered for portions of Interstate 11.)
One thing I think AASHTO should look at it reviewing future Interstate corridors and finding a method to determine if those should be aggressively signed and posted in the field, or if the current method of signing corridors as they are improved is sufficient.
Quote from: DesertDog on August 09, 2014, 09:33:04 PM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on August 09, 2014, 08:15:31 PM
I just wish they would only build the Kingman to Vegas part for now and call it I-17 with the required cosign on 40.
That's not direct enough by a long shot. As it stands now the trip down US 93 is an hour shorter and about a 100 miles less driving distance than detouring all the way to Flag along I-40 and taking I-17 down to Phoenix. Don't forget it's not like US 93 is in the old school two lane road configuration that went over the Hoover Dam, it's almost 4 lanes entirely between both cities. If the surface gaps in the West Valley, Kingman and Boulder City could be resolved correctly it might be a 4 hour trip on I-11 vs the current 5 on US 93.
And there's a chance--albeit small--that I-17 gets extended north along US-89 to I-15 in Utah to serve Phoenix-Salt Lake City traffic, so that number may be needed elsewhere.*
*I'm well aware of the "renumber I-11 to I-17 and merge existing I-17 and I-19" line of thought...I've even made a map of it. But that doesn't mean that AASHTO, FHWA, ADOT and NDOT think the same way...at this point.
Quote from: andy3175 on August 14, 2014, 12:15:35 AM
Just to throw fuel onto this fire, isn't that what an Interstate designation is for? To advertise freeways? From that perspective, the Interstate 11 designation makes perfect sense. US 93 made sense while that connection was via two-lane highways. But as that corridor increases in importance with its expansion and sees commercial traffic increase as part of the intention to expand trade corridors beyond Interstates 5 and 15, Interstate 11 makes perfect sense.
I'm not intrinsically against interstate designations, but freeways that are mostly alone in the middle of nowhere, without any connection to another interstate, need to have an option other than an interstate designation. If you consider the number of freeway bypasses in this country, there are far more than we could possibly handle with interstates. Thus, an alternative system should be considered.
Quote from: DesertDog on August 14, 2014, 04:52:44 AMNot to mention that the I-11 project as currently proposed would connect to three on the major Interstate Routes in I-10, I-40 and I-15. Something that I never understood about the freeways in Phoenix why ADOT has not been more aggressive in obtaining Interstate designations for the Loop Freeways that can serve as bypasses that would merit dipping into the FHWA fund.
In regard to funding, there are a couple of points to keep in mind.
* There is a soft ceiling on the amount of federal aid a state can receive for its highways because each state is guaranteed a minimum recovery (above 90% for most states) of the federal fuel taxes it sends to Washington. Nearly all states obligate at least this percentage on projects that are eligible for federal aid, which means that an individual state can get additional funding for projects that are similarly eligible only if some other state "screws up" and has to release part of its federal aid. Any new capital construction that cannot be funded through the federal-aid program has to receive money from alternate state or local sources. In Arizona, the primary funding source for the Loops is a local sales tax increment.
* Newly designated Interstates have not been eligible for Interstate Maintenance funds (which pay for anything up to full-depth reconstruction, but not widening) since 2003. As a result, federal funding forms part of the justification for few, if any, of the Interstate designations that have been created in the last decade.
I support I-11 as a signed Interstate in the US 93 corridor, but I don't feel there is any added navigational benefit to designating SR 51, US 60, or any of the Loops in greater Phoenix as Interstates, despite their eligibility. The Loop system as it currently exists is pretty easy to understand: Loop 303 as a shortcut from I-10 to I-17, Loop 202 as a far East Valley loop off I-10, and Loop 101 as a North Valley loop off I-10 with the connection at the bottom being made via Loop 202. Interstate shields would increase sign message load (making them harder to read) unless the underlying Loop designations were suppressed, which in turn would complicate navigation unless an Interstate designation was applied to the entirety of each Loop.
Also, it is my understanding that the Loop freeways are primarily commuter facilities, with few if any freight terminals that might be cited as a justification for an Interstate designation. Has this changed?
Quote from: DesertDog on August 14, 2014, 04:38:39 AM
Quote from: Rover_0 on August 14, 2014, 12:45:41 AM
Quote from: DesertDog on August 09, 2014, 09:33:04 PM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on August 09, 2014, 08:15:31 PM
I just wish they would only build the Kingman to Vegas part for now and call it I-17 with the required cosign on 40.
That's not direct enough by a long shot. As it stands now the trip down US 93 is an hour shorter and about a 100 miles less driving distance than detouring all the way to Flag along I-40 and taking I-17 down to Phoenix. Don't forget it's not like US 93 is in the old school two lane road configuration that went over the Hoover Dam, it's almost 4 lanes entirely between both cities. If the surface gaps in the West Valley, Kingman and Boulder City could be resolved correctly it might be a 4 hour trip on I-11 vs the current 5 on US 93.
And there's a chance--albeit small--that I-17 gets extended north along US-89 to I-15 in Utah to serve Phoenix-Salt Lake City traffic, so that number may be needed elsewhere.*
*I'm well aware of the "renumber I-11 to I-17 and merge existing I-17 and I-19" line of thought...I've even made a map of it. But that doesn't mean that AASHTO, FHWA, ADOT and NDOT think the same way...at this point.
If nobody even mentions a peep about with US 89 being rebuilt near Page I don't see it happening anywhere in the near future. That terrain right there at the US 89/US 89 A split is going to be awful to try to built a freeway of Interstate Standards through. Talk about lack of traffic though, I almost never ran into any past Page on US 89 or any US 89 A at all.
But yes I could see I-17/I-19 being consolidated into one route in the future if somehow AZ 79 and AZ 77 from Florence Junction to Tucson ever received an upgrade. There is plans on the ADOT logs to at least build AZ 24 as a freeway all the way to at least the AZ 79/US 60 Junction. I don't see that happening for decades though, there is nobody living in that gap between Gold Canyon/San Tan and Florence.
I'm not saying it's likely, but I wouldn't call an I-17 north extension dead. If I'm not mistaken, the landslide repair plans showed that the US-89 roadway would only take up about half (maybe less) than the entire repaired section. So it's possible that US-89 could be widened to accomodate another set of lanes should an upgrade be needed. Of course, if ADOT could get around ROWs and the Navajo Nation approved, I've long thought that US-89T/N-20 would be better served as a route for an I-17 extension.
As for the traffic counts, it definitely is seasonal, but there are (or at least have been plans) to widen US-89 as far north as about US-160, so while I see it as unlikely, I can hypothetically see I-17 making it to the US-89/US-160 junction in the foreseeable future.
As for I-11 and the Phoenix loops, I would see Loop 101 and some of Loop 202 (mainly its South Mountain extension) comprising of a Phoenix Beltway:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8359%2F8368932584_4180fe38c3_b.jpg&hash=5fb97d7c53a4bc6576d5af88d80ed3ca4701a3fb)
The number is up to debate (I-x11 or I-x17), but this is about the only thing I'd change with the Phoenix loops.
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 14, 2014, 10:18:46 AM
Also, it is my understanding that the Loop freeways are primarily commuter facilities, with few if any freight terminals that might be cited as a justification for an Interstate designation. Has this changed?
When did that ever stop a freeway (or tollway) from getting an interstate designation? I cite I-355 as an example.
Quote from: Rover_0 on August 14, 2014, 02:43:27 PM
Quote from: DesertDog on August 14, 2014, 04:38:39 AM
Quote from: Rover_0 on August 14, 2014, 12:45:41 AM
Quote from: DesertDog on August 09, 2014, 09:33:04 PM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on August 09, 2014, 08:15:31 PM
I just wish they would only build the Kingman to Vegas part for now and call it I-17 with the required cosign on 40.
That's not direct enough by a long shot. As it stands now the trip down US 93 is an hour shorter and about a 100 miles less driving distance than detouring all the way to Flag along I-40 and taking I-17 down to Phoenix. Don't forget it's not like US 93 is in the old school two lane road configuration that went over the Hoover Dam, it's almost 4 lanes entirely between both cities. If the surface gaps in the West Valley, Kingman and Boulder City could be resolved correctly it might be a 4 hour trip on I-11 vs the current 5 on US 93.
And there's a chance--albeit small--that I-17 gets extended north along US-89 to I-15 in Utah to serve Phoenix-Salt Lake City traffic, so that number may be needed elsewhere.*
*I'm well aware of the "renumber I-11 to I-17 and merge existing I-17 and I-19" line of thought...I've even made a map of it. But that doesn't mean that AASHTO, FHWA, ADOT and NDOT think the same way...at this point.
If nobody even mentions a peep about with US 89 being rebuilt near Page I don't see it happening anywhere in the near future. That terrain right there at the US 89/US 89 A split is going to be awful to try to built a freeway of Interstate Standards through. Talk about lack of traffic though, I almost never ran into any past Page on US 89 or any US 89 A at all.
But yes I could see I-17/I-19 being consolidated into one route in the future if somehow AZ 79 and AZ 77 from Florence Junction to Tucson ever received an upgrade. There is plans on the ADOT logs to at least build AZ 24 as a freeway all the way to at least the AZ 79/US 60 Junction. I don't see that happening for decades though, there is nobody living in that gap between Gold Canyon/San Tan and Florence.
I'm not saying it's likely, but I wouldn't call an I-17 north extension dead. If I'm not mistaken, the landslide repair plans showed that the US-89 roadway would only take up about half (maybe less) than the entire repaired section. So it's possible that US-89 could be widened to accomodate another set of lanes should an upgrade be needed. Of course, if ADOT could get around ROWs and the Navajo Nation approved, I've long thought that US-89T/N-20 would be better served as a route for an I-17 extension.
As for the traffic counts, it definitely is seasonal, but there are (or at least have been plans) to widen US-89 as far north as about US-160, so while I see it as unlikely, I can hypothetically see I-17 making it to the US-89/US-160 junction in the foreseeable future.
As for I-11 and the Phoenix loops, I would see Loop 101 and some of Loop 202 (mainly its South Mountain extension) comprising of a Phoenix Beltway:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8359%2F8368932584_4180fe38c3_b.jpg&hash=5fb97d7c53a4bc6576d5af88d80ed3ca4701a3fb)
The number is up to debate (I-x11 or I-x17), but this is about the only thing I'd change with the Phoenix loops.
Unfortunately common sense isn't going too far with the 202 South Mountain and just connecting it at the West Valley 101 interchange. I've had a long time opinion that connecting at the 101 was the best option. Once that 202 actually gets done, if you're heading into Phoenix, you will have the 85 interchange, then a few miles the 303, then 9 miles later the 101, then 5 miles later the 202, then 4 miles later the 17, then 3 miles later the 51/202, then 2 miles later 17 again, then 4 miles later the 143, then 2 miles later the 60, then 5 miles later the 202 yet again. I know you can't do anything about ones that already exist, but that cluster from the 101 through downtown and out to the 60 does not need any more interchanges, way too much crossover traffic with cars merging in from one interchange and others trying to work out to ramps for the next. 202 should have connected at the 101.
I found it interesting that even Google Maps is already showing the future Boulder City Bypass as I-11:
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9721987,-114.9137884,17z
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0084904,-114.7823057,17z
So does this mean that once the Railroad Pass bypass and Boulder City bypass both get built that I-11 will be signed replacing I-515 to the Hoover Dam bypass .....? :confused:
Quote from: Sonic99 on September 02, 2014, 01:12:41 AM
Quote from: Rover_0 on August 14, 2014, 02:43:27 PM
Quote from: DesertDog on August 14, 2014, 04:38:39 AM
Quote from: Rover_0 on August 14, 2014, 12:45:41 AM
Quote from: DesertDog on August 09, 2014, 09:33:04 PM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on August 09, 2014, 08:15:31 PM
I just wish they would only build the Kingman to Vegas part for now and call it I-17 with the required cosign on 40.
That's not direct enough by a long shot. As it stands now the trip down US 93 is an hour shorter and about a 100 miles less driving distance than detouring all the way to Flag along I-40 and taking I-17 down to Phoenix. Don't forget it's not like US 93 is in the old school two lane road configuration that went over the Hoover Dam, it's almost 4 lanes entirely between both cities. If the surface gaps in the West Valley, Kingman and Boulder City could be resolved correctly it might be a 4 hour trip on I-11 vs the current 5 on US 93.
And there's a chance--albeit small--that I-17 gets extended north along US-89 to I-15 in Utah to serve Phoenix-Salt Lake City traffic, so that number may be needed elsewhere.*
*I'm well aware of the "renumber I-11 to I-17 and merge existing I-17 and I-19" line of thought...I've even made a map of it. But that doesn't mean that AASHTO, FHWA, ADOT and NDOT think the same way...at this point.
If nobody even mentions a peep about with US 89 being rebuilt near Page I don't see it happening anywhere in the near future. That terrain right there at the US 89/US 89 A split is going to be awful to try to built a freeway of Interstate Standards through. Talk about lack of traffic though, I almost never ran into any past Page on US 89 or any US 89 A at all.
But yes I could see I-17/I-19 being consolidated into one route in the future if somehow AZ 79 and AZ 77 from Florence Junction to Tucson ever received an upgrade. There is plans on the ADOT logs to at least build AZ 24 as a freeway all the way to at least the AZ 79/US 60 Junction. I don't see that happening for decades though, there is nobody living in that gap between Gold Canyon/San Tan and Florence.
I'm not saying it's likely, but I wouldn't call an I-17 north extension dead. If I'm not mistaken, the landslide repair plans showed that the US-89 roadway would only take up about half (maybe less) than the entire repaired section. So it's possible that US-89 could be widened to accomodate another set of lanes should an upgrade be needed. Of course, if ADOT could get around ROWs and the Navajo Nation approved, I've long thought that US-89T/N-20 would be better served as a route for an I-17 extension.
As for the traffic counts, it definitely is seasonal, but there are (or at least have been plans) to widen US-89 as far north as about US-160, so while I see it as unlikely, I can hypothetically see I-17 making it to the US-89/US-160 junction in the foreseeable future.
As for I-11 and the Phoenix loops, I would see Loop 101 and some of Loop 202 (mainly its South Mountain extension) comprising of a Phoenix Beltway:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm9.staticflickr.com%2F8359%2F8368932584_4180fe38c3_b.jpg&hash=5fb97d7c53a4bc6576d5af88d80ed3ca4701a3fb)
The number is up to debate (I-x11 or I-x17), but this is about the only thing I'd change with the Phoenix loops.
Unfortunately common sense isn't going too far with the 202 South Mountain and just connecting it at the West Valley 101 interchange. I've had a long time opinion that connecting at the 101 was the best option. Once that 202 actually gets done, if you're heading into Phoenix, you will have the 85 interchange, then a few miles the 303, then 9 miles later the 101, then 5 miles later the 202, then 4 miles later the 17, then 3 miles later the 51/202, then 2 miles later 17 again, then 4 miles later the 143, then 2 miles later the 60, then 5 miles later the 202 yet again. I know you can't do anything about ones that already exist, but that cluster from the 101 through downtown and out to the 60 does not need any more interchanges, way too much crossover traffic with cars merging in from one interchange and others trying to work out to ramps for the next. 202 should have connected at the 101.
Wouldn't it make the most sense for the inner loops to be the smaller numbers and then get bigger as you get to loop 303 .....? For example: AZ-143 --> I-110 to serve the airport; AZ 101 --> I-210; AZ 202 --> I-410; AZ 303 --> I-610 or I-217 ..... AZ 51 should probably be an I-X17 since it parallels I-17 though the northern connection to I-17 would have to be completed and US 60 Superstition I-310 since there are so many I-110 routes already ..... Well, that is only my two cents for what it is worth. However If AZDOT has not sought out interstate designations for its loop freeways yet, chances are that they will not for a very long time if ever .....
Quote from: corco on May 09, 2014, 10:36:23 PM
I'd do it in the following order
1) Bypass Kingman (I hate that breezewood)
2) Improve Loop 303->Future I-11 connections on US 60
3) Improve two lane sections
4) Bypass Wickenburg (the current route is fairly new already, and does a pretty good job bypassing town)
distant
5) Build the section that bypasses Phoenix
distant 6 to never) get rid of the little-used at-grades
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on September 25, 2014, 09:49:18 PM
I found it interesting that even Google Maps is already showing the future Boulder City Bypass as I-11:
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9721987,-114.9137884,17z
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0084904,-114.7823057,17z
So does this mean that once the Railroad Pass bypass and Boulder City bypass both get built that I-11 will be signed replacing I-515 to the Hoover Dam bypass .....? :confused:
I-11 will not necessarily completely replace I-515. The routing of I-11 in the Las Vegas area has not been finalized, and 2 of the 3 options under consideration are not overlapping with I-515. I-11 will be designated along the Boulder City Bypass when completed though--it has AASHTO approval from the Arizona state line to the I-215 beltway interchange (the designation between I-215 and Railroad Pass could be temporary, depending on final routing of I-11).
FYI: There is no "Railroad Pass Bypass" project. The highway will be slightly realigned in the vicinity of Railroad Pass (both the pass and the eponymous casino), but will still traverse the pass. This is part of Boulder City Bypass project Phase 1 (end of I-515 freeway to new US 95 junction).
Any anticipation of when construction is scheduled to begin on the I-11 Boulder City bypass .....? And I assume I-11 will be signed as well over the Hoover Dam bypass at the same time .....?
I wouldn't expect the eastern bypass route along Vegas to be chosen for I-11 now that the routing on US 93 north of Vegas has been rejected. Honestly, the I-215/US 95 routing would be the easiest (personally, I'd just route up I-515 and kill off the plans to extend I-11 north of Vegas, but Nevada is gung ho about building an interstate to nowhere). A LOT of construction would be needed to bring NV 215 up to interstate standards and eliminate the breezewood with US 95.
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on September 25, 2014, 10:52:27 PM
Any anticipation of when construction is scheduled to begin on the I-11 Boulder City bypass .....? And I assume I-11 will be signed as well over the Hoover Dam bypass at the same time .....?
NDOT is planning to advertise Phase 1 (current end of I-515 to new US 95 junction) this fall. So potential start of construction in early-mid 2015.
The remainder is in Phase 2. This project is going to be a design-build contract administered by the Southern Nevada RTC (and subsequently turned over to NDOT). Not sure on the timeline for this part.
I-11 can be signed along the Hoover Dam bypass. That was included in the part of AASHTO approving the designation down to the AZ state line.
Quote from: vdeane on September 26, 2014, 01:03:36 PM
I wouldn't expect the eastern bypass route along Vegas to be chosen for I-11 now that the routing on US 93 north of Vegas has been rejected. Honestly, the I-215/US 95 routing would be the easiest (personally, I'd just route up I-515 and kill off the plans to extend I-11 north of Vegas, but Nevada is gung ho about building an interstate to nowhere). A LOT of construction would be needed to bring NV 215 up to interstate standards and eliminate the breezewood with US 95.
That eastern bypass is still an alternative--it would include a routing along the northern CR 215 to reach US 95.
There's not that much needed to bring the 215 beltway up to Interstate standards. All freeway sections are currently constructed to Interstate standards. The interchange with US 95 has plans in motion to convert that to a system interchange, with the first phase starting construction within the next year or so.
Quote from: roadfro on September 26, 2014, 05:48:48 PM
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on September 25, 2014, 10:52:27 PM
Any anticipation of when construction is scheduled to begin on the I-11 Boulder City bypass .....? And I assume I-11 will be signed as well over the Hoover Dam bypass at the same time .....?
NDOT is planning to advertise Phase 1 (current end of I-515 to new US 95 junction) this fall. So potential start of construction in early-mid 2015.
The remainder is in Phase 2. This project is going to be a design-build contract administered by the Southern Nevada RTC (and subsequently turned over to NDOT). Not sure on the timeline for this part.
I-11 can be signed along the Hoover Dam bypass. That was included in the part of AASHTO approving the designation down to the AZ state line.
Quote from: vdeane on September 26, 2014, 01:03:36 PM
I wouldn't expect the eastern bypass route along Vegas to be chosen for I-11 now that the routing on US 93 north of Vegas has been rejected. Honestly, the I-215/US 95 routing would be the easiest (personally, I'd just route up I-515 and kill off the plans to extend I-11 north of Vegas, but Nevada is gung ho about building an interstate to nowhere). A LOT of construction would be needed to bring NV 215 up to interstate standards and eliminate the breezewood with US 95.
That eastern bypass is still an alternative--it would include a routing along the northern CR 215 to reach US 95.
There's not that much needed to bring the 215 beltway up to Interstate standards. All freeway sections are currently constructed to Interstate standards. The interchange with US 95 has plans in motion to convert that to a system interchange, with the first phase starting construction within the next year or so.
Even if they do desgnate I-11 along the 215 Beltway, if it is going to go north of Las Vegas, won't thru traffic still use US 95 since it really is shorter in distance?
IMHO I-11 should just replace I-515 and keep going SE from there until it hits Phoenix .....
My assumption is that I-515, at least the part southeast of I-15, will be renumbered to 'I-11' once things towards Phoenix are complete.
Mike
So when can we expect I-11 to come into existence from the Arizona line to I-215?
IMO I'd just renumber I-515 and be done with it when that day comes, because 515/95 is the quickest route through Las Vegas.
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on September 25, 2014, 09:49:18 PM
I found it interesting that even Google Maps is already showing the future Boulder City Bypass as I-11:
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.9721987,-114.9137884,17z
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.0084904,-114.7823057,17z
So does this mean that once the Railroad Pass bypass and Boulder City bypass both get built that I-11 will be signed replacing I-515 to the Hoover Dam bypass .....? :confused:
(blink) I've never seen proposed alignments on Google Maps before. I-11 is shown only at close zoom levels.
Are any other proposed routes shown like this?
Yes. I have seen a few:
CA 58 (possible I-40 extension) in Bakersfield: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.369308,-119.0561263,17z
WA 167 freeway extension in Tacoma, WA: https://www.google.com/maps/@47.2424006,-122.3378917,17z
WA 509 freeway extension in Des Moines, WA: https://www.google.com/maps/@47.4120252,-122.2921216,17z
These are just a few I have noticed .....
Quote from: mgk920 on September 27, 2014, 11:08:04 AM
My assumption is that I-515, at least the part southeast of I-15, will be renumbered to 'I-11' once things towards Phoenix are complete.
*All* of I-515 is south of I-15... So again, it is dependent on the routing selected.
Quote from: Rover_0 on September 27, 2014, 12:39:45 PM
IMO I'd just renumber I-515 and be done with it when that day comes, because 515/95 is the quickest route through Las Vegas.
Part of me agrees with you. However, that could introduce capacity problems in the viaduct section between the I-15/Spaghetti Bowl interchange and Eastern Avenue, especially around downtown where ramp merges are insufficient. NDOT was examining the idea of significantly widening I-515 (and replacing the viaduct) in the mid 2000s--this plan has been relatively dormant for several years (it was going to cost a lot of money that the state doesn't really have, and there are higher priority projects). If I-11 were to supplant I-515, that project would need to be revised.
I think NDOT wants to seriously consider trying to route some of the I-11 through traffic around, to lessen the congestion on the Spaghetti Bowl interchange and on the freeway system in the middle of town.
Quote from: Rover_0 on September 27, 2014, 12:39:45 PM
So when can we expect I-11 to come into existence from the Arizona line to I-215?
It is still several years off. At the earliest, we will likely not see I-11 posted in Nevada until the Boulder City Bypass is completed.
We're talking at least 2-3 years from now for Boulder City Bypass Phase 1 (expected to go to bid this fall). I don't know the proposed timeline for Phase 2, and that phase will be much more complex construction-wise since it goes through some rugged terrain and is about 2-3 times the distance of the first phase.
Quote from: roadfro on September 27, 2014, 01:52:46 PM
Part of me agrees with you. However, that could introduce capacity problems in the viaduct section between the I-15/Spaghetti Bowl interchange and Eastern Avenue, especially around downtown where ramp merges are insufficient. NDOT was examining the idea of significantly widening I-515 (and replacing the viaduct) in the mid 2000s--this plan has been relatively dormant for several years (it was going to cost a lot of money that the state doesn't really have, and there are higher priority projects). If I-11 were to supplant I-515, that project would need to be revised.
That project would probably be both cheaper and more beneficial than building a road to nowhere along US 95.
Quote from: I94RoadRunner on September 27, 2014, 01:36:14 PM
Yes. I have seen a few:
CA 58 (possible I-40 extension) in Bakersfield: https://www.google.com/maps/@35.369308,-119.0561263,17z
WA 167 freeway extension in Tacoma, WA: https://www.google.com/maps/@47.2424006,-122.3378917,17z
WA 509 freeway extension in Des Moines, WA: https://www.google.com/maps/@47.4120252,-122.2921216,17z
These are just a few I have noticed .....
I have seen many proposed alignments on Google Maps before they were built, but mostly in Indiana at close zoom levels.
From memory there was
US 31 Kokomo Bypass
US 31 Plymouth - South Bend
SR 25 Hoosier Heartland
US 231 West Lafayette Bypass
US 24 Fort to Port
and is
US 31 Carmel Bypass
I-69
SR 641
This is just Indiana. So I bet there are many many more in other states.
Anyone with enough patience to learn how to do things right (and fight with the percentage of people Google places in power who don't know what they're doing) can map things via Map Maker. Some areas have more active people than others, so they'll get things mapped before or during construction. Some of them are mapped by Google people based off documents from the state. The rest get mapped when they get GPS data from nav users, satellite imagery updates, and street view finding new things.
Quote from: kurumi on September 27, 2014, 01:24:17 PM
(blink) I've never seen proposed alignments on Google Maps before. I-11 is shown only at close zoom levels.
Are any other proposed routes shown like this?
The future alignment of the final phase of the I-580/Carson City Bypass has been shown on Google Maps for some time.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1214915,-119.7657081,17z
With all this argument over numbers, just renumber I-15 from Vegas to San Diego as I-11 and make the new Interstate I-15. Problem solved.
I really don't know a whole lot about Interstate 11's projected path. What's the current highway between Las Vegas and San Diego? Is that I-40?
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on October 13, 2014, 04:45:28 PM
What's the current highway between Las Vegas and San Diego?
Interstate 15 (ever since it was extended to San Diego, from its old south terminus in Colton, in 1969).
Quote from: 707 on October 13, 2014, 02:26:11 PM
With all this argument over numbers, just renumber I-15 from Vegas to San Diego as I-11 and make the new Interstate I-15. Problem solved.
Then extend it over I-19 (concurrent with I-10), and I-15 finally makes it to the Mexican border.
Quote from: 707 on October 13, 2014, 02:26:11 PM
With all this argument over numbers, just renumber I-15 from Vegas to San Diego as I-11 and make the new Interstate I-15. Problem solved.
It would be super costly and San Diego / Inland Empire is bigger than Phoenix / Tucson areas, so the main route (I-15) will go there.
Quote from: Brandon on October 13, 2014, 05:28:56 PM
Then extend it over I-19 (concurrent with I-10), and I-15 finally makes it to the Mexican border.
If your aim is making I-15 go to Mexico rather than an actual worthy goal, it's easier to take it down I-805 and overlap it the final 1/2 mile on I-5. I don't think I-19 quite makes it to the border anyway (but it does officially extend beyond the at-grade with West Street).
Article on the completion of the Arizona I-11 Study on Oct 22, 2014:
http://www.eacourier.com/news/interstate-and-intermountain-west-corridor-study-now-complete/article_a01c09e6-5996-11e4-8347-23b6c80bdd3f.html
QuoteMore than two years ago, Arizona and Nevada set out on a study to determine the possibilities and benefits of developing a new interstate corridor to connect Phoenix and Las Vegas, while extending south to Mexico and north through Nevada, potentially reaching as far as Canada. The goal of the study was not just to find a way to directly connect these two major metropolitan areas by building a new highway, but to develop a plan and the necessary infrastructure to position the two states for broader success in the global marketplace. The Interstate 11 and Intermountain West Corridor Study is now complete and points to the need for a new multimodal freight corridor and a manufacturing belt that will drive trade, commerce, job growth and economic development for the two states and facilitate strong connections to other major regional markets.
QuoteFriday, the state Transportation Board reviewed and accepted the recommendations documented in the Corridor Concept Report, the final element in this initial two-year feasibility study. This report, along with all the study's documents and information, can be found at i11study.com.
QuoteThe recommended I-11 corridor would likely follow U.S. Highway 93, from the Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge south to Wickenburg, running west of the Phoenix metropolitan area, and then generally following I-10 and I-19 through southern Arizona to the Mexican border. I-11 is envisioned as a continuous high-capacity trade corridor, extending from Nogales to Las Vegas and potentially north toward Canada, that will support a high proportion of large-scale manufacturing operations located throughout the corridor, with a major focus on reliable movement of freight traffic. As a multimodal corridor, it also has the potential to include freight and passenger rail, energy transmission and other high-tech facilities. There is currently no schedule or funding to build Interstate 11. The next phase of the study process – the environmental impact statement – is also not funded
The Interstate 11 study is linked from http://i11study.com/wp/ and can be found directly at http://i11study.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/I-11CCR_Report_2014-11-05.pdf or http://issuu.com/danders4/docs/i-11ccr_report_2014-11-05/0. The report calls for an interim I-11 and a full build out I-11. The interim corridor does not specify Interstate standards as much as continuous four-lane divided highway:
QuoteIn whole, the I-11 and Intermountain West Corridor has the potential to be over 530 miles long between the southern Arizona border and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Area–and double that length to the northern Nevada border. A phased implementation strategy is required to achieve the full build condition that fulfills the vision of a multimodal I-11 and Intermountain West Corridor.
- The "Interim Corridor" assumes implementation of targeted improvements to create a continuous 4-lane divided highway from Nogales to Las Vegas. The goal of implementing this interim condition is to facilitate trade movements between Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada — until such a time as the ultimate trade corridor is deemed needed (as depicted in Figure 7 on page 19).
- The "Full Build Corridor" completes build-out of a multimodal transportation corridor that will match the needs of future demands for the movement of people and goods. The full build condition is the long-term vision for the Corridor.
Of interest are the maps showing the segments of independent utility; the report divides I-11's corridor into 18 such SIU's (note that several of these are in metro Las Vegas, which means that various potential segments are being considered for the final route of I-11 and that not all SIU's will end up being part of the final route of I-11):
SIU 1. Preferred alignment, corridor plan, and right-of-way requirements for SR-189; additional study of international freight movement needs at Nogales port of entry
SIU 1: Arizona-Sonora Border to I-19
SIU 2-4. Preferred alignment (existing or new corridor segment) and ultimate corridor plan for I-11, including intercity passenger rail between Phoenix and Tucson and interconnected freight rail
SIU 2: I-19 to I-10/I-8 (Casa Grande)
SIU 3: I-10/I-8 (Casa Grande) to I-10 (Buckeye)
SIU 4: I-10 (Buckeye) to US 93 (Wickenburg)
SIU 5-7. Completion of capacity enhancements to upgrade US 93 to a four-lane divided highway, including improvement of I-40 system interchange
SIU 5: US 93 (Wickenburg) to I-40
SIU 6: US 93 co-location with I-40
SIU 7: US 93, Kingman/I-40 to Mike O'Callaghan-Pat Tillman Memorial Bridge
SIU 8. Design-build contract to be awarded in the fall of 2014, with construction immediately following
SIU 8: US 93/Boulder City Bypass, Mike O'Callaghan-Pat Tillman Memorial Bridge to I-515/Foothills Grade Separation
SIU 9-18. Selection of one corridor route for I-11 and determination of other system improvements and modes to be accommodated:
SIU 9: New Eastern Corridor (Boulder City Bypass [I-515 and Foothills Grade Separation] to I-15)
SIU 10: I-15, Eastern Corridor to CC-215/Northern Beltway
SIU 11: CC-215/Northern Beltway, I-15 to US 95
SIU 12: US 95, CC-215/Northern Beltway to SR-157
SIU 13: I-515/US 93, Foothills Grade Separation to I-215
SIU 14: I-215, I-515 to I-15
SIU 15: CC-215, I-15 to Future Sheep Mountain Parkway
SIU 16: Future Sheep Mountain Parkway, CC-215 to US 95
SIU 17: I-515, I-215 to I-15 (includes Spaghetti Bowl)
SIU 18: US 95, I-15 to CC-215/Northern Beltway
The report specifies a southern terminus at the international border, and it appears as if I-11 will overlap a portion of I-19. The most complete section appears to be between Wickenburg and Boulder City, but plenty remains to be done in all areas.
Page 39 of the report gives describes the "brand" created by "marketing" an Interstate corridor such as I-11:
QuoteFostering the "I-11 brand" for the I-11 and Intermountain West Corridor will create a distinct identity for the corridor; generate interest among the trade and logistics industry, the traveling public, and the economic and community development industry; and create a clear and positive public recognition of the new multimodal corridor. In addition to creating or enhancing public acceptance, a successful branding and marketing campaign delivers the following benefits:
- Enhanced commitment to the implementation of the I-11 and Intermountain West Corridor
- Enhanced outreach efforts
- Potential for attracting community and economic development activity
Page 40 lists "critical improvements" needed for the corridor:
Quote
Improve SR-189 to provide free-flowing and direct access to the Mariposa land port of entry.
Complete environmental clearance and then initiate design for SR-189/Mariposa Road to determine improvements from I-19 to the Mexican border.
Initiate environmental clearance and design process for the area between Nogales and Casa Grande to determine the I-11 corridor alignment.
Initiate environmental clearance and design process for the Phoenix metropolitan area to determine the I-11 corridor alignment between Casa Grande and US 93 (Wickenburg).
Finish improvements to US 93 for completing a 4-lane divided highway between Wickenburg and I-40.
Complete environmental studies, design, and right-of-way acquisition, and construction where required.
Complete construction of the Boulder City Bypass.
Determine preferred corridor and system-wide improvements in the Las Vegas metropolitan area.
As for the corridor north of Las Vegas, two sections on page 41 offer insight:
QuoteSeveral potential corridor connections were studied and two were found to meet the goals and objectives of the Corridor (Figure 22). The US 95 corridor options in the western part of the state are seen as viable options for an I-11 and Intermountain West Corridor, connecting the two largest economic activity centers in the state–the Las Vegas and Reno/Sparks/Carson City metropolitan areas. The US 93 corridor has statewide significance, connecting the growing rural communities in the eastern part of the state. While it does not meet the goals and objectives of the highway portion of the I-11 and Intermountain West Corridor, the US 93 corridor could provide an opportunity to close a north-south gap in the intermountain rail network.
QuoteCoordination with adjacent states must continue to determine the longer-range vision for connection north of Nevada to Canada. Current corridor options could connect from Northern Nevada to California, Oregon, Idaho, and/or Utah. Understanding the preferred routing through the Northwest U.S.–and other states' commitments to implementing such a corridor–is critical to further defining a preferred alternative and implementation steps.
The report contains a generalized map (page 18 Figure 6) that seems to show I-11 continuing north of Reno along the US 395 route into NE California, eastern Oregon, and eastern Washington. That appears to be conjecture at this point.
I'm sure there's more to come on this project.
QuoteFuture Sheep Mountain Parkway
Nice.
QuoteEfficient transportation links with Mexico create significant opportunities for specialized manufacturing in the U.S., supported by Mexican production, where components cross the border multiple times during production.
Holy inefficiency.
Seems like it's taking a page from I-69, what with its using existing Interstate routes for its own network. At least we can take comfort in the fact it's not I-13! :sombrero:
I don't get why they feel the need to take I-11 down to Mexico. I-19 to I-10 is good enough, and people should know how to navigate trips that include multiple route numbers. The only thing I'd do is build a connection between I-19 and MX 15D.
Quote from: andy3175 on November 21, 2014, 12:14:32 AM
The Interstate 11 study is linked from http://i11study.com/wp/ and can be found directly at http://i11study.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/I-11CCR_Report_2014-11-05.pdf or http://issuu.com/danders4/docs/i-11ccr_report_2014-11-05/0. The report calls for an interim I-11 and a full build out I-11. The interim corridor does not specify Interstate standards as much as continuous four-lane divided highway:
QuoteIn whole, the I-11 and Intermountain West Corridor has the potential to be over 530 miles long between the southern Arizona border and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Area–and double that length to the northern Nevada border. A phased implementation strategy is required to achieve the full build condition that fulfills the vision of a multimodal I-11 and Intermountain West Corridor.
- The "Interim Corridor" assumes implementation of targeted improvements to create a continuous 4-lane divided highway from Nogales to Las Vegas. The goal of implementing this interim condition is to facilitate trade movements between Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada — until such a time as the ultimate trade corridor is deemed needed (as depicted in Figure 7 on page 19).
- The "Full Build Corridor" completes build-out of a multimodal transportation corridor that will match the needs of future demands for the movement of people and goods. The full build condition is the long-term vision for the Corridor.
Of interest are the maps showing the segments of independent utility; the report divides I-11's corridor into 18 such SIU's (note that several of these are in metro Las Vegas, which means that various potential segments are being considered for the final route of I-11 and that not all SIU's will end up being part of the final route of I-11):
SIU 1. Preferred alignment, corridor plan, and right-of-way requirements for SR-189; additional study of international freight movement needs at Nogales port of entry
SIU 1: Arizona-Sonora Border to I-19
SIU 2-4. Preferred alignment (existing or new corridor segment) and ultimate corridor plan for I-11, including intercity passenger rail between Phoenix and Tucson and interconnected freight rail
SIU 2: I-19 to I-10/I-8 (Casa Grande)
SIU 3: I-10/I-8 (Casa Grande) to I-10 (Buckeye)
SIU 4: I-10 (Buckeye) to US 93 (Wickenburg)
SIU 5-7. Completion of capacity enhancements to upgrade US 93 to a four-lane divided highway, including improvement of I-40 system interchange
SIU 5: US 93 (Wickenburg) to I-40
SIU 6: US 93 co-location with I-40
SIU 7: US 93, Kingman/I-40 to Mike O'Callaghan-Pat Tillman Memorial Bridge
SIU 8. Design-build contract to be awarded in the fall of 2014, with construction immediately following
SIU 8: US 93/Boulder City Bypass, Mike O'Callaghan-Pat Tillman Memorial Bridge to I-515/Foothills Grade Separation
SIU 9-18. Selection of one corridor route for I-11 and determination of other system improvements and modes to be accommodated:
SIU 9: New Eastern Corridor (Boulder City Bypass [I-515 and Foothills Grade Separation] to I-15)
SIU 10: I-15, Eastern Corridor to CC-215/Northern Beltway
SIU 11: CC-215/Northern Beltway, I-15 to US 95
SIU 12: US 95, CC-215/Northern Beltway to SR-157
SIU 13: I-515/US 93, Foothills Grade Separation to I-215
SIU 14: I-215, I-515 to I-15
SIU 15: CC-215, I-15 to Future Sheep Mountain Parkway
SIU 16: Future Sheep Mountain Parkway, CC-215 to US 95
SIU 17: I-515, I-215 to I-15 (includes Spaghetti Bowl)
SIU 18: US 95, I-15 to CC-215/Northern Beltway
The report specifies a southern terminus at the international border, and it appears as if I-11 will overlap a portion of I-19. The most complete section appears to be between Wickenburg and Boulder City, but plenty remains to be done in all areas.
Page 39 of the report gives describes the "brand" created by "marketing" an Interstate corridor such as I-11:
QuoteFostering the "I-11 brand" for the I-11 and Intermountain West Corridor will create a distinct identity for the corridor; generate interest among the trade and logistics industry, the traveling public, and the economic and community development industry; and create a clear and positive public recognition of the new multimodal corridor. In addition to creating or enhancing public acceptance, a successful branding and marketing campaign delivers the following benefits:
- Enhanced commitment to the implementation of the I-11 and Intermountain West Corridor
- Enhanced outreach efforts
- Potential for attracting community and economic development activity
Page 40 lists "critical improvements" needed for the corridor:
Quote
Improve SR-189 to provide free-flowing and direct access to the Mariposa land port of entry.
Complete environmental clearance and then initiate design for SR-189/Mariposa Road to determine improvements from I-19 to the Mexican border.
Initiate environmental clearance and design process for the area between Nogales and Casa Grande to determine the I-11 corridor alignment.
Initiate environmental clearance and design process for the Phoenix metropolitan area to determine the I-11 corridor alignment between Casa Grande and US 93 (Wickenburg).
Finish improvements to US 93 for completing a 4-lane divided highway between Wickenburg and I-40.
Complete environmental studies, design, and right-of-way acquisition, and construction where required.
Complete construction of the Boulder City Bypass.
Determine preferred corridor and system-wide improvements in the Las Vegas metropolitan area.
As for the corridor north of Las Vegas, two sections on page 41 offer insight:
QuoteSeveral potential corridor connections were studied and two were found to meet the goals and objectives of the Corridor (Figure 22). The US 95 corridor options in the western part of the state are seen as viable options for an I-11 and Intermountain West Corridor, connecting the two largest economic activity centers in the state–the Las Vegas and Reno/Sparks/Carson City metropolitan areas. The US 93 corridor has statewide significance, connecting the growing rural communities in the eastern part of the state. While it does not meet the goals and objectives of the highway portion of the I-11 and Intermountain West Corridor, the US 93 corridor could provide an opportunity to close a north-south gap in the intermountain rail network.
QuoteCoordination with adjacent states must continue to determine the longer-range vision for connection north of Nevada to Canada. Current corridor options could connect from Northern Nevada to California, Oregon, Idaho, and/or Utah. Understanding the preferred routing through the Northwest U.S.–and other states' commitments to implementing such a corridor–is critical to further defining a preferred alternative and implementation steps.
The report contains a generalized map (page 18 Figure 6) that seems to show I-11 continuing north of Reno along the US 395 route into NE California, eastern Oregon, and eastern Washington. That appears to be conjecture at this point.
I'm sure there's more to come on this project.
Interesting points. It may seem as though US-93 north of I-15 may have plans for any future rail networks.
Quote from: vdeane on November 21, 2014, 01:11:05 PM
I don't get why they feel the need to take I-11 down to Mexico. I-19 to I-10 is good enough, and people should know how to navigate trips that include multiple route numbers. The only thing I'd do is build a connection between I-19 and MX 15D.
I find that a separate freeway all the way down to Nogales would be far too redundant. However, here's another thought: Maybe they're planning to renumber most of (if not all of) I-19 as I-11, with giving I(/AZ)-x11 I(/AZ)-x10 to any remaining pieces of I-19 that are not part of I-11.
What a ridiculous bunch of marketing fluff. If they put enough not-quite-relevant glossy photos, maybe nobody will notice there's not any traffic counts or cost projections in it.
Quote from: Rover_0 on November 21, 2014, 03:24:58 PM
I find that a separate freeway all the way down to Nogales would be far too redundant. However, here's another thought: Maybe they're planning to renumber most of (if not all of) I-19 as I-11, with giving I(/AZ)-x11 I(/AZ)-x10 to any remaining pieces of I-19 that are not part of I-11.
Maybe, but if they plan to number the corridor as one interstate number, why not keep I-19 for all of it? Save renumbering the part that already exists, and would fit the grid better for the Nogales-Las Vegas portion (probably all that will ever be built).
Quote from: kkt on November 21, 2014, 03:37:40 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on November 21, 2014, 03:24:58 PM
I find that a separate freeway all the way down to Nogales would be far too redundant. However, here's another thought: Maybe they're planning to renumber most of (if not all of) I-19 as I-11, with giving I(/AZ)-x11 I(/AZ)-x10 to any remaining pieces of I-19 that are not part of I-11.
Maybe, but if they plan to number the corridor as one interstate number, why not keep I-19 for all of it? Save renumbering the part that already exists, and would fit the grid better for the Nogales-Las Vegas portion (probably all that will ever be built).
If the route really goes north of Las Vegas and beyond Reno, then most of I-11 will better fit the grid. I am really curious to see what future corridor studies look like for north of Las Vegas...with the announcement of the Tesla gigafactory near Reno, I wonder if there will be movement to try and bring the route in that direction.
Quote from: Rover_0 on November 21, 2014, 03:24:58 PM
I find that a separate freeway all the way down to Nogales would be far too redundant. However, here's another thought: Maybe they're planning to renumber most of (if not all of) I-19 as I-11, with giving I(/AZ)-x11 I(/AZ)-x10 to any remaining pieces of I-19 that are not part of I-11.
I still don't see the need, unless Arizona wants to use it as an excuse to shove mileage-based numbers onto I-19. As you can probably tell, I'm not interested in what the Canamex crowd wants. I believe we already have transcontinental interstates and that we don't need to shove in more as a symbolic gesture to make it look like we're actually doing something for NAFTA.
Quote from: roadfro on November 21, 2014, 11:03:17 PM
Quote from: kkt on November 21, 2014, 03:37:40 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on November 21, 2014, 03:24:58 PM
I find that a separate freeway all the way down to Nogales would be far too redundant. However, here's another thought: Maybe they're planning to renumber most of (if not all of) I-19 as I-11, with giving I(/AZ)-x11 I(/AZ)-x10 to any remaining pieces of I-19 that are not part of I-11.
Maybe, but if they plan to number the corridor as one interstate number, why not keep I-19 for all of it? Save renumbering the part that already exists, and would fit the grid better for the Nogales-Las Vegas portion (probably all that will ever be built).
If the route really goes north of Las Vegas and beyond Reno, then most of I-11 will better fit the grid. I am really curious to see what future corridor studies look like for north of Las Vegas...with the announcement of the Tesla gigafactory near Reno, I wonder if there will be movement to try and bring the route in that direction.
IF it goes north of Reno. I think the chances of it going to Reno are fairly small, and the chances of it going north of Reno pretty much nonexistent. From the Tesla factory to any of the west coast major cities and most of the east coast major cities will be via I-80.
Quote from: kkt on November 21, 2014, 03:37:40 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on November 21, 2014, 03:24:58 PM
I find that a separate freeway all the way down to Nogales would be far too redundant. However, here's another thought: Maybe they're planning to renumber most of (if not all of) I-19 as I-11, with giving I(/AZ)-x11 I(/AZ)-x10 to any remaining pieces of I-19 that are not part of I-11.
Maybe, but if they plan to number the corridor as one interstate number, why not keep I-19 for all of it? Save renumbering the part that already exists, and would fit the grid better for the Nogales-Las Vegas portion (probably all that will ever be built).
You know, I had that same thought...and even made a map!
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3785/9350672663_d9a5a1e4c1_b.jpg)
I also took the question of merging I-11 and I-19 (and a border-to-border I-11) to the I-11 study representatives. This is my question:
QuoteHello I-11 Study Representatives,
With the I-11 Study recently completed, I've noticed that some maps involve I-19 from Nogales to Tucson as part of this Mexico-to-Canada corridor, and much of the language mentions improvements made to I-19 and around the border crossing at Nogales.
In seeing this and how I-11 may become a Canada-to-Mexico route in the future, are there plans or discussions for I-11 going all the way to Mexico either via a concurrency with I-19 or by renumbering I-19 as part of I-11? Or, is I-19 just planned to be part of the CANAMEX corridor?
Regards,
Landry
One of the agents responded with this:
QuoteLandry,
The I-11 corridor is intended to go from Mexico to Canada, but decisions on whether or not to change any overlapping interstate designations have not yet been discussed, and will depend on the final corridor routing for I-11, to be considered in subsequent studies.
Dan
Does I-10 actually have enough traffic between Tucson and Phoenix that a parallel interstate is needed?
Quote from: vdeane on November 25, 2014, 01:08:59 PM
Does I-10 actually have enough traffic between Tucson and Phoenix that a parallel interstate is needed?
Well, no, but that doesn't seem to be stopping Arizona.
All I can say about I-10 between Phoenix and Tucson is that it is mostly two lanes in each direction, and semis and out of stater drivers make it a slower and more stressful drive than it needs to be.
Quote from: vdeane on November 25, 2014, 01:08:59 PM
Does I-10 actually have enough traffic between Tucson and Phoenix that a parallel interstate is needed?
Based on my approx 10 times driving this corridor, in my opinion it ranks alongside I-15 San Bernardino to Las Vegas or I-5 Los Angeles to Sacramento in terms of apparent traffic volume, but I do not have the actual numbers to verify this. Every time I've been on I-10 between Phoenix and Tucson, it has been very busy, and the lone gas station/Dairy Queen at Picacho Peak interchange Exit 219 always seems to be full of travelers. However, I would think a third lane in each direction would suffice to cover existing traffic (and that expansion has been occurring in recent years) ... until you look at future plans for building Pinal County, which is located between Phoenix and Tucson. Pinal County's master plan (http://www.pinalcountyaz.gov/Departments/PlanningDevelopment/ComprehensivePlanUpdate/Pages/Home.aspx) calls for quite a bit of new development ... and freeways to go along with that development. I guess I-11 could be folded into this planning process at some point should I-11 indeed extend this far south.
Page 162 states, "Additional widening of I-10 will be required. I-10 is currently being planned for an ultimate width of five lanes in each direction between Maricopa and Pima counties. Funding for the widening of I-10 is not presently committed. The widening of I-10, high capacity regional transit on the corridor, and commuter rail and medium-capacity regional transit may be needed to meet travel demand before Pinal County reaches buildout. Currently, not enough transportation funding exists in the state to address all of the needs."
Page 163 continues by listing the proposed "high capacity roadways" (maps on pages 114 and 167 show some of this, although the maps refrain from using the word "freeway" and instead calls them "potential future high capacity corridors" with brown markings on page 167):
1. Proposed North-South Freeway connecting US 60 to I-10 (maybe new alignment for SR 79?)
2. US 60 Bypass around the Gold Canyon area which includes an option to connect to the future east-west SR 802 (now SR 24) alignment
3. Williams Gateway Freeway (SR 24, former SR 802) beginning at SR 202 in Mesa, connecting to the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport, and continuing east to the east end of the US 60
4. The east-west potential high capacity corridor, entering Pinal County from far eastern Maricopa County and proceeding east in the vicinity of the Val Vista, Barnes, McCartney, and Bartlett Road alignments, connecting to the North-South Freeway
5. The north-south potential high capacity corridor connecting I-8 with the previously described corridor
6. A potential high capacity corridor beginning in the Casa Grande-Eloy area and proceeding south, then east to the I-10/Park Link Road interchange (could this be Pinal's segment of I-11???)
Arizona DOT has also been considering an "I-10 alternate" that would bypass Tucson completely and run in an unpopulated valley one mountain range to the east of current I-10 between Phoenix and Tucson. However, there is no obvious place for it to tie into the Phoenix freeway network, though the study I have seen suggests that it could cross existing I-10 somewhat to the north of the present I-8/I-10 split and merge back into I-10 somewhere around the SR 85 interchange.
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 26, 2014, 11:23:54 AM
Arizona DOT has also been considering an "I-10 alternate" that would bypass Tucson completely and run in an unpopulated valley one mountain range to the east of current I-10 between Phoenix and Tucson.
The valley that includes Mammoth?
Quote from: NE2 on November 26, 2014, 11:42:17 AMThe valley that includes Mammoth?
That is one possibility. The basic idea (described in very general terms in the one study I have seen) is for I-10 Alternate to leave current I-10 around Willcox and work its way around Pinnacle Ridge to the Phoenix area.
More community meetings on the Arizona segment of I-11:
http://www.inmaricopa.com/Article/2014/12/18/city-studies-future-roadways
QuoteEvery transportation discussion leads to the proposed Interstate 11. That is envisioned as running from Las Vegas to Wickenburg, replacing U.S. 93 and Interstate 515, to become the Hassayampa Freeway, loop west of the Phoenix metropolitan area, run south of Maricopa and east to a proposed Pinal North-South Freeway. ... Bob Hazlett, senior engineer for the Maricopa Association of Governments, presented information on parkway framework studies to the Maricopa City Council Tuesday. His focus was the Interstate 8/Interstate 10/Hidden Valley framework. He said studies done between 2007 and 2009 pointed to the future traffic flows. The Highway 238 corridor is seen as growing in the future as "a lot of traffic likes to go to the West Valley." ...
Arizona's lack of north-south freeways instigated talk of I-11. Hazlett said I-11 would give travelers a gateway and close the gap to U.S. 93. The concept also includes coordinating infrastructure plans for the Mexico Federal Highway 15. Still, it was the east-west travel options that centered the conversation in council chambers. Consultant Berwyn Wilbrink of Jacobs Engineering walked the council through the history of the East-West Corridor study during a work session preceding the regular meeting. Main interest was in the Val Vista and Anderson Parkway Planning Corridors. The plans are meant to "serve as key components of a master transportation planning network." A proposed Val Vista Freeway would link Casa Grande to I-11 using Farrell Road. An proposed Anderson parkway would link the East-West Corridor to I-8. The council approved recommendations from the Transportation Advisory Committee, but not before hearing and accommodating concerns from landowners.
An Interstate 11 Arizona study has been approved...
http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/morning_call/2014/12/arizona-transportation-board-approves-15m.html (12-15-2014)
QuoteThe Arizona State Transportation Board approved $15 million for an environmental study along the part of the proposed route for the freeway that would run north-south in western Arizona to connect Nogales to Las Vegas. The environmental impact study will examine the portion of the I-11 route between Nogales and Wickenburg. The three-year study will begin next year.
The unofficial beginning of Interstate 11!
http://www.mynews3.com/content/news/story/Interstate-11-unofficially-begins-with-83M-award/BbjxRsORtkGRq6QdDqwGmA.cspx#.VNlGAGMnp0g.facebook
iPhone
Quote
The 2.5-mile-long project calls building a four-lane concrete interstate freeway...
Why do states still pave with concrete?
Quote from: jakeroot on February 09, 2015, 11:51:08 PM
Quote
The 2.5-mile-long project calls building a four-lane concrete interstate freeway...
Why do states still pave with concrete?
Supposedly concrete holds up better compared to asphalt, saving lots of cash in the long run.
Quote from: Zeffy on February 09, 2015, 11:55:23 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 09, 2015, 11:51:08 PM
Quote
The 2.5-mile-long project calls building a four-lane concrete interstate freeway...
Why do states still pave with concrete?
Supposedly concrete holds up better compared to asphalt, saving lots of cash in the long run.
Cheap bastards.
Quote from: jakeroot on February 10, 2015, 12:00:20 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on February 09, 2015, 11:55:23 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on February 09, 2015, 11:51:08 PM
Quote
The 2.5-mile-long project calls building a four-lane concrete interstate freeway...
Why do states still pave with concrete?
Supposedly concrete holds up better compared to asphalt, saving lots of cash in the long run.
Cheap bastards.
What's wrong with concrete? That's what I've always thought.
Why do states still pave with asphalt? When laid on a properly prepared base, concrete lasts for 40+ years with little to no maintenance. Asphalt needs a new overlay every 5-10 years and constant maintenance to seal cracks and fix potholes. And if they don't get the mix right, the road can literally start to melt on hot days, leading to huge ruts on truck-heavy routes.
Quote from: SD Mapman on February 10, 2015, 12:04:58 AM
What's wrong with concrete? That's what I've always thought.
Quote from: dfwmapper on February 10, 2015, 12:11:58 AM
Why do states still pave with asphalt? When laid on a properly prepared base, concrete lasts for 40+ years with little to no maintenance. Asphalt needs a new overlay every 5-10 years and constant maintenance to seal cracks and fix potholes. And if they don't get the mix right, the road can literally start to melt on hot days, leading to huge ruts on truck-heavy routes.
My preference, from experience and reading, is for rubberized asphalt, similar to the type AZDOT uses. So far, I haven't heard of Phoenix's freeways melting, and we all know that Phoenix is incredibly hot. My main reason for liking it is because it's so much quieter.
If we built our freeways properly (in other words, thicker) we could pave with asphalt and have about the same maintenance schedule as concrete, but with all the benefits of asphalt.
One other aspect on the asphalt vs concrete debate is the site conditions. Different soil conditions or minerals present could necessitate one pavement over the other, or even different admixtures in the concrete or asphalt.
Quote from: jakeroot on February 10, 2015, 12:35:07 AM
If we built our freeways properly (in other words, thicker) we could pave with asphalt and have about the same maintenance schedule as concrete, but with all the benefits of asphalt.
Thicker doesn't necessarily mean better. Asphalt cannot be laid in a single thick layer like concrete can, as it needs to be compacted--since you have to lay it in 2" lifts, it doesn't get the same cohesion and strength. Asphalt is designed to be a flexible pavement and porous on the top (wearing course), whereas concrete is a rigid pavement.
Probably one of the best blends would be to have a concrete pavement with asphalt wearing course. However, that blend doesn't always work, depending on conditions.
Quote from: roadfro on February 10, 2015, 01:09:36 AM
Thicker doesn't necessarily mean better. Asphalt cannot be laid in a single thick layer like concrete can, as it needs to be compacted--since you have to lay it in 2" lifts, it doesn't get the same cohesion and strength. Asphalt is designed to be a flexible pavement and porous on the top (wearing course), whereas concrete is a rigid pavement.
So the problem is that it takes too long to lay? Lets say the Boulder City Bypass Road is approved for construction using asphalt. If the asphalt can only be built in 2" lifts, and we need about 28 or 30 inches of it, we're talking 14 or 15 separate lifts (right?). Certainly, that's a long time for paving, and the time-frame for construction could jump by a lot, but I want to drive on a road that's quiet and can stand the test of time.
Quote from: roadfro on February 10, 2015, 01:09:36 AM
Probably one of the best blends would be to have a concrete pavement with asphalt wearing course. However, that blend doesn't always work, depending on conditions.
Do you know of any examples?
Quote from: jakeroot on February 10, 2015, 01:58:49 AM
Quote from: roadfro on February 10, 2015, 01:09:36 AM
Thicker doesn't necessarily mean better. Asphalt cannot be laid in a single thick layer like concrete can, as it needs to be compacted--since you have to lay it in 2" lifts, it doesn't get the same cohesion and strength. Asphalt is designed to be a flexible pavement and porous on the top (wearing course), whereas concrete is a rigid pavement.
So the problem is that it takes too long to lay? Lets say the Boulder City Bypass Road is approved for construction using asphalt. If the asphalt can only be built in 2" lifts, and we need about 28 or 30 inches of it, we're talking 14 or 15 separate lifts (right?). Certainly, that's a long time for paving, and the time-frame for construction could jump by a lot, but I want to drive on a road that's quiet and can stand the test of time.
An initial asphalt roadway is designed to last for a certain amount of years (for a major highway, this might be on the order of 8-ish years, depending on mix designs and traffic load). Then, an overlay or mill-and-fill operation on the top layers extends the life for another period of time. This recurring maintenance would typically happen a few times over the expected life cycle (a rough target is 3 overlays before you'd need full reconstruction). All this is factored into the initial design. As long as the base layers are pretty solid, then only minor overlays should be needed until full reconstruction is necessary. Compare this to concrete roadway, which uses a thinner layer of pavement with rebar reinforcement that typically lasts much longer without significant work. Barring major issues, the life cycle of concrete can be roughly the same as the life cycle of asphalt (including planned overlays).
So the major question often comes down to a life-cycle cost analysis. Do you spend a lot of money up front for a concrete roadway, or spend less now and more for overlays down the road?
That's not the only consideration though. There are many other factors that go into it. Examples:
- The price of asphalt typically goes up with rising gas prices, since there is so much oil in asphalt mix. On the other hand, the price of concrete goes up during building booms, because steel needed for rebar is in higher demand.
- In certain soil conditions, one type of pavement may be more desirable. (E.g.: a soil filled with lots of clay may be better off having a more rigid concrete pavement to prevent flexing and water infiltration).
- Is potential for frost heave a factor working against concrete?
- Is potential extreme heat a factor against asphalt?
There was a thread on the General Talk board some time ago where the merits of asphalt versus concrete was debated by our readership.
Quote from: jakeroot on February 10, 2015, 01:58:49 AM
Quote from: roadfro on February 10, 2015, 01:09:36 AM
Probably one of the best blends would be to have a concrete pavement with asphalt wearing course. However, that blend doesn't always work, depending on conditions.
Do you know of any examples?
I don't know of any specific examples for sure where this was done at the outset. I seem to recall reading somewhere (maybe in the Roadgeek forum on Yahoo) that using asphalt as an overlay on older concrete pavements is a somewhat common thing in certain states. NDOT may have done this on the southern section of I-515 in Las Vegas/Henderson not too long ago (possibly with rubberized asphalt).
Quote from: jakeroot on February 10, 2015, 12:35:07 AM
My preference, from experience and reading, is for rubberized asphalt, similar to the type AZDOT uses. So far, I haven't heard of Phoenix's freeways melting, and we all know that Phoenix is incredibly hot. My main reason for liking it is because it's so much quieter.
If we built our freeways properly (in other words, thicker) we could pave with asphalt and have about the same maintenance schedule as concrete, but with all the benefits of asphalt.
ADOT's rubberized asphalt is a thin overlay on top of a full concrete road, so it has most of the structural advantages of concrete, and the downside of being a good bit more expensive, and there's not really any data on how well the surface will stand up to freeway-level loads over longer timeframes because it's only been in use for a little over a decade.
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 26, 2014, 11:23:54 AM
Arizona DOT has also been considering an "I-10 alternate" that would bypass Tucson completely and run in an unpopulated valley one mountain range to the east of current I-10 between Phoenix and Tucson. However, there is no obvious place for it to tie into the Phoenix freeway network, though the study I have seen suggests that it could cross existing I-10 somewhat to the north of the present I-8/I-10 split and merge back into I-10 somewhere around the SR 85 interchange.
Surely they can't be serious about all that?
Quote from: Laura on February 09, 2015, 10:22:19 PM
The unofficial beginning of Interstate 11!
http://www.mynews3.com/content/news/story/Interstate-11-unofficially-begins-with-83M-award/BbjxRsORtkGRq6QdDqwGmA.cspx#.VNlGAGMnp0g.facebook
This public radio story (http://knprnews.org/post/nevada-health-officials-no-health-risk-asbestos-nevada-residents) reports on Nevada public health officials denying that they suppressed a study indicating that I-11 construction on the Boulder City Bypass in particular and between Las Vegas and Phoenix in general will create a health hazard by disturbing soils with concentrations of naturally occurring asbestos.
Quote from: Grzrd on February 15, 2015, 10:57:56 AM
Quote from: Laura on February 09, 2015, 10:22:19 PM
The unofficial beginning of Interstate 11!
http://www.mynews3.com/content/news/story/Interstate-11-unofficially-begins-with-83M-award/BbjxRsORtkGRq6QdDqwGmA.cspx#.VNlGAGMnp0g.facebook
This public radio story (http://knprnews.org/post/nevada-health-officials-no-health-risk-asbestos-nevada-residents) reports on Nevada public health officials denying that they suppressed a study indicating that I-11 construction on the Boulder City Bypass in particular and between Las Vegas and Phoenix in general will create a health hazard by disturbing soils with concentrations of naturally occurring asbestos.
While it's certainly interesting, I think things are too far along for this to affect the Boulder City Bypass.
Quote from: Laura on February 09, 2015, 10:22:19 PM
The unofficial beginning of Interstate 11!
http://www.mynews3.com/content/news/story/Interstate-11-unofficially-begins-with-83M-award/BbjxRsORtkGRq6QdDqwGmA.cspx#.VNlGAGMnp0g.facebook
iPhone
I noticed that the groundbreaking is in April 2015, and completion is expected in early 2018. I am glad to see that this project also addresses Railroad Pass by adding a full interchange at this location and adding the overhead steel truss bridge to carry the railroad over the freeway. I do wonder how they will make the "1,200-foot-long, 28-foot-tall cast-in-place concrete retaining wall with graphics illustrating scenes from the construction of Hoover Dam" appear somewhat legible/easy to see without being distracted when people are driving by at 65-70 mph.
Quote from: Rover_0 on February 16, 2015, 12:08:59 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on February 15, 2015, 10:57:56 AM
This public radio story (http://knprnews.org/post/nevada-health-officials-no-health-risk-asbestos-nevada-residents) reports on Nevada public health officials denying that they suppressed a study indicating that I-11 construction on the Boulder City Bypass in particular and between Las Vegas and Phoenix in general will create a health hazard by disturbing soils with concentrations of naturally occurring asbestos.
While it's certainly interesting, I think things are too far along for this to affect the Boulder City Bypass.
I'm having trouble opening this on my phone right now so haven't read it... With that said:
Bid advertising for this project was delayed about 6 months or so, due to the discovery of the naturally occurring asbestos. It was widely mentioned in the media so there would be some scrutiny if they were to not disclose how they will deal with thi.this during construction. I gotta believe NDOT and RTC are doing their due diligence on this one.
So the Las Vegas Review-Journal online has a map of proposed routes for future I-11 in the Phoenix area. Any opinions?
http://www.reviewjournal.com/interstate-11-phoenix-routes
Quote from: vdeane on November 21, 2014, 11:56:44 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on November 21, 2014, 03:24:58 PM
I find that a separate freeway all the way down to Nogales would be far too redundant. However, here's another thought: Maybe they're planning to renumber most of (if not all of) I-19 as I-11, with giving I(/AZ)-x11 I(/AZ)-x10 to any remaining pieces of I-19 that are not part of I-11.
I still don't see the need, unless Arizona wants to use it as an excuse to shove mileage-based numbers onto I-19. As you can probably tell, I'm not interested in what the Canamex crowd wants. I believe we already have transcontinental interstates and that we don't need to shove in more as a symbolic gesture to make it look like we're actually doing something for NAFTA.
I agree. I feel that I-11 could become a 69/73/74 type boondoggle, where a missing link in the IHS is blown up to a completely unnecessary transnational corridor in the name of some nebulous trade agreement, leading to the actual important segment never actually being built. The best routing for I-11, in my opinion, should involve it taking over all of I-515, then following US-93 and US-60 to Phoenix, and then use one of the beltways to terminate at I-10 west of downtown. If greater access to Mexico really is needed, then build the southern portion of Loop 202 around downtown and widen I-10 and I-19.
I was wondering to what extent there were proposals to route future I-11 in the Phoenix area along existing routes. Other than routing along parts of I-10 and AZ 85, I have yet to see anything suggesting I-11 would actually be in the Phoenix city limits, or close enough to Phoenix to be routed on current portions of I-17, Loop 101, or US 60/Grand Ave east of Loop 303.
Quote from: swbrotha100 on February 27, 2015, 04:07:04 PM
I was wondering to what extent there were proposals to route future I-11 in the Phoenix area along existing routes. Other than routing along parts of I-10 and AZ 85, I have yet to see anything suggesting I-11 would actually be in the Phoenix city limits, or close enough to Phoenix to be routed on current portions of I-17, Loop 101, or US 60/Grand Ave east of Loop 303.
Nothing serious. Simply too much development around, the land acquisition costs would be astronomical.
Quote from: swbrotha100 on February 22, 2015, 07:13:02 AM
So the Las Vegas Review-Journal online has a map of proposed routes for future I-11 in the Phoenix area. Any opinions?
http://www.reviewjournal.com/interstate-11-phoenix-routes
Of those routes, I would prefer the Sun Valley Parkway route. I like it because the land its going over is mostly desert so it would be cheap. :-P And its not too far from Phoenix, considering how fast the city is growing. I don't know much about Arizona, but are they seriously proposing the Interstate to continue south past I-10? That seems dumb to me. I would just have it terminate near MM111. I would have it run to the east of the Sun Valley Pkwy. and then have it merge with US 60 southeast of Morristown where it crosses the railroad tracks.
Agree about the Sun Valley Parkway route.
But continuing south to I-8 around Gila Bend would make a great bypass of the whole Phoenix metro area and avoid congestion for decades to come. The justification for I-11 was supposed to be efficient movement of freight from Mexico to various places in the western U.S. I-11 reaching I-8 would do more to accomplish that than a beltway around the current Phoenix urbanized area.
Freight from Mexico has a perfectly good route already: I-19 to I-10. As far as I'm concerned, the only need for I-11 is to connect Phoenix and Las Vegas.
They should just concurrent it with I-10 then renumber I-19 as I-11
Quote from: vdeane on March 03, 2015, 09:35:36 PM
As far as I'm concerned, the only need for I-11 is to connect Phoenix and Las Vegas.
I agree.
IMO, the ideal route for I-11 would be down U.S. 60 and then down AZ 101 to I-10. Only problem I see with that is that there is tons of development along that route, and I feel like all the old people in Sun City would be strongly opposed to a project with such magnitude as converting Grand Avenue into a freeway.
Another option is routing it along AZ 303, but that doesn't really connect Phoenix and Las Vegas very well IMO.
Quote from: pumpkineater2 on March 04, 2015, 07:31:59 PM
Quote from: vdeane on March 03, 2015, 09:35:36 PM
As far as I'm concerned, the only need for I-11 is to connect Phoenix and Las Vegas.
I agree.
IMO, the ideal route for I-11 would be down U.S. 60 and then down AZ 101 to I-10. Only problem I see with that is that there is tons of development along that route, and I feel like all the old people in Sun City would be strongly opposed to a project with such magnitude as converting Grand Avenue into a freeway.
Another option is routing it along AZ 303, but that doesn't really connect Phoenix and Las Vegas very well IMO.
Based on all the current development, it would be difficult to convert US 60/Grand Ave southeast of Loop 303 into a freeway.
Quote from: swbrotha100 on March 04, 2015, 11:04:44 PM
Based on all the current development, it would be difficult to convert US 60/Grand Ave southeast of Loop 303 into a freeway.
Not necessarily - most areas have either frontage or backage roads, so direct access could simply be closed. Some creativity might be required to make interchanges fit, but there's also room across the railroad for a parallel connection to roads without interchanges.
If the I-11 concept was more of a reality 30 years ago, maybe it would have helped turn Grand Ave into something different than it currently is today.
http://wwwa.azdot.gov/projects/south-mtn-final-eis/smfeis_ch_1_purpose-and-need.pdf
One of the maps in this PDF file shows the proposal for the Grand Expressway back in 1985. It ended up not happening, and the best that we may see for awhile is grade separated interchanges scattered along Grand here and there.
A March 26 ADOT News Release (http://azdot.gov/media/News/news-release/2015/03/26/congressional-proposal-formally-extends-i-11-to-southern-arizona) announces that United States Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake have introduced legislation for a Congressional designation of I-11 from Wickenburg to the Mexican border, as well as "north through Nevada":
Quote
As planning for the Interstate 11 and Intermountain West Corridor advances, Arizona Department of Transportation Director John Halikowski today expressed appreciation for the efforts of U.S. Senator John McCain and U.S. Senator Jeff Flake for their work to introduce the Intermountain West Corridor Development Act of 2015 to Congress.
The bill formally extends Interstate 11 from Wickenburg south through the Tucson area to Nogales, Arizona. Interstate 11 had previously received a congressional designation from Phoenix to Las Vegas. The Intermountain West Corridor Development Act would not only formally designate I-11 across Arizona from border to border by establishing a new international trade corridor, but would also extend the interstate north through Nevada as well, with plans to ultimately connect with existing high-priority corridors to the Canadian border.
This act formalizes and reinforces ADOT's overall concept for Interstate 11 in Arizona. ADOT, through its two-year feasibility study, which was completed last fall, focused on and supported the concept of Interstate 11 that runs border to border throughout Arizona, beginning at the Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge and ending at the Arizona-Mexico border ....
In December, the Arizona State Transportation Board took action to approve $15 million for the Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement, which will allow ADOT to begin an environmental study in the area between Nogales and Wickenburg. The Tier 1 EIS is expected to begin later this year and is estimated to take three years to complete.
The bill is known as S. 842 and here is a link to its text (as of the time of this post, the text has not yet been posted on Congress.gov)*:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/842/text
* The text is now posted on Congress.gov.
Maybe this is a strong signal regarding Congressional optimism that a long-term reauthorization will be passed before May 31. :nod:
edit
Here is a snip of an interesting Interstate I-11 shield from a KLAS video linked on Nevada Senator Dean Heller's website (http://www.heller.senate.gov/public/) (well, at least it is not neutered):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FiyVV7CJ.jpg&hash=c6aedb58a398633661693110005cfab9b91c6f4c)
The Arizona plan for taking I-11 to Nogales seems designed specifically as a way to backdoor kill the metric signage on I-19 (as replacing I-19 with I-11 would require bringing the exit numbers and mileposts in line with I-11, unless they plan to extend metric to Nevada, which I doubt). Note that I'm opposed to interstates terminating in a multiplex, so keeping I-19 down the corridor if I-11 were extended is IMO not something that should be done.
I still don't think traffic warrants building a whole new freeway parallel to I-10 here, but if Arizona insists on doing that, maybe they could at least build a freeway connection to MX 15D?
Quote from: Grzrd on March 27, 2015, 05:54:29 PM
The bill is known as S. 842 and here is a link to its text (as of the time of this post, the text has not yet been posted on Congress.gov):
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/842/text
The text of the bill is now posted on Congress.gov. Regarding the route designation between Wickenburg and Nogales, there is plenty of "wiggle room" to choose between existing interstates or new alignments:
Quote
SEC. 2. Findings.
Congress finds that– ....
(4) the establishment of Interstate Route 11 from the State of Arizona-Mexico border through the State of Nevada and, ultimately integrating into existing high priority corridors of the National Highway System leading to the Canadian border, would enhance the economic vitality of the Western United States.
SEC. 3. Route designation.
Section 1105 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2031) is amended–
(1) in subsection (c), by striking paragraph (68) (105 Stat. 2032; 119 Stat. 1213) and inserting the following:
"(68) The Washoe County Corridor and the Intermountain West Corridor shall generally follow–
"(A) in the case of the Washoe County Corridor, along Interstate Route 580/United States Route 95/United States Route 95A, from Reno, Nevada, to Las Vegas, Nevada; and
"(B) in the case of the Intermountain West Corridor, from the vicinity of Las Vegas extending north along United States Route 95, terminating at Interstate Route 80." ; and
(2) in subsection (e)(5)–
(A) in subparagraph (A) (109 Stat. 597; 118 Stat. 293; 119 Stat. 1213), in the first sentence–
(i) by inserting "subparagraphs (A) and (B)(i) of subsection (c)(26)," after "(c)(20)," ; and
(ii) by striking "and subsection (c)(57)" and inserting "subsection (c)(57), and subsection (c)(68)(B)" ; and
(B) in subparagraph (C)(i) (109 Stat. 598; 126 Stat. 427), in the last sentence by inserting ", and subsection (c)(68)(B), extending south from the vicinity of Wickenburg to Interstate Route 10 and continuing south toward the Tucson vicinity to the Nogales, Arizona region, establishing an international trade corridor by employing Interstates in existence on the date of enactment of the Intermountain West Corridor Development Act of 2015 or new alignments to be determined through appropriate studies, and extending north from the vicinity of Las Vegas along United States Route 95, following alignments to be determined by further study, terminating at Interstate Route 80," after "subsection (c)(26)" .
While I remain unconvinced that I-11 needs to go to Reno, I do welcome the extension and hope US 95 doesn't get screwed over in the process.
Or 93 between Vegas and Wickenburg, for that matter.
But I-580 doesn't meet US 95 or US 95A. We need to crowdsource maps for Congress!
Quote from: kkt on April 02, 2015, 12:00:52 PM
But I-580 doesn't meet US 95 or US 95A. We need to crowdsource maps for Congress!
That has been a source of confusion for me. Perhaps they are referring to selecting one of those three potential north/south corridors as where the I-11 route will go to terminate at I-80...?
EDIT: Made my second sentence make more sense...
Perhaps they'll be 11E, 11W, and 11C.
A couple of years ago I pondered where I'd put an 'I-11' crossover between the US 95 and US 385/I-580 corridors and determined, with my admittedly limited knowledge of the area while using air photos, that it could be between somewhere just south of Yerington (NV 208 area) and the Walker Lake/Hawthorne area.
Mike
Quote from: kkt on April 03, 2015, 10:20:35 AM
Perhaps they'll be 11E, 11W, and 11C.
Oh, god no... :banghead:
Quote from: mgk920 on April 03, 2015, 10:48:44 AM
A couple of years ago I pondered where I'd put an 'I-11' crossover between the US 95 and US 385395/I-580 corridors and determined, with my admittedly limited knowledge of the area while using air photos, that it could be between somewhere just south of Yerington (NV 208 area) and the Walker Lake/Hawthorne area.
Made a fix for you...
Yeah, there's not really a good place for I-11 to cut west towards Reno. Your route following the US 95 Alt and SR 208 corridors is probably easiest, but that goes much further south than desired. I'd maybe take it further north along US 95/US 95 Alt and cut west along (and/or slightly south of) the US 50 corridor. That still has its challenges and is also a bit out of the way, but could provide better service to the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center/USA Parkway (where Tesla is going).
Agreeing with Roadfro. From Las Vagas to Reno, the route US 95 to Fallon, then Alt US 50 to Fernley, then I-80 is the shortest way. As well as the fastest. Besides, 208 is over some mountainous territory, which means higher construction cost, lower speed limits, and more gas consumed going over it. I-11 would follow US 95 all the way from L.V. to I-80, with a 3di from Fallon to Fernley.
Quote from: roadfro on April 03, 2015, 08:45:01 PM
Quote from: kkt on April 03, 2015, 10:20:35 AM
Perhaps they'll be 11E, 11W, and 11C.
Oh, god no... :banghead:
Quote from: mgk920 on April 03, 2015, 10:48:44 AM
A couple of years ago I pondered where I'd put an 'I-11' crossover between the US 95 and US 385395/I-580 corridors and determined, with my admittedly limited knowledge of the area while using air photos, that it could be between somewhere just south of Yerington (NV 208 area) and the Walker Lake/Hawthorne area.
Made a fix for you...
:-P
Quote from: roadfroYeah, there's not really a good place for I-11 to cut west towards Reno. Your route following the US 95 Alt and SR 208 corridors is probably easiest, but that goes much further south than desired. I'd maybe take it further north along US 95/US 95 Alt and cut west along (and/or slightly south of) the US 50 corridor. That still has its challenges and is also a bit out of the way, but could provide better service to the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center/USA Parkway (where Tesla is going).
I was actually thinking a bit farther south than US 95A, more on the lines of WNW from the mid-Walker Lake area to the East Walker River, then hitting NV 208 from the SE via that valley.
But yes, there is no really ideal routing in that area.
Mike
I-11 needs to initially be constructed in two sections.
1.) from Phoenix metro to north Las Vegas...
2.) from Winnemucca to west of Boise to connect to a planned Treasure Valley Bypass. from there the roadway can be extended northward as funds/needs permit.
Then the gap closure can begin for the two sections depending on the best routing. Likely this highway would travel through Fallon with feeder routes connecting to Carson City and Reno. A spur interstate from Fallon to Fernley could complete that link to avoid additional mileage backtracking as well.
There is a definite need for an interstate corridor along this section especially if central nevada wants to see some economic growth. In addition if properly constructed it could also help to alleviate some congestion on California highways.
Quote from: Indyroads on April 09, 2015, 12:35:53 PM
I-11 needs to initially be constructed in two sections.
1.) from Phoenix metro to north Las Vegas...
2.) from Winnemucca to west of Boise to connect to a planned Treasure Valley Bypass. from there the roadway can be extended northward as funds/needs permit.
Then the gap closure can begin for the two sections depending on the best routing. Likely this highway would travel through Fallon with feeder routes connecting to Carson City and Reno. A spur interstate from Fallon to Fernley could complete that link to avoid additional mileage backtracking as well.
There is a definite need for an interstate corridor along this section especially if central nevada wants to see some economic growth. In addition if properly constructed it could also help to alleviate some congestion on California highways.
Have you been to central Nevada? Or between Winnemucca and Boise?
Quote from: kkt on April 09, 2015, 01:29:18 PM
Quote from: Indyroads on April 09, 2015, 12:35:53 PM
I-11 needs to initially be constructed in two sections.
1.) from Phoenix metro to north Las Vegas...
2.) from Winnemucca to west of Boise to connect to a planned Treasure Valley Bypass. from there the roadway can be extended northward as funds/needs permit.
Then the gap closure can begin for the two sections depending on the best routing. Likely this highway would travel through Fallon with feeder routes connecting to Carson City and Reno. A spur interstate from Fallon to Fernley could complete that link to avoid additional mileage backtracking as well.
There is a definite need for an interstate corridor along this section especially if central nevada wants to see some economic growth. In addition if properly constructed it could also help to alleviate some congestion on California highways.
Have you been to central Nevada? Or between Winnemucca and Boise?
That is the very definition of the middle of nowhere...LOL!
Rick
I'd be very, very surprised if I-11 goes to Boise, as much as the lines on the paper look good. More than likely, it'll go Reno-Susanville-Klamath Falls-Bend-Redmond-[(Hermiston/Umatilla)-Tri Cities-Spokane-BC]/[Yakima-Wenatchee-(Osoyoos)]
I'd be surprised if it went to Reno and amazed if it went farther north than the Reno area or I-80.
There's some demand for an east of the Cascades route, but the heavy traffic, especially trucks, is Weed-Bend, avoiding the high elevations and steep grades of I-5. And honestly, 4 lanes would be enough for quite some time, a full freeway would be throwing money away.
Quote from: kkt on April 09, 2015, 03:33:19 PM
I'd be surprised if it went to Reno and amazed if it went farther north than the Reno area or I-80.
There's some demand for an east of the Cascades route, but the heavy traffic, especially trucks, is Weed-Bend, avoiding the high elevations and steep grades of I-5. And honestly, 4 lanes would be enough for quite some time, a full freeway would be throwing money away.
Well, if the bill passes, it's not a question of if but when I-11 goes to Reno and toward Canada.
Quote from: Bickendan on April 09, 2015, 04:00:14 PM
Quote from: kkt on April 09, 2015, 03:33:19 PM
I'd be surprised if it went to Reno and amazed if it went farther north than the Reno area or I-80.
There's some demand for an east of the Cascades route, but the heavy traffic, especially trucks, is Weed-Bend, avoiding the high elevations and steep grades of I-5. And honestly, 4 lanes would be enough for quite some time, a full freeway would be throwing money away.
Well, if the bill passes, it's not a question of if but when I-11 goes to Reno and toward Canada.
The federal government would pay for the whole thing, right? I have a hard time believing either Oregon or Washington would pay for any new N/S freeways.
Uh guys, the bill only takes I-11 to I-80, "ultimately integrating into existing high priority corridors of the National Highway System leading to the Canadian border" (which is merely a 'finding', not part of the 'route designation'). And even that part isn't required to be built as a freeway any more than I-73/74 in West Virginia.
Quote from: Bickendan on April 09, 2015, 04:00:14 PM
Quote from: kkt on April 09, 2015, 03:33:19 PM
I'd be surprised if it went to Reno and amazed if it went farther north than the Reno area or I-80.
There's some demand for an east of the Cascades route, but the heavy traffic, especially trucks, is Weed-Bend, avoiding the high elevations and steep grades of I-5. And honestly, 4 lanes would be enough for quite some time, a full freeway would be throwing money away.
Well, if the bill passes, it's not a question of if but when I-11 goes to Reno and toward Canada.
This bill only designates a route, it doesn't fund it. And don't expect California, Oregon, or Washington to be falling over themselves to build their portions.
I do think US 97 could stand to be 4 lanes from Weed to Madras. But not interstate. The Reno-Susanville-Klamath Falls route will be fine at 2 lanes for the next 50 years. All the west coast states have urgent needs that they can't afford already.
There is a need for a beter highway corridor from I-80 to Boise as this would encourage more interstate commerce between the southwestern states. most of Idahos commerce connections follow the interstate connections. Boise has stronger economic ties to SLC and the Northwest due to its interstate connections than it does to the southwest. I-11 would address that.
Quote from: kkt on April 09, 2015, 04:39:49 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on April 09, 2015, 04:00:14 PM
Quote from: kkt on April 09, 2015, 03:33:19 PM
I'd be surprised if it went to Reno and amazed if it went farther north than the Reno area or I-80.
There's some demand for an east of the Cascades route, but the heavy traffic, especially trucks, is Weed-Bend, avoiding the high elevations and steep grades of I-5. And honestly, 4 lanes would be enough for quite some time, a full freeway would be throwing money away.
Well, if the bill passes, it's not a question of if but when I-11 goes to Reno and toward Canada.
This bill only designates a route, it doesn't fund it. And don't expect California, Oregon, or Washington to be falling over themselves to build their portions.
I do think US 97 could stand to be 4 lanes from Weed to Madras. But not interstate. The Reno-Susanville-Klamath Falls route will be fine at 2 lanes for the next 50 years. All the west coast states have urgent needs that they can't afford already.
This is the crux of it, I'd say. I-11 north of Reno -- whether via Oregon or Idaho -- would be nice, but not particularly needed.
Quote from: Indyroads on April 09, 2015, 06:07:26 PM
There is a need for a beter highway corridor from I-80 to Boise as this would encourage more interstate commerce between the southwestern states. most of Idahos commerce connections follow the interstate connections. Boise has stronger economic ties to SLC and the Northwest due to its interstate connections than it does to the southwest. I-11 would address that.
I would say it's more that the interstates were built where there were commercial connections. It's ultimately geography, where there's a combination of a good route and economic need to travel between places. Relatively easy grades, water along the way. Look at how many places the interstates parallel railroads built 100 years earlier.
The intermountain west is not like some extension of the midwest. Most places are way too dry for agriculture and even ranching is iffy. The water is ground water, and in most places people are pumping the ground water out faster than it's replaced. The economy, other than tourism, is mostly mining, which doesn't need huge numbers of workers to support. The last thing we should be doing is pushing more people to live on this land that will have trouble sustaining them long-term.
Quote from: kkt on April 09, 2015, 04:39:49 PM
Quote from: Bickendan on April 09, 2015, 04:00:14 PM
Quote from: kkt on April 09, 2015, 03:33:19 PM
I'd be surprised if it went to Reno and amazed if it went farther north than the Reno area or I-80.
There's some demand for an east of the Cascades route, but the heavy traffic, especially trucks, is Weed-Bend, avoiding the high elevations and steep grades of I-5. And honestly, 4 lanes would be enough for quite some time, a full freeway would be throwing money away.
Well, if the bill passes, it's not a question of if but when I-11 goes to Reno and toward Canada.
This bill only designates a route, it doesn't fund it. And don't expect California, Oregon, or Washington to be falling over themselves to build their portions.
I do think US 97 could stand to be 4 lanes from Weed to Madras. But not interstate. The Reno-Susanville-Klamath Falls route will be fine at 2 lanes for the next 50 years. All the west coast states have urgent needs that they can't afford already.
Then have all of US 26 4-laned from PDX to Madras and voila, a great connection between the largest city and Central Oregon would exist. Some of 97 and 26 is already 4-lane so we might as well fill in the gaps. It is an active road!
Rick
Quote from: Indyroads on April 09, 2015, 06:07:26 PM
There is a need for a beter highway corridor from I-80 to Boise as this would encourage more interstate commerce between the southwestern states. most of Idahos commerce connections follow the interstate connections. Boise has stronger economic ties to SLC and the Northwest due to its interstate connections than it does to the southwest. I-11 would address that.
Upgrading US 95, where needed, would solve that without dragging an Interstate into the mix through mostly empty lands.
http://kdminer.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=65300
QuoteThe future of Interstate 11 boils down to funding, including $88 million to build an interchange at U.S. Highway 93 and Interstate 40 in Kingman - and that's not going to happen any time soon. ... The existing interchange doesn't have the capacity to support daily traffic and is the last remaining bottleneck in the I-11 corridor, which would connect Phoenix to Las Vegas and become a major trade route from Mexico to Canada. ... The long-term plan is to build a new road from I-40 just past Clack Canyon to the north, traveling behind businesses and homes and joining back with U.S. 93 at Coyote Pass.
QuoteADOT started a $12.5 million project in February to widen U.S. 93 north of Wickenburg to four lanes, with completion expected in 2016. ... Since 1998, ADOT has invested about $350 million to upgrade the U.S. 93 corridor, which runs from Kingman to the Nevada state line and from Wickenburg to I-40. A 23-mile segment of I-40 east of Kingman connects U.S. 93 north and south.
And considering the water shortage crisis currently going on in the southwest, does it really make much sense to bring more economic development to the desert of Nevada?
I drove the part of 93 from Vegas to Kingman; the bypasses of Kingman and Boulder City can't happen soon enough, but it seems like all the at-grades without a traffic light are fine (at least for now).
As for 95 north of Vegas, I only drove to Kyle Canyon Road, but from my experience that could probably use an interchange (it might have just been Memorial Day traffic headed to Charleston Peak).
Quote from: Molandfreak on May 28, 2015, 10:52:42 PM
As for 95 north of Vegas, I only drove to Kyle Canyon Road, but from my experience that could probably use an interchange (it might have just been Memorial Day traffic headed to Charleston Peak).
The NW US 95 project will add an interchange at US 95 and Kyle Canyon Road:
https://www.nevadadot.com/Projects_and_Programs/Road_Projects/U_S__95_Northwest_Corridor_Improvements_Project.aspx
QuotePhase 2A will widen U.S. 95 from Ann Road to Durango Drive. It is currently under construction and is anticipated to be completed in Fall 2015. ...
Phase 3A is anticipated to start construction in summer 2015 and wrap up in 2017. It will:
Construct a northbound U.S. 95 to eastbound CC 215 ramp
Construct a westbound CC 215 to southbound U.S. 95 ramp, and improve the eastbound to southbound ramp ...
Phase 2B (Durango Drive to Kyle Canyon Road) is currently in the final design phase and is anticipated to advertise to bidders in 2017. It will consist of: Widening U.S. 95 from 2 general purpose lanes in each direction to accommodate 1 additional general purpose lane and auxiliary lanes in each direction from Durango Drive to Kyle Canyon Road ...
PHASE 5 - U.S. 95 at Kyle Canyon Road: This project is anticipated to begin construction in 2018 or later. This NDOT/City of Las Vegas partnership project will consist of the following: Construct a new service interchange
Quote from: FightingIrish on April 19, 2015, 11:50:37 AM
And considering the water shortage crisis currently going on in the southwest, does it really make much sense to bring more economic development to the desert of Nevada?
If it's rightsized, probably. Tonopah, Beatty and Goldfield are never going to be bustling metropolii. Even with an interstate highway, there isn't a lot of growth potential for those towns. But if any of them could land a mid-sized manufacturer that could support a stable population of 2000-5000, it'd be a better situation than they're in now.
Quote from: NickCPDX on June 02, 2015, 12:40:47 PM
If it's rightsized, probably. Tonopah, Beatty and Goldfield are never going to be bustling metropolii. Even with an interstate highway, there isn't a lot of growth potential for those towns. But if any of them could land a mid-sized manufacturer that could support a stable population of 2000-5000, it'd be a better situation than they're in now.
I can't even imagine Goldfield rebounding. I took a roadtrip through there last October specifically to take photos of the abandoned town and in particular the Goldfield Hotel. Being that the only real source of income was mining it's doubtful anything else could take its place. Tonopah can still retain the hotel/gas/restaurant traffic whether there's a freeway or regular highway like now since it's a short drive between them.
Quote from: kwellada on June 11, 2015, 07:49:17 PM
Quote from: NickCPDX on June 02, 2015, 12:40:47 PM
If it's rightsized, probably. Tonopah, Beatty and Goldfield are never going to be bustling metropolii. Even with an interstate highway, there isn't a lot of growth potential for those towns. But if any of them could land a mid-sized manufacturer that could support a stable population of 2000-5000, it'd be a better situation than they're in now.
I can't even imagine Goldfield rebounding. I took a roadtrip through there last October specifically to take photos of the abandoned town and in particular the Goldfield Hotel. Being that the only real source of income was mining it's doubtful anything else could take its place. Tonopah can still retain the hotel/gas/restaurant traffic whether there's a freeway or regular highway like now since it's a short drive between them.
Of these, Tonopah would have the best chance of taking off. It is the county seat of Nye County, and the most populated town in west-central Nevada. Many of the residents there work in mining nearby; it is also probably one of the closest towns of significance to the Nevada Test Site and Area 51. However, the likelihood of any manufacturing or industry coming to the town is minimal due to freight mobility (even if I-11 went through) and skilled workforce--mining industry/refining would be the only thing, but that is better handled by towns in central/eastern Nevada.
Beatty is the Nevada gateway to Death Valley, so is partially fueled by tourism. I-11 wouldn't really bring too much to town, except maybe an uptick in tourism. There is a little mining nearby, but less so than Tonopah.
Goldfield is currently the county seat of Esmeralda County, and is the most populous town in that county--not a ghost town, damn close. There is still some mining in the area, and that is probably what keeps that town running. (That and speeding tickets issued by county sheriffs). Nothing will happen here.
[Fun fact: Goldfield was the most populated city in Nevada at one time, due to plentiful mining claims in the vicinity. However, this was nearly 100 years ago (somewhere between 1900 and 1910, between census years so population numbers were never officially verified).]
The main benefit of I-11 in Nevada will be in connecting the existing Vegas and Reno/Carson population centers, and improving freight mobility between these points and the the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center (a little ways east of Reno, where Tesla's Gigafactory is under construction).
Have they decided what route Interstate 11 will take through the Las Vegas area? Personally, I think it should follow the existing US 95 and Interstate 515 alignment.
Quote from: roadfro on June 12, 2015, 02:04:41 AM
Goldfield is currently the county seat of Esmeralda County, and is the most populous town in that county--not a ghost town, damn close.
But there certainly are ghosts in Goldfield. At least that's what the Ghost Adventures Crew (featured on the Travel Channel) claimed during their 3 investigations at the Goldfield Hotel. :D
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 12, 2015, 04:08:12 PM
Have they decided what route Interstate 11 will take through the Las Vegas area? Personally, I think it should follow the existing US 95 and Interstate 515 alignment.
Nothing has been decided, to my knowledge.
If they bring it up I-515/US 95, then NDOT is going to need to dust off plans to widen I-515 including replacing the downtown viaduct. I actually think it might be better to loop it west along I-215, personally. The eastern alignment through the Lake Mead NRA doesn't make much sense to me (although would make sense in the context of the CANAMEX corridor and a possible realignment of US 93 out of Vegas to a shorter route).
If this was to be the case, at what points would you realign US 93?
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on June 21, 2015, 11:10:25 PM
If this was to be the case, at what points would you realign US 93?
After looking at some more recent documents on the I-11 site, it appears the eastern alignment in Vegas area is no longer a recommended alternative.
It would have diverged from current US 93 somewhere around Boulder City, headed north through Lake Mead NRA east of Las Vegas (bypassing the valley completely) and connecting to I-15/US 93 north of Las Vegas Motor Speedway, then a wrong way concurrency on I-15 to the 215 northern beltway and over to US 95.
If this alignment had been adopted, US 93 could have been realigned along I-11 bypassing Las Vegas. It would have shaved off several miles off the length of US 93 and the CANAMEX corridor.
Quote from: FightingIrish on April 19, 2015, 11:50:37 AM
And considering the water shortage crisis currently going on in the southwest, does it really make much sense to bring more economic development to the desert of Nevada?
Elon Musk apparently doesn't think so. Believe he has decided to locate his automotive battery factory in Sparks, which already houses several large distribution centers. BTW wasn't Goldfield the place where the disc jockey in "Vanishing Point" (1971) was housed?
Quote from: DJStephens on July 07, 2015, 08:21:54 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on April 19, 2015, 11:50:37 AM
And considering the water shortage crisis currently going on in the southwest, does it really make much sense to bring more economic development to the desert of Nevada?
Elon Musk apparently doesn't think so. Believe he has decided to locate his automotive battery factory in Sparks, which already houses several large distribution centers. BTW wasn't Goldfield the place where the disc jockey in "Vanishing Point" (1971) was housed?
The Tesla gigafactory is actually located about 15-20 miles east of Reno/Sparks, at the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center off USA Parkway (new SR 439) in Storey County. There are several other manufacturing (Kal Kan, among others) and distribution centers (Walmart, Toys R Us, Petsmart, among others) out there.
Quote from: vdeane on March 28, 2015, 04:50:28 PM
The Arizona plan for taking I-11 to Nogales seems designed specifically as a way to backdoor kill the metric signage on I-19 (as replacing I-19 with I-11 would require bringing the exit numbers and mileposts in line with I-11, unless they plan to extend metric to Nevada, which I doubt). Note that I'm opposed to interstates terminating in a multiplex, so keeping I-19 down the corridor if I-11 were extended is IMO not something that should be done.
I still don't think traffic warrants building a whole new freeway parallel to I-10 here, but if Arizona insists on doing that, maybe they could at least build a freeway connection to MX 15D?
Time for the US to just get with it and go metric. Football is metric!
Quote from: texaskdog on July 08, 2015, 08:15:51 AM
Quote from: vdeane on March 28, 2015, 04:50:28 PM
The Arizona plan for taking I-11 to Nogales seems designed specifically as a way to backdoor kill the metric signage on I-19 (as replacing I-19 with I-11 would require bringing the exit numbers and mileposts in line with I-11, unless they plan to extend metric to Nevada, which I doubt). Note that I'm opposed to interstates terminating in a multiplex, so keeping I-19 down the corridor if I-11 were extended is IMO not something that should be done.
I still don't think traffic warrants building a whole new freeway parallel to I-10 here, but if Arizona insists on doing that, maybe they could at least build a freeway connection to MX 15D?
Time for the US to just get with it and go metric. Football is metric!
Soccer might be metric, but American Football? I believe that's in yards...
Quote from: Bickendan on July 08, 2015, 06:09:54 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on July 08, 2015, 08:15:51 AM
Quote from: vdeane on March 28, 2015, 04:50:28 PM
The Arizona plan for taking I-11 to Nogales seems designed specifically as a way to backdoor kill the metric signage on I-19 (as replacing I-19 with I-11 would require bringing the exit numbers and mileposts in line with I-11, unless they plan to extend metric to Nevada, which I doubt). Note that I'm opposed to interstates terminating in a multiplex, so keeping I-19 down the corridor if I-11 were extended is IMO not something that should be done.
I still don't think traffic warrants building a whole new freeway parallel to I-10 here, but if Arizona insists on doing that, maybe they could at least build a freeway connection to MX 15D?
Time for the US to just get with it and go metric. Football is metric!
Soccer might be metric, but American Football? I believe that's in yards...
Even though it is international, soccer still uses English measurements. Rugby uses metric though.
Quote from: Big John on July 08, 2015, 06:23:40 PM
Even though it is international, soccer still uses English measurements. Rugby uses metric though.
Soccer officially uses metric, just that all the measurements are converted from the original Imperial measurements. The goal is officially 7.32 m wide and 2.44 m tall, the center circle has a radius of 9.15 m, the ball must be 68-70 cm in circumference, and so on. Getting back closer to the topic, America's current weights and measures are officially defined based on metric, including the mile, officially defined as 1.609344 km, and, indirectly, the gallon, officially defined as 231 cubic inches, with an inch being defined as exactly 2.54 cm.
Quote from: dfwmapper on July 08, 2015, 09:45:01 PM
Quote from: Big John on July 08, 2015, 06:23:40 PM
Even though it is international, soccer still uses English measurements. Rugby uses metric though.
Soccer officially uses metric, just that all the measurements are converted from the original Imperial measurements. The goal is officially 7.32 m wide and 2.44 m tall, the center circle has a radius of 9.15 m, the ball must be 68-70 cm in circumference, and so on. Getting back closer to the topic, America's current weights and measures are officially defined based on metric, including the mile, officially defined as 1.609344 km, and, indirectly, the gallon, officially defined as 231 cubic inches, with an inch being defined as exactly 2.54 cm.
Yepper, the story that I know is that football's powers-that-be once looked into the idea of adjusting the field measurements from 'hard' yards into 'hard' metric but dropped the idea when it was determined that it would have too much effect on the play of the game. Ultimately, only the corner-kick arc were so changed (1 m radius).
Note than when a field is painted over an American football field with the midfield stripe being directly over the 50 yard line, the center circle coincides exactly with the two 40 yard lines.
And yes, you are correct, the standard for length in the USA is '1 inch' = 25.4 mm. Do the arithmetic for the rest.
Mike
Yes, the standard inch was metricized to 25.4 mm sometime in the 1950s and the standard foot based on that. However the old foot is still in use by surveyors, as land was surveyed and lots defined on the old foot that's a tiny bit bigger.
Quote from: kkt on July 09, 2015, 11:15:36 AM
Yes, the standard inch was metricized to 25.4 mm sometime in the 1950s and the standard foot based on that. However the old foot is still in use by surveyors, as land was surveyed and lots defined on the old foot that's a tiny bit bigger.
Specifically, the standard foot is exactly 0.3048 meters, and the survey foot is exactly 1200/3937 (0.30480061 etc) meters. The mile is based on the survey foot, so it isn't exactly 1.609344 km, but rather 6336/3937 (1.609347219 etc) km.
http://www.trivalleycentral.com/casa_grande_dispatch/area_news/i--project-could-put-pinal-in-center-of-megapolitan/article_0abcab46-3472-11e5-a6dd-0f8a87aa2db5.html
QuoteThe term "megapolitan" sounds like the name for an ancient creature profiled on the Discovery Channel. Ironically, it's the word that may define the future of Arizona, especially in light of the ambitious Interstate 11 project. A megapolitan is defined as a conglomeration of metropolitan areas with a combined population of at least 5 million people. There are 11 regions in the United States currently defined as megapolitan. The Arizona Sun Corridor, stretching from Phoenix to Nogales, is one of these geographical behemoths and it's said to be lacking the infrastructure to accommodate all of its economic potential. ...
That's where Interstate 11 is intended to come to the rescue. The proposed transportation corridor would connect Las Vegas to the Mexican border, thus opening up a north-south trade route that would extend to Canada.
Ground was broken on the first 15-mile chunk of the freeway in Boulder City, Nevada, earlier this year. However, the pathway connecting Phoenix to Mexico has yet to be decided and likely won't be for the next few years.
The Arizona Department of Transportation will launch an environmental impact study soon to determine the best location for a 2,000-foot-wide corridor within southern Arizona. The route is projected to cut somewhere through western Pinal County down to Tucson. ...
Unlike the northern sections of I-11, the southern Arizona corridor has not been recognized by Congress as a site for a future interstate freeway. ...
Jackson said the interstate's biggest economic driver for Casa Grande is speeding up freight delivery times for trucks passing from California to Texas. Drivers currently may have difficulty making one-day hauls between Long Beach and Casa Grande.
Interstate 11 could potentially create an alternative route that wraps around Phoenix's congested freeways and guarantees a more accurate time frame for deliveries.
"It would really open up some trade corridors for Casa Grande and I think really help our economic development," Jackson said.
ADOT estimates $431 billion worth of freight deliveries are projected to pour into Arizona from California by 2040. This type of economic activity could bring in 240,000 new jobs, though these estimates assume trade in the Asia Pacific region remains positive as it's been in the last couple of decades. ...
The economic impacts of I-11 are all quite desirable, but there is still the looming issue of how to pay for it. ...
The Sonoran Institute, an environmental research nonprofit, has identified more than 700,000 acres of land within 20 miles of the proposed I-11 route suitable for renewable energy development. Electrical transmission lines installed through I-11 could connect with nearby solar panels or wind turbines, which could produce up to 70,000 megawatts of energy.
It won't be until ADOT completes its impact study three years from now until southern Arizona will have a better idea where Interstate 11 could be positioned. This prolonged timeline does not seem to curb the excitement community leaders have at the prospect of Arizona becoming a mega center for commerce and development.
The term "metropolitan" sounds like it was invented to justify building I-11 south of Phoenix. The connection to Mexico already exists via I-10 and I-19.
Quote from: vdeane on August 13, 2015, 01:09:20 PM
The term "metropolitan" "megapolitan" sounds like it was invented to justify building I-11 south of Phoenix. The connection to Mexico already exists via I-10 and I-19.
FTFY, though your sentiment is echoed. Both highways are fully capable of handling the traffic they currently carry.
What happened to the idea to connect Phoenix and Las Vegas? Wasn't that the original plan? I remember that the big thing people were saying was how these were the two largest cities not connected by an interstate, now all the maps show the possible alignments completely avoiding Phoenix and continuing south. I know there are reasons for this, it just seems that people suddenly forgot about what I think is the most important part.
QuoteJackson said the interstate's biggest economic driver for Casa Grande is speeding up freight delivery times for trucks passing from California to Texas. Drivers currently may have difficulty making one-day hauls between Long Beach and Casa Grande.
Then there is no need for it to go south of I-8. Connecting it to that freeway, then having drivers who are bypassing Phoenix go east to I-10 and on to Tucson/Nogales/beyond is perfectly sufficient and I agree that those freeways (I-10/19) can easily handle that traffic.
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on August 13, 2015, 04:48:35 PM
FTFY, though your sentiment is echoed. Both highways are fully capable of handling the traffic they currently carry.
I-10 really isn't sufficient for current traffic volumes, let alone whatever it will be in 30 years. It needs 6 lanes the whole way between Phoenix and Tucson. That ought to hold it for a while, though, at least if Arizona is smart enough to ban trucks from the left lane.
Quote from: pumpkineater2 on August 13, 2015, 06:17:50 PM
What happened to the idea to connect Phoenix and Las Vegas? Wasn't that the original plan? I remember that the big thing people were saying was how these were the two largest cities not connected by an interstate, now all the maps show the possible alignments completely avoiding Phoenix and continuing south. I know there are reasons for this, it just seems that people suddenly forgot about what I think is the most important part.
The Phoenix—Vegas connection is the whole reason I-11 exists. However, the state DOTs and various elected officials have begun looking beyond just reconstructing the existing connecting highways to study what additional transportation needs potential I-11 routings can serve in both the Phoenix/Vegas metro areas and by extending north/south to serve the greater southwest regional mobility. It's just that at this point, the path between Phoenix and Vegas is pretty well defined by existing US 93 while the paths through the metro areas and extending beyond are still very up in the air (thus the presentation of various alignments in the media).
Quote from: dfwmapper on August 14, 2015, 01:36:02 AM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on August 13, 2015, 04:48:35 PM
FTFY, though your sentiment is echoed. Both highways are fully capable of handling the traffic they currently carry.
I-10 really isn't sufficient for current traffic volumes, let alone whatever it will be in 30 years. It needs 6 lanes the whole way between Phoenix and Tucson. That ought to hold it for a while, though, at least if Arizona is smart enough to ban trucks from the left lane.
I remember looking at the traffic counts for that section of I-10. From what I can recall, the AADT was in the 40-50k range. Barely enough to consider widening it, let alone a parallel corridor.
If they really want it extended to Mexico, while serving Phoenix, why not use the AZ 85 corridor, and have I-11 take over AZ 85 south of I-10? The highest AADT AZ 85 gets was only above ~15,000 AADT, in 2013.
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 15, 2015, 06:07:45 PM
If they really want it extended to Mexico, while serving Phoenix, why not use the AZ 85 corridor, and have I-11 take over AZ 85 south of I-10? The highest AADT AZ 85 gets was only above ~15,000 AADT, in 2013.
Isn't AZ 85 between I-10 and I-8 slowly being upgraded to interstate standards anyway? Either way the road would be ripe for I-11 to use and would save alot of construction.
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on August 15, 2015, 06:47:24 PM
Isn't AZ 85 between I-10 and I-8 slowly being upgraded to interstate standards anyway? Either way the road would be ripe for I-11 to use and would save alot of construction.
I think it
was being upgraded, but I don't think any improvements have been made in recent years. I think its safe to say that the road is
almost a freeway; it is missing interchanges at at-grade crossings(although satellite images show that room has been made for them) and of course it needs a freeway to freeway interchange at I-8.
And I agree that it would be a good route for I-11.
Wait, so is I-11 not gonna even intersect with Loop 303? :confused:
Quote from: billtm on August 16, 2015, 08:08:48 PM
Wait, so is I-11 not gonna even intersect with Loop 303? :confused:
Maybe a spur, but there is no intent to connect the 303 with I-11.
Not entirely true. Some of the proposals have I-11 continuing south of I-10 before turning east and heading towards Casa Grande. In those proposals, Loop 303 would have its southern terminus at I-11.
Quote from: dfwmapper on August 16, 2015, 10:36:19 PM
Not entirely true. Some of the proposals have I-11 continuing south of I-10 before turning east and heading towards Casa Grande. In those proposals, Loop 303 would have its southern terminus at I-11.
Indeed. I did not see that until now. I had no idea how far south the 303 was planned to go.
How long before we signage along any portion of the Interstate 11 Corridor (excluding future Interstate 11 signs)?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 17, 2015, 03:22:53 PM
How long before we signage along any portion of the Interstate 11 Corridor (excluding future Interstate 11 signs)?
I will say it will be a while before we see any signs. Consider:
1. The only portions of I-11 completed are the Hoover Dam Bypass and any section that will overlap with existing interstates.
2. The only project underway related to I-11 is the Boulder City Bypass, which broke ground recently and is 2-3 years away (at least) from major completion.
3. Besides in-progress work, the only "finalized" alignment is the part in Arizona that generally follows US 93.
I honestly feel like I-11 is totally unnecessary. It seems like someone is trying to play connect the dots (cities) with interstate highways. An interestate from Phoenix to Las Vegas is unnecessary and one from Las Vegas to Reno is just totally rediculous. There is not enough traffic out in the middle of the desert to justify building interstates. If they want to make all of US 93 4 lanes from Wickenburg to I-40 that's one thing, but to build overpasses and interchanges for roads that barely have any traffic is another. US 93 from Las Vegas to Kingman is not interstate quality, but it is good enough and should be left alone. If they are going to build an interstate do us all a favor and build it along a new alignment as a toll road and leave US 93 as a free alternative, so at least you can get some money back off of a poor investment. The only good part of this plan is that they are going to build a bypass around Boulder City, the rest of it is stupid.
Quote from: US 41 on August 27, 2015, 06:51:01 PM
US 93 from Las Vegas to Kingman is not interstate quality
I believe the segment of US 93 from I-15 to I-215 is interstate quality as it is signed as I-515.
I also believe the Hoover Dam bypass and the currently under construction Boulder City Bypass are both being built to Interstate standards too.
I'm okay with them upgrading US 93 to freeway and building interchanges if they think it's worth while. It's their money. I think it would probably be better spent on the urban area freeways that are really crowded, but like I say, it's Arizona and Nevada's call.
But I don't think it's worth changing the number. A toll road paralleling US 93 wouldn't get enough use to pay for its cost, with 93 a fast, free alternative. Upgrading to freeway does make it a little safer, I guess, for drivers who are too drunk/sleepy/whatever to watch for traffic as they pull out.
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 27, 2015, 07:42:00 PM
Quote from: US 41 on August 27, 2015, 06:51:01 PM
US 93 from Las Vegas to Kingman is not interstate quality
I believe the segment of US 93 from I-15 to I-215 is interstate quality as it is signed as I-515.
I also believe the Hoover Dam bypass and the currently under construction Boulder City Bypass are both being built to Interstate standards too.
I'm talking about US 93 overall (mostly in Arizona). It has a gravel shoulder in some parts which is definitely not interstate quality. I just think it is a waste of money to upgrade highways that are 4 lanes and don't have very much traffic. I don't have a problem with US 93 being widened between Wickenburg and I-40, but to make it interstate quality from Phoenix to Las Vegas is just really stupid in my opinion.
Quote from: kkt on August 27, 2015, 09:22:16 PM
But I don't think it's worth changing the number. A toll road paralleling US 93 wouldn't get enough use to pay for its cost, with 93 a fast, free alternative.
Here's my theory on this.
#1. If you think more traffic would continue using the existing highway rather than pay the tolls, then there's a pretty good chance that the interstate isn't needed.
#2. If the road wouldn't get enough use to pay for its cost (as you are suggesting and that would most likely be true) then the road isn't needed.
Quote from: kkt on August 27, 2015, 09:22:16 PM
Upgrading to freeway does make it a little safer, I guess, for drivers who are too drunk/sleepy/whatever to watch for traffic as they pull out.
That's a pretty lame excuse for spending millions of dollars to upgrade something that was perfectly fine to start with. First off drunk driving is illegal. Second if you are too tired to watch for traffic then you need to go to bed, not drive down the highway.
There are only 3 towns in Arizona between the NV state line and US 60 (201 miles) along US 93 that show up on my map: Kingman (28,393), Wikieup (305), Wickenburg (6,604). At this point I can't even justify widening US 93 in the places it's still only 2 lanes. I honestly hope after reading the info I gave everyone on AARoads that everyone can realize how dumb I-11 really is.
The following link is what US 93 looks like about 10 miles north of Wickenburg. Now tell me that an interstate is needed.
https://goo.gl/maps/HxZg3
Quote from: US 41 on August 28, 2015, 10:24:14 AM
Quote from: kkt on August 27, 2015, 09:22:16 PM
Upgrading to freeway does make it a little safer, I guess, for drivers who are too drunk/sleepy/whatever to watch for traffic as they pull out.
That's a pretty lame excuse for spending millions of dollars to upgrade something that was perfectly fine to start with. First off drunk driving is illegal. Second if you are too tired to watch for traffic then you need to go to bed, not drive down the highway.
There are only 3 towns in Arizona between the NV state line and US 60 (201 miles) along US 93 that show up on my map: Kingman (28,393), Wikieup (305), Wickenburg (6,604). At this point I can't even justify widening US 93 in the places it's still only 2 lanes. I honestly hope after reading the info I gave everyone on AARoads that everyone can realize how dumb I-11 really is.
The following link is what US 93 looks like about 10 miles north of Wickenburg. Now tell me that an interstate is needed.
https://goo.gl/maps/HxZg3
Sure, not looking as you pull into traffic is stupid, but greater safety does come from reducing people's opportunity to do stupid things. A freeway could also justify a higher speed limit.
It looks like Nevada is for it in the hopes that it'll bring a little more tourism to Las Vegas, and Arizona is for it mostly because they want to make a loop freeway around Phoenix and parallel to I-10 and for some reason don't want to use a state route number or I-x10 number for it. Kingman-Boulder Dam is just along for the ride. It's how sausage is made.
Regarding first signing of I-11, it would take a change order to do that for the part of the Boulder City Bypass that is currently under construction. However, I think a later phase (currently in design) could very well have I-11 signed on milemarkers at least.
I-11 will likely be signed not long after the Boulder City bypass opens (and I-11 South in NV is complete).
Quote from: kkt on August 28, 2015, 11:11:06 AM
Quote from: US 41 on August 28, 2015, 10:24:14 AM
Quote from: kkt on August 27, 2015, 09:22:16 PM
Upgrading to freeway does make it a little safer, I guess, for drivers who are too drunk/sleepy/whatever to watch for traffic as they pull out.
That's a pretty lame excuse for spending millions of dollars to upgrade something that was perfectly fine to start with. First off drunk driving is illegal. Second if you are too tired to watch for traffic then you need to go to bed, not drive down the highway.
There are only 3 towns in Arizona between the NV state line and US 60 (201 miles) along US 93 that show up on my map: Kingman (28,393), Wikieup (305), Wickenburg (6,604). At this point I can't even justify widening US 93 in the places it's still only 2 lanes. I honestly hope after reading the info I gave everyone on AARoads that everyone can realize how dumb I-11 really is.
The following link is what US 93 looks like about 10 miles north of Wickenburg. Now tell me that an interstate is needed.
https://goo.gl/maps/HxZg3
Sure, not looking as you pull into traffic is stupid, but greater safety does come from reducing people's opportunity to do stupid things. A freeway could also justify a higher speed limit.
It looks like Nevada is for it in the hopes that it'll bring a little more tourism to Las Vegas, and Arizona is for it mostly because they want to make a loop freeway around Phoenix and parallel to I-10 and for some reason don't want to use a state route number or I-x10 number for it. Kingman-Boulder Dam is just along for the ride. It's how sausage is made.
True. I don't think Las Vegas is lacking in the tourism department. AZ 83 makes a decent bypass for Phoenix, but I suppose a southeast bypass that is closer to Phoenix would be beneficial to the area. My experience is that western US driving is very easy. I live in a medium sized city with a population of 60,000. It's not really that big of a deal to me. Out west however a city of 60,000 is like a booming metropolis. I feel like if you get in an accident in rural areas out west it's your fault for not paying attention, not the DOT's. The western US is the only place I've ever been that you can see what's coming 5 or more miles ahead. I hope to one day move to the northeastern part of New Mexico. Based on my travels out west the only places interstates are actually needed is through the mountains and in decent sized cities. Anywhere else 4 lane highways with at-grade intersections are perfectly fine. I guess I should also get this straight too; when I talk about west I'm mostly talking about Utah, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and western Texas (desert regions). Maybe southwest would be the better word.
Quote from: US 41 on August 28, 2015, 03:59:59 PM
Quote from: kkt on August 28, 2015, 11:11:06 AM
Quote from: US 41 on August 28, 2015, 10:24:14 AM
Quote from: kkt on August 27, 2015, 09:22:16 PM
Upgrading to freeway does make it a little safer, I guess, for drivers who are too drunk/sleepy/whatever to watch for traffic as they pull out.
That's a pretty lame excuse for spending millions of dollars to upgrade something that was perfectly fine to start with. First off drunk driving is illegal. Second if you are too tired to watch for traffic then you need to go to bed, not drive down the highway.
There are only 3 towns in Arizona between the NV state line and US 60 (201 miles) along US 93 that show up on my map: Kingman (28,393), Wikieup (305), Wickenburg (6,604). At this point I can't even justify widening US 93 in the places it's still only 2 lanes. I honestly hope after reading the info I gave everyone on AARoads that everyone can realize how dumb I-11 really is.
The following link is what US 93 looks like about 10 miles north of Wickenburg. Now tell me that an interstate is needed.
https://goo.gl/maps/HxZg3
Sure, not looking as you pull into traffic is stupid, but greater safety does come from reducing people's opportunity to do stupid things. A freeway could also justify a higher speed limit.
It looks like Nevada is for it in the hopes that it'll bring a little more tourism to Las Vegas, and Arizona is for it mostly because they want to make a loop freeway around Phoenix and parallel to I-10 and for some reason don't want to use a state route number or I-x10 number for it. Kingman-Boulder Dam is just along for the ride. It's how sausage is made.
True. I don't think Las Vegas is lacking in the tourism department. AZ 83 makes a decent bypass for Phoenix, but I suppose a southeast bypass that is closer to Phoenix would be beneficial to the area. My experience is that western US driving is very easy. I live in a medium sized city with a population of 60,000. It's not really that big of a deal to me. Out west however a city of 60,000 is like a booming metropolis. I feel like if you get in an accident in rural areas out west it's your fault for not paying attention, not the DOT's. The western US is the only place I've ever been that you can see what's coming 5 or more miles ahead. I hope to one day move to the northeastern part of New Mexico. Based on my travels out west the only places interstates are actually needed is through the mountains and in decent sized cities. Anywhere else 4 lane highways with at-grade intersections are perfectly fine. I guess I should also get this straight too; when I talk about west I'm mostly talking about Utah, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and western Texas (desert regions). Maybe southwest would be the better word.
You said it right, which is why I do not wish to see my tax money go to upgrading US 77 in Kenedy County, TX just to get an interstate route number. Yes, that is not the west you refer to but its the same concept. Four lane divided highways are just as good in rural areas in the west as interstates are. Heck even in Texas the state does not discriminate against speed limits as their freeways and off freeways have the same speed limits.
Quote from: US 41 on August 28, 2015, 03:59:59 PM
I feel like if you get in an accident in rural areas out west it's your fault for not paying attention, not the DOT's.
What about drivers hitting big enough pot holes that force them to lose control and hit an oncoming car? :sombrero:
Quote from: US 41 on August 27, 2015, 06:51:01 PM
I honestly feel like I-11 is totally unnecessary. It seems like someone is trying to play connect the dots (cities) with interstate highways. An interestate from Phoenix to Las Vegas is unnecessary and one from Las Vegas to Reno is just totally rediculous. There is not enough traffic out in the middle of the desert to justify building interstates. If they want to make all of US 93 4 lanes from Wickenburg to I-40 that's one thing, but to build overpasses and interchanges for roads that barely have any traffic is another. US 93 from Las Vegas to Kingman is not interstate quality, but it is good enough and should be left alone. ...
Isn't "connecting the dots" pretty much what they did with the Interstates to begin with though? What's the purpose of the Interstate system if not to connect population centers by high-quality roads? Phoenix and Las Vegas are the two largest metropolitan areas not already connected by Interstate highways. This routing is also part of the CANAMEX corridor established by NAFTA. (That agreement stipulated that this corridor would be minimum 4 lanes, and the Arizona/US 93 part is the vast majority of the corridor not meeting those minimums.)
I will concur though that connection further north beyond Las Vegas does seem incredibly unnecessary at this time. But with Tesla and other developments pending in Northern Nevada, it is difficult to say whether or not the need may develop for a higher-quality north/south route. (Right now, making US 95 a divided highway, perhaps with bypasses of small towns and selected interchanges, would be sufficient.)
Quote from: myosh_tino on August 27, 2015, 07:42:00 PM
Quote from: US 41 on August 27, 2015, 06:51:01 PM
US 93 from Las Vegas to Kingman is not interstate quality
I believe the segment of US 93 from I-15 to I-215 is interstate quality as it is signed as I-515.
I also believe the Hoover Dam bypass and the currently under construction Boulder City Bypass are both being built to Interstate standards too.
US 93 is Interstate quality from I-15 south beyond I-215 to the southern urban limits of the Las Vegas area–the freeway downgrades at the end of the I-515 overlap, which is just north of the railroad crossing that is north of Railroad Pass. (**Note that the I-11 alignment in Las Vegas has not yet been selected, and may not follow I-515.)
The Hoover Dam Bypass and Boulder City Bypass were both designed to Interstate standards.
Quote from: english si on August 28, 2015, 02:39:58 PM
I-11 will likely be signed not long after the Boulder City bypass opens (and I-11 South in NV is complete).
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 28, 2015, 12:09:23 PM
Regarding first signing of I-11, it would take a change order to do that for the part of the Boulder City Bypass that is currently under construction. However, I think a later phase (currently in design) could very well have I-11 signed on milemarkers at least.
I don't see I-11 signing happening any time soon, given the NDOT precedence of not signing I-515 and I-580 until they were mostly complete and made a logical connection in the system. I-515 was approved by AASHTO in 1976 and not signed until 1994. I-580 was approved in 1978 and not signed until 2012 (despite that a decent length of the spur to south Reno was completed by the late 1990s and had a logical terminus at SR 431, NDOT waited until the freeway was completed to US 50 in Carson City to sign it).
That said, NDOT has known for several years that the Boulder City Bypass would be part of I-11. However, NDOT's highway logs do not currently mention I-11 or count the future alignment of the bypass as I-11 or US 93. It's also possible that NDOT could milepost it as US 93, as they've done with I-515 using US 95's mileposts (although US 95 was preexisting).
Quote from: roadfro on August 30, 2015, 04:01:50 AM
Isn't "connecting the dots" pretty much what they did with the Interstates to begin with though?
They looked at what US highways were overcrowded and/or had inadequate clearances for large trucks or safety concerns. Not just connect the dots.
Quote
What's the purpose of the Interstate system if not to connect population centers by high-quality roads? Phoenix and Las Vegas are the two largest metropolitan areas not already connected by Interstate highways. This routing is also part of the CANAMEX corridor established by NAFTA. (That agreement stipulated that this corridor would be minimum 4 lanes, and the Arizona/US 93 part is the vast majority of the corridor not meeting those minimums.)
So 4-lane US 93. Eliminating every right on-right off ranch road is pure pork.
Quote from: dfwmapper on August 14, 2015, 01:36:02 AM
Quote from: TravelingBethelite on August 13, 2015, 04:48:35 PM
FTFY, though your sentiment is echoed. Both highways are fully capable of handling the traffic they currently carry.
I-10 really isn't sufficient for current traffic volumes, let alone whatever it will be in 30 years. It needs 6 lanes the whole way between Phoenix and Tucson. That ought to hold it for a while, though, at least if Arizona is smart enough to ban trucks from the left lane.
There has been ongoing work to six lane the Interstate 10 corridor between Tucson and Phoenix, although it has been progressing in fits and starts. There are sections that are not done, such as just east of the Casa Grande area, that should have been done by now. Would think that acquiring some additional ROW along the highway should be pursued, in some areas that are not yet highly developed, in order to perhaps have even an eight lane cross section with adequate rural median. This would make a parallel Interstate 11 unneccesary.
Quote from: roadfro on August 30, 2015, 04:01:50 AM
Isn't "connecting the dots" pretty much what they did with the Interstates to begin with though? What's the purpose of the Interstate system if not to connect population centers by high-quality roads? Phoenix and Las Vegas are the two largest metropolitan areas not already connected by Interstate highways. This routing is also part of the CANAMEX corridor established by NAFTA. (That agreement stipulated that this corridor would be minimum 4 lanes, and the Arizona/US 93 part is the vast majority of the corridor not meeting those minimums.)
I concur with this statement ... Interstate 11 between Phoenix and Las Vegas is overdue. It was needed when I first drove the corridor in 2003, and I believe it is needed today. The driveways and ranch roads along this route that require connection can be connected through a frontage road system. Each time I drove the route, I found ample trucks between US 60 and I-40, but there weren't as many between I-40 and Hoover Dam (in 2003, for example, trucks were detoured onto AZ 68, NV 163, and US 95). I-11 will still take years if not decades to complete between these two cities, and I don't think the conversion to Interstate standards will happen in a hurry. But it is nice to have a plan that gets to a goal of improving this highway corridor.
As for I-11 north of Las Vegas and south of Phoenix, I think there are two factors at play. North of Las Vegas is a function of long-distance haul traffic: Is there a plan to redirect north-south traffic off of I-5 and onto I-11? Will rail factor into this? South of Phoenix is connected to development plans of Pinal County and whether Pinal County will develop as Phoenix and Tucson have developed. I don't see why I-11 would have to make its way to Nogales since I-19 is already there, but I could see I-11 finding its way to another border crossing with Mexico if it must continue south ... perhaps via AZ 85?
Keep in mind any development of I-11 north of LV and south of Phoenix will take decades, and right now all of it is wishful thinking. But it is nice that someone at least has a partial plan given the explosive growth of the Desert Southwest over the past 50 years. Although water resources are a huge concern, there's also no evidence that people will stop moving there on that basis.
Finally, as for US 93 vs. I-11, I have a theory/opinion that is somewhat unpopular on this forum: As a US route reaches Interstate standards and logically connects to the Interstate system, the US route should be replaced with an Interstate route designation. US 93 can go away south of Apex, NV, once I-11 is fully developed and signed. This would clarify signage in downtown Las Vegas, for example.
Criteria for such a conversion (US route to Interstate route) could include: required connections to an Interstate at one or more endpoints, full Interstate design standards are met, and the former US route (or state route) can be eliminated without overlapping signage for miles. This is why I favored US 41 becoming I-41 (although I wanted US 41 to be unsigned under I-41), hope someday CA 99 becomes I-7 or I-9, and am glad to see NY 17 become I-86. Changes like these take years if not decades, but these routes provide logical access to various cities along their respective routes and offer alternatives to existing routes. I like US routes as much as the next guy, but I am not interested in keeping them once they make more sense as an Interstate highway.
I-11 or not, ADOT has been planning to widen US 93 for years. It would be nice if the process got sped up a little, even if it's not interstate standard right away.
Why aren't they using US 95 instead of US 93? Put I-11 through Kingman, but then shift it into California into Needles, back into Arizona via AZ 95, and last but not least - put it onto a southeast direction once it reaches Lake Havasu City. Either make a new alignment, or just give in and use US 93. It's gonna be a while.
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 31, 2015, 03:45:31 PM
Why aren't they using US 95 instead of US 93? Put I-11 through Kingman, but then shift it into California into Needles, back into Arizona via AZ 95, and last but not least - put it onto a southeast direction once it reaches Lake Havasu City. Either make a new alignment, or just give in and use US 93. It's gonna be a while.
Because, relatively speaking, that is not where the traffic and need is. One of the major purposes for proposing I-11 in the first place was to connect the Phoenix and Las Vegas metro areas, and this would be a circuitous way to do that.
The plan is to use US 93 for the bulk of the initial alignment. It's in the urban areas where the alignment is in question.
Not to get too far off topic, but this points out two issues that would be too expensive to undo, but would have been great if someone had had a crystal ball:
- Routing US 93 WNW from Wickenburg, up the Bill Williams Valley and then going north from Lake Havasu City. Alternately, routing US 93 WNW from Nothing and connecting it to US 66/I-40 south of Yucca.
- Routing I-40 northwest from Kingman, crossing the Colorado River near Cottonwood Cove, then multiplexing with/ending at I-15 near Mountain Pass.
Not saying anyone could have possibly predicted the growth patterns that would have made either of these make sense, but in retrospect, it would have shaved some distance off of the projects the states are trying to tackle now.
Quote from: roadfro on August 31, 2015, 04:50:37 PM
Quote from: noelbotevera on August 31, 2015, 03:45:31 PM
Why aren't they using US 95 instead of US 93? Put I-11 through Kingman, but then shift it into California into Needles, back into Arizona via AZ 95, and last but not least - put it onto a southeast direction once it reaches Lake Havasu City. Either make a new alignment, or just give in and use US 93. It's gonna be a while.
Because, relatively speaking, that is not where the traffic and need is. One of the major purposes for proposing I-11 in the first place was to connect the Phoenix and Las Vegas metro areas, and this would be a circuitous way to do that.
The plan is to use US 93 for the bulk of the initial alignment. It's in the urban areas where the alignment is in question.
Interstate 11 just doesn't seem effective. I highly doubt of its significance on commerce and travel.
I drove from Phoenix - Las Vegas and back in May.
US 93 in its current state is more than adequate for the amount of traffic it sees.
Quote from: ztonyg on September 05, 2015, 04:54:09 PM
I drove from Phoenix - Las Vegas and back in May.
US 93 in its current state is more than adequate for the amount of traffic it sees.
It really isn't, which is why ADOT has done so much work upgrading it. The remaining 2 lane portions need to be 4 lanes, and Kingman and Wickenburg will eventually be in dire need of bypasses. I agree that going beyond that to a full on freeway is a waste of money though.
No. Clearly, the at-grade, still 2-lane-in-parts road between Phoenix and Las Vegas is adequate. (https://www.google.com/search?q=us+93+highway+crosses&client=safari&rls=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAoQ_AUoBGoVChMI752m0YzoxwIVSDOICh0SFQa-&biw=1916&bih=910#tbm=isch&q=us+93+fatal+crashes+arizona)
I think I-70 should be extended to Reno, NV too. US 50 just isn't good enough. There are just too many at grade intersections. :rolleyes:
Quote from: US 41 on September 09, 2015, 07:29:48 PM
I think I-70 should be extended to Reno, NV too. US 50 just isn't good enough. There are just too many at grade intersections. :rolleyes:
I hope that was sarcasm.
Look it is completely unnecessary to build interstates in the southwestern US. Upgrade US Highways to 4 lane highways if they need improved, not new interstates. I've been to the southwestern US. Interstates are completely unnecessary unless they are bypassing a city or town.
Canada is a similar situation where there is very little traffic. TC 1 is a 4 lane highway with at grades all the way from Calgary to the MB/ON Provincial line. In Ontario almost all of TC 17 is a 2 lane highway, which is perfectly fine, because I've drove on that road too. Freeways in southern Ontario and Quebec are necessary. It's the same as the US: Interstates are needed in the eastern US and in urban areas, but not across hundreds of miles of nothing but desert in Arizona.
Interstates have hurt small towns and small businesses more than anything. I strongly believe that if interstates were tolled from the beginning we would not have a funding problem for roads, small towns would still be thriving, and the railroads would be doing fairly well. However none of that is true. We have a huge problem with funding, the only businesses in small towns are McDonalds and gas stations out by the exit, and the railroads aren't doing particularly well. Interstates are not always a good thing as some of you seem to think. Just look at some of the towns along AZ 66 and tell me that I-40 was a good thing. It wasn't, not to those people and businesses.
Quote from: US 41 on September 10, 2015, 08:44:08 AM
Look it is completely unnecessary to build interstates in the southwestern US. Upgrade US Highways to 4 lane highways if they need improved, not new interstates. I've been to the southwestern US. Interstates are completely unnecessary unless they are bypassing a city or town.
Canada is a similar situation where there is very little traffic. TC 1 is a 4 lane highway with at grades all the way from Calgary to the MB/ON Provincial line. In Ontario almost all of TC 17 is a 2 lane highway, which is perfectly fine, because I've drove on that road too. Freeways in southern Ontario and Quebec are necessary. It's the same as the US: Interstates are needed in the eastern US and in urban areas, but not across hundreds of miles of nothing but desert in Arizona.
Interstates have hurt small towns and small businesses more than anything. I strongly believe that if interstates were tolled from the beginning we would not have a funding problem for roads, small towns would still be thriving, and the railroads would be doing fairly well. However none of that is true. We have a huge problem with funding, the only businesses in small towns are McDonalds and gas stations out by the exit, and the railroads aren't doing particularly well. Interstates are not always a good thing as some of you seem to think. Just look at some of the towns along AZ 66 and tell me that I-40 was a good thing. It wasn't, not to those people and businesses.
I hate toll roads, but completely agree that all interstates should be toll roads, we have to pay for them somehow, and since the powers in control of the money are incompetent, this seems to be the only way to fix the problem.
Quote from: US 41 on September 10, 2015, 08:44:08 AM
I strongly believe that if interstates were tolled from the beginning we would not have a funding problem for roads, small towns would still be thriving, and the railroads would be doing fairly well.
I don't follow the logic of toll roads keeping small towns on less efficient routes "thriving" or how railroads would be doing fairly well (I take it you're talking about passenger service? Freight rail is doing fairly well as is.). If I-40 was tolled, it's not like all that much traffic would divert to AZ 66.
Quote from: Rothman on September 10, 2015, 11:31:19 AM
Quote from: US 41 on September 10, 2015, 08:44:08 AM
I strongly believe that if interstates were tolled from the beginning we would not have a funding problem for roads, small towns would still be thriving, and the railroads would be doing fairly well.
I don't follow the logic of toll roads keeping small towns on less efficient routes "thriving" or how railroads would be doing fairly well (I take it you're talking about passenger service? Freight rail is doing fairly well as is.). If I-40 was tolled, it's not like all that much traffic would divert to AZ 66.
I-40 is 72.5 miles from Kingman to Seligman.
I-40 Toll (at 10 cents per mile)= $7.25
I-40 gas (30 mpg @ $2.50 per gal)= $6.05
I-40 Total= $13.30
AZ 66 is 87.3 miles from Kingman to Seligman.
AZ 66 Gas / Total= $7.28
Drivers in cars would save $6.02 on average by taking AZ 66 instead of I-40. I can guarantee that AZ 66 would see an increase in traffic. Semis would save even more money.
Quote from: US 41 on September 10, 2015, 11:55:13 AM
Quote from: Rothman on September 10, 2015, 11:31:19 AM
Quote from: US 41 on September 10, 2015, 08:44:08 AM
I strongly believe that if interstates were tolled from the beginning we would not have a funding problem for roads, small towns would still be thriving, and the railroads would be doing fairly well.
I don't follow the logic of toll roads keeping small towns on less efficient routes "thriving" or how railroads would be doing fairly well (I take it you're talking about passenger service? Freight rail is doing fairly well as is.). If I-40 was tolled, it's not like all that much traffic would divert to AZ 66.
I-40 is 72.5 miles from Kingman to Seligman.
I-40 Toll (at 10 cents per mile)= $7.25
I-40 gas (30 mpg @ $2.50 per gal)= $6.05
I-40 Total= $13.30
AZ 66 is 87.3 miles from Kingman to Seligman.
AZ 66 Gas / Total= $7.28
Drivers in cars would save $6.02 on average by taking AZ 66 instead of I-40. I can guarantee that AZ 66 would see an increase in traffic. Semis would save even more money.
Ummm....no. Any savings in gas would be burnt away by idling time from having more cars on an insufficient roadway. Unless you plan on spending money on widening AZ 66 to 4 lanes to handle the increased shunpiking, this would be a disaster.
Do you really want 53-inch semis going at 55 mph on two-lane highways with few passing lanes and increased chances for accidents??
Also...people are actually capable of getting off the Interstate and visiting these towns if they really want to, or if such a town provides an incentive.
Tolling existing Interstates just for the sake of privatization is a horrible idea, and flies in the face of equal representation. If you need additional revenue for expansion, there is already a decent solution: raise the gas tax. Especially now with gas prices plummeting below $2/gal in most places.
Interstate 11 is more than justified between Las Vegas and Phoenix by the need to connect two major metropolitan cities. The rest of it may be subject to debate, but not that segment....at least, not in my view.
Quote from: US 41 on September 10, 2015, 11:55:13 AM
I-40 is 72.5 miles from Kingman to Seligman.
I-40 Toll (at 10 cents per mile)= $7.25
I-40 gas (30 mpg @ $2.50 per gal)= $6.05
I-40 Total= $13.30
AZ 66 is 87.3 miles from Kingman to Seligman.
AZ 66 Gas / Total= $7.28
Drivers in cars would save $6.02 on average by taking AZ 66 instead of I-40. I can guarantee that AZ 66 would see an increase in traffic. Semis would save even more money.
Except that using AZ-66 takes longer...
I-40... 72.5 mi / 75 mph = 58 minutes
AZ-66... 87.3 mi / 55 mph = 1 hour 35 minutes
... so I guess the big question is, is saving about $6 worth the extra 37 minutes? Since most long-haul truckers are paid by the load, I'd say your last statement about semis saving money is incorrect.
Quote from: US 41 on September 09, 2015, 07:29:48 PM
I think I-70 should be extended to Reno, NV too. US 50 just isn't good enough. There are just too many at grade intersections. :rolleyes:
:clap:
Quote from: US 41 on September 10, 2015, 08:44:08 AM
Look it is completely unnecessary to build interstates in the southwestern US. Upgrade US Highways to 4 lane highways if they need improved, not new interstates. I've been to the southwestern US. Interstates are completely unnecessary unless they are bypassing a city or town.
Canada is a similar situation where there is very little traffic. TC 1 is a 4 lane highway with at grades all the way from Calgary to the MB/ON Provincial line. In Ontario almost all of TC 17 is a 2 lane highway, which is perfectly fine, because I've drove on that road too. Freeways in southern Ontario and Quebec are necessary. It's the same as the US: Interstates are needed in the eastern US and in urban areas, but not across hundreds of miles of nothing but desert in Arizona.
Interstates have hurt small towns and small businesses more than anything. I strongly believe that if interstates were tolled from the beginning we would not have a funding problem for roads, small towns would still be thriving, and the railroads would be doing fairly well. However none of that is true. We have a huge problem with funding, the only businesses in small towns are McDonalds and gas stations out by the exit, and the railroads aren't doing particularly well. Interstates are not always a good thing as some of you seem to think. Just look at some of the towns along AZ 66 and tell me that I-40 was a good thing. It wasn't, not to those people and businesses.
10,000 daily vehicles and 650 daily trucks on US 93 would disagree with you. By the way, the AADT on I-22 in Alabama is 12,400; I-5 over Siskyou Pass is 13,800; I-84 at Ontario is 8,400; I-49 south of Kansas City is 10,100; I-35 north of Kansas City around 12,000; I could go on but I don't think I need to: The difference between this desolate highway that you don't think needs investment, and several of our country's core interstates is about 1 car, in each direction, every 90 seconds.
As for the rural economies along the route, I think it's hard to say they're at peril. Kingman has survived quite well despite being bypassed by I-40. Wickenburg is an exurb of Phoenix. Boulder City is a suburb of Las Vegas. That leaves literally one other community — Wikieup — as a place that would be bypassed by I-11. Given its spacing about halfway between Kingman and Wickenburg, and given that Seligman and Ash Fork are communities about the same size that have survived, it's hard to believe it would be in peril by a freeway bypass.
Believe it or not, people actually
do live in this part of the country...
The comment about extending Interstate 70 westward belongs in Fictional Highways, not here. Let's get back to discussing Interstate 11.
Quote from: NickCPDX on September 10, 2015, 04:58:25 PM
Quote from: US 41 on September 10, 2015, 08:44:08 AM
Look it is completely unnecessary to build interstates in the southwestern US. Upgrade US Highways to 4 lane highways if they need improved, not new interstates. I've been to the southwestern US. Interstates are completely unnecessary unless they are bypassing a city or town.
Canada is a similar situation where there is very little traffic. TC 1 is a 4 lane highway with at grades all the way from Calgary to the MB/ON Provincial line. In Ontario almost all of TC 17 is a 2 lane highway, which is perfectly fine, because I've drove on that road too. Freeways in southern Ontario and Quebec are necessary. It's the same as the US: Interstates are needed in the eastern US and in urban areas, but not across hundreds of miles of nothing but desert in Arizona.
Interstates have hurt small towns and small businesses more than anything. I strongly believe that if interstates were tolled from the beginning we would not have a funding problem for roads, small towns would still be thriving, and the railroads would be doing fairly well. However none of that is true. We have a huge problem with funding, the only businesses in small towns are McDonalds and gas stations out by the exit, and the railroads aren't doing particularly well. Interstates are not always a good thing as some of you seem to think. Just look at some of the towns along AZ 66 and tell me that I-40 was a good thing. It wasn't, not to those people and businesses.
10,000 daily vehicles and 650 daily trucks on US 93 would disagree with you. By the way, the AADT on I-22 in Alabama is 12,400; I-5 over Siskyou Pass is 13,800; I-84 at Ontario is 8,400; I-49 south of Kansas City is 10,100; I-35 north of Kansas City around 12,000; I could go on but I don't think I need to: The difference between this desolate highway that you don't think needs investment, and several of our country's core interstates is about 1 car, in each direction, every 90 seconds.
As for the rural economies along the route, I think it's hard to say they're at peril. Kingman has survived quite well despite being bypassed by I-40. Wickenburg is an exurb of Phoenix. Boulder City is a suburb of Las Vegas. That leaves literally one other community – Wikieup – as a place that would be bypassed by I-11. Given its spacing about halfway between Kingman and Wickenburg, and given that Seligman and Ash Fork are communities about the same size that have survived, it's hard to believe it would be in peril by a freeway bypass.
Believe it or not, people actually do live in this part of the country…
It is always funny to me the "Interstates kill small economies" angle. People have been crying this for almost 60 years now. The truth to it is the same people will stop in those towns that used to be along US 66 as they do when they drive I-40, just now for every 1 car in 1955 there are about 4 in 2015. It breaks down simple:
When you drove into Ash Fork, AZ in 1955 on US 66, you stopped because you were hungry, you needed a restroom, your car needed gas or you needed lodging.
Right now if you are driving Interstate 40 through Ash Fork, AZ, you stop because you are hungry, you need a restroom, your car needs gas or you need lodging.
There is nothing overly exciting in any of the small towns along the whole US 66 that warrants a MUST STOP reaction (sorry Ash Fork, but I am talking small towns on any route bypassed by an interstate). Sure there were dinosaur parks and kiddie slides, but how many people really stopped at the roadside attractions? The old couple running the downtown sewing shop didn't see massive business in the US 66 days then no business when I-40 opened. Basically I am saying most of those small businesses on the old route were local businesses for local people. The main through traffic patronage was the same as it as always been: for gas, bathroom, food or sleep. Sure the vendors that provide those services have all changed, but that happens anyway, it's called economics. The only difference is the Interstate highway system actually brought more people to obtain those four things.
So bottom line, what's better for those little towns? 10,000 vehicles a day, most being 18 wheelers going through it's main streets, or a bypass that will bring 3 times the business they once had? Not to mention the road in rural areas having an upgrade so there aren't so many fatal accidents.
The Interstate Highway System has created so many more jobs and brought so much money to places that needed it. It has so helped this economy because truck routes that took weeks in the 1950s take only days now, and towns that had no economy are very thriving now because they were once small towns, but are now bedroom communities because the interstate shortens the distance making it viable to move to them.
I do love the common theme on this forum of people from other areas telling people in those areas you don't need a freeway because there isn't enough traffic, and complain that it's a waste of money that their state isn't even spending. :-D
Once again people: A hastily divided highway with no standards is not "just as good" as an interstate highway that has standards built into the design to ensure safety.
Quote from: NickCPDX on September 10, 2015, 04:58:25 PM
Believe it or not, people actually do live in this part of the country...
:clap:
Quote from: US 41 on September 10, 2015, 08:44:08 AM
Interstates are needed in the eastern US and in urban areas, but not across hundreds of miles of nothing but desert in Arizona.
Right, because there aren't any people or goods that need to quickly travel across that desert from shipping ports in California.
I
live in the southwestern U.S. Interstates are completely necessary here.
Quote from: pumpkineater2 on September 10, 2015, 07:35:57 PM
Quote from: NickCPDX on September 10, 2015, 04:58:25 PM
Believe it or not, people actually do live in this part of the country...
:clap:
Quote from: US 41 on September 10, 2015, 08:44:08 AM
Interstates are needed in the eastern US and in urban areas, but not across hundreds of miles of nothing but desert in Arizona.
Right, because there aren't any people or goods that need to quickly travel across that desert from shipping ports in California.
I live in the southwestern U.S. Interstates are completely necessary here.
True that. My aunt lives in Sedona (20 miles south of Flagstaff), and I-11 is needed through Flagstaff. There's no way to go north via interstate, and I-11 is needed there. No way that my aunt is driving to Kingman just to head to Vegas.
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 10, 2015, 08:43:41 PM
True that. My aunt lives in Sedona (20 miles south of Flagstaff), and I-11 is needed through Flagstaff. There's no way to go north via interstate, and I-11 is needed there. No way that my aunt is driving to Kingman just to head to Vegas.
What??? :confused:
I love all the comments from people in other parts of the country telling those of us who actually live and travel here regularly what roads we do and do not need...
:hmmm:
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 10, 2015, 08:43:41 PM
Quote from: pumpkineater2 on September 10, 2015, 07:35:57 PM
Quote from: NickCPDX on September 10, 2015, 04:58:25 PM
Believe it or not, people actually do live in this part of the country...
:clap:
Quote from: US 41 on September 10, 2015, 08:44:08 AM
Interstates are needed in the eastern US and in urban areas, but not across hundreds of miles of nothing but desert in Arizona.
Right, because there aren't any people or goods that need to quickly travel across that desert from shipping ports in California.
I live in the southwestern U.S. Interstates are completely necessary here.
True that. My aunt lives in Sedona (20 miles south of Flagstaff), and I-11 is needed through Flagstaff. There's no way to go north via interstate, and I-11 is needed there. No way that my aunt is driving to Kingman just to head to Vegas.
One of us clearly needs to look at a map, and I don't think it's me.
Quote from: kkt on September 11, 2015, 02:38:07 AM
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 10, 2015, 08:43:41 PM
Quote from: pumpkineater2 on September 10, 2015, 07:35:57 PM
Quote from: NickCPDX on September 10, 2015, 04:58:25 PM
Believe it or not, people actually do live in this part of the country...
:clap:
Quote from: US 41 on September 10, 2015, 08:44:08 AM
Interstates are needed in the eastern US and in urban areas, but not across hundreds of miles of nothing but desert in Arizona.
Right, because there aren't any people or goods that need to quickly travel across that desert from shipping ports in California.
I live in the southwestern U.S. Interstates are completely necessary here.
True that. My aunt lives in Sedona (20 miles south of Flagstaff), and I-11 is needed through Flagstaff. There's no way to go north via interstate, and I-11 is needed there. No way that my aunt is driving to Kingman just to head to Vegas.
One of us clearly needs to look at a map, and I don't think it's me.
Sorry I-17, I forgot you exist (nor do I care). :crazy:
I actually said earlier in this thread that I would be in favor of Arizona making US 93 a 4 lane highway from I-40 to Wickenburg and building interstate quality bypasses around any small towns it may pass through. I just think it a waste of money to build overpasses, frontage roads, and interchanges in the middle of no where.
Quote from: US 41 on September 11, 2015, 11:29:11 AM
I actually said earlier in this thread that I would be in favor of Arizona making US 93 a 4 lane highway from I-40 to Wickenburg and building interstate quality bypasses around any small towns it may pass through. I just think it a waste of money to build overpasses, frontage roads, and interchanges in the middle of no where.
Then you will thoroughly enjoy Exit 106 - Nothing.
Quote from: NickCPDX on September 11, 2015, 02:45:05 PM
Quote from: US 41 on September 11, 2015, 11:29:11 AM
I actually said earlier in this thread that I would be in favor of Arizona making US 93 a 4 lane highway from I-40 to Wickenburg and building interstate quality bypasses around any small towns it may pass through. I just think it a waste of money to build overpasses, frontage roads, and interchanges in the middle of no where.
Then you will thoroughly enjoy Exit 106 - Nothing.
Haha. No kidding. The road going into Nothing is a dirt road. Nothing describes the area very well. Nothing is the only something on a road that has nothing on it for hundreds of miles. I'm pretty sure that interchange will make that intersection so much safer for the five cars that will use it a day. We need more interchanges for dirt roads, NOT!!!
What is wrong with having interchanges at dirt roads?
I-17 has 6 interchanges at dirt roads whose surrounding areas can also be described as nothing.
Quote from: pumpkineater2 on September 11, 2015, 11:34:07 PM
What is wrong with having interchanges at dirt roads?
I-17 has 6 interchanges at dirt roads whose surrounding areas can also be described as nothing.
Interchanges are rather expensive to build. For dirt roads whose surrounding areas can be described as nothing, the cost per car using the interchange becomes insanely high. Usually these areas have low enough traffic on the highway that the traffic on the dirt road could easily be accommodated by a simple intersection with virtually no impact on safety and with much lower cost.
Quote from: pumpkineater2 on September 10, 2015, 07:35:57 PM
Quote from: NickCPDX on September 10, 2015, 04:58:25 PM
Believe it or not, people actually do live in this part of the country...
:clap:
Quote from: US 41 on September 10, 2015, 08:44:08 AM
Interstates are needed in the eastern US and in urban areas, but not across hundreds of miles of nothing but desert in Arizona.
Right, because there aren't any people or goods that need to quickly travel across that desert from shipping ports in California.
I live in the southwestern U.S. Interstates are completely necessary here.
Not to mention, pumpkineater2, that the two of us live in a metropolitan area of some 4 million people that has been described as a "baby Los Angeles."
Seems there are some people back east that think Phoenix still has trouble with bandits robbing the stagecoaches. :D
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on September 10, 2015, 05:25:34 PM
Once again people: A hastily divided highway with no standards is not "just as good" as an interstate highway that has standards built into the design to ensure safety.
But we've already seen Arizona doing divided highways on US 93, AZ 85, AZ 87, and AZ 347, and they do a good job of engineering them with proper turn lanes, limited crossovers, good sightlines, etc.. Those upgrades have made huge differences in the safety records of those roads, as well as improving the levels of service. If they were doing full freeway conversions, some of those projects would never have been done due to a lack of funding, and many more people would be dying. It's not like they do a half-assed Missouri-style conversion where a new roadbed is built and the old one is left unchanged except for new striping. Once the new roadbed is built, ADOT shifts both directions of traffic to it, then rebuilds the old one to current standards before fully opening it as a divided highway.
Quote from: dfwmapper on September 12, 2015, 07:02:15 PMIt's not like they do a half-assed Missouri-style conversion where a new roadbed is built and the old one is left unchanged except for new striping.
Example please.
Look at US 36 west of Stewartsville. Eastbound lanes are straight, flat, and have a proper right shoulder. Westbound lanes have some random curves for no reason, go up and down the hills a bit, and have no right shoulder.
Quote from: hm insulators on September 12, 2015, 03:53:45 PM
Seems there are some people back east that think Phoenix still has trouble with bandits robbing the stagecoaches. :D
Nah, the only thing we have to worry about in Phoenix is getting shot on the freeway. X-(
It's funny to hear the "no freeways are needed in the Southwest" and how rural it is. Yet You have very large cities like Phoenix, Los Angeles Las Vegas San Diego ect.
I agree I-11 is needed between Phoenix and Las Vegas, North to Reno, doesn't seem to be necessary, but if that much growth is expected, it could be a long term thing.
Quote from: Interstate Trav on September 13, 2015, 01:02:26 PM
It's funny to hear the "no freeways are needed in the Southwest" and how rural it is. Yet You have very large cities like Phoenix, Los Angeles Las Vegas San Diego ect.
Although I agree the Southwest needs interstates, the mere existence of the cities you listed made me smile: They're quite far apart from each other and the only missing connection is Phoenix - Las Vegas. :D
Interstate 11 will be much beneficial for me going to Las Vegas from Dallas, TX
California needs interstates. Period. They are almost like an eastern state (at least the western portion is). Rural AZ, NM, UT, NV, CO, and western Texas (all of what I consider the SW) do not. As mentioned before interstates in western states need to be built through or around cities. I don't think interstates should built through the middle of no where. I'm okay with 4 lane highways. I feel like like I'm speaking a different language than some of you.
Look at Australia. They have freeways in the eastern part (where most of their urban areas are) of their country and 2 lane highways in the western part (the middle of no where), except around Perth where there are freeways. They're the same as us, only we think spending billions of dollars on something that was already perfectly fine is okay. There's a reason our country is 18 trillion dollars in debt. It's called spending money on stupid stuff that isn't needed.
BTW They wouldn't be posting 70 mph (75 in Texas) speed limits on 2 lane roads in the southwest if they didn't think it was safe to do so. Most of the time the speed limits are lower than what they really should be anyways. There's also a reason speed limits are faster in the southwestern US (really the west in general minus CA, OR, and WA). It's because there aren't as many people out there.
Quote from: US 41 on September 13, 2015, 09:01:45 PM
California needs interstates. Period. They are almost like an eastern state (at least the western portion is). Rural AZ, NM, UT, NV, CO, and western Texas (all of what I consider the SW) do not. As mentioned before interstates in western states need to be built through or around cities. I don't think interstates should built through the middle of no where. I'm okay with 4 lane highways. I feel like like I'm speaking a different language than some of you.
Look at Australia. They have freeways in the eastern part (where most of their urban areas are) of their country and 2 lane highways in the western part (the middle of no where), except around Perth where there are freeways. They're the same as us, only we think spending billions of dollars on something that was already perfectly fine is okay. There's a reason our country is 18 trillion dollars in debt. It's called spending money on stupid stuff that isn't needed.
BTW They wouldn't be posting 70 mph (75 in Texas) speed limits on 2 lane roads in the southwest if they didn't think it was safe to do so. Most of the time the speed limits are lower than what they really should be anyways. There's also a reason speed limits are faster in the southwestern US (really the west in general minus CA, OR, and WA). It's because there aren't as many people out there.
The size of Australia is similar the lower 48.. But 1/10 of the population, and concentrated on the coasts. I agree that many areas would be fine with divided highways.
But look at FL. Many of the US higways were dualized in the 1950s and 60s and the roads were like interstates. Through tree farms, swamps and orange groves. But now many are clogged suburban roads with a myriad of traffic lights ( eg us 27 near Clermont ) Some are still like that today ( eg US 27 south of Lake Okeechobee). Florida's population was 4 million in 1940, now nearly 20 million.
Quote from: US 41 on September 13, 2015, 09:01:45 PM
California needs interstates. Period. They are almost like an eastern state (at least the western portion is). Rural AZ, NM, UT, NV, CO, and western Texas (all of what I consider the SW) do not. As mentioned before interstates in western states need to be built through or around cities. I don't think interstates should built through the middle of no where. I'm okay with 4 lane highways. I feel like like I'm speaking a different language than some of you.
So you're saying that I-10 between Phoenix and Tuscson, which is 6 lanes in some places, should have only been constructed as four lanes, with at-grade intersections at all crossings, with the amount of traffic it sees?
Quote from: US 41 on September 13, 2015, 09:01:45 PM
Look at Australia. They have freeways in the eastern part (where most of their urban areas are) of their country and 2 lane highways in the western part (the middle of no where), except around Perth where there are freeways. They're the same as us, only we think spending billions of dollars on something that was already perfectly fine is okay. There's a reason our country is 18 trillion dollars in debt. It's called spending money on stupid stuff that isn't needed.
But unlike Australia, the middle of the US has many large cities, and with lots of population spread out in rural areas around them. Also, I doubt that the construction of any of the interstates in the southwestern United states contributed significantly/at all to our atrocious national debt.
Quote from: US 41 on September 13, 2015, 09:01:45 PM
There's also a reason speed limits are faster in the southwestern US (really the west in general minus CA, OR, and WA). It's because there aren't as many people out there.
Are you sure it isn't just because the contours of the landscape allow for road designs that support higher speeds?
Quote from: US 41 on September 13, 2015, 09:01:45 PM
California needs interstates. Period. They are almost like an eastern state (at least the western portion is). Rural AZ, NM, UT, NV, CO, and western Texas (all of what I consider the SW) do not. As mentioned before interstates in western states need to be built through or around cities. I don't think interstates should built through the middle of no where. I'm okay with 4 lane highways. I feel like like I'm speaking a different language than some of you.
I'm going to go ahead and take a page out of the Autobahn's book, and say that high speed limits should be the primary goal here (besides the movement of cargo). You can't achieve high speeds
and be guaranteed some degree of safety without grade-separated junctions. Freeways allow fast, efficient
and safe movement of cargo, something that isn't necessarily achievable with at-grade highways.
Also, California is hardly the only western state that needs Interstates. I-5 between BC and Tijuana is arguably more important than the 95 back east, given how few alternatives there are for traversing between the two locations (not to mention locations in between -- outside of California, Seattle and Portland are very large cities which would be inoperable without their interstates).
Quote from: jakeroot on September 14, 2015, 02:09:07 AM
Quote from: US 41 on September 13, 2015, 09:01:45 PM
California needs interstates. Period. They are almost like an eastern state (at least the western portion is). Rural AZ, NM, UT, NV, CO, and western Texas (all of what I consider the SW) do not. As mentioned before interstates in western states need to be built through or around cities. I don't think interstates should built through the middle of no where. I'm okay with 4 lane highways. I feel like like I'm speaking a different language than some of you.
I'm going to go ahead and take a page out of the Autobahn's book, and say that high speed limits should be the primary goal here (besides the movement of cargo). You can't achieve high speeds and be guaranteed some degree of safety without grade-separated junctions. Freeways allow fast, efficient and safe movement of cargo, something that isn't necessarily achievable with at-grade highways.
Also, California is hardly the only western state that needs Interstates. I-5 between BC and Tijuana is arguably more important than the 95 back east, given how few alternatives there are for traversing between the two locations (not to mention locations in between -- outside of California, Seattle and Portland are very large cities which would be inoperable without their interstates).
Best alt I-5 gets is CA 905 between the Mexico Int. Line and I-805, nothing between I-805 and I-10 at the East LA Int., US 101 between I-10 and Olympia, nothing between Olympia and WA 99 at Fife, then WA 99 again until WA 20 to WA 9 in Seedro-Woolley, and WA 539 in Bellingham. I-5 has suitable alternates, but they can be far away (example: I-5 to US 101 in the Bay Area - you have to take 90 miles of I-80 between Sacramento and San Francisco).
I-95 on the other hand has iffy alternates too because US 1 drifts away from I-95 in the South and is a high traffic corridor north of Philadelphia.
US 101 is not really a suitable alternative all that way. Google Richardson Grove. Also look at California coast north of Eureka, and Oregon and Washington. A lot of the way it's a twisty 2-lane road. Scenic and fun to drive in a car but definitely no substitute for an interstate for trucks.
North of Sacramento, CA 99 to US 97, then a gap, then US 97 north makes the closest thing to an alternate, but it's way inland and across a mountain range where the passes are fairly regularly closed by weather in the winter.
Quote from: noelbotevera on September 14, 2015, 04:04:28 PM
Best alt I-5 gets is CA 905 between the Mexico Int. Line and I-805, nothing between I-805 and I-10 at the East LA Int.,
The alternative to I-5 from San Diego to Los Angeles - while not immediately direct or parallel - seems to be I-15 to Route 91 to Route 71 to Route 60. (Alternatively, as a long-distance bypass, 15-91-71-57-210 works to avoid all but a sliver of LA itself)
Quote from: kkt on September 14, 2015, 06:11:35 PM
US 101 is not really a suitable alternative all that way. Google Richardson Grove. Also look at California coast north of Eureka, and Oregon and Washington. A lot of the way it's a twisty 2-lane road. Scenic and fun to drive in a car but definitely no substitute for an interstate for trucks.
North of Sacramento, CA 99 to US 97, then a gap, then US 97 north makes the closest thing to an alternate, but it's way inland and across a mountain range where the passes are fairly regularly closed by weather in the winter.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist1/d1projects/richardson_grove/
Tons of links to explore this long-delayed project are available, including the 2001 freeway alternative.
Rick
Nobody's saying the west needs to be criss-crossed with a dozen more interstates. But it's reasonable to say that an I-5 alternate for freight from Portland to Phoenix is warranted. It's reasonable to say I-9 should be built-out from Red Bluff to Bakersfield. It's reasonable to extend I-40 to I-5. It *might* be reasonable to build a freeway from Winnemucca to Boise if the states really really really want it and will help pay. And it's reasonable to say that these projects won't get cheaper over time so better to start them now, since we couldn't do them in the 1960s.
Quote from: nexus73 on September 14, 2015, 06:51:07 PM
Quote from: kkt on September 14, 2015, 06:11:35 PM
US 101 is not really a suitable alternative all that way. Google Richardson Grove. Also look at California coast north of Eureka, and Oregon and Washington. A lot of the way it's a twisty 2-lane road. Scenic and fun to drive in a car but definitely no substitute for an interstate for trucks.
North of Sacramento, CA 99 to US 97, then a gap, then US 97 north makes the closest thing to an alternate, but it's way inland and across a mountain range where the passes are fairly regularly closed by weather in the winter.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist1/d1projects/richardson_grove/
Tons of links to explore this long-delayed project are available, including the 2001 freeway alternative.
Rick
A bypass is the only solution for Richardson Grove. 101 there is a small, winding road that's perfect for a road through a state park. It just needs a route around it for through traffic. Taking out a tree here and a tree there is never going to make it a good route for trucks, but it will make it a much less good state park.
Quote from: NickCPDX on September 14, 2015, 08:04:47 PM
Nobody's saying the west needs to be criss-crossed with a dozen more interstates. But it's reasonable to say that an I-5 alternate for freight from Portland to Phoenix is warranted. It's reasonable to say I-9 should be built-out from Red Bluff to Bakersfield. It's reasonable to extend I-40 to I-5. It *might* be reasonable to build a freeway from Winnemucca to Boise if the states really really really want it and will help pay. And it's reasonable to say that these projects won't get cheaper over time so better to start them now, since we couldn't do them in the 1960s.
Not even that many. I-9 from Wheeler Ridge to Sacramento. North of Sacramento, not really needed. Winnemucca to Boise, how much traffic is there on US 95? Portland to Phoenix? What's the freight market there?
Possibly CA 14 and US 395 from Santa Clarita to Reno. North of Reno not really needed. In the long term, the intermountain west does not have resources for too much more growth. They're running out of water.
I-11, I guess they got Congress to say so, so Phoenix to Las Vegas. But it doesn't need to go north of Las Vegas, and it doesn't need to be a big fishhook around Phoenix to Tuscon -- let Arizona make its beltways state routes.
Is I-9 really going to replace SR 99? (when the whole thing is a freeway)
Quote from: silverback1065 on September 16, 2015, 07:47:05 PM
Is I-9 really going to replace SR 99? (when the whole thing is a freeway)
Maybe. Caltrans was pretty gung-ho on the idea about 5 years ago but as they studied what it would take to bring CA-99 up to Interstate standards (vertical clearances, shoulder widths, etc), I think the desire to pursue the conversion has cooled quite a bit.
Why not i-7?
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the necessity of I-11 overall.
If I-11 is built along a new route to the Mexican border I think having it roughly parallel AZ 80 from Benson to Douglas / Agua Prieta would make a lot more sense than having it go to Nogales. It would make a slightly better trade route from Nevada / Arizona to places like Cd. Chihuahua, Torreon, Cd. Durango, and Saltillo.
A little off topic, but can American (and Canadian) truck drivers deliver stuff in Mexico past the free zone? Is there a process for temporarily importing semis into Mexico similar to car permits? I know the US is now allowing Mexican trucks on the roads.
Quote from: US 41 on September 16, 2015, 11:38:32 PM
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the necessity of I-11 overall.
If I-11 is built along a new route to the Mexican border I think having it roughly parallel AZ 80 from Benson to Douglas / Agua Prieta would make a lot more sense than having it go to Nogales. It would make a slightly better trade route from Nevada / Arizona to places like Cd. Chihuahua, Torreon, Cd. Durango, and Saltillo.
A little off topic, but can American (and Canadian) truck drivers deliver stuff in Mexico past the free zone? Is there a process for temporarily importing semis into Mexico similar to car permits? I know the US is now allowing Mexican trucks on the roads.
I believe both countries allow you to go only 25 miles north/south of the border for trucks. That's why AZ 289 is a popular truck route - it's where a ton of warehouses are and the last chance to get a truck border crossing to return to Nogales. It's also south of the 25 mile cap.
I found the answer.
QuoteMexican truckers will be able to carry goods deep into the United States, and vice versa, under a deal signed Wednesday in Mexico City to keep a 17-year-old promise.
QuoteA driver bringing goods from Canada or Mexico may transport those goods to one or several locations in the United States, and may pick up goods from one or several U.S. locations for delivery to Canada or Mexico, but the driver may not load, haul, or deliver a cargo that is both picked up and dropped off at a destination within the United States.
Example: If you're a Mexican you can take a load from San Luis Potosi to Duluth. The driver can also pick up a load in Duluth (or any other American town) that has a destination of Mazatlan.
It is illegal for the Mexican driver to pick up a load in Duluth and deliver it to San Antonio. The load must have a destination in Mexico. (The same rules also apply to Canadians).
*An additional law for Mexicans is that they must be able to read and speak English to operate a semi in the US. Whether or not Mexico has a similar law for Americans (knowing Spanish) is something I haven't been able to find an answer to.
The same rules for deliveries also apply to American truck drivers in Canada and Mexico.
Quote from: myosh_tino on September 16, 2015, 10:21:49 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on September 16, 2015, 07:47:05 PM
Is I-9 really going to replace SR 99? (when the whole thing is a freeway)
Maybe. Caltrans was pretty gung-ho on the idea about 5 years ago but as they studied what it would take to bring CA-99 up to Interstate standards (vertical clearances, shoulder widths, etc), I think the desire to pursue the conversion has cooled quite a bit.
The focus appears to be to convert existing four-lane expressway segments to six-lane freeway. A significant project near Madera will result in elimination of a lengthy expressway segment with at-grade intersections. As these projects are completed, I think political leaders will again revisit the cost of upgrading other sections of SR 99 to Interstate standards. As to whether SR 99 will become I-7 or I-9, who knows. The state is evidently in no hurry to rename SR 905 as I-905 and SR 15 to I-15 despite having prior AASHTO approval. SR 210 is another example of non conversion. This is why SR 58 (as opposed to some future extension of I-40 if/when SR 58 meets modern Interstate standards) will probably be with us for a long time to come regardless of freeway improvements between Barstow and Bakersfield ... unless politics come into play.
Back on topic of I-11...
Seems like some support has built for eventually extending I-11 north from Las Vegas.
House panel backs northern extension of Interstate 11 (http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/traffic-transportation/house-panel-backs-northern-extension-interstate-11) (
Las Vegas Review Journal, 10/22/2015)
Quote
The House Transportation Committee approved legislation Thursday that could pave the way for construction of a highway directly linking Las Vegas and Reno.
The measure was included in a broader highway funding bill that would spend up to $325 billion on transportation projects over the next six years – provided lawmakers can find a way to pay for the final three years.
The bill offers no direct funding for the proposed I-11 northern extension, but does establish the project as a priority – a designation welcomed by Nevada lawmakers who say it will eventually lead to federal funding. Reps. Cresent Hardy, R-Nev., and Dina Titus, D-Nev., who serve on the committee, supported the designation.
...
Similar language is included in the Senate version of the bill, making it more likely that the designation will be included in any final version of the bill that Congress might eventually approve.
By no means is this final, but sure looks like momentum is gaining towards making I-11 more of a long-haul route.
Quote from: roadfro on October 26, 2015, 04:43:11 AM
By no means is this final, but sure looks like momentum is gaining towards making I-11 more of a long-haul route.
Now if we could just get some traction in your friendly northern neighbor.
Here is my two cents: In Las Vegas, I would have Interstate 11 follow the existing Interstate 515/US 93-95 corridor. Once Interstate 11 is complete between Las Vegas and Wickenburg, I would truncate the US 93 designation to Interstate 15's exit 64 north of Las Vegas. As for Interstate 11 going beyond Las Vegas, I would regulate that to Fictional Highways, because to me it seems less likely to be constructed than the Las Vegas to Phoenix route.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 03, 2015, 04:24:42 PM
Here is my two cents: In Las Vegas, I would have Interstate 11 follow the existing Interstate 515/US 93-95 corridor. Once Interstate 11 is complete between Las Vegas and Wickenburg, I would truncate the US 93 designation to Interstate 15's exit 64 north of Las Vegas. As for Interstate 11 going beyond Las Vegas, I would regulate that to Fritz Owl, because to me it seems less likely to be constructed than the Las Vegas to Phoenix route.
Fixed
Fritzional Highways
A map from a Pima County webpage pertain to a proposal to extend I-11 to Tucson shows it ending at I-19 rather than I-10. Another freeway is shown in south Tucson connecting I-19 with I-10 and it is numbered Interstate 510.
http://webcms.pima.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_6/Image/News%20-%20Work/1307%20July%20News/130813%20Pima%20County%20supports%20study%20of%20interstate%20highway%20link.jpg
http://webcms.pima.gov/cms/One.aspx?pageId=40775
Quote from: FreewayDan on November 04, 2015, 10:06:22 PM
A map from a Pima County webpage pertain to a proposal to extend I-11 to Tucson shows it ending at I-19 rather than I-10. Another freeway is shown in south Tucson connecting I-19 with I-10 and it is numbered Interstate 510.
http://webcms.pima.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_6/Image/News%20-%20Work/1307%20July%20News/130813%20Pima%20County%20supports%20study%20of%20interstate%20highway%20link.jpg
http://webcms.pima.gov/cms/One.aspx?pageId=40775
Why not 219?
Quote from: FreewayDan on November 04, 2015, 10:06:22 PM
A map from a Pima County webpage pertain to a proposal to extend I-11 to Tucson shows it ending at I-19 rather than I-10. Another freeway is shown in south Tucson connecting I-19 with I-10 and it is numbered Interstate 510.
http://webcms.pima.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_6/Image/News%20-%20Work/1307%20July%20News/130813%20Pima%20County%20supports%20study%20of%20interstate%20highway%20link.jpg
http://webcms.pima.gov/cms/One.aspx?pageId=40775
In the conceptual map, I wonder why they do not attempt to have I-11 and I-510 tie into each other at the same interchange. It seems like that would allow those using I-11 to avoid downtown Tucson to reconnect with I-10 east of Tucson via the I-510 connector as a smooth transition.
Quote from: SD Mapman on November 04, 2015, 10:21:20 PM
Quote from: FreewayDan on November 04, 2015, 10:06:22 PM
A map from a Pima County webpage pertain to a proposal to extend I-11 to Tucson shows it ending at I-19 rather than I-10. Another freeway is shown in south Tucson connecting I-19 with I-10 and it is numbered Interstate 510.
http://webcms.pima.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_6/Image/News%20-%20Work/1307%20July%20News/130813%20Pima%20County%20supports%20study%20of%20interstate%20highway%20link.jpg
http://webcms.pima.gov/cms/One.aspx?pageId=40775
Why not 219?
Or I-610 or I-810?
Quote from: andy3175 on November 04, 2015, 11:39:10 PM
Quote from: FreewayDan on November 04, 2015, 10:06:22 PM
A map from a Pima County webpage pertain to a proposal to extend I-11 to Tucson shows it ending at I-19 rather than I-10. Another freeway is shown in south Tucson connecting I-19 with I-10 and it is numbered Interstate 510.
http://webcms.pima.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_6/Image/News%20-%20Work/1307%20July%20News/130813%20Pima%20County%20supports%20study%20of%20interstate%20highway%20link.jpg
http://webcms.pima.gov/cms/One.aspx?pageId=40775
In the conceptual map, I wonder why they do not attempt to have I-11 and I-510 tie into each other at the same interchange. It seems like that would allow those using I-11 to avoid downtown Tucson to reconnect with I-10 east of Tucson via the I-510 connector as a smooth transition.
If you look closely, you can see that the intent is to take I-11 all the way down to Mexico via a ridiculous overlap with I-19.
Quote from: vdeane on November 05, 2015, 03:31:05 PM
Quote from: andy3175 on November 04, 2015, 11:39:10 PM
Quote from: FreewayDan on November 04, 2015, 10:06:22 PM
A map from a Pima County webpage pertain to a proposal to extend I-11 to Tucson shows it ending at I-19 rather than I-10. Another freeway is shown in south Tucson connecting I-19 with I-10 and it is numbered Interstate 510.
http://webcms.pima.gov/UserFiles/Servers/Server_6/Image/News%20-%20Work/1307%20July%20News/130813%20Pima%20County%20supports%20study%20of%20interstate%20highway%20link.jpg
http://webcms.pima.gov/cms/One.aspx?pageId=40775
In the conceptual map, I wonder why they do not attempt to have I-11 and I-510 tie into each other at the same interchange. It seems like that would allow those using I-11 to avoid downtown Tucson to reconnect with I-10 east of Tucson via the I-510 connector as a smooth transition.
If you look closely, you can see that the intent is to take I-11 all the way down to Mexico via a ridiculous overlap with I-19.
Yeah, that would be pointless. If I-11 wanted to reach a border it should be at Sonoyta, not duplexed with I-19.
Or I-11 could just end at Gila Bend and call it a day.
Given that the whole point of taking it to a border is so that freight trucks don't need to do complicated things like "turn onto I-11 from I-19", they probably want to match up with the MX 15D corridor.
If I-11 was to run to Nogales would AZDOT convert the metric signs into standard (American) signs?
Quote from: US 41 on November 06, 2015, 02:48:27 PM
If I-11 was to run to Nogales would AZDOT convert the metric signs into standard (American) signs?
I thought ADOT was already planning to convert the I-19 signs back to American units...
Quote from: vdeane on November 06, 2015, 01:03:49 PM
Given that the whole point of taking it to a border is so that freight trucks don't need to do complicated things like "turn onto I-11 from I-19", they probably want to match up with the MX 15D corridor.
I thought the whole point was having an interstate bypass of Phoenix, to relieve I-10.
Quote from: roadfro on November 06, 2015, 03:44:24 PM
Quote from: US 41 on November 06, 2015, 02:48:27 PM
If I-11 was to run to Nogales would AZDOT convert the metric signs into standard (American) signs?
I thought ADOT was already planning to convert the I-19 signs back to American units...
It's pretty much in limbo right now due to local opposition.
Quote from: kkt on November 06, 2015, 06:47:52 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 06, 2015, 01:03:49 PM
Given that the whole point of taking it to a border is so that freight trucks don't need to do complicated things like "turn onto I-11 from I-19", they probably want to match up with the MX 15D corridor.
I thought the whole point was having an interstate bypass of Phoenix, to relieve I-10.
I-11 has been hyped on by the Canamex crowd for a long time now. Though why would a bypass of Phoenix need to go all the way to Tucson? Traffic counts wouldn't seem to demand it.
Phoenix and Tucson are going to keep growing rapidly.
Quote from: hm insulators on November 18, 2015, 12:57:24 PM
Phoenix and Tucson are going to keep growing rapidly.
Right up until they stop allowing new water service connections.
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politics/2015/12/05/highway-bill-gives-millions-more-arizona-paves-way-interstate-11/76796138/
QuoteArizona will receive an additional $380 million in federal highway and transit funds over the next five years under legislation passed by Congress on Thursday.
The funding is considered vital in providing state and local officials in Arizona the certainty to plan and execute large transportation projects. Besides the increased money, the legislation includes language by Sen. John McCain and Rep. Martha McSally that would pave the way for establishing the Sonoran Corridor. And it includes language Rep. Paul Gosar introduced as a separate bill in the House regarding the future Interstate 11.
McCain, who co-sponsored a Senate bill including the I-11 language, said the two provisions would help Arizona become a "key part of an international trade route that reaches all the way to the southern border." ...
The Sonoran Corridor would create an alternative route to allow hundreds of thousands of freight vehicles traveling through the Mariposa Port of Entry in Nogales to avoid having to pass through Tucson traffic to reach the major trade routes using I-10. The future I-11 would extend from Arizona's southern border through Phoenix to Las Vegas and north through Nevada.
http://www.yourwestvalley.com/nation_world/article_690c7cac-9adf-11e5-b5d8-a7c091752953.html
QuoteThe designation of two high priority Arizona transportation corridors in the five-year transportation bill approved by Congress represents a step forward for the planned Interstate 11 and the Sonoran Corridor in Tucson and the promise of both to boost Arizona's economy, according to the Arizona Department of Transportation.
The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, or FAST Act, formally designates Interstate 11 throughout Arizona. It states that the I-11 corridor will generally follow Interstate 19 from Nogales to Tucson, Interstate 10 from Tucson to Phoenix, and US 93 from Wickenburg to the Nevada state line.
From there, the Interstate 11 corridor extends north through Nevada, and is designated as an interstate highway north of Las Vegas, through Reno, connecting to Interstate 80.
"Interstate 11 is part of Arizona's Key Commerce Corridors plan that connects our state to regional and international markets while opening up new opportunities for mobility, job growth and economic competitiveness," ADOT Director John Halikowski said. "In addition to the formal designation of I-11 and the Sonoran Corridor, having a five-year plan offers the long-term predictability we have been fighting for and helps ADOT better plan, build and sustain a transportation system that improves the quality of life in our growing state." ...
Interstate 11 received a congressional designation from Phoenix to Las Vegas in 2012 under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act. The FAST Act designation of Interstate 11, along with the Sonoran Corridor in southern Arizona, does not include funding, but makes the corridors eligible to be funded, along with other high-priority corridors throughout the nation. ...
ADOT is beginning work on a Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement covering the area between Nogales and Wickenburg. At the end of this three-year study, a preferred corridor alignment will be chosen, along with a preferred mode of transportation for accommodating future traffic needs from Nogales to Wickenburg.
The Sonoran Corridor will run along the planned State Route 410 in Pima County, connecting I-19 and I-10 by passing south of Tucson International Airport.
At 16 miles, the Sonoran Corridor is expected to shorten the average truck driving time by 20 minutes for shipments moving between Mexico and points to the east and provide an estimated $30,000 in total truck cost savings per day. It will enhance connections with other major interstate highways along with established routes and ports of entry to Mexico, Arizona's major partner for trade and commerce. These daily time savings add up to tremendous overall savings along these major trade corridors. The Sonoran Corridor will be located within a planned aerospace, defense and technology business and research park.
So we're closer to getting I-11 between Phoenix and Las Vegas being fully built out...eventually. North of Vegas is another story, but it would be nice to drive to Phoenix nonstop one day. Hopefully I can do it at least once in my lifetime!
Quote from: Henry on December 07, 2015, 11:19:06 AM
it would be nice to drive to Phoenix nonstop one day. Hopefully I can do it at least once in my lifetime!
It doesn't need to be an Interstate to be able to do this.
Quote from: NE2 on December 07, 2015, 07:56:34 PM
Quote from: Henry on December 07, 2015, 11:19:06 AM
it would be nice to drive to Phoenix nonstop one day. Hopefully I can do it at least once in my lifetime!
It doesn't need to be an Interstate to be able to do this.
And being an interstate doesn't magically make this happen, either. Try driving I-5 through Seattle without stopping sometime when it's not 3-6 AM.
Quote from: kkt on December 07, 2015, 08:44:25 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 07, 2015, 07:56:34 PM
Quote from: Henry on December 07, 2015, 11:19:06 AM
it would be nice to drive to Phoenix nonstop one day. Hopefully I can do it at least once in my lifetime!
It doesn't need to be an Interstate to be able to do this.
And being an interstate doesn't magically make this happen, either. Try driving I-5 through Seattle without stopping sometime when it's not 3-6 AM.
I have
never driven straight into downtown Seattle without traffic.
Quote from: jakeroot on December 08, 2015, 01:27:29 AM
Quote from: kkt on December 07, 2015, 08:44:25 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 07, 2015, 07:56:34 PM
Quote from: Henry on December 07, 2015, 11:19:06 AM
it would be nice to drive to Phoenix nonstop one day. Hopefully I can do it at least once in my lifetime!
It doesn't need to be an Interstate to be able to do this.
And being an interstate doesn't magically make this happen, either. Try driving I-5 through Seattle without stopping sometime when it's not 3-6 AM.
I have never driven straight into downtown Seattle without traffic.
I'm pretty sure that by nonstop he meant not having to stop at any lights or worry about surface street traffic in the three major towns along the route.
I know I would be annoyed by having to slow down in each town I come to when the rest of the route permits me to cruise at high speeds.
Quote from: pumpkineater2 on December 08, 2015, 05:45:35 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 08, 2015, 01:27:29 AM
Quote from: kkt on December 07, 2015, 08:44:25 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 07, 2015, 07:56:34 PM
Quote from: Henry on December 07, 2015, 11:19:06 AM
it would be nice to drive to Phoenix nonstop one day. Hopefully I can do it at least once in my lifetime!
It doesn't need to be an Interstate to be able to do this.
And being an interstate doesn't magically make this happen, either. Try driving I-5 through Seattle without stopping sometime when it's not 3-6 AM.
I have never driven straight into downtown Seattle without traffic.
I'm pretty sure that by nonstop he meant not having to stop at any lights or worry about surface street traffic in the three major towns along the route.
I know I would be annoyed by having to slow down in each town I come to when the rest of the route permits me to cruise at high speeds.
Even so, our point is that sometimes, traffic is so bad that it makes no difference whether or not you have access to a freeway (or, in this case, an interstate).
Typical drive time from Tacoma to Seattle is 90 minutes during rush hour. That's about 22 miles an hour (33.8 miles over 90 minutes).
Quote from: jakeroot on December 08, 2015, 07:14:09 PM
Even so, our point is that sometimes, traffic is so bad that it makes no difference whether or not you have access to a freeway (or, in this case, an interstate).
Typical drive time from Tacoma to Seattle is 90 minutes during rush hour. That's about 22 miles an hour (33.8 miles over 90 minutes).
I know. Remember though that the majority of I-11 will not be an urban freeway, and it will pass through rural areas where the likelihood of regular traffic jams caused by pure volume is not very high.
Now, it's a different story with the part of I-11 that will go into Las Vegas.
Quote from: pumpkineater2 on December 08, 2015, 07:51:00 PM
I know. Remember though that the majority of I-11 will not be an urban freeway, and it will pass through rural areas where the likelihood of regular traffic jams caused by pure volume is not very high.
Now, it's a different story with the part of I-11 that will go into Las Vegas.
Fine, so why don't they spend their money improving the bottlenecks in Las Vegas and Reno where there are substantial delays, instead of eliminating every ranch road where you can cruise at high speed already? Or bypassing a couple of towns that probably don't add 15 minutes to the 6 1/2-hour trip between all three of them?
And if they succeed in getting federal funding, it's not just their money, it's mine too.
I-11 is totally unnecessary. A 4 lane highway with at grades makes a lot more sense then an interstate. US 93 isn't even that heavily traveled anyways. I also think some of you fail to realize that most of MX 15 is a 4 lane highway with at grades until you get to the split in Sinaloa (between 15 libre and 15 cuota). Why can't a section of CANAMEX be a plain ol' 4 lane highway in the US? Canada and Mexico both do it.
There are only 3 major north-south highways in Mexico (15, 45, and 85) and we have interstate connections to all those routes. Is there something I'm missing here?
If I'm reading things right, I-11 is planned to end at MX 15D rather than just shy of downtown Nogales like I-19 does. That would create the first true freeway-freeway connection between the US and Mexico that is open to cars (I-69W is trucks only, I believe, and the rest are breezewoods at best). Don't get why it needs to be I-11 rather than a re-routed I-19 though.
Quote from: vdeane on December 09, 2015, 05:31:54 PM
That would create the first true freeway-freeway connection between the US and Mexico that is open to cars (I-69W is trucks only, I believe, and the rest are breezewoods at best).
Tijuana is freeway to freeway.
Quote from: vdeane on December 09, 2015, 05:31:54 PM
If I'm reading things right, I-11 is planned to end at MX 15D rather than just shy of downtown Nogales like I-19 does. That would create the first true freeway-freeway connection between the US and Mexico that is open to cars (I-69W is trucks only, I believe, and the rest are breezewoods at best). Don't get why it needs to be I-11 rather than a re-routed I-19 though.
Here is what MX 15 just south of the 15D/15 split in Nogales looks like on GSV. https://www.google.com/maps/@31.2209366,-110.9722848,3a,66.8y,213.2h,87.56t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sz3RtUTgWeUwjKnsKO3J88w!2e0
In short Mexico 15 is definitely not a freeway south of Nogales. It is a 4 lane highway with at grades. The toll road they built on the west side of Nogales was meant to be a bypass around the downtown Nogales POE.
Quote from: NE2 on December 09, 2015, 06:01:24 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 09, 2015, 05:31:54 PM
That would create the first true freeway-freeway connection between the US and Mexico that is open to cars (I-69W is trucks only, I believe, and the rest are breezewoods at best).
Tijuana is freeway to freeway.
Debatable. The road connecting it to MX 1D has a bunch of driveways and RIROs and looks more like a city street with a median slapped in the middle. Street view hasn't been updated in a while, but it looks like the El Chaparral border crossing empties into a city street and not the short freeway looking thing than San Ysidro did. Also, it doesn't look like one can get to the crossing US-bound without making a left turn, and Mexico-bound involves a couple of VERY sharp turns, and I'm not sure how one could make an interstate-standard connection to El Chaparral.
Granted, my standards are high enough that I-5/BC 95, I-87/A-15, I-91/A-55, and I-95/NB 95 don't count either on the Canadian border.
Quote from: vdeane on December 10, 2015, 02:06:53 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 09, 2015, 06:01:24 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 09, 2015, 05:31:54 PM
That would create the first true freeway-freeway connection between the US and Mexico that is open to cars (I-69W is trucks only, I believe, and the rest are breezewoods at best).
Tijuana is freeway to freeway.
Debatable. The road connecting it to MX 1D has a bunch of driveways and RIROs and looks more like a city street with a median slapped in the middle.
1D isn't the only freeway on the Tijuana side...Via Rapida is an 8.5-mile freeway straddling Rio Tijuana.
Quote from: vdeane on December 10, 2015, 02:06:53 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 09, 2015, 06:01:24 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 09, 2015, 05:31:54 PM
That would create the first true freeway-freeway connection between the US and Mexico that is open to cars (I-69W is trucks only, I believe, and the rest are breezewoods at best).
Tijuana is freeway to freeway.
Debatable. The road connecting it to MX 1D has a bunch of driveways and RIROs and looks more like a city street with a median slapped in the middle. Street view hasn't been updated in a while, but it looks like the El Chaparral border crossing empties into a city street and not the short freeway looking thing than San Ysidro did. Also, it doesn't look like one can get to the crossing US-bound without making a left turn, and Mexico-bound involves a couple of VERY sharp turns, and I'm not sure how one could make an interstate-standard connection to El Chaparral.
Granted, my standards are high enough that I-5/BC 95, I-87/A-15, I-91/A-55, and I-95/NB 95 don't count either on the Canadian border.
Not sure why I-5/BC 99 wouldn't count. The duty-free shop on the BC side?
Quote from: kkt on December 10, 2015, 05:46:13 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 10, 2015, 02:06:53 PM
Granted, my standards are high enough that I-5/BC 95, I-87/A-15, I-91/A-55, and I-95/NB 95 don't count either on the Canadian border.
Not sure why I-5/BC 99 wouldn't count. The duty-free shop on the BC side?
The Beach Road intersection ("exit 1") just north of the shop.
Quote from: NE2 on December 10, 2015, 06:02:15 PM
Quote from: kkt on December 10, 2015, 05:46:13 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 10, 2015, 02:06:53 PM
Granted, my standards are high enough that I-5/BC 95, I-87/A-15, I-91/A-55, and I-95/NB 95 don't count either on the Canadian border.
Not sure why I-5/BC 99 wouldn't count. The duty-free shop on the BC side?
The Beach Road intersection ("exit 1") just north of the shop.
I guess. Southbound it's usually backed up way past there, so traffic is at a crawl anyway. And northbound traffic couldn't accelerate to freeway speeds again that quickly after stopping. But, yes, it's technically an at-grade crossing.
Quote from: US 41 on December 10, 2015, 10:49:29 AM
Quote from: vdeane on December 09, 2015, 05:31:54 PM
If I'm reading things right, I-11 is planned to end at MX 15D rather than just shy of downtown Nogales like I-19 does. That would create the first true freeway-freeway connection between the US and Mexico that is open to cars (I-69W is trucks only, I believe, and the rest are breezewoods at best). Don't get why it needs to be I-11 rather than a re-routed I-19 though.
Here is what MX 15 just south of the 15D/15 split in Nogales looks like on GSV. https://www.google.com/maps/@31.2209366,-110.9722848,3a,66.8y,213.2h,87.56t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sz3RtUTgWeUwjKnsKO3J88w!2e0
In short Mexico 15 is definitely not a freeway south of Nogales. It is a 4 lane highway with at grades. The toll road they built on the west side of Nogales was meant to be a bypass around the downtown Nogales POE.
Can't believe I forgot to reply to this...
While MX 15 isn't a freeway, I would count MX 15D as one, even if it doesn't really have much in the way of interchanges. Does Mexico have plans to connect all the MX 15D segments into one road some day?
Quote from: kkt on December 10, 2015, 06:20:17 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 10, 2015, 06:02:15 PM
Quote from: kkt on December 10, 2015, 05:46:13 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 10, 2015, 02:06:53 PM
Granted, my standards are high enough that I-5/BC 95, I-87/A-15, I-91/A-55, and I-95/NB 95 don't count either on the Canadian border.
Not sure why I-5/BC 99 wouldn't count. The duty-free shop on the BC side?
The Beach Road intersection ("exit 1") just north of the shop.
I guess. Southbound it's usually backed up way past there, so traffic is at a crawl anyway. And northbound traffic couldn't accelerate to freeway speeds again that quickly after stopping. But, yes, it's technically an at-grade crossing.
I'd still classify it as freeway-to-freeway. The intersection there has to exist. There's no
reasonable way for them to remove it. And considering that the intersection does not require the through-traffic to stop, it's still free-flowing (although, as you indicate kkt, it's usually at a stand-still anyways).
I think we've adapted the term freeway too loosely here. It should be "free-flowing to free-flowing" border crossings.
what is going on here
Quote from: jakeroot on December 10, 2015, 08:58:33 PM
Quote from: kkt on December 10, 2015, 06:20:17 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 10, 2015, 06:02:15 PM
Quote from: kkt on December 10, 2015, 05:46:13 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 10, 2015, 02:06:53 PM
Granted, my standards are high enough that I-5/BC 95, I-87/A-15, I-91/A-55, and I-95/NB 95 don't count either on the Canadian border.
Not sure why I-5/BC 99 wouldn't count. The duty-free shop on the BC side?
The Beach Road intersection ("exit 1") just north of the shop.
I guess. Southbound it's usually backed up way past there, so traffic is at a crawl anyway. And northbound traffic couldn't accelerate to freeway speeds again that quickly after stopping. But, yes, it's technically an at-grade crossing.
I'd still classify it as freeway-to-freeway. The intersection there has to exist. There's no reasonable way for them to remove it. And considering that the intersection does not require the through-traffic to stop, it's still free-flowing (although, as you indicate kkt, it's usually at a stand-still anyways).
I think we've adapted the term freeway too loosely here. It should be "free-flowing to free-flowing" border crossings.
What if they opened the ped path to the other streets to cars and then cut the intersection off?
Quote from: vdeane on December 11, 2015, 02:01:45 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 10, 2015, 08:58:33 PM
Quote from: kkt on December 10, 2015, 06:20:17 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 10, 2015, 06:02:15 PM
Quote from: kkt on December 10, 2015, 05:46:13 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 10, 2015, 02:06:53 PM
Granted, my standards are high enough that I-5/BC 95, I-87/A-15, I-91/A-55, and I-95/NB 95 don't count either on the Canadian border.
Not sure why I-5/BC 99 wouldn't count. The duty-free shop on the BC side?
The Beach Road intersection ("exit 1") just north of the shop.
I guess. Southbound it's usually backed up way past there, so traffic is at a crawl anyway. And northbound traffic couldn't accelerate to freeway speeds again that quickly after stopping. But, yes, it's technically an at-grade crossing.
I'd still classify it as freeway-to-freeway. The intersection there has to exist. There's no reasonable way for them to remove it. And considering that the intersection does not require the through-traffic to stop, it's still free-flowing (although, as you indicate kkt, it's usually at a stand-still anyways).
I think we've adapted the term freeway too loosely here. It should be "free-flowing to free-flowing" border crossings.
What if they opened the ped path to the other streets to cars and then cut the intersection off?
They could make it a RIRO. Cars going north-99 to west-Beach Road could make a u-turn at the 8 Ave roundabouts, and cars going east-Beach Road to north-99 could make a u-turn through the parking lot. But then again, what's the point? There's still some awkward movements all the way across the border, and even if you removed this crossing, it still wouldn't feel much like a freeway. Look at the curves that WSDOT built on the US side to slow down cars, the speed bumps and crosswalks across the freeway to get people to the Peace Arch, and all the one- and two-lane roads that meet the freeway with stop signs, in between the carriageways. Even with a RIRO, this stretch would still feel like a three-lane suburban road at best.
Quote from: vdeane on December 10, 2015, 06:55:04 PM
Does Mexico have plans to connect all the MX 15D segments into one road some day?
I highly doubt it. MX 15 between Santa Ana and Hermosillo is already a toll road even though it has at grades. The toll is easy to avoid if you take SON 71 before getting to Hermosillo. Something very important to remember though is that everything east of MX 15 (SON 71 is east of 15) is not in the Sonora Free Zone. I imagine that there is a pretty good chance that Mexico will build tolled bypasses around Imuris, Santa Ana, and Hermosillo eventually, similar to the ones that bypass Guaymas and Magdalena.
Quote from: US 41 on December 11, 2015, 03:07:25 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 10, 2015, 06:55:04 PM
Does Mexico have plans to connect all the MX 15D segments into one road some day?
I highly doubt it. MX 15 between Santa Ana and Hermosillo is already a toll road even though it has at grades. The toll is easy to avoid if you take SON 71 before getting to Hermosillo. Something very important to remember though is that everything east of MX 15 (SON 71 is east of 15) is not in the Sonora Free Zone. I imagine that there is a pretty good chance that Mexico will build tolled bypasses around Imuris, Santa Ana, and Hermosillo eventually, similar to the ones that bypass Guaymas and Magdalena.
The Hermosillo and Ciudad Obregón bypasses are already planned as their tenders were already done early this year. Don't know when they'll start building them but it should be very soon. I couldn't find anything for Imuris or Santa Ana. I doubt Imuris will be considered any time soon because there are no traffic lights or stops in the area (it's all free flow iirc) but I'm suprised a Santa Ana bypass hasn't been considered.
Quote from: jakeroot on December 10, 2015, 08:58:33 PM
I'd still classify it as freeway-to-freeway. The intersection there has to exist. There's no reasonable way for them to remove it. And considering that the intersection does not require the through-traffic to stop, it's still free-flowing (although, as you indicate kkt, it's usually at a stand-still anyways).
I think we've adapted the term freeway too loosely here. It should be "free-flowing to free-flowing" border crossings.
I agree with this. All interstates are freeways but not all freeways are interstates. Last time I checked, a freeway was any controlled access divided highway, so using this definition, MX-15D is a freeway south of the border crossing. The Tijuana crossing seems to have a freeway too, though with low standards of course.
I keep making unintentional references, do I (yes my comment upthread was unintentional, sorry NE2)? In a vain attempt to get this back on topic, is there any work on US 93? Also, what about Phoenix's portion of I-11? Hasn't that started construction (I believe it's supposed to finish next year, but I might be wrong)?
Quote from: noelbotevera on December 11, 2015, 07:46:38 PM
is there any work on US 93? Also, what about Phoenix's portion of I-11? Hasn't that started construction (I believe it's supposed to finish next year, but I might be wrong)?
There is currently no alignment chosen or funding identified. I believe ADOT recently started a three year study, at the end of which a preferred corridor alignment will be chosen.
I am very doubtful that I-11 will get very close to phoenix at this point, considering that there is so much talk about it using the proposed hassyampa freeway, which is considerably west of phoenix.
I really hate that they're planning to build it south of I-8 at all. Phoenix- Las vegas is the only necessary route; this Nogales-Reno idea is complete BS for now. It just seems so redundant to build it to Nogales, because I-10 And I-19 are perfectly adequate for Mexico bound traffic
IMO, the ideal route for I -11 Is to have it routed down Loop 303, and then have it continue down to a terminus at I-8. I think the way it's being described, being parallel to I-10 and I-19, will just look absolutely hideous on a map.
There are "Future I-11 Corridor" signs on US-93 north of Wickenburg as well as north of Kingman. There are continuing projects to upgrade portions of US-93 to 4-lanes north of Wickenburg, near the I-11 signs.
North of Kingman the existing roadway could be used as part of the new I-11 but south of I-40 it might be tough. From what I could tell the new I-11 would run around the west side of Wickenburg, then south pretty much parallel to the existing Vulture Mine Road.
I just today drove US-95 south from Boulder City to Blythe and thought that they could to run I-11 south along US-95 to I-40, then follow I-40 east into Arizona, splitting off near MP-13 and head east to Wickieup to join US-93 they might save a boatload of work and money. US-95 in Nevada is already 4-lanes and divided much of the way, only a few overpasses and updates would be needed.
Quote from: N9JIG on December 12, 2015, 07:53:51 PM
I just today drove US-95 south from Boulder City to Blythe and thought that they could to run I-11 south along US-95 to I-40, then follow I-40 east into Arizona, splitting off near MP-13 and head east to Wickieup to join US-93 they might save a boatload of work and money. US-95 in Nevada is already 4-lanes and divided much of the way, only a few overpasses and updates would be needed.
Except that is extra mileage out of the way to get to Phoenix from Las Vegas. Note also that the 4-lane section only really goes to NV 163... That routing would put a burden on California to widen US 95 for I-11 traffic that doesn't really benefit California.
Side note: I'm not even sure that that stretch of US 95 would have been 4-laned when it was, had it not been for the Hoover Dam truck detour put in place after 9/11. NDOT likely would have gotten to it eventually, but those widening projects were fast tracked with the traffic increase that arose from the long term detour.
Well, the stretch between NV-163 and the CA Line is less than a mile and the extra mileage by routing to Needles would be fairly minimal. The construction in CA would only 20 miles or so, so it might be cheaper for NV and AZ to pay for CA's share.
Another alternative would be to run it east to Laughlin/BHC then to Kingman, thus avoiding CA. Of course in reality the route has already been chose to follow US-93 so the discussion is just that...
Quote from: N9JIG on December 13, 2015, 12:48:11 AM
Well, the stretch between NV-163 and the CA Line is less than a mile and the extra mileage by routing to Needles would be fairly minimal. The construction in CA would only 20 miles or so, so it might be cheaper for NV and AZ to pay for CA's share.
Another strike against this idea is California's policy against route number duplication. If I-11 were to follow US 95 into California, it would force the renumbering of CA-11 east of San Diego.
Clearly CA has a work around, as they have no problem signing business routes or historic US 40 and 80 (OK, the latter aren't official routes).
They could call it route 999, and sign it I-11.
Quote from: english si on December 13, 2015, 03:23:43 PM
Clearly CA has a work around, as they have no problem signing business routes or historic US 40 and 80 (OK, the latter aren't official routes).
They could call it route 999, and sign it I-11.
California signs some business and historic routes, but I don't think they ever sign the same number on two unrelated routes. And it's good that they don't.
Besides, US 95 to I-40 to US 93 would be a silly route from Las Vegas to Phoenix/Nogales. The additional cost of completely new ROW and construction from I-40 to Wikieup would eat up the savings of using existing 4-lane divided ROW along US 95.
They could also renumber CA 11 as an extension of CA 905 and renumber the rest of CA 905 as an extension of CA 125. But why would one route I-11 though Needles? The Nevada portion south of Vegas is already built or under construction, and US 93 in Arizona from I-40 to the NV line is already four lane divided up there.
Quote from: kkt on December 13, 2015, 04:02:39 PMCalifornia signs some business and historic routes, but I don't think they ever sign the same number on two unrelated routes.
I-80 and Historic US80? I-40 and Historic US40? ;)
Quote from: kkt on December 13, 2015, 04:02:39 PM
Besides, US 95 to I-40 to US 93 would be a silly route from Las Vegas to Phoenix/Nogales. The additional cost of completely new ROW and construction from I-40 to Wikieup would eat up the savings of using existing 4-lane divided ROW along US 95.
You are probably right, plus I am sure there are terrain issues as well. It just seems to be weird that the wonderful US-95 facility in Nevada changes to such a hill and dale cowpath in California. I don't suppose the traffic counts come anywhere near what is needed to upgrade it but it is certainly a different ballgame once you enter California!
ADOT launches Interstate 11 environmental study from Nogales to Wickenburg
Input from public, communities, others key to selecting a corridor alternative
PHOENIX — The next phase of defining an Interstate 11 corridor through Arizona offers the public a chance to help shape the vision for a route intended to enhance trade and boost Arizona's economy.
In partnership with the Federal Highway Administration and regional planning agencies, the Arizona Department of Transportation has launched a three-year environmental study to select an I-11 corridor alternative between Nogales and Wickenburg.
Extending from Nogales through the Las Vegas area to northern Nevada — and possibly north toward Canada — Interstate 11 would support large-scale manufacturing, enhance movement of people and freight by vehicle and potentially rail, and be a corridor for trade, communications and technology.
A three-year environmental study will consider possible routes between Nogales and Wickenburg. The first step is developing an Alternatives Selection Report assessing a wide range of corridor alternatives and options, along with opportunities and constraints. A Draft Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement will evaluate in greater detail a smaller number of corridor alternatives, including segments that may advance as independent projects. There will be a no-build alterative as well.
Input from the public, communities and other stakeholders will contribute to these two reports, as well as a Final Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement that will list a selected corridor alternative.
"The Arizona Department of Transportation and our partner agencies and stakeholders have long recognized the importance of the Interstate 11 corridor and the benefits that it will bring to our state through trade, commerce, job growth and economic vitality," ADOT Director John Halikowski said. "This congressionally designated high-priority corridor offers the opportunity for Arizona to stay competitive, create regional and global connections, and provide a direct link to success in the global marketplace."
In November 2014, the Arizona and Nevada departments of transportation completed a two-year feasibility study as the first step in the Interstate 11 process. ADOT focused on and supported a route through Arizona connecting Nogales and the Hoover Dam bypass bridge near Las Vegas.
In December 2015, Congress approved the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, five-year legislation to improve the nation's surface transportation infrastructure. While the FAST Act formally designates Interstate 11 from north to south in Arizona, it does not include funding. It does, however, make the corridor eligible for federal funding in the future.
The recommended I-11 corridor would likely follow US 93 from the Hoover Dam bypass bridge south to Wickenburg. The 280-mile corridor study area for the current environmental study begins in Wickenburg and runs west of the Phoenix metropolitan area and then south to the Tucson area and then Nogales.
During the next three years, the public, communities and other stakeholders will have opportunities to comment through regular meetings, community events and other forums. Right now, comments can be sent to:
Email: I-11ADOTStudy@hdrinc.com
Toll-free bilingual telephone hotline: 1-844-544-8049
Mail:
Interstate 11 Tier 1 EIS Study Team
c/o ADOT Communications
1655 W. Jackson St., Mail Drop 126F
Phoenix, AZ 85007
For more information about the I-11 study, visit i11study.com/Arizona
Will this new stretch of proposed Interstate 11 actually enter Mexico? Interstate 19 doesn't.
Quote from: FritzOwl on March 05, 2016, 01:44:43 PM
Will this new stretch of proposed Interstate 11 actually enter Mexico? Interstate 19 doesn't.
I'm always amused that all these documents that come out say I-11 is going to the border in Nogalas when I-19 is already there. From what I recall there was talk of a western bypass of Tucson that would hook back up with I-10 or terminate at I-19. That said isn't I-10 between Phoenix and Tucson (excluding the 4 lanes in the Gila Reservation) more than enough between these two cities? What is west of Tucson?....nothing really, just Three Points and an area that doesn't really need an Interstate. Even up around Phoenix the original plans called for I-11 to be routed west of the White Tanks probably due to the influence of Buckeye promising annexed land for use. the logical travel corridor and most cost effective travel corridor in the Phoenix area would be to follow US 60 out of Wickenburg down to the Loop 303 south and then onto I-10. Even a short multiplex of I-10 and gradual up grade of AZ 85 to I-8 would make infinite more sense than trying to bring I-11 to Tucson or the border down in that direction.
Quote from: Mr Poopy Head on March 06, 2016, 05:40:43 AMQuote from: FritzOwl on March 05, 2016, 01:44:43 PMWill this new stretch of proposed Interstate 11 actually enter Mexico? Interstate 19 doesn't.
I think Ghostbuster meant to say "Will this new stretch of proposed Interstate 11 actually reach the border itself? Interstate 19 doesn't."
'I-11' will do the same (they probably won't renumber I-19 anyway) - the reason why the study ends at Nogales is because the corridor will go there (and because they aren't sure where a Tuscon bypass would meet I-19), not because they seek to build anything there.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 06, 2016, 08:34:47 AM
I'm always amused that all these documents that come out say I-11 is going to the border in Nogalas when I-19 is already there. From what I recall there was talk of a western bypass of Tucson that would hook back up with I-10 or terminate at I-19. That said isn't I-10 between Phoenix and Tucson (excluding the 4 lanes in the Gila Reservation) more than enough between these two cities? What is west of Tucson?....nothing really, just Three Points and an area that doesn't really need an Interstate. Even up around Phoenix the original plans called for I-11 to be routed west of the White Tanks probably due to the influence of Buckeye promising annexed land for use. the logical travel corridor and most cost effective travel corridor in the Phoenix area would be to follow US 60 out of Wickenburg down to the Loop 303 south and then onto I-10. Even a short multiplex of I-10 and gradual up grade of AZ 85 to I-8 would make infinite more sense than trying to bring I-11 to Tucson or the border down in that direction.
I think the route down 303 could work nicely for now, it actually would shorten the distance as it's a more direct route between Phoenix and Las Vegas, and it's the route I now use to get to Nevada. 303 also has long term plans to reach south to link into I-8 and to serve the City of Maricopa. However, I think the I-11 plan is thinking more long-term for the planned growth in Arizona. Pre-I-11 plans there were plans for an outer Loop 404 that follows the same line as I-11 west of the White Tanks, with the idea that 303 will become an urban area in the future and will create the need for an outer ring. The planned growth between Phoenix and Tucson also would make I-10 between the two cities a fairly urban freeway with the exception of the reservation areas. A need for somewhat of a bypass has been also planned, which I-11 handles- so for California to Texas and eastward traffic, the idea is a big "Phoenix-Tucson Metro" would need a way to route traffic outside of it.
Quote from: kdk on March 08, 2016, 01:36:45 PM
I think the route down 303 could work nicely for now, it actually would shorten the distance as it's a more direct route between Phoenix and Las Vegas, and it's the route I now use to get to Nevada. 303 also has long term plans to reach south to link into I-8 and to serve the City of Maricopa.
I totally agree with you. Routing it along loop 303 is the most sensible option if they want it to connect with the Phoenix area. I mean, they already have 11 or so miles of high quality freeway built between US 60 and I-10, with another mile currently under construction, and the plans for it to possibly reach I-8 like you said. So why not incorporate the study for the 303(http://www.azdot.gov/projects/phoenix-metro-area/loop-303-from-sr-30-to-hassayampa-freeway/map (http://www.azdot.gov/projects/phoenix-metro-area/loop-303-from-sr-30-to-hassayampa-freeway/map)) with the section of the I-11 study near the Southwestern and western Phoenix metro area(http://i11study.com/Arizona/study-area.asp (http://i11study.com/Arizona/study-area.asp)), and Make the I-11 study include the 303/ US 60 corridor?
According to the latter study's map, I-11 isn't planned to get anywhere close to Phoenix, yet there was all this whining about how Phoenix and Las Vegas were the two biggest cities without an interstate connecting them. Well, if I-11 gets built the way it is currently planned, and billions of dollars are spent and resources used, Phoenix and Las Vegas will
still be the two largest cities not connected by an interstate.
Quote from: kdk on March 08, 2016, 01:36:45 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 06, 2016, 08:34:47 AM
I'm always amused that all these documents that come out say I-11 is going to the border in Nogalas when I-19 is already there. From what I recall there was talk of a western bypass of Tucson that would hook back up with I-10 or terminate at I-19. That said isn't I-10 between Phoenix and Tucson (excluding the 4 lanes in the Gila Reservation) more than enough between these two cities? What is west of Tucson?....nothing really, just Three Points and an area that doesn't really need an Interstate. Even up around Phoenix the original plans called for I-11 to be routed west of the White Tanks probably due to the influence of Buckeye promising annexed land for use. the logical travel corridor and most cost effective travel corridor in the Phoenix area would be to follow US 60 out of Wickenburg down to the Loop 303 south and then onto I-10. Even a short multiplex of I-10 and gradual up grade of AZ 85 to I-8 would make infinite more sense than trying to bring I-11 to Tucson or the border down in that direction.
I think the route down 303 could work nicely for now, it actually would shorten the distance as it's a more direct route between Phoenix and Las Vegas, and it's the route I now use to get to Nevada. 303 also has long term plans to reach south to link into I-8 and to serve the City of Maricopa. However, I think the I-11 plan is thinking more long-term for the planned growth in Arizona. Pre-I-11 plans there were plans for an outer Loop 404 that follows the same line as I-11 west of the White Tanks, with the idea that 303 will become an urban area in the future and will create the need for an outer ring. The planned growth between Phoenix and Tucson also would make I-10 between the two cities a fairly urban freeway with the exception of the reservation areas. A need for somewhat of a bypass has been also planned, which I-11 handles- so for California to Texas and eastward traffic, the idea is a big "Phoenix-Tucson Metro" would need a way to route traffic outside of it.
But that's the thing, there isn't ANYONE out there west of the White Tanks along the Hassayampa River. Basically if you look at the urban growth in the Phoenix Metro Area it all has been within the exposed valley bounded by the major mountain ranges such as the White Tanks, Estrellas, McDowells, Superstition, South Mountain and even to an extent the Bradshaws. Is there any reason whatsoever to believe that all of the sudden urban sprawl is going to take root out there? I mean it's isolated as all hell, wouldn't the Interstate Route be better served by something that has a sizable population now and will see significant growth in the next 20 years?...the 303 loop will. Besides couldn't ADOT just look at building a 404 freeway if it ever was so merited?...they probably could easily if the growth ever really started.
Some other details bother me about the project from Wickenburg south to Tucson. Firstly, I don't know if this is still the current plan but all the documents that I was reading showed a western bypass of Wickenburg in the Vulture Mountains. Is there any particular reason that the bypass be more easterly around Wickenburg possibly along the Hassayampa and overtaking US 60? I'm sure Morristown, Circle City and Wittman would be more than sufficiently served with an I-11 business route not to mention a much better connection with AZ74.
So is the goal to build a western bypass of Tucson? Much like the western regions of the White Tanks there isn't much of anything out there and likely won't be for decades, if ever. I think it's a huge assumption that an Interstate through barren land is going to encourage growth, it sure didn't for I-5 in San Joaquin Valley in California... So with that in mind that's a assuming a huge amount of growth in the Goodyear annexation area to get I-11 to run through to I-8 just to serve Maricopa and Casa Grande.
There is also a lot of talk about a Phoenix/Tucson Metroplex that I've seen, the cities are close but aren't remotely within the ballpark of being talked about becoming one metro area. First you have the Gila Reservation which will never see any urban sprawl from Phoenix, even with the 202 extension around South Mountain. So that's just going to push the urban growth to San Tan Valley, Florence and Coolidge in Pinal County well far away from the proposed I-11 corridor. If this is supposed to be a true bypass of Tucson why not have I-11 routed in such a way that it over takes the US 60 freeway out to AZ 79 instead? One I-11 could be routed east of the Santa Catalina Range along the San Pedro river to I-10 and Benson? ADOT has looked at this corridor before to add a Arizona State Route previously, it sure would cut commercial traffic down in Tucson and serve as a sufficient bypass to Texas.
The route from Vegas to Wickenburg is sound for the most part but there is a lot of wonky kinks that need to be worked out in the plans for I-11. I'm not even getting into how difficult it's going to be to get I-11 through Coyote Pass in Kingman and down Beale Street....that's a cluster $$@@ of eminent domain. Basically what I'm throwing out there would basically kill US 60 west of Superior and trade one empty stretch of desert for another....
Speaking of bypasses, I know this off topic but how come nobody ever talks about building a complete Interstate quality route from Cordes Junction at I-17 to I-40 in Ash Fork? The route would bypass Flagstaff and serve the Prescott area pretty well while making a serviceable alternative to the US 93 corridor. The Pioneer Parkway basically already is almost a complete freeway from AZ 69 to AZ 89 in Prescott Valley. Maybe this would make a fine three digit Interstate 317?
QuoteBut that's the thing, there isn't ANYONE out there west of the White Tanks along the Hassayampa River. Basically if you look at the urban growth in the Phoenix Metro Area it all has been within the exposed valley bounded by the major mountain ranges such as the White Tanks, Estrellas, McDowells, Superstition, South Mountain and even to an extent the Bradshaws. Is there any reason whatsoever to believe that all of the sudden urban sprawl is going to take root out there? I mean it's isolated as all hell, wouldn't the Interstate Route be better served by something that has a sizable population now and will see significant growth in the next 20 years?...the 303 loop will. Besides couldn't ADOT just look at building a 404 freeway if it ever was so merited?...they probably could easily if the growth ever really started.
Some other details bother me about the project from Wickenburg south to Tucson. Firstly, I don't know if this is still the current plan but all the documents that I was reading showed a western bypass of Wickenburg in the Vulture Mountains. Is there any particular reason that the bypass be more easterly around Wickenburg possibly along the Hassayampa and overtaking US 60? I'm sure Morristown, Circle City and Wittman would be more than sufficiently served with an I-11 business route not to mention a much better connection with AZ74.
So is the goal to build a western bypass of Tucson? Much like the western regions of the White Tanks there isn't much of anything out there and likely won't be for decades, if ever. I think it's a huge assumption that an Interstate through barren land is going to encourage growth, it sure didn't for I-5 in San Joaquin Valley in California... So with that in mind that's a assuming a huge amount of growth in the Goodyear annexation area to get I-11 to run through to I-8 just to serve Maricopa and Casa Grande.
There is also a lot of talk about a Phoenix/Tucson Metroplex that I've seen, the cities are close but aren't remotely within the ballpark of being talked about becoming one metro area. First you have the Gila Reservation which will never see any urban sprawl from Phoenix, even with the 202 extension around South Mountain. So that's just going to push the urban growth to San Tan Valley, Florence and Coolidge in Pinal County well far away from the proposed I-11 corridor. If this is supposed to be a true bypass of Tucson why not have I-11 routed in such a way that it over takes the US 60 freeway out to AZ 79 instead? One I-11 could be routed east of the Santa Catalina Range along the San Pedro river to I-10 and Benson? ADOT has looked at this corridor before to add a Arizona State Route previously, it sure would cut commercial traffic down in Tucson and serve as a sufficient bypass to Texas.
The route from Vegas to Wickenburg is sound for the most part but there is a lot of wonky kinks that need to be worked out in the plans for I-11. I'm not even getting into how difficult it's going to be to get I-11 through Coyote Pass in Kingman and down Beale Street....that's a cluster $$@@ of eminent domain. Basically what I'm throwing out there would basically kill US 60 west of Superior and trade one empty stretch of desert for another....
Speaking of bypasses, I know this off topic but how come nobody ever talks about building a complete Interstate quality route from Cordes Junction at I-17 to I-40 in Ash Fork? The route would bypass Flagstaff and serve the Prescott area pretty well while making a serviceable alternative to the US 93 corridor. The Pioneer Parkway basically already is almost a complete freeway from AZ 69 to AZ 89 in Prescott Valley. Maybe this would make a fine three digit Interstate 317?
Out west of the White Tanks, there actually was development going out there before the Recession hit in 2008. There is a development up along Sun Valley Parkway north of the White Tanks called Copper Canyon, and one out along Sun Valley Parkway west of the mountains called Tartesso. Expansion and development was just getting out there when everything crashed in 2008. Also, look along I-10 south of the White Tanks at things like Verrado and the developments stretching out to AZ 85. The recession put a halt to stuff out there, but I have no doubt that given another 10 years, the ball will roll again out there past the White Tanks.
As for pushing I-11 out to the east, that defeats the purpose of what they want I-11 to do, which is connect to the Mexican border near Nogales for trade purposes. Running west of Phoenix and Tucson is much more direct for that purpose.
As for the Cordes-Prescott-Ash Fork freeway, I can safely say there's no reason for it (I live in Prescott and travel regularly all around the Tri-Cities). AZ 69 is already 4 lane divided highway all the way to Dewey, Fain Rd is already 4 lane divided highway with a grade separated interchange at Lakeshore Drive. It joins AZ 89A at Robert Rd at an at-grade intersection, but that is scheduled to be grade-separated around 2021 I believe. Then AZ 89 from 89A to the north is mostly 4-laned now up through Chino Valley, 2-laned up through Paulden and on up to Ash Fork. Honestly, these roadways are basically sufficient for the foreseeable future, upgrading to Interstate would be complete overkill. They need some minor tweaking (maybe add a couple passing lanes between Paulden and Ash Fork for example) and obviously maintenance (the asphalt on 89 north of Paulden could definitely be replaced as it's very rough in places).
Quote from: Sonic99 on March 09, 2016, 03:42:05 PM
QuoteBut that's the thing, there isn't ANYONE out there west of the White Tanks along the Hassayampa River. Basically if you look at the urban growth in the Phoenix Metro Area it all has been within the exposed valley bounded by the major mountain ranges such as the White Tanks, Estrellas, McDowells, Superstition, South Mountain and even to an extent the Bradshaws. Is there any reason whatsoever to believe that all of the sudden urban sprawl is going to take root out there? I mean it's isolated as all hell, wouldn't the Interstate Route be better served by something that has a sizable population now and will see significant growth in the next 20 years?...the 303 loop will. Besides couldn't ADOT just look at building a 404 freeway if it ever was so merited?...they probably could easily if the growth ever really started.
Some other details bother me about the project from Wickenburg south to Tucson. Firstly, I don't know if this is still the current plan but all the documents that I was reading showed a western bypass of Wickenburg in the Vulture Mountains. Is there any particular reason that the bypass be more easterly around Wickenburg possibly along the Hassayampa and overtaking US 60? I'm sure Morristown, Circle City and Wittman would be more than sufficiently served with an I-11 business route not to mention a much better connection with AZ74.
So is the goal to build a western bypass of Tucson? Much like the western regions of the White Tanks there isn't much of anything out there and likely won't be for decades, if ever. I think it's a huge assumption that an Interstate through barren land is going to encourage growth, it sure didn't for I-5 in San Joaquin Valley in California... So with that in mind that's a assuming a huge amount of growth in the Goodyear annexation area to get I-11 to run through to I-8 just to serve Maricopa and Casa Grande.
There is also a lot of talk about a Phoenix/Tucson Metroplex that I've seen, the cities are close but aren't remotely within the ballpark of being talked about becoming one metro area. First you have the Gila Reservation which will never see any urban sprawl from Phoenix, even with the 202 extension around South Mountain. So that's just going to push the urban growth to San Tan Valley, Florence and Coolidge in Pinal County well far away from the proposed I-11 corridor. If this is supposed to be a true bypass of Tucson why not have I-11 routed in such a way that it over takes the US 60 freeway out to AZ 79 instead? One I-11 could be routed east of the Santa Catalina Range along the San Pedro river to I-10 and Benson? ADOT has looked at this corridor before to add a Arizona State Route previously, it sure would cut commercial traffic down in Tucson and serve as a sufficient bypass to Texas.
The route from Vegas to Wickenburg is sound for the most part but there is a lot of wonky kinks that need to be worked out in the plans for I-11. I'm not even getting into how difficult it's going to be to get I-11 through Coyote Pass in Kingman and down Beale Street....that's a cluster $$@@ of eminent domain. Basically what I'm throwing out there would basically kill US 60 west of Superior and trade one empty stretch of desert for another....
Speaking of bypasses, I know this off topic but how come nobody ever talks about building a complete Interstate quality route from Cordes Junction at I-17 to I-40 in Ash Fork? The route would bypass Flagstaff and serve the Prescott area pretty well while making a serviceable alternative to the US 93 corridor. The Pioneer Parkway basically already is almost a complete freeway from AZ 69 to AZ 89 in Prescott Valley. Maybe this would make a fine three digit Interstate 317?
Out west of the White Tanks, there actually was development going out there before the Recession hit in 2008. There is a development up along Sun Valley Parkway north of the White Tanks called Copper Canyon, and one out along Sun Valley Parkway west of the mountains called Tartesso. Expansion and development was just getting out there when everything crashed in 2008. Also, look along I-10 south of the White Tanks at things like Verrado and the developments stretching out to AZ 85. The recession put a halt to stuff out there, but I have no doubt that given another 10 years, the ball will roll again out there past the White Tanks.
As for pushing I-11 out to the east, that defeats the purpose of what they want I-11 to do, which is connect to the Mexican border near Nogales for trade purposes. Running west of Phoenix and Tucson is much more direct for that purpose.
As for the Cordes-Prescott-Ash Fork freeway, I can safely say there's no reason for it (I live in Prescott and travel regularly all around the Tri-Cities). AZ 69 is already 4 lane divided highway all the way to Dewey, Fain Rd is already 4 lane divided highway with a grade separated interchange at Lakeshore Drive. It joins AZ 89A at Robert Rd at an at-grade intersection, but that is scheduled to be grade-separated around 2021 I believe. Then AZ 89 from 89A to the north is mostly 4-laned now up through Chino Valley, 2-laned up through Paulden and on up to Ash Fork. Honestly, these roadways are basically sufficient for the foreseeable future, upgrading to Interstate would be complete overkill. They need some minor tweaking (maybe add a couple passing lanes between Paulden and Ash Fork for example) and obviously maintenance (the asphalt on 89 north of Paulden could definitely be replaced as it's very rough in places).
That's part of the problem with Maricopa County in general, they seem pretty assumptive that the pre-recession growth that led to the housing bubble is going to come back. I have a lot of family in Arizona and did live in the state for quite a long time myself. If I recall correctly it's mostly just Sun City Grand straddling the north side of the White Tanks with some westward development on the Sun Valley Parkway. There is still a ton of empty space available on the boundaries of Surprise, Glendale and El Mirage not to mention the northern segment of the 303....so I don't get it, where is the assumption that growth is going to happen west of the White Tanks? Is there some developer ready to line up a ton of cash to start building in all that land Buckeye annexed that I'm just not hearing about? It just seems awfully coincidental that Buckeye and Goodyear would suddenly grab up all that empty desert land only to be leading the push so hard I-11 to come their towns a couple years down the road.
The great irony in all this is that we are talking about two Metro areas that fought freeway expansion tooth and nail just a couple decades ago. I remember when I-10 didn't stand a chance of being completed in downtown Phoenix much less projects like the Camelback freeway or even a spur freeway in Tucson. The logical routes for I-11 in the Valley just seem to be ignored over and over in favor of "something that might be there in the future." It just seems like that this has all gotten out of hand with trying to expand I-11 when it even has been completed between the two principle cities it's designed to serve. Why not just get I-11 up and running between Phoenix and Las Vegas then seeing if there is a transportation need at that point?
The Prescott deal was just a somewhat sarcastic suggestion about an Interstate routing....given that AZ 89 is in bunch of barren pine country as opposed to barren desert. Personally I would much prefer to see the Prescott area back on a US Highway or two. It's just ironic that they have built up a freeway with practically almost nobody taking notice at all. Even the I-17 ramp at Cordes Junction and AZ 69 have been substantially updated beyond any design standard that would expect.
Incidentally what about I-11 being routed over current AZ 74 to I-17? I know that Peoria grabbed up a ton of land up by Lake Pleasant recently, I'm surprised they haven't thrown their name into the ring...
Quote from: Sonic99 on March 09, 2016, 03:42:05 PM
Out west of the White Tanks, there actually was development going out there before the Recession hit in 2008. There is a development up along Sun Valley Parkway north of the White Tanks called Copper Canyon, and one out along Sun Valley Parkway west of the mountains called Tartesso. Expansion and development was just getting out there when everything crashed in 2008.
Sun Valley was the name of the original development in the 80's that resulted in the parkway, and it was supposed to be this new, self-contained city built out in the desert. Until the developers ran into a bunch of problems, including yet another housing slump in the late 80's that followed the boom, and that no one seemed to remember 20 years later. Article (http://westvalleyview.com/content/parkway-born-amid-doubt-and-scandal)
There was a similar proposal northwest of Tucson before the housing bust. And then the developer was fined for infecting the bighorn population in the Silverbell Mountains with an eye disease from his domesticated sheep, and illegally blading archaeological sites. But Tucson didn't get a nice piece of 4-lane blacktop out of it.
Article (http://tucson.com/news/local/northwest/la-osa-ranch-a-rich-history/article_7b3c2215-58bc-5d37-9790-60d265b320f0.html)
Regarding the western bypass around Tucson: it's been talked about as long as I can recall, but I think the biggest hurdle is the thin line it has to follow between the Tohono O'Odham Nation and Saguaro National Park. There's just not another way to route it except down Sandario Road. Pima County would never approve of this, and you'd see local residents fight this tooth and nail, much harder than they fought the mine proposal in the Santa Ritas, which was recently cancelled. Pushing it west would just draw more fire from the O'Odhams, because it then starts getting close to Kitt Peak and Baboquivari, and it would put it closer to the Ironwood Forest NM land. I just don't see how this is at all possible. And I don't see how they can warrant a bypass with the current traffic counts, especially on 19, which is pretty desolate once you get past the bedroom communities south of Tucson.
I know the idea of the "west of the White Tank mountains" ideas seem crazy since the housing boom is long gone, but the idea is to determine these corridors now and to preserve them before the land becomes more expensive, or developed. They may just be lines on paper now and not even needed for 30 years, but if the future freeway corridor can be preserved now it makes those projects eventually viable. Also, most of that land west of the White Tanks is owned by housing developers (at least those that were able to hang on) with the long term plan to be ready for the next boom. I saw this going back to the 80's in areas that have been long developed where you saw the Loop 101 corridor being saved from development.
Plus you always have the idea that building the freeway would spur something- which is what you see here- http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/blog/business/2014/03/proposed-interstate-11-has-support-of-land-owners.html
These developers are gladly donating land for the freeway corridor just to get it through their land.
Quote from: kdk on March 11, 2016, 04:11:16 PM
I know the idea of the "west of the White Tank mountains" ideas seem crazy since the housing boom is long gone, but the idea is to determine these corridors now and to preserve them before the land becomes more expensive, or developed. They may just be lines on paper now and not even needed for 30 years, but if the future freeway corridor can be preserved now it makes those projects eventually viable. Also, most of that land west of the White Tanks is owned by housing developers (at least those that were able to hang on) with the long term plan to be ready for the next boom. I saw this going back to the 80's in areas that have been long developed where you saw the Loop 101 corridor being saved from development.
Plus you always have the idea that building the freeway would spur something- which is what you see here- http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/blog/business/2014/03/proposed-interstate-11-has-support-of-land-owners.html
These developers are gladly donating land for the freeway corridor just to get it through their land.
I distinctly remember the 101 Corridor in Scottsdale and the hell it was driving down Pima or Scottsdale Road to get to Tempe. The area was infinitely more populated even with the Salt River Reservation right there. Most of the houses north of the 101 in Scottsdale were largely already there. Basically what all those developers and Buckeye did during the housing boom was get greedy which turned into a land grab. Look at the city limits of Buckeye, almost all that land is under their jurisdiction. Basically you have a bunch of real estate developers and a couple municipalities that are trying to influence an Interstate route that should be direct as possible. The state highway system should be used to expand west of the White Tanks, I-11 should stick with the Valley proper as the corridor was initially meant to serve the alignment US 60 and US 93 take to Vegas.
Here is the city limits of Buckeye as they currently stand for reference:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Buckeye,+AZ/@33.5095773,-112.7876573,10z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x80d4ab4adc82500d:0xc06d24efdda9f7f6?hl=en
Buckeye sure made sure to annex up all that land that doesn't have people living in it currently. Funny that they haven't annexed several parcels between I-10, AZ 85 and MC 85 that full well should be in their corporate limit. It's almost like they are banking on I-11 being routed through their empty land parcels, but who does that serve other than the city of Buckeye?
And here's Goodyear's annexation for reference, you can see they grabbed up all the land that supposedly I-11 would take to Maricopa.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Goodyear,+AZ/@33.3518034,-112.6987152,10z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x872b3a65dfa1b71d:0x67b27a8f85f953fa?hl=en
Rumor was that Goodyear was going to annex everything down to Mobile and AZ 238 but they backed off. At least Goodyear has pretty much grabbed up all the parcels of unincorporated land near I-10 and the 303, for the most part they seem to have a much more sensible plan.
But basically this is the reason why the Sonoran Desert National Monument still exists, it was created back in the 90s to stop land grabs like this. The Ironwood Forest National Monument would also be a serious wrench in the proposed I-11 west bypass of Tucson.
I'm still trying to understand why the planners on this I-11 project keep insisting the Interstate should be routed clear down to Nogales. I can agree with concepts to route I-11 down as far South as I-8, but going past that makes absolutely no sense and would just waste a huge amount of money.
What are the traffic counts on I-19 between Tucson and Nogales? Tucson is a city of half a million people, with maybe 1 million in the metro area. Nogales is pretty small. Only about 20,000 people. I realize there is a decent amount of commercial traffic entering I-19 from Mexico. But I find it extremely hard to believe there would be enough traffic to warrant building another Interstate parallel to I-19 clear down there. Existing I-19 is just 2 lanes in each direction for all of its length. I-19 by itself is probably good enough. If more capacity is needed ADOT has more than enough ROW to add additional lanes to I-19.
The terrain and development between Tucson and Nogales complicates matters even more. It gets rough, hilly and even mountainous on both sides of I-19 South of Sahuarita. I-19 itself runs along the Santa Cruz river valley to Nogales. There's plenty of development along side the existing highway. Where would a parallel I-11 route be built without it costing a gigantic fortune? I'm not a big fan of concurrences, but I-11 would almost certainly be forced to share the same route with I-19 from Sahuarita all the way down to Nogales. Ending two concurrent Interstate highways in the same place just seems stupid to me.
Tucson is a big enough city to justify building an Interstate quality loop highway or bypass, but this grandiose routing of I-11 isn't the right way to do it. A real I-10 relief route for Tucson should start somewhere SE of Tucson between Vail and Littletown. It would run Westward between Tucson International Airport and Summit and cross I-19 South of Drexel Heights. The route would curve up West of Wasson Peak and then dovetail back into I-10 around Marana.
I-11 first and foremost just needs to function as an Interstate quality link between Phoenix and Las Vegas. This Nogales stuff is a high priced distraction. It's too bad US-60 in Phoenix is so boxed in with development. That makes it impossible to route I-11 directly into downtown for the foreseeable future. Coming from Las Vegas, I-11 seems predestined to hang a right at Loop 303 and head South to terminate at I-10.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 12, 2016, 01:09:10 PM
I'm still trying to understand why the planners on this I-11 project keep insisting the Interstate should be routed clear down to Nogales. I can agree with concepts to route I-11 down as far South as I-8, but going past that makes absolutely no sense and would just waste a huge amount of money.
What are the traffic counts on I-19 between Tucson and Nogales? Tucson is a city of half a million people, with maybe 1 million in the metro area. Nogales is pretty small. Only about 20,000 people. I realize there is a decent amount of commercial traffic entering I-19 from Mexico. But I find it extremely hard to believe there would be enough traffic to warrant building another Interstate parallel to I-19 clear down there. Existing I-19 is just 2 lanes in each direction for all of its length. I-19 by itself is probably good enough. If more capacity is needed ADOT has more than enough ROW to add additional lanes to I-19.
The terrain and development between Tucson and Nogales complicates matters even more. It gets rough, hilly and even mountainous on both sides of I-19 South of Sahuarita. I-19 itself runs along the Santa Cruz river valley to Nogales. There's plenty of development along side the existing highway. Where would a parallel I-11 route be built without it costing a gigantic fortune? I'm not a big fan of concurrences, but I-11 would almost certainly be forced to share the same route with I-19 from Sahuarita all the way down to Nogales. Ending two concurrent Interstate highways in the same place just seems stupid to me.
Tucson is a big enough city to justify building an Interstate quality loop highway or bypass, but this grandiose routing of I-11 isn't the right way to do it. A real I-10 relief route for Tucson should start somewhere SE of Tucson between Vail and Littletown. It would run Westward between Tucson International Airport and Summit and cross I-19 South of Drexel Heights. The route would curve up West of Wasson Peak and then dovetail back into I-10 around Marana.
I-11 first and foremost just needs to function as an Interstate quality link between Phoenix and Las Vegas. This Nogales stuff is a high priced distraction. It's too bad US-60 in Phoenix is so boxed in with development. That makes it impossible to route I-11 directly into downtown for the foreseeable future. Coming from Las Vegas, I-11 seems predestined to hang a right at Loop 303 and head South to terminate at I-10.
Yeah it's way too built up on US 60/Grand nowadays to make that economically feasible....although it is the most ideal route, hence what I threw out there about using US 60 to 303 south to reach I-10. Basically you have the normal eminent domain you would have to deal with in regards all the heavy industry and commercial property along Grand in addition to rerouting a rail line....it will never happen unfortunately much like the Camelback Freeway went bust.
I think the ultimate goal is for I-11 to reach I-19, not run along the I-19 corridor itself. But you're hitting on pretty much the point I've been making that the existing Interstates are more than sufficient as is from Tucson south. I would prefer an alignment that either take AZ 85 to I-8 or somehow reaches it eventually via Goodyear's annexation by way out Maricopa and Casa Grande.
As it stands Tucson can't even get an a three digit Interstate or freeway quality state route off the ground. The closest thing Tucson has is AZ 210 but that's still stuck in study last I checked to build that up as a freeway.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 12, 2016, 01:09:10 PM
I'm still trying to understand why the planners on this I-11 project keep insisting the Interstate should be routed clear down to Nogales. I can agree with concepts to route I-11 down as far South as I-8, but going past that makes absolutely no sense and would just waste a huge amount of money.
Because it's better to have a concept plan and get a project in the pipeline and then never build it, than to find a need 20 years from now and have to start from scratch on addressing it.
Plans change. Projects change. Better that they exist than not.
The I-11 thing down to Nogales isn't much of a concept plan. It's impractical and doesn't even make any sense.
If they want to get a freeway project in the pipeline to build decades in the future then they just need to copy what Texas has done pretty well: get the right of way secured first, typically by building a wide, divided street with enough median to build the whole thing in the future.
It drives me nuts how Oklahoma never could figure out how to copy that technique. Oklahoma City's plans of getting an outer loop highway built have been totally screwed via lack of any kind of future planning. They just let any idiot put up a housing development, school, Walmart or whatever right in the path of the future highway corridor.
At least Arizona has copied Texas' approach to some degree in a few places.
Quote from: Max RockatanskyI think the ultimate goal is for I-11 to reach I-19, not run along the I-19 corridor itself. But you're hitting on pretty much the point I've been making that the existing Interstates are more than sufficient as is from Tucson south. I would prefer an alignment that either take AZ 85 to I-8 or somehow reaches it eventually via Goodyear's annexation by way out Maricopa and Casa Grande.
As it stands Tucson can't even get an a three digit Interstate or freeway quality state route off the ground. The closest thing Tucson has is AZ 210 but that's still stuck in study last I checked to build that up as a freeway.
Tucson has a pretty strong anti-freeway crowd. But the situation there reminds me how Austin was 20 or 30 years ago when I-35 and TX-1 were the only freeways in town. Eventually Tucson will get too developed for its own good and be forced to add at least one freeway bypass. I can remember when Phoenix had no big loop highways either, just I-10 and I-17 in the little inner city loop. The city grew too big to get along without loop highways in the 1980's.
AZ-85 is too far West for any logical I-11 routing. That doesn't mean AZ-85 is off limits to any potential freeway upgrade in the future. The ROW is already in place down to Gila Bend, almost to I-8. The question is if there is enough traffic to justify building the upgrade.
If I-11 is to go South of I-10, I think it should follow an extension of Loop 303 Southward, run diagonal to the West of the Sierra Estrella mountains over to Maricopa and then East to I-10. It wouldn't quite get to Casa Grande, but it would fill out another quadrant of Loop 303.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 12, 2016, 02:35:31 PM
The I-11 thing down to Nogales isn't much of a concept plan. It's impractical and doesn't even make any sense.
If they want to get a freeway project in the pipeline to build decades in the future then they just need to copy what Texas has done pretty well: get the right of way secured first, typically by building a wide, divided street with enough median to build the whole thing in the future.
It drives me nuts how Oklahoma never could figure out how to copy that technique. Oklahoma City's plans of getting an outer loop highway built have been totally screwed via lack of any kind of future planning. They just let any idiot put up a housing development, school, Walmart or whatever right in the path of the future highway corridor.
At least Arizona has copied Texas' approach to some degree in a few places.
Quote from: Max RockatanskyI think the ultimate goal is for I-11 to reach I-19, not run along the I-19 corridor itself. But you're hitting on pretty much the point I've been making that the existing Interstates are more than sufficient as is from Tucson south. I would prefer an alignment that either take AZ 85 to I-8 or somehow reaches it eventually via Goodyear's annexation by way out Maricopa and Casa Grande.
As it stands Tucson can't even get an a three digit Interstate or freeway quality state route off the ground. The closest thing Tucson has is AZ 210 but that's still stuck in study last I checked to build that up as a freeway.
Tucson has a pretty strong anti-freeway crowd. But the situation there reminds me how Austin was 20 or 30 years ago when I-35 and TX-1 were the only freeways in town. Eventually Tucson will get too developed for its own good and be forced to add at least one freeway bypass. I can remember when Phoenix had no big loop highways either, just I-10 and I-17 in the little inner city loop. The city grew too big to get along without loop highways in the 1980's.
AZ-85 is too far West for any logical I-11 routing. That doesn't mean AZ-85 is off limits to any potential freeway upgrade in the future. The ROW is already in place down to Gila Bend, almost to I-8. The question is if there is enough traffic to justify building the upgrade.
If I-11 is to go South of I-10, I think it should follow an extension of Loop 303 Southward, run diagonal to the West of the Sierra Estrella mountains over to Maricopa and then East to I-10. It wouldn't quite get to Casa Grande, but it would fill out another quadrant of Loop 303.
I'm in agreement completely with you in regards to the alignment within the Phoenix area. The only issue is that Buckeye is trying to influence the alignment way off to the west of the White Tanks because they annexed all the land out there. If they get their way it would require a huge multiplex with I-10 to get I-11 to that slot through the Estrella Range....or if this AZ 30 plan is real. Regardless if it ends up Buckeye gets their way it would make more sense to have I-11 overtake AZ 85 to Gila Bend and I-8 since it's already a well used bypass of the Phoenix area. Ironically Buckeye land grabbed a ton of empty real estate along AZ 85 as well, I'm assuming they are counting on something happening out there eventually.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 11, 2016, 10:22:49 PM
Quote from: kdk on March 11, 2016, 04:11:16 PM
I know the idea of the "west of the White Tank mountains" ideas seem crazy since the housing boom is long gone, but the idea is to determine these corridors now and to preserve them before the land becomes more expensive, or developed. They may just be lines on paper now and not even needed for 30 years, but if the future freeway corridor can be preserved now it makes those projects eventually viable. Also, most of that land west of the White Tanks is owned by housing developers (at least those that were able to hang on) with the long term plan to be ready for the next boom. I saw this going back to the 80's in areas that have been long developed where you saw the Loop 101 corridor being saved from development.
Plus you always have the idea that building the freeway would spur something- which is what you see here- http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/blog/business/2014/03/proposed-interstate-11-has-support-of-land-owners.html
These developers are gladly donating land for the freeway corridor just to get it through their land.
Here is the city limits of Buckeye as they currently stand for reference:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Buckeye,+AZ/@33.5095773,-112.7876573,10z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x80d4ab4adc82500d:0xc06d24efdda9f7f6?hl=en
Buckeye sure made sure to annex up all that land that doesn't have people living in it currently. Funny that they haven't annexed several parcels between I-10, AZ 85 and MC 85 that full well should be in their corporate limit. It's almost like they are banking on I-11 being routed through their empty land parcels, but who does that serve other than the city of Buckeye?
And here's Goodyear's annexation for reference, you can see they grabbed up all the land that supposedly I-11 would take to Maricopa.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Goodyear,+AZ/@33.3518034,-112.6987152,10z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x872b3a65dfa1b71d:0x67b27a8f85f953fa?hl=en
Rumor was that Goodyear was going to annex everything down to Mobile and AZ 238 but they backed off. At least Goodyear has pretty much grabbed up all the parcels of unincorporated land near I-10 and the 303, for the most part they seem to have a much more sensible plan.
But basically this is the reason why the Sonoran Desert National Monument still exists, it was created back in the 90s to stop land grabs like this. The Ironwood Forest National Monument would also be a serious wrench in the proposed I-11 west bypass of Tucson.
Goodyear did in fact annex Mobile and its 80 residents - http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/20120919annexations-costing-more-than-imagined.html or shows up here- http://www.goodyearaz.gov/home/showdocument?id=9854
They are sorry that they did, but have to deal with the costs. Driving down AZ-238 through this area, I still don't recall Goodyear even signing any of this area with usual "Entering Goodyear City limits" signs you see on other state routes, but you do in drive through the city on that route. The Maricopa County assesor site actually has a more updated city limit map, not sure why Google Maps isn't always updated.
Back when metro Phoenix was in its boom, housing developers couldn't build fast enough and were out buying land in these far flung places, cities like Buckeye and Goodyear saw dollar signs with all the "impact fees" that they would raise from the development. I remember when I first got a copy of the new regional planned freeway map, the idea of these future freeways actually didn't seem that far off then with everything planned. There were even major regional shopping malls planned at future interchanges already for these fictional future freeways.
Quote from: kdk on March 13, 2016, 07:22:08 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 11, 2016, 10:22:49 PM
Quote from: kdk on March 11, 2016, 04:11:16 PM
I know the idea of the "west of the White Tank mountains" ideas seem crazy since the housing boom is long gone, but the idea is to determine these corridors now and to preserve them before the land becomes more expensive, or developed. They may just be lines on paper now and not even needed for 30 years, but if the future freeway corridor can be preserved now it makes those projects eventually viable. Also, most of that land west of the White Tanks is owned by housing developers (at least those that were able to hang on) with the long term plan to be ready for the next boom. I saw this going back to the 80's in areas that have been long developed where you saw the Loop 101 corridor being saved from development.
Plus you always have the idea that building the freeway would spur something- which is what you see here- http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/blog/business/2014/03/proposed-interstate-11-has-support-of-land-owners.html
These developers are gladly donating land for the freeway corridor just to get it through their land.
Here is the city limits of Buckeye as they currently stand for reference:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Buckeye,+AZ/@33.5095773,-112.7876573,10z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x80d4ab4adc82500d:0xc06d24efdda9f7f6?hl=en
Buckeye sure made sure to annex up all that land that doesn't have people living in it currently. Funny that they haven't annexed several parcels between I-10, AZ 85 and MC 85 that full well should be in their corporate limit. It's almost like they are banking on I-11 being routed through their empty land parcels, but who does that serve other than the city of Buckeye?
And here's Goodyear's annexation for reference, you can see they grabbed up all the land that supposedly I-11 would take to Maricopa.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Goodyear,+AZ/@33.3518034,-112.6987152,10z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x872b3a65dfa1b71d:0x67b27a8f85f953fa?hl=en
Rumor was that Goodyear was going to annex everything down to Mobile and AZ 238 but they backed off. At least Goodyear has pretty much grabbed up all the parcels of unincorporated land near I-10 and the 303, for the most part they seem to have a much more sensible plan.
But basically this is the reason why the Sonoran Desert National Monument still exists, it was created back in the 90s to stop land grabs like this. The Ironwood Forest National Monument would also be a serious wrench in the proposed I-11 west bypass of Tucson.
Goodyear did in fact annex Mobile and its 80 residents - http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/20120919annexations-costing-more-than-imagined.html or shows up here- http://www.goodyearaz.gov/home/showdocument?id=9854
They are sorry that they did, but have to deal with the costs. Driving down AZ-238 through this area, I still don't recall Goodyear even signing any of this area with usual "Entering Goodyear City limits" signs you see on other state routes, but you do in drive through the city on that route. The Maricopa County assesor site actually has a more updated city limit map, not sure why Google Maps isn't always updated.
Back when metro Phoenix was in its boom, housing developers couldn't build fast enough and were out buying land in these far flung places, cities like Buckeye and Goodyear saw dollar signs with all the "impact fees" that they would raise from the development. I remember when I first got a copy of the new regional planned freeway map, the idea of these future freeways actually didn't seem that far off then with everything planned. There were even major regional shopping malls planned at future interchanges already for these fictional future freeways.
You're right, I was under the impression they backed off annexing Mobile. Apparently they just aren't going to provide emergency services, that's freaking cute on their part. Apparently Goodyear seems to think they will have 350,000 residents by 2035. Phoenix grew in the decade I lived there...gained about a million people in fact. That kind of upswing doesn't last forever, it sure hasn't for Phoenix so far or Las Vegas. It looks like home prices are starting to sky rocket again in fact up your way in Scottsdale. I have a family member that got stuck holding six mortgages in the state during the last crash. I'm trying to convince him to stay with the house he has and not trying to flip things for a quick.
I guess the question is now is how much people can the Phoenix area really support? Right now the metro area is about 4.3 million....what happens if that were ever to increase to 6.5 or worse 8 million? How would the state support this kind of population out in the middle of a desert. The Gila River is basically extinct at this point and the Salt River wouldn't be too far being with that kind of population. You already have 37 million Californians putting strain on the Colorado and every other water supply in the state. There is only much further these places can grow without additional infrastructure beyond just planned freeways, cookie cutter homes and shopping malls.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 13, 2016, 11:39:13 PM
Quote from: kdk on March 13, 2016, 07:22:08 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 11, 2016, 10:22:49 PM
Quote from: kdk on March 11, 2016, 04:11:16 PM
You're right, I was under the impression they backed off annexing Mobile. Apparently they just aren't going to provide emergency services, that's freaking cute on their part. Apparently Goodyear seems to think they will have 350,000 residents by 2035. Phoenix grew in the decade I lived there...gained about a million people in fact. That kind of upswing doesn't last forever, it sure hasn't for Phoenix so far or Las Vegas. It looks like home prices are starting to sky rocket again in fact up your way in Scottsdale. I have a family member that got stuck holding six mortgages in the state during the last crash. I'm trying to convince him to stay with the house he has and not trying to flip things for a quick.
I guess the question is now is how much people can the Phoenix area really support? Right now the metro area is about 4.3 million....what happens if that were ever to increase to 6.5 or worse 8 million? How would the state support this kind of population out in the middle of a desert. The Gila River is basically extinct at this point and the Salt River wouldn't be too far being with that kind of population. You already have 37 million Californians putting strain on the Colorado and every other water supply in the state. There is only much further these places can grow without additional infrastructure beyond just planned freeways, cookie cutter homes and shopping malls.
Yeah, although we are growing here again, but where the cities are becoming more dense. Not in the same way though as we were back in 2006- but people live in the homes now that were built in the far flung places like Buckeye, where as when they were built they were all bought up by investors who thought they could rent them out and they sat vacant for years. Also every single piece of infill land in the urban areas is being developed into apartments, even some of the old obsolete shopping centers are being torn down and replaced with apartments. There is some of the new construction starting again in the outer areas, like a big master planned community north of Wickenburg along the 93, but there aren't lines of people waiting to buy these now.
Not to get too off topic, but the subject of water here restricting growth isn't really that true. The farms that are being replaced by the new housing developments actually use less water than the farms did. So even though we are adding people we are actually using less water than before. Metro Phoenix can grow to 10-12 million before we really have big water issues to worry about.
Now for the other end of Interstate 11. Have they made a decision on the exact route Interstate 11 will take through Las Vegas? Will it utilize existing Interstate 515 (which would be my preference) or will it bypass 515 to the west or the east?
[/quote]
Yeah, although we are growing here again, but where the cities are becoming more dense. Not in the same way though as we were back in 2006- but people live in the homes now that were built in the far flung places like Buckeye, where as when they were built they were all bought up by investors who thought they could rent them out and they sat vacant for years. Also every single piece of infill land in the urban areas is being developed into apartments, even some of the old obsolete shopping centers are being torn down and replaced with apartments. There is some of the new construction starting again in the outer areas, like a big master planned community north of Wickenburg along the 93, but there aren't lines of people waiting to buy these now.
Not to get too off topic, but the subject of water here restricting growth isn't really that true. The farms that are being replaced by the new housing developments actually use less water than the farms did. So even though we are adding people we are actually using less water than before. Metro Phoenix can grow to 10-12 million before we really have big water issues to worry about.
[/quote]
Didn't Scottsdale basically buy all it's empty parcels that it had a couple years back? They were talking about it when I had my house out there years and years ago outside Old Town.. See that's the problem, everyone is saying that about the water supply but is it really going to be that simple? Roosevelt Lake is below the line of the original masonry dam just off Highway 88. Even if the water doesn't become a problem it's just going to become another Los Angeles. The city was so much better at 3 million than it was at 4.3 million today, it's almost like what made it special is being slowly stripped away and turned into another cookie cutter California style city.
Why the hell would they try to build another Interstate to Nogales, when I-19 already exists for that purpose?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 14, 2016, 05:29:56 PM
Now for the other end of Interstate 11. Have they made a decision on the exact route Interstate 11 will take through Las Vegas? Will it utilize existing Interstate 515 (which would be my preference) or will it bypass 515 to the west or the east?
Here's a map of the proposed routes: Article (http://www.reviewjournal.com/interstate-11-las-vegas-routes) (not posting the image directly because of the copyright issues)
I had thought that the Eastern Beltway was completely off the table at this point. ??? (https://www.aaroads.com/west/i-215_nv.html)
I-215/CR 215 probably wouldn't be the choice of locals because of the extra traffic it would add. Not that I-515/US 93 doesn't have traffic, but the truck traffic that is already running between Phoenix and Reno is already using 93, so why try to reroute them?
And I'm just going to post this again, because this thread has gone on for so long that it's probably worth posting again: Boulder City Bypass (http://bouldercitybypass.com)
So my preference would be alternative Z. Maybe QQ could be utilized to make 215 a full beltway (fictionally, of course). BB to me seems too out of place for Interstate 11. As for the Boulder City Bypass, when that is complete, Interstate 515 should be renumbered to Interstate 11.
Z makes the most sense.
I was surprised when they essentially gave up on the Eastern Beltway. I mean, back in the day, well before the housing explosion in Vegas, when they were first planning out the beltway, they had their chance. I remember what the terrain looked like, and it would have been easy to plow something through there. Now they're just screwed on that, and I think that's unfortunate because there's not really an alternative route for commercial traffic going from most of Arizona north into Utah. 89 is a deathtrap, especially in the winter, and 191 is too far out of the way for a Phoenix to SLC run. The existing I-215 and CR 215 mostly seem to serve as secondary feeder freeways, connecting the outlying suburbs with I-15. To me, from the angles alone, the Eastern Beltway was the only one that made sense.
Oh, and I found the article where that map appeared: A way through the valley: Public mulls Interstate 11 routes (http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/way-through-valley-public-mulls-interstate-11-routes)
And here's one that has a map and talks about the alternatives through the rest of the state: Western Nevada routes favored for massive Interstate 11 project (http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/western-nevada-routes-favored-massive-interstate-11-project)
And a project site (http://www.i11study.com/)
If you use that last link to get to the previous EIS comments, some are pretty funny. Most seem to use the word "boondoggle," but I think a lot of public works projects get that label these days.
Quote from: coatimundi on March 15, 2016, 07:51:55 PM
Z makes the most sense.
I was surprised when they essentially gave up on the Eastern Beltway. I mean, back in the day, well before the housing explosion in Vegas, when they were first planning out the beltway, they had their chance. I remember what the terrain looked like, and it would have been easy to plow something through there. Now they're just screwed on that, and I think that's unfortunate because there's not really an alternative route for commercial traffic going from most of Arizona north into Utah. 89 is a deathtrap, especially in the winter, and 191 is too far out of the way for a Phoenix to SLC run. The existing I-215 and CR 215 mostly seem to serve as secondary feeder freeways, connecting the outlying suburbs with I-15. To me, from the angles alone, the Eastern Beltway was the only one that made sense.
Oh, and I found the article where that map appeared: A way through the valley: Public mulls Interstate 11 routes (http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/way-through-valley-public-mulls-interstate-11-routes)
And here's one that has a map and talks about the alternatives through the rest of the state: Western Nevada routes favored for massive Interstate 11 project (http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/western-nevada-routes-favored-massive-interstate-11-project)
And a project site (http://www.i11study.com/)
If you use that last link to get to the previous EIS comments, some are pretty funny. Most seem to use the word "boondoggle," but I think a lot of public works projects get that label these days.
Just curious, what makes US 89 a death trap? I've always found both US 89 and US 89A both to be pretty docile and well maintained in the winter time. The terrain largely goes through valley lows which rarely have large snow accumulation and the canyons are very mild. Usually the truck traffic ended up taking US 89 to Page rather the older alignment on 89A, I bet a lot of them are glad it's finally reopened after that Navajo 20 debacle. Most people I knew...myself included from Phoenix would usually take US 89 on the way to Salt Lake because it was by far the most direct route, especially if you take UT 20 over to I-15. I've been there in pretty much every conceivable weather condition, -10 F, snowing, fog, ect....about the most hostile thing about the area is lack of services.
Quote from: coatimundi on March 15, 2016, 12:10:21 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 14, 2016, 05:29:56 PM
Now for the other end of Interstate 11. Have they made a decision on the exact route Interstate 11 will take through Las Vegas? Will it utilize existing Interstate 515 (which would be my preference) or will it bypass 515 to the west or the east?
Here's a map of the proposed routes: Article (http://www.reviewjournal.com/interstate-11-las-vegas-routes) (not posting the image directly because of the copyright issues)
No decision has been made, as far as I'm aware. Note that the map linked is from an article that 2-1/2 years old at this point. I-11 is pretty much confirmed to be heading in the direction of Reno at this point, so the Alternative AA is out.
Last time I researched the proposed alignments, it had been narrowed down to Alternative Y (follows I-215/CC 215 west and north to US 95), Alternative Z (follows existing I-515/US 95), and a combination of BB & QQ (eastern bypass to I-15, then backtracking to follow CC 215 west to US 95). It's been several months since I looked in on this though.
Quote from: coatimundi on March 15, 2016, 12:10:21 PM
I had thought that the Eastern Beltway was completely off the table at this point. ??? (https://www.aaroads.com/west/i-215_nv.html)
Quote from: coatimundi on March 15, 2016, 07:51:55 PM
Z makes the most sense.
I was surprised when they essentially gave up on the Eastern Beltway. I mean, back in the day, well before the housing explosion in Vegas, when they were first planning out the beltway, they had their chance. I remember what the terrain looked like, and it would have been easy to plow something through there. Now they're just screwed on that, and I think that's unfortunate because there's not really an alternative route for commercial traffic going from most of Arizona north into Utah. ... The existing I-215 and CR 215 mostly seem to serve as secondary feeder freeways, connecting the outlying suburbs with I-15. To me, from the angles alone, the Eastern Beltway was the only one that made sense.
You have to keep in mind that development in the Las Vegas Valley first extended east from the downtown core before it went west/north/south. As they were planning the beltway in the late 1980s/early 1990s, housing developments had long since proliferated to the foothills of Sunrise & Frenchman's Mountains on the east side of the valley. The valley's housing boom in the 1990's was primarily in the south (western Henderson), west (Summerlin) and northwest, and by the late 1990s/early 2000s was beginning to move southwestward and to the north–none of this had reached mountains edges (and much land closer to foothills was still controlled by the BLM).
The result in beltway planning was that, aside from the initial portion of I-215 (between roughly I-15 and SR 146), the beltway alignment followed the path of least resistance and didn't necessitate a whole lot of eminent domain land acquisition. An eastern leg would have required land acquisition almost the entire way to I-15.
A feasibility study for an eastern beltway leg was performed sometime in the early-mid 2000s (I think by NDOT). Potential alignments would have it connect to I-515 either in Henderson or near the Charleston curve, then swing east and north towards Nellis AFB before reconnecting to I-15. At the time, it was concluded that an eastern beltway would cost over $1 billion to construct. The price tag, along with the disruption to a lot of established neighborhoods and commercial districts, essentially killed the idea. (The AA Roads
Don't get me wrong... I very much favored the idea of an eastern beltway. In the context of the CANAMEX Corridor, it would have made a whole lot of sense to shift that traffic eastward and realign US 93 out of the Spaghetti Bowl. Had that been built, it would make much more sense for an I-11 routing than a route through the Lake Mead NRA as proposed (and with the northern beltway leg, a more viable contender for the I-11 route through town towards Reno).
Quote from: coatimundi on March 15, 2016, 07:51:55 PM
I-215/CR 215 probably wouldn't be the choice of locals because of the extra traffic it would add. Not that I-515/US 93 doesn't have traffic, but the truck traffic that is already running between Phoenix and Reno is already using 93, so why try to reroute them?
I would speculate that the 215 route might be better because of the extra traffic it would add. US 95 can be pretty heavily trafficked as it is, and the proposed widening of I-515 from the mid-2000s has stalled as NDOT has prioritized projects on I-15. 215 might be better suited to absorb the traffic.
Quote from: coatimundi on March 15, 2016, 07:51:55 PM
And I'm just going to post this again, because this thread has gone on for so long that it's probably worth posting again: Boulder City Bypass (http://bouldercitybypass.com)
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 15, 2016, 03:25:10 PM
As for the Boulder City Bypass, when that is complete, Interstate 515 should be renumbered to Interstate 11.
This is presently under construction. There is a thread in the Pacific Southwest board (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15134.0) for this topic, although it's been a while since anything has been posted in it.
As I noted in that thread, NDOT has some approval for the I-11 number on the Boulder City Bypass, but it really only covers I-515 from I-215 southward (and doesn't connect directly to a 2DI. Renumbering I-515 at this point seems premature until the I-11 alignment is decided.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 15, 2016, 11:55:06 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on March 15, 2016, 07:51:55 PM
Z makes the most sense.
I was surprised when they essentially gave up on the Eastern Beltway. I mean, back in the day, well before the housing explosion in Vegas, when they were first planning out the beltway, they had their chance. I remember what the terrain looked like, and it would have been easy to plow something through there. Now they're just screwed on that, and I think that's unfortunate because there's not really an alternative route for commercial traffic going from most of Arizona north into Utah. 89 is a deathtrap, especially in the winter, and 191 is too far out of the way for a Phoenix to SLC run. The existing I-215 and CR 215 mostly seem to serve as secondary feeder freeways, connecting the outlying suburbs with I-15. To me, from the angles alone, the Eastern Beltway was the only one that made sense.
Oh, and I found the article where that map appeared: A way through the valley: Public mulls Interstate 11 routes (http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/way-through-valley-public-mulls-interstate-11-routes)
And here's one that has a map and talks about the alternatives through the rest of the state: Western Nevada routes favored for massive Interstate 11 project (http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/western-nevada-routes-favored-massive-interstate-11-project)
And a project site (http://www.i11study.com/)
If you use that last link to get to the previous EIS comments, some are pretty funny. Most seem to use the word "boondoggle," but I think a lot of public works projects get that label these days.
Just curious, what makes US 89 a death trap? I've always found both US 89 and US 89A both to be pretty docile and well maintained in the winter time. The terrain largely goes through valley lows which rarely have large snow accumulation and the canyons are very mild. Usually the truck traffic ended up taking US 89 to Page rather the older alignment on 89A, I bet a lot of them are glad it's finally reopened after that Navajo 20 debacle. Most people I knew...myself included from Phoenix would usually take US 89 on the way to Salt Lake because it was by far the most direct route, especially if you take UT 20 over to I-15. I've been there in pretty much every conceivable weather condition, -10 F, snowing, fog, ect....about the most hostile thing about the area is lack of services.
Flagstaff is a snowstorm magnet. Every time I check the weather when driving between Provo, UT and the Phoenix area, it always seems like Flagstaff is getting pounded hard.
89 between Kanab and just north of Flagstaff (at the bottom of that long hill) tends to not be *too* bad, as there are some stretches of <4500' elevation that don't get a ton of snow, but there are some spots that can get a little hairy (Antelope Pass, the Cockscomb, coming down the cliff north into Page) in cold weather. All it takes is one near-invisible patch of black ice to hurl a car wheeling around a curve at 55+ MPH into oblivion.
North of Kanab....all bets are off. Gorgeous road during summer, but during a winter snowstorm, that road can be downright frightening. They'll plow it when they can - meaning, after they get I-15 and I-70 taken care of...and UT-20 may come even later than that, if at all. And even if it isn't snowing, the road can still be extremely icy at night; that part of Utah gets
C O L D in the wintertime. Wreck your car or break down, and you're in deep doodoo.
I do wish there was some kind of Vegas bypass for traffic taking 93 from Arizona to Nevada, looking to grab I-15 into Utah. Maybe improve the Dolan Springs road, build a bridge over a narrow part of Lake Mead (I'm not super familiar if the terrain in that area is too rugged though), and run it up to Mesquite or something? US 193.
Quote from: howlincoyote2k1 on March 16, 2016, 06:20:30 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 15, 2016, 11:55:06 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on March 15, 2016, 07:51:55 PM
Z makes the most sense.
I was surprised when they essentially gave up on the Eastern Beltway. I mean, back in the day, well before the housing explosion in Vegas, when they were first planning out the beltway, they had their chance. I remember what the terrain looked like, and it would have been easy to plow something through there. Now they're just screwed on that, and I think that's unfortunate because there's not really an alternative route for commercial traffic going from most of Arizona north into Utah. 89 is a deathtrap, especially in the winter, and 191 is too far out of the way for a Phoenix to SLC run. The existing I-215 and CR 215 mostly seem to serve as secondary feeder freeways, connecting the outlying suburbs with I-15. To me, from the angles alone, the Eastern Beltway was the only one that made sense.
Oh, and I found the article where that map appeared: A way through the valley: Public mulls Interstate 11 routes (http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/way-through-valley-public-mulls-interstate-11-routes)
And here's one that has a map and talks about the alternatives through the rest of the state: Western Nevada routes favored for massive Interstate 11 project (http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/western-nevada-routes-favored-massive-interstate-11-project)
And a project site (http://www.i11study.com/)
If you use that last link to get to the previous EIS comments, some are pretty funny. Most seem to use the word "boondoggle," but I think a lot of public works projects get that label these days.
Just curious, what makes US 89 a death trap? I've always found both US 89 and US 89A both to be pretty docile and well maintained in the winter time. The terrain largely goes through valley lows which rarely have large snow accumulation and the canyons are very mild. Usually the truck traffic ended up taking US 89 to Page rather the older alignment on 89A, I bet a lot of them are glad it's finally reopened after that Navajo 20 debacle. Most people I knew...myself included from Phoenix would usually take US 89 on the way to Salt Lake because it was by far the most direct route, especially if you take UT 20 over to I-15. I've been there in pretty much every conceivable weather condition, -10 F, snowing, fog, ect....about the most hostile thing about the area is lack of services.
Flagstaff is a snowstorm magnet. Every time I check the weather when driving between Provo, UT and the Phoenix area, it always seems like Flagstaff is getting pounded hard.
89 between Kanab and just north of Flagstaff (at the bottom of that long hill) tends to not be *too* bad, as there are some stretches of <4500' elevation that don't get a ton of snow, but there are some spots that can get a little hairy (Antelope Pass, the Cockscomb, coming down the cliff north into Page) in cold weather. All it takes is one near-invisible patch of black ice to hurl a car wheeling around a curve at 55+ MPH into oblivion.
North of Kanab....all bets are off. Gorgeous road during summer, but during a winter snowstorm, that road can be downright frightening. They'll plow it when they can - meaning, after they get I-15 and I-70 taken care of...and UT-20 may come even later than that, if at all. And even if it isn't snowing, the road can still be extremely icy at night; that part of Utah gets C O L D in the wintertime. Wreck your car or break down, and you're in deep doodoo.
I do wish there was some kind of Vegas bypass for traffic taking 93 from Arizona to Nevada, looking to grab I-15 into Utah. Maybe improve the Dolan Springs road, build a bridge over a narrow part of Lake Mead (I'm not super familiar if the terrain in that area is too rugged though), and run it up to Mesquite or something? US 193.
Yeah that terrain around the Lake Mead Recreation Area, Lower Grand Canyon and the Virgin River Gorge is pretty rough. It's actually pretty amazing to me that there was enough drive to build an Interstate through the Gorge instead of following US 91 to St. George, I don't think it would have been built in this modern environment.
I'll give you the cold is really bad in the winter and blizzards can be a problem, but is that anymore different than say US 60 from Globe to Socorro, U.S. 70 from Globe to Lordsburg, U.S. 180 from Holbrook to Deming? Granted you get Moab and Green River with reasonable services on US 191 but I always found 89 had a couple decent stopping point or places where help could come from like Kanab and Panguitch. I don't know, usually I was always pretty up to speed on the weather in the Rim and Plateau areas before I tried traveling out into the boons. I've had some really long snow-ins along I-10 in New Mexico and U.S. 60/AZ 260 especially. But then again I was the crazy person carrying chains, thermal blankets and about everything you would need to tough out a day or two in a storm.
Incidentally I know none of what I just talked about has anything to do with I-11 but I always thought it was ironic with all the talk on that Interstate with the debates over traffic/truck count justification that nobody really every brings up US 89 as an I-17 extension corridor. Not that I think it's needed since US 89 is more than adequate but the big original selling point of I-11 was no direct Interstate connection between Phoenix and Vegas....what about Phoenix and SLC?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 16, 2016, 07:04:06 PM
Incidentally I know none of what I just talked about has anything to do with I-11 but I always thought it was ironic with all the talk on that Interstate with the debates over traffic/truck count justification that nobody really every brings up US 89 as an I-17 extension corridor. Not that I think it's needed since US 89 is more than adequate but the big original selling point of I-11 was no direct Interstate connection between Phoenix and Vegas....what about Phoenix and SLC?
Because Phoenix to I-15 at Beaver is 460 miles via Flagstaff, and 520 miles via Vegas. That's 300 miles of new interstate to save 60 miles of driving on a 700-mile Phoenix-to-Salt Lake trip.
Quote from: howlincoyote2k1 on March 16, 2016, 06:20:30 PM
I do wish there was some kind of Vegas bypass for traffic taking 93 from Arizona to Nevada, looking to grab I-15 into Utah. Maybe improve the Dolan Springs road, build a bridge over a narrow part of Lake Mead (I'm not super familiar if the terrain in that area is too rugged though), and run it up to Mesquite or something? US 193.
I've posted on this before here:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15663.0
Purely a fantasy, because there's not a half billion dollar grant about to drop on Arizona and Nevada for this any time soon. But I'm a week away from driving from St. George to Phoenix, and boy it'd be nice to be able to skip Vegas.
Quote from: NickCPDX on March 16, 2016, 07:27:19 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 16, 2016, 07:04:06 PM
Incidentally I know none of what I just talked about has anything to do with I-11 but I always thought it was ironic with all the talk on that Interstate with the debates over traffic/truck count justification that nobody really every brings up US 89 as an I-17 extension corridor. Not that I think it's needed since US 89 is more than adequate but the big original selling point of I-11 was no direct Interstate connection between Phoenix and Vegas....what about Phoenix and SLC?
Because Phoenix to I-15 at Beaver is 460 miles via Flagstaff, and 520 miles via Vegas. That's 300 miles of new interstate to save 60 miles of driving on a 700-mile Phoenix-to-Salt Lake trip.
Quote from: howlincoyote2k1 on March 16, 2016, 06:20:30 PM
I do wish there was some kind of Vegas bypass for traffic taking 93 from Arizona to Nevada, looking to grab I-15 into Utah. Maybe improve the Dolan Springs road, build a bridge over a narrow part of Lake Mead (I'm not super familiar if the terrain in that area is too rugged though), and run it up to Mesquite or something? US 193.
I've posted on this before here:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15663.0
Purely a fantasy, because there's not a half billion dollar grant about to drop on Arizona and Nevada for this any time soon. But I'm a week away from driving from St. George to Phoenix, and boy it'd be nice to be able to skip Vegas.
Yes but a straighter alignment on the Plateau with a constant 65-75 MPH is going to knock some serious time savings on the US 89 alignment vs US 93 and I-95. The real question becomes at that point; what's the easiest route to build a divided freeway? US 89 to Page, US 89A over the Arizona Strip or even Navajo 20s alignment? The biggest obstructions are going to be the Vermillon Cliffs and Bryce Canyon since any hypothetical route would still need to go around them.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 16, 2016, 07:04:06 PM
Quote from: howlincoyote2k1 on March 16, 2016, 06:20:30 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 15, 2016, 11:55:06 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on March 15, 2016, 07:51:55 PM
Z makes the most sense.
I was surprised when they essentially gave up on the Eastern Beltway. I mean, back in the day, well before the housing explosion in Vegas, when they were first planning out the beltway, they had their chance. I remember what the terrain looked like, and it would have been easy to plow something through there. Now they're just screwed on that, and I think that's unfortunate because there's not really an alternative route for commercial traffic going from most of Arizona north into Utah. 89 is a deathtrap, especially in the winter, and 191 is too far out of the way for a Phoenix to SLC run. The existing I-215 and CR 215 mostly seem to serve as secondary feeder freeways, connecting the outlying suburbs with I-15. To me, from the angles alone, the Eastern Beltway was the only one that made sense.
Oh, and I found the article where that map appeared: A way through the valley: Public mulls Interstate 11 routes (http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/way-through-valley-public-mulls-interstate-11-routes)
And here's one that has a map and talks about the alternatives through the rest of the state: Western Nevada routes favored for massive Interstate 11 project (http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/western-nevada-routes-favored-massive-interstate-11-project)
And a project site (http://www.i11study.com/)
If you use that last link to get to the previous EIS comments, some are pretty funny. Most seem to use the word "boondoggle," but I think a lot of public works projects get that label these days.
Just curious, what makes US 89 a death trap? I've always found both US 89 and US 89A both to be pretty docile and well maintained in the winter time. The terrain largely goes through valley lows which rarely have large snow accumulation and the canyons are very mild. Usually the truck traffic ended up taking US 89 to Page rather the older alignment on 89A, I bet a lot of them are glad it's finally reopened after that Navajo 20 debacle. Most people I knew...myself included from Phoenix would usually take US 89 on the way to Salt Lake because it was by far the most direct route, especially if you take UT 20 over to I-15. I've been there in pretty much every conceivable weather condition, -10 F, snowing, fog, ect....about the most hostile thing about the area is lack of services.
Flagstaff is a snowstorm magnet. Every time I check the weather when driving between Provo, UT and the Phoenix area, it always seems like Flagstaff is getting pounded hard.
89 between Kanab and just north of Flagstaff (at the bottom of that long hill) tends to not be *too* bad, as there are some stretches of <4500' elevation that don't get a ton of snow, but there are some spots that can get a little hairy (Antelope Pass, the Cockscomb, coming down the cliff north into Page) in cold weather. All it takes is one near-invisible patch of black ice to hurl a car wheeling around a curve at 55+ MPH into oblivion.
North of Kanab....all bets are off. Gorgeous road during summer, but during a winter snowstorm, that road can be downright frightening. They'll plow it when they can - meaning, after they get I-15 and I-70 taken care of...and UT-20 may come even later than that, if at all. And even if it isn't snowing, the road can still be extremely icy at night; that part of Utah gets C O L D in the wintertime. Wreck your car or break down, and you're in deep doodoo.
I do wish there was some kind of Vegas bypass for traffic taking 93 from Arizona to Nevada, looking to grab I-15 into Utah. Maybe improve the Dolan Springs road, build a bridge over a narrow part of Lake Mead (I'm not super familiar if the terrain in that area is too rugged though), and run it up to Mesquite or something? US 193.
Yeah that terrain around the Lake Mead Recreation Area, Lower Grand Canyon and the Virgin River Gorge is pretty rough. It's actually pretty amazing to me that there was enough drive to build an Interstate through the Gorge instead of following US 91 to St. George, I don't think it would have been built in this modern environment.
I'll give you the cold is really bad in the winter and blizzards can be a problem, but is that anymore different than say US 60 from Globe to Socorro, U.S. 70 from Globe to Lordsburg, U.S. 180 from Holbrook to Deming? Granted you get Moab and Green River with reasonable services on US 191 but I always found 89 had a couple decent stopping point or places where help could come from like Kanab and Panguitch. I don't know, usually I was always pretty up to speed on the weather in the Rim and Plateau areas before I tried traveling out into the boons. I've had some really long snow-ins along I-10 in New Mexico and U.S. 60/AZ 260 especially. But then again I was the crazy person carrying chains, thermal blankets and about everything you would need to tough out a day or two in a storm.
Incidentally I know none of what I just talked about has anything to do with I-11 but I always thought it was ironic with all the talk on that Interstate with the debates over traffic/truck count justification that nobody really every brings up US 89 as an I-17 extension corridor. Not that I think it's needed since US 89 is more than adequate but the big original selling point of I-11 was no direct Interstate connection between Phoenix and Vegas....what about Phoenix and SLC?
As someone who grew up in Kanab and has mulled over this for a long time...IMO the most cost-effective proposal for an I-17 extension from Flagstaff to St. George would be north on US-89 to around Page then west, roughly along US-89/US-89A/AZ-389/UT-59/UT-9 to I-15 near St. George. I know ADOT discussed 4-laning US-89 to around Tuba City (no, 4-lanes=/=Interstate, but it's also not far-fetched when compared to a 2-lane road), and such a route could tie into the Southern Parkway (UT-7 or the part of UT-9 planned to be built to expressway standards) rather seamlessly.* It's a stretch, especially given Antelope Pass, but I don't think it's all that far-fetched at all that I-17 may reach Page someday (as it seems another lane and the requisite width at Antelope Pass could be built fairly easy, or N-20's terrain is a lot easier (though there's the ROW to deal with there).
The terrain outside of the Colorado River crossing, Cockscomb, and Hurricane Cliffs* is relatively flat. I can even envision a scenario where such a route could be a Franconia Notch-style parkway between Kanab and Page as an environmental compromise in that part of the region (It also begs the question as to what kind of lifespan the Glen Canyon Bridge has left and what update/replacement options may be considered).
If it were to ever go north of Kanab, the best route would parallel US-89 and UT-20, as 20 seems to be the least terrain-challenged route, but going that way I feel it most likely becomes too costly. I can at least see a road widening/expressway/freeway going from St. George east, perhaps to Colorado City or the Fredonia/Kanab area to facilitate traffic heading towards the parks (and largely why I'm such a fan of making the routes between I-15 near Hurricane and US-160 a single US Route at the very least).
*There have been some mentions of a Hurricane bypass to the south to connect UT-7 near Sand Hollow and UT-59 roughly around Apple Valley, or possibly a freeway could swing west of Hurricane and then north to end at I-15 near Toquerville (thus following - you guessed it - UT-17).
Quote from: Rover_0 on March 17, 2016, 01:36:43 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 16, 2016, 07:04:06 PM
Quote from: howlincoyote2k1 on March 16, 2016, 06:20:30 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 15, 2016, 11:55:06 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on March 15, 2016, 07:51:55 PM
Z makes the most sense.
I was surprised when they essentially gave up on the Eastern Beltway. I mean, back in the day, well before the housing explosion in Vegas, when they were first planning out the beltway, they had their chance. I remember what the terrain looked like, and it would have been easy to plow something through there. Now they're just screwed on that, and I think that's unfortunate because there's not really an alternative route for commercial traffic going from most of Arizona north into Utah. 89 is a deathtrap, especially in the winter, and 191 is too far out of the way for a Phoenix to SLC run. The existing I-215 and CR 215 mostly seem to serve as secondary feeder freeways, connecting the outlying suburbs with I-15. To me, from the angles alone, the Eastern Beltway was the only one that made sense.
Oh, and I found the article where that map appeared: A way through the valley: Public mulls Interstate 11 routes (http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/way-through-valley-public-mulls-interstate-11-routes)
And here's one that has a map and talks about the alternatives through the rest of the state: Western Nevada routes favored for massive Interstate 11 project (http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/western-nevada-routes-favored-massive-interstate-11-project)
And a project site (http://www.i11study.com/)
If you use that last link to get to the previous EIS comments, some are pretty funny. Most seem to use the word "boondoggle," but I think a lot of public works projects get that label these days.
Just curious, what makes US 89 a death trap? I've always found both US 89 and US 89A both to be pretty docile and well maintained in the winter time. The terrain largely goes through valley lows which rarely have large snow accumulation and the canyons are very mild. Usually the truck traffic ended up taking US 89 to Page rather the older alignment on 89A, I bet a lot of them are glad it's finally reopened after that Navajo 20 debacle. Most people I knew...myself included from Phoenix would usually take US 89 on the way to Salt Lake because it was by far the most direct route, especially if you take UT 20 over to I-15. I've been there in pretty much every conceivable weather condition, -10 F, snowing, fog, ect....about the most hostile thing about the area is lack of services.
Flagstaff is a snowstorm magnet. Every time I check the weather when driving between Provo, UT and the Phoenix area, it always seems like Flagstaff is getting pounded hard.
89 between Kanab and just north of Flagstaff (at the bottom of that long hill) tends to not be *too* bad, as there are some stretches of <4500' elevation that don't get a ton of snow, but there are some spots that can get a little hairy (Antelope Pass, the Cockscomb, coming down the cliff north into Page) in cold weather. All it takes is one near-invisible patch of black ice to hurl a car wheeling around a curve at 55+ MPH into oblivion.
North of Kanab....all bets are off. Gorgeous road during summer, but during a winter snowstorm, that road can be downright frightening. They'll plow it when they can - meaning, after they get I-15 and I-70 taken care of...and UT-20 may come even later than that, if at all. And even if it isn't snowing, the road can still be extremely icy at night; that part of Utah gets C O L D in the wintertime. Wreck your car or break down, and you're in deep doodoo.
I do wish there was some kind of Vegas bypass for traffic taking 93 from Arizona to Nevada, looking to grab I-15 into Utah. Maybe improve the Dolan Springs road, build a bridge over a narrow part of Lake Mead (I'm not super familiar if the terrain in that area is too rugged though), and run it up to Mesquite or something? US 193.
Yeah that terrain around the Lake Mead Recreation Area, Lower Grand Canyon and the Virgin River Gorge is pretty rough. It's actually pretty amazing to me that there was enough drive to build an Interstate through the Gorge instead of following US 91 to St. George, I don't think it would have been built in this modern environment.
I'll give you the cold is really bad in the winter and blizzards can be a problem, but is that anymore different than say US 60 from Globe to Socorro, U.S. 70 from Globe to Lordsburg, U.S. 180 from Holbrook to Deming? Granted you get Moab and Green River with reasonable services on US 191 but I always found 89 had a couple decent stopping point or places where help could come from like Kanab and Panguitch. I don't know, usually I was always pretty up to speed on the weather in the Rim and Plateau areas before I tried traveling out into the boons. I've had some really long snow-ins along I-10 in New Mexico and U.S. 60/AZ 260 especially. But then again I was the crazy person carrying chains, thermal blankets and about everything you would need to tough out a day or two in a storm.
Incidentally I know none of what I just talked about has anything to do with I-11 but I always thought it was ironic with all the talk on that Interstate with the debates over traffic/truck count justification that nobody really every brings up US 89 as an I-17 extension corridor. Not that I think it's needed since US 89 is more than adequate but the big original selling point of I-11 was no direct Interstate connection between Phoenix and Vegas....what about Phoenix and SLC?
As someone who grew up in Kanab and has mulled over this for a long time...IMO the most cost-effective proposal for an I-17 extension from Flagstaff to St. George would be north on US-89 to around Page then west, roughly along US-89/US-89A/AZ-389/UT-59/UT-9 to I-15 near St. George. I know ADOT discussed 4-laning US-89 to around Tuba City (no, 4-lanes=/=Interstate, but it's also not far-fetched when compared to a 2-lane road), and such a route could tie into the Southern Parkway (UT-7 or the part of UT-9 planned to be built to expressway standards) rather seamlessly.* It's a stretch, especially given Antelope Pass, but I don't think it's all that far-fetched at all that I-17 may reach Page someday (as it seems another lane and the requisite width at Antelope Pass could be built fairly easy, or N-20's terrain is a lot easier (though there's the ROW to deal with there).
The terrain outside of the Colorado River crossing, Cockscomb, and Hurricane Cliffs* is relatively flat. I can even envision a scenario where such a route could be a Franconia Notch-style parkway between Kanab and Page as an environmental compromise in that part of the region (It also begs the question as to what kind of lifespan the Glen Canyon Bridge has left and what update/replacement options may be considered).
If it were to ever go north of Kanab, the best route would parallel US-89 and UT-20, as 20 seems to be the least terrain-challenged route, but going that way I feel it most likely becomes too costly. I can at least see a road widening/expressway/freeway going from St. George east, perhaps to Colorado City or the Fredonia/Kanab area to facilitate traffic heading towards the parks (and largely why I'm such a fan of making the routes between I-15 near Hurricane and US-160 a single US Route at the very least).
*There have been some mentions of a Hurricane bypass to the south to connect UT-7 near Sand Hollow and UT-59 roughly around Apple Valley, or possibly a freeway could swing west of Hurricane and then north to end at I-15 near Toquerville (thus following - you guessed it - UT-17).
I've never been a fan of the St. George routing for a potential I-17 northward extension; it's just too many miles of near due east/west on a road to ostensibly connect two cities that are almost exactly due north/south from each other. I'd just send it up 89 to connect with I-70 at Sevier, then break off north of Richfield to merge with I-15 at Scipio. Yeah, I get that it'll be pretty redundant with I-15, but any other routing just adds unnecessary miles and isn't very well streamlined.
Quote from: Rover_0 on March 17, 2016, 01:36:43 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 16, 2016, 07:04:06 PM
Quote from: howlincoyote2k1 on March 16, 2016, 06:20:30 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 15, 2016, 11:55:06 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on March 15, 2016, 07:51:55 PM
Z makes the most sense.
I was surprised when they essentially gave up on the Eastern Beltway. I mean, back in the day, well before the housing explosion in Vegas, when they were first planning out the beltway, they had their chance. I remember what the terrain looked like, and it would have been easy to plow something through there. Now they're just screwed on that, and I think that's unfortunate because there's not really an alternative route for commercial traffic going from most of Arizona north into Utah. 89 is a deathtrap, especially in the winter, and 191 is too far out of the way for a Phoenix to SLC run. The existing I-215 and CR 215 mostly seem to serve as secondary feeder freeways, connecting the outlying suburbs with I-15. To me, from the angles alone, the Eastern Beltway was the only one that made sense.
Oh, and I found the article where that map appeared: A way through the valley: Public mulls Interstate 11 routes (http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/way-through-valley-public-mulls-interstate-11-routes)
And here's one that has a map and talks about the alternatives through the rest of the state: Western Nevada routes favored for massive Interstate 11 project (http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/western-nevada-routes-favored-massive-interstate-11-project)
And a project site (http://www.i11study.com/)
If you use that last link to get to the previous EIS comments, some are pretty funny. Most seem to use the word "boondoggle," but I think a lot of public works projects get that label these days.
Just curious, what makes US 89 a death trap? I've always found both US 89 and US 89A both to be pretty docile and well maintained in the winter time. The terrain largely goes through valley lows which rarely have large snow accumulation and the canyons are very mild. Usually the truck traffic ended up taking US 89 to Page rather the older alignment on 89A, I bet a lot of them are glad it's finally reopened after that Navajo 20 debacle. Most people I knew...myself included from Phoenix would usually take US 89 on the way to Salt Lake because it was by far the most direct route, especially if you take UT 20 over to I-15. I've been there in pretty much every conceivable weather condition, -10 F, snowing, fog, ect....about the most hostile thing about the area is lack of services.
Flagstaff is a snowstorm magnet. Every time I check the weather when driving between Provo, UT and the Phoenix area, it always seems like Flagstaff is getting pounded hard.
89 between Kanab and just north of Flagstaff (at the bottom of that long hill) tends to not be *too* bad, as there are some stretches of <4500' elevation that don't get a ton of snow, but there are some spots that can get a little hairy (Antelope Pass, the Cockscomb, coming down the cliff north into Page) in cold weather. All it takes is one near-invisible patch of black ice to hurl a car wheeling around a curve at 55+ MPH into oblivion.
North of Kanab....all bets are off. Gorgeous road during summer, but during a winter snowstorm, that road can be downright frightening. They'll plow it when they can - meaning, after they get I-15 and I-70 taken care of...and UT-20 may come even later than that, if at all. And even if it isn't snowing, the road can still be extremely icy at night; that part of Utah gets C O L D in the wintertime. Wreck your car or break down, and you're in deep doodoo.
I do wish there was some kind of Vegas bypass for traffic taking 93 from Arizona to Nevada, looking to grab I-15 into Utah. Maybe improve the Dolan Springs road, build a bridge over a narrow part of Lake Mead (I'm not super familiar if the terrain in that area is too rugged though), and run it up to Mesquite or something? US 193.
Yeah that terrain around the Lake Mead Recreation Area, Lower Grand Canyon and the Virgin River Gorge is pretty rough. It's actually pretty amazing to me that there was enough drive to build an Interstate through the Gorge instead of following US 91 to St. George, I don't think it would have been built in this modern environment.
I'll give you the cold is really bad in the winter and blizzards can be a problem, but is that anymore different than say US 60 from Globe to Socorro, U.S. 70 from Globe to Lordsburg, U.S. 180 from Holbrook to Deming? Granted you get Moab and Green River with reasonable services on US 191 but I always found 89 had a couple decent stopping point or places where help could come from like Kanab and Panguitch. I don't know, usually I was always pretty up to speed on the weather in the Rim and Plateau areas before I tried traveling out into the boons. I've had some really long snow-ins along I-10 in New Mexico and U.S. 60/AZ 260 especially. But then again I was the crazy person carrying chains, thermal blankets and about everything you would need to tough out a day or two in a storm.
Incidentally I know none of what I just talked about has anything to do with I-11 but I always thought it was ironic with all the talk on that Interstate with the debates over traffic/truck count justification that nobody really every brings up US 89 as an I-17 extension corridor. Not that I think it's needed since US 89 is more than adequate but the big original selling point of I-11 was no direct Interstate connection between Phoenix and Vegas....what about Phoenix and SLC?
As someone who grew up in Kanab and has mulled over this for a long time...IMO the most cost-effective proposal for an I-17 extension from Flagstaff to St. George would be north on US-89 to around Page then west, roughly along US-89/US-89A/AZ-389/UT-59/UT-9 to I-15 near St. George. I know ADOT discussed 4-laning US-89 to around Tuba City (no, 4-lanes=/=Interstate, but it's also not far-fetched when compared to a 2-lane road), and such a route could tie into the Southern Parkway (UT-7 or the part of UT-9 planned to be built to expressway standards) rather seamlessly.* It's a stretch, especially given Antelope Pass, but I don't think it's all that far-fetched at all that I-17 may reach Page someday (as it seems another lane and the requisite width at Antelope Pass could be built fairly easy, or N-20's terrain is a lot easier (though there's the ROW to deal with there).
The terrain outside of the Colorado River crossing, Cockscomb, and Hurricane Cliffs* is relatively flat. I can even envision a scenario where such a route could be a Franconia Notch-style parkway between Kanab and Page as an environmental compromise in that part of the region (It also begs the question as to what kind of lifespan the Glen Canyon Bridge has left and what update/replacement options may be considered).
If it were to ever go north of Kanab, the best route would parallel US-89 and UT-20, as 20 seems to be the least terrain-challenged route, but going that way I feel it most likely becomes too costly. I can at least see a road widening/expressway/freeway going from St. George east, perhaps to Colorado City or the Fredonia/Kanab area to facilitate traffic heading towards the parks (and largely why I'm such a fan of making the routes between I-15 near Hurricane and US-160 a single US Route at the very least).
*There have been some mentions of a Hurricane bypass to the south to connect UT-7 near Sand Hollow and UT-59 roughly around Apple Valley, or possibly a freeway could swing west of Hurricane and then north to end at I-15 near Toquerville (thus following - you guessed it - UT-17).
Or once UT 7 is finished how about US 389? Basically that route could either follow UT 7 from I-15 to UT 9 or just start at UT 9 and I-15. US 389 could then follow UT 9, UT 59, AZ 389 and even US 89A all the way to US 89 in Bitter Springs AZ. I figure the section of US 89A from Fredonia to Kanab could remain as such since it's traveling over a state line. I figure with all the growth in St. George it would be really difficult for the AASHTO to reject this and would open the corridor to more consideration if there ever became a northward justification for I-17.
Really I can't see I-17 all the way to I-70, if it was going to be routed that way it would have head over UT 20 to I-15 to get some viability out of that alignment in regards to saving time from Phoenix.
Quote from: Rover_0 on March 17, 2016, 01:36:43 AM
As someone who grew up in Kanab and has mulled over this for a long time...IMO the most cost-effective proposal for an I-17 extension from Flagstaff to St. George would be north on US-89 to around Page then west, roughly along US-89/US-89A/AZ-389/UT-59/UT-9 to I-15 near St. George. I know ADOT discussed 4-laning US-89 to around Tuba City (no, 4-lanes=/=Interstate, but it's also not far-fetched when compared to a 2-lane road), and such a route could tie into the Southern Parkway (UT-7 or the part of UT-9 planned to be built to expressway standards) rather seamlessly.* It's a stretch, especially given Antelope Pass, but I don't think it's all that far-fetched at all that I-17 may reach Page someday (as it seems another lane and the requisite width at Antelope Pass could be built fairly easy, or N-20's terrain is a lot easier (though there's the ROW to deal with there).
Let's just be straight: There's no cost-effective way to build this. ADOT spends $140,000 per road-mile on maintenance. Figure for an Interstate and we'll generously estimate that's $160,000. That's still $20 million a year in maintenance alone for a Flagstaff to Page segment. And while those costs may not be incurred immediately, they will be incurred.
Based on the $2 million-ish a mile ADOT's paying for US 93 widening, just the twinning alone would be in the $250 million range. That doesn't get you one interchange built, just extra pavement. Expect another $300 million to cross the Colorado.
Do you think ADOT wants to add that to its budget? To help trucks shave 8% off a drive from Phoenix to Salt Lake? At a time when gas tax revenues are plunging and federal support is only as strong as Congress' commitment to use general fund money to support transportation?
This part of the conversation belongs in fictional highways.
Quote from: NickCPDX on March 17, 2016, 10:33:23 AM
Quote from: Rover_0 on March 17, 2016, 01:36:43 AM
As someone who grew up in Kanab and has mulled over this for a long time...IMO the most cost-effective proposal for an I-17 extension from Flagstaff to St. George would be north on US-89 to around Page then west, roughly along US-89/US-89A/AZ-389/UT-59/UT-9 to I-15 near St. George. I know ADOT discussed 4-laning US-89 to around Tuba City (no, 4-lanes=/=Interstate, but it's also not far-fetched when compared to a 2-lane road), and such a route could tie into the Southern Parkway (UT-7 or the part of UT-9 planned to be built to expressway standards) rather seamlessly.* It's a stretch, especially given Antelope Pass, but I don't think it's all that far-fetched at all that I-17 may reach Page someday (as it seems another lane and the requisite width at Antelope Pass could be built fairly easy, or N-20's terrain is a lot easier (though there's the ROW to deal with there).
Let's just be straight: There's no cost-effective way to build this. ADOT spends $140,000 per road-mile on maintenance. Figure for an Interstate and we'll generously estimate that's $160,000. That's still $20 million a year in maintenance alone for a Flagstaff to Page segment. And while those costs may not be incurred immediately, they will be incurred.
Based on the $2 million-ish a mile ADOT's paying for US 93 widening, just the twinning alone would be in the $250 million range. That doesn't get you one interchange built, just extra pavement. Expect another $300 million to cross the Colorado.
Do you think ADOT wants to add that to its budget? To help trucks shave 8% off a drive from Phoenix to Salt Lake? At a time when gas tax revenues are plunging and federal support is only as strong as Congress' commitment to use general fund money to support transportation?
This part of the conversation belongs in fictional highways.
Who would if they had a rational understanding of highway budgets? It's basically just the tangent that the conversation went down towards when I started talking about it, you're right it would make a good fictional highway topic. That whole US 389 that I suggested in response is something I'm actually probably going to put in that Extend US Routes thread. Ironically what put us on this track was the whole wriggarmoral was the possibly variations of I-11 within the Phoenix area. Specifically the proposals to put I-11 out in the empty swath of land west of the White Tanks and all the talk about a possible I-8 connection via annexation range of the city of Goodyear. As it stands it seems like the alignment of I-11 in and around Phoenix seems more a flight of fantasy or fiction because it seems to be completely based in expectations of civic growth based in the pre-housing crisis era. Don't forget it wasn't too long ago that people were saying the same exact thing about I-11 just in general. It wasn't really until 2001 when people started to take even an expansion of the corridor seriously after the 9/11 attacks.
Incidentally since we're on the topic of I-11 and kinda sorta on fantasy/fiction. Anyone think there is a prospect ever of a I-211 through US 95, NV 163 and AZ 68? Seems like Bullhead, Laughlin and even to an extent Golden Valley are going through a population boom. Of course this would be obviously a 20-30 year down the line thing...assuming trends in population continue like they are now.
Even if they extended 17 north, the truckers wouldn't use it to get to SLC. The existing 17 has such extreme grade changes - out of Anthem, into the Verde Valley and back up the Rim - but you have to consider the grade changes on 89. Flagstaff is at 7000', Sunset Crater is at 8000', Cameron is below 5000', you get into the 5000' range south of Page, and Page is at 4000'. And that's just Arizona. And a lot of them aren't gradual. I don't recall the exact grade that's signed on 89 on the east side of the national forest between the two monument turn offs, but it was at least 8%.
On US 93, you go from about 1000' up to 3000' through Nothing and Kingman, but it's mostly gradual and doesn't have any real changes in between.
Then there's the rock slide a few years ago that closed the road for, I think, two years. That would certainly be a concern for the public even if irrelevant, which I think it mostly is.
89A is worse for elevation, but that would be the easier terrain to build on nonetheless. Because it skirts so much national forest, monument and park land though, there's no way it would happen. The Strip is too important for tourism.
The "death trap" comment was more about the accidents on that road, particularly north of Cameron. You get regular highway traffic coupled with tourists in the summer and then throw in lots of 2-lane stretches, it gets really, really dangerous. 89 north of Flagstaff used to be considered the most dangerous stretch of highway in the state until they widened it in the late 90's.
I've only hit minor snow on I-10, but I know it exists. However, it's inconsistent. 89 gets snowed in at least once per year.
Quote from: NickCPDX on March 17, 2016, 10:33:23 AM
Quote from: Rover_0 on March 17, 2016, 01:36:43 AM
As someone who grew up in Kanab and has mulled over this for a long time...IMO the most cost-effective proposal for an I-17 extension from Flagstaff to St. George would be north on US-89 to around Page then west, roughly along US-89/US-89A/AZ-389/UT-59/UT-9 to I-15 near St. George. I know ADOT discussed 4-laning US-89 to around Tuba City (no, 4-lanes=/=Interstate, but it's also not far-fetched when compared to a 2-lane road), and such a route could tie into the Southern Parkway (UT-7 or the part of UT-9 planned to be built to expressway standards) rather seamlessly.* It's a stretch, especially given Antelope Pass, but I don't think it's all that far-fetched at all that I-17 may reach Page someday (as it seems another lane and the requisite width at Antelope Pass could be built fairly easy, or N-20's terrain is a lot easier (though there's the ROW to deal with there).
Let's just be straight: There's no cost-effective way to build this. ADOT spends $140,000 per road-mile on maintenance. Figure for an Interstate and we'll generously estimate that's $160,000. That's still $20 million a year in maintenance alone for a Flagstaff to Page segment. And while those costs may not be incurred immediately, they will be incurred.
Based on the $2 million-ish a mile ADOT's paying for US 93 widening, just the twinning alone would be in the $250 million range. That doesn't get you one interchange built, just extra pavement. Expect another $300 million to cross the Colorado.
Do you think ADOT wants to add that to its budget? To help trucks shave 8% off a drive from Phoenix to Salt Lake? At a time when gas tax revenues are plunging and federal support is only as strong as Congress' commitment to use general fund money to support transportation?
This part of the conversation belongs in fictional highways.
:clap:
Quote from: kkt on March 17, 2016, 01:42:45 PM
Quote from: NickCPDX on March 17, 2016, 10:33:23 AM
Quote from: Rover_0 on March 17, 2016, 01:36:43 AM
As someone who grew up in Kanab and has mulled over this for a long time...IMO the most cost-effective proposal for an I-17 extension from Flagstaff to St. George would be north on US-89 to around Page then west, roughly along US-89/US-89A/AZ-389/UT-59/UT-9 to I-15 near St. George. I know ADOT discussed 4-laning US-89 to around Tuba City (no, 4-lanes=/=Interstate, but it's also not far-fetched when compared to a 2-lane road), and such a route could tie into the Southern Parkway (UT-7 or the part of UT-9 planned to be built to expressway standards) rather seamlessly.* It's a stretch, especially given Antelope Pass, but I don't think it's all that far-fetched at all that I-17 may reach Page someday (as it seems another lane and the requisite width at Antelope Pass could be built fairly easy, or N-20's terrain is a lot easier (though there's the ROW to deal with there).
Let's just be straight: There's no cost-effective way to build this. ADOT spends $140,000 per road-mile on maintenance. Figure for an Interstate and we'll generously estimate that's $160,000. That's still $20 million a year in maintenance alone for a Flagstaff to Page segment. And while those costs may not be incurred immediately, they will be incurred.
Based on the $2 million-ish a mile ADOT's paying for US 93 widening, just the twinning alone would be in the $250 million range. That doesn't get you one interchange built, just extra pavement. Expect another $300 million to cross the Colorado.
Do you think ADOT wants to add that to its budget? To help trucks shave 8% off a drive from Phoenix to Salt Lake? At a time when gas tax revenues are plunging and federal support is only as strong as Congress' commitment to use general fund money to support transportation?
This part of the conversation belongs in fictional highways.
:clap:
OK. It's a thought (and one that's not meant to be serious/imminent) that's crossed my mind a time or two.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 17, 2016, 10:06:18 AM
Or once UT 7 is finished how about US 389? Basically that route could either follow UT 7 from I-15 to UT 9 or just start at UT 9 and I-15. US 389 could then follow UT 9, UT 59, AZ 389 and even US 89A all the way to US 89 in Bitter Springs AZ. I figure the section of US 89A from Fredonia to Kanab could remain as such since it's traveling over a state line. I figure with all the growth in St. George it would be really difficult for the AASHTO to reject this and would open the corridor to more consideration if there ever became a northward justification for I-17.
Really I can't see I-17 all the way to I-70, if it was going to be routed that way it would have head over UT 20 to I-15 to get some viability out of that alignment in regards to saving time from Phoenix.
I'd go with US-x89 (likely US-489), though...but this is something more fit for the Fictional thread.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 17, 2016, 10:44:49 AM
Incidentally since we're on the topic of I-11 and kinda sorta on fantasy/fiction. Anyone think there is a prospect ever of a I-211 through US 95, NV 163 and AZ 68? Seems like Bullhead, Laughlin and even to an extent Golden Valley are going through a population boom. Of course this would be obviously a 20-30 year down the line thing...assuming trends in population continue like they are now.
I haven't really investigated the traffic counts along US 95/NV 163 since the Hoover Dam Bypass opened. That whole route is 4 lane divided, except through Searchlight. But that 4-laning of US 95 was instigated by, or at least accelerated by, its use as the US 93 truck detour after 9/11 (SR 163 was already 4 lanes). So I would be curious to know what traffic counts look like since the detour was lifted. But my initial hunch would be that the 4 lane is more than enough.
Then again, I thought an Interstate route connecting Vegas and Reno would be a pipe dream, and it's seriously under consideration now...
One of the more interesting things I've read lately about I-11 is that California is in favor due to a perceived opportunity to offload traffic from I-5. I'm not sure which section of I-11 or I-5 that referred to, since it makes more sense farther north, especially if I-11 will go through Susanville, Klamath Falls, Bend, and Redmond, to Yakima. Otherwise, it's difficult to see how there would be much effect on I-5.
Quote from: roadfro on March 18, 2016, 11:00:07 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 17, 2016, 10:44:49 AM
Incidentally since we're on the topic of I-11 and kinda sorta on fantasy/fiction. Anyone think there is a prospect ever of a I-211 through US 95, NV 163 and AZ 68? Seems like Bullhead, Laughlin and even to an extent Golden Valley are going through a population boom. Of course this would be obviously a 20-30 year down the line thing...assuming trends in population continue like they are now.
I haven't really investigated the traffic counts along US 95/NV 163 since the Hoover Dam Bypass opened. That whole route is 4 lane divided, except through Searchlight. But that 4-laning of US 95 was instigated by, or at least accelerated by, its use as the US 93 truck detour after 9/11 (SR 163 was already 4 lanes). So I would be curious to know what traffic counts look like since the detour was lifted. But my initial hunch would be that the 4 lane is more than enough.
Then again, I thought an Interstate route connecting Vegas and Reno would be a pipe dream, and it's seriously under consideration now...
I drive that route a few times per year. To me it's fine as it is even with the growing populations of the Bullhead area. If anything once I-11 is open it may actually decrease the amount of traffic on this route even more. Only suggestion would be a bypass around Searchlight, but I recall the speed limit on the 4 lane sections being already 75 and traffic speeds being faster than most interstates. Once it reaches Bullhead it would have to swing south of Laughlin and could take the planned bridge south of town and link into Bullhead Parkway, then back to AZ 68. Would add about 15 miles to the route than the current way, but I don't see how you could build an interstate bridge near or at the current Laughlin bridge with the terrain as it is and the casinos in the way. interesting thought.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 17, 2016, 10:44:49 AM
Incidentally since we're on the topic of I-11 and kinda sorta on fantasy/fiction. Anyone think there is a prospect ever of a I-211 through US 95, NV 163 and AZ 68? Seems like Bullhead, Laughlin and even to an extent Golden Valley are going through a population boom. Of course this would be obviously a 20-30 year down the line thing...assuming trends in population continue like they are now.
Going a bit off topic and leaning toward fictional territory somewhat: US 95 is now a good quality, four-lane divided highway between Cal-Nev-Ari and Boulder City, with the exception of the undivided stretch through Searchlight, as Roadfro mentioned. Traffic narrows significantly leading into California, where US 95 suddenly has an undulating, two-lane roadway after dozens of miles as an expressway. I have seen lots of cars on that road, as well as the Needles Highway leading south out of Laughlin toward Needles. On that road, a nice four-lane highway becomes a not so nice two-lane highway upon crossing the border. I would love to see US 95 improved to full expressway standards on the California side of the state line (along with Needles Highway) to help facilitate traffic flow from the growing population centers in Nevada and Arizona down to I-40 near Needles. As to whether this could ever be an Interstate, I'd say yes it is conceivable in coming decades given how much of the route is already four lanes. But we're talking a long way off (probably this would be a 2di such as I-13?) ... but the growth in Bullhead City and Laughlin is unlikely to abate any time soon, which warrants the extra capacity leading to Las Vegas and I-40. Needles is not growing at the same rate, so it will be interesting to see how it changes in the coming years.
Quote from: andy3175 on March 22, 2016, 12:38:59 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 17, 2016, 10:44:49 AM
Incidentally since we're on the topic of I-11 and kinda sorta on fantasy/fiction. Anyone think there is a prospect ever of a I-211 through US 95, NV 163 and AZ 68? Seems like Bullhead, Laughlin and even to an extent Golden Valley are going through a population boom. Of course this would be obviously a 20-30 year down the line thing...assuming trends in population continue like they are now.
Going a bit off topic and leaning toward fictional territory somewhat: US 95 is now a good quality, four-lane divided highway between Cal-Nev-Ari and Boulder City, with the exception of the undivided stretch through Searchlight, as Roadfro mentioned. Traffic narrows significantly leading into California, where US 95 suddenly has an undulating, two-lane roadway after dozens of miles as an expressway. I have seen lots of cars on that road, as well as the Needles Highway leading south out of Laughlin toward Needles. On that road, a nice four-lane highway becomes a not so nice two-lane highway upon crossing the border. I would love to see US 95 improved to full expressway standards on the California side of the state line (along with Needles Highway) to help facilitate traffic flow from the growing population centers in Nevada and Arizona down to I-40 near Needles. As to whether this could ever be an Interstate, I'd say yes it is conceivable in coming decades given how much of the route is already four lanes. But we're talking a long way off (probably this would be a 2di such as I-13?) ... but the growth in Bullhead City and Laughlin is unlikely to abate any time soon, which warrants the extra capacity leading to Las Vegas and I-40. Needles is not growing at the same rate, so it will be interesting to see how it changes in the coming years.
Needles actually had it's first population increase, albeit slightly in decades according to the 2014 census. I suspect that more to do with Bullhead City growing southward more than Needles actually recovering. Apparently the town is still under almost 30% a proverty rate and lost some fairly major employment like Basha's. Even the price gouging gas stations on J Street went under in the last couple years, I guess people finally figured out there was alternatives to $5 dollar regular unleaded gas. Basically everything east of Barstow (which includes Needles) is in a state of arrested decay and neither Caltrans nor San Bernardino County really have much interest in fixing the situation. That four lane expansion of US 95 from I-40 to the Nevada state line should have come years ago. The Needles Highway is a brutal and beat up two lane road that only begins to level out with good maintenance on the Nevada side. Basically it's bad enough that Bullhead and Laughlin seem like a little slice of heaven compared to Needles.
Ironically there was this whole big deal about Needles trying to petition congress a couple years back to have the state lines changed so they would be in Clark County Nevada. Obviously that kind of stuff never goes anywhere but it got somewhat close with a similar situation with Wendover, UT getting a petition to be annexed into Nevada through the House of Representatives at the very least. The great irony of this all this that there is growth in the area that justifies expansion in around Needles. It's just funny since for a long time building roads and freeways was about the only thing that motivated growth in California. I-13 might be a little over justified of a number but a triple digit of I-11 is possible one day maybe.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 22, 2016, 08:05:14 AMNeedles actually had it's first population increase, albeit slightly in decades according to the 2014 census. I suspect that more to do with Bullhead City growing southward more than Needles actually recovering. Apparently the town is still under almost 30% a proverty rate and lost some fairly major employment like Basha's. Even the price gouging gas stations on J Street went under in the last couple years, I guess people finally figured out there was alternatives to $5 dollar regular unleaded gas.
Other than the Needles Supercharger which is free to Tesla owners, what is the alternative to $5 gas in Needles? Driving to across the border into AZ?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 22, 2016, 08:05:14 AMBasically everything east of Barstow (which includes Needles) is in a state of arrested decay and neither Caltrans nor San Bernardino County really have much interest in fixing the situation. That four lane expansion of US 95 from I-40 to the Nevada state line should have come years ago. The Needles Highway is a brutal and beat up two lane road that only begins to level out with good maintenance on the Nevada side. Basically it's bad enough that Bullhead and Laughlin seem like a little slice of heaven compared to Needles.
Is the AADT of US 95 between I-40 and the CA/NV border really high enough to justify four lanes?
The last thing they need is I-13 going through Vegas, so I like that I-11 is being planned through there instead. And I could see I-11 extend all the way to Reno someday, even if it's not actually in my lifetime. To me, I-13 would be like US 666: an unlucky route number on a deadly stretch of highway.
I am sure this has already been asked, but is it possible I-11 follows I-580 to Carson City?
Quote from: Buffaboy on March 22, 2016, 10:38:17 AM
I am sure this has already been asked, but is it possible I-11 follows I-580 to Carson City?
Anything's possible given enough money and political will. But it would be a silly way to go. Check the terrain. Trying to make a beeline from Las Vegas to Carson City would go over several mountain ranges. That's expensive to construct, costs fuel and time in operation, and would be prone to closure during winter storms. Also it would be hard to avoid it taking US 395 partially through California, so it would require California's cooperation. If a freeway connection from Las Vegas to Reno or Carson City is needed (which is questionable), US 95 at least as far as Fallon would be the way to do it.
Quote from: kkt on March 22, 2016, 12:06:36 PM
Quote from: Buffaboy on March 22, 2016, 10:38:17 AM
I am sure this has already been asked, but is it possible I-11 follows I-580 to Carson City?
Anything's possible given enough money and political will. But it would be a silly way to go. Check the terrain. Trying to make a beeline from Las Vegas to Carson City would go over several mountain ranges. That's expensive to construct, costs fuel and time in operation, and would be prone to closure during winter storms. Also it would be hard to avoid it taking US 395 partially through California, so it would require California's cooperation. If a freeway connection from Las Vegas to Reno or Carson City is needed (which is questionable), US 95 at least as far as Fallon would be the way to do it.
You're right. The terrain option on Google Maps shows a stark difference between the two routes.
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.2131091,-119.4690971,9.42z/data=!5m1!1e4
Quote from: mcarling on March 22, 2016, 10:22:47 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 22, 2016, 08:05:14 AMNeedles actually had it's first population increase, albeit slightly in decades according to the 2014 census. I suspect that more to do with Bullhead City growing southward more than Needles actually recovering. Apparently the town is still under almost 30% a proverty rate and lost some fairly major employment like Basha's. Even the price gouging gas stations on J Street went under in the last couple years, I guess people finally figured out there was alternatives to $5 dollar regular unleaded gas.
Other than the Needles Supercharger which is free to Tesla owners, what is the alternative to $5 gas in Needles? Driving to across the border into AZ?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 22, 2016, 08:05:14 AMBasically everything east of Barstow (which includes Needles) is in a state of arrested decay and neither Caltrans nor San Bernardino County really have much interest in fixing the situation. That four lane expansion of US 95 from I-40 to the Nevada state line should have come years ago. The Needles Highway is a brutal and beat up two lane road that only begins to level out with good maintenance on the Nevada side. Basically it's bad enough that Bullhead and Laughlin seem like a little slice of heaven compared to Needles.
Is the AADT of US 95 between I-40 and the CA/NV border really high enough to justify four lanes?
The Chevron on Broadway was about $3.30 for 91 octane back on the 7th of February. That's the same block that used to have the Basha's on it. Literally that was the only remaining open gas station that I saw in town save for the two name brand stations that blew by on I-40 the next day. Fenner and Amboy still were about $5 for all grades of gas...I was surprised to see more than 87 octane at Amboy. Ludlow was about $3.80 for 87 octane and it leveled out to Barstow prices by Newberry Springs.
And that's a negative on US 95 north of I-40 "needing" four lanes. Couple of us got to talking about a three digit spur route of I-11 decades down the line. It does seem kind of silly that basically it's four lanes all the way to the state line in Nevada but California won't step up for such a small section to I-40...not necessary though.
Quote from: kkt on March 22, 2016, 12:06:36 PM
Quote from: Buffaboy on March 22, 2016, 10:38:17 AM
I am sure this has already been asked, but is it possible I-11 follows I-580 to Carson City?
Anything's possible given enough money and political will. But it would be a silly way to go. Check the terrain. Trying to make a beeline from Las Vegas to Carson City would go over several mountain ranges. That's expensive to construct, costs fuel and time in operation, and would be prone to closure during winter storms. Also it would be hard to avoid it taking US 395 partially through California, so it would require California's cooperation. If a freeway connection from Las Vegas to Reno or Carson City is needed (which is questionable), US 95 at least as far as Fallon would be the way to do it.
What about direct lining I-11 along part of the alignment of US 95A northwest bypassing Yerington and following the Carson River? The terrain isn't too difficult through the valleys and low mountains in that particular area and would take a lot of distance out of a route connecting to I-580 in Carson City.
Quote from: Henry on March 22, 2016, 10:23:16 AM
The last thing they need is I-13 going through Vegas, so I like that I-11 is being planned through there instead. And I could see I-11 extend all the way to Reno someday, even if it's not actually in my lifetime. To me, I-13 would be like US 666: an unlucky route number on a deadly stretch of highway.
As opposed to the current US 13? There wasn't anything really unlucky with US 666 other than extremely remote reservation terrain, difficult driving on the Coronado Trail and copious amounts of sign theft.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 22, 2016, 10:26:49 PM
And that's a negative on US 95 north of I-40 "needing" four lanes. Couple of us got to talking about a three digit spur route of I-11 decades down the line. It does seem kind of silly that basically it's four lanes all the way to the state line in Nevada but California won't step up for such a small section to I-40...not necessary though.
I've driven US 95 between the CA-NV state line and I-40 at least a dozen times. The major issues I have are consistent traffic, limited sight lines due to undulating terrain (and a road that stays close to the terrain rather than being carved out of the landscape), and enough trucks to make a slow go of things. I believe a four-lane with good sightlines would vastly improve traffic flow, and a grade separation at the railroad near the old US 66 alignment would also be helpful. One time, about two years ago, I recall sitting in a line of about 35 vehicles waiting for the railroad crossing the clear. But that day was abnormally thick with traffic (I think it was a Sunday afternoon, which is always busy with people leaving the desert to head back to Southern California). I don't necessary need an Interstate highway now/today, but the four-lane connection from the end of the four-lane at the state line south to I-40 would be very beneficial and would provide a more complete corridor. You won't hear me endorse four lanes on US 95 from I-40 south to I-10, however. That road is fine as it is, pending growth along the Colorado River that is sure to extend someday south from Bullhead City toward Lake Havasu.
Quote from: andy3175 on March 22, 2016, 11:12:40 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 22, 2016, 10:26:49 PM
And that's a negative on US 95 north of I-40 "needing" four lanes. Couple of us got to talking about a three digit spur route of I-11 decades down the line. It does seem kind of silly that basically it's four lanes all the way to the state line in Nevada but California won't step up for such a small section to I-40...not necessary though.
I've driven US 95 between the CA-NV state line and I-40 at least a dozen times. The major issues I have are consistent traffic, limited sight lines due to undulating terrain (and a road that stays close to the terrain rather than being carved out of the landscape), and enough trucks to make a slow go of things. I believe a four-lane with good sightlines would vastly improve traffic flow, and a grade separation at the railroad near the old US 66 alignment would also be helpful. One time, about two years ago, I recall sitting in a line of about 35 vehicles waiting for the railroad crossing the clear. But that day was abnormally thick with traffic (I think it was a Sunday afternoon, which is always busy with people leaving the desert to head back to Southern California). I don't necessary need an Interstate highway now/today, but the four-lane connection from the end of the four-lane at the state line south to I-40 would be very beneficial and would provide a more complete corridor. You won't hear me endorse four lanes on US 95 from I-40 south to I-10, however. That road is fine as it is, pending growth along the Colorado River that is sure to extend someday south from Bullhead City toward Lake Havasu.
The flip side traffic from Friday afternoon all the way through the week on CA 177, CA 62 and the entirety of US 95 north from Vidal Junction can get brutal with the casino rush that always happens. Since it's all suburban drivers pouring off I-10 they tend to drive way over the speed limit and make aggressive passes. At the very least some passing lanes on US 95 from CA 62 and I-40 would be really welcome.
Actually the growth is already starting to fill in on the Arizona side between Havazu and I-40. There is all sorts of little developments popping up all the way along AZ 95. I don't see that happening on the California side due to the Needles brand neglect that seems to be the norm in San Bernandino County. I actually had a couple posts in the fictional thread about upgrading NV 163 and AZ 95 to a three digit US Route with all the growth out there.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on March 22, 2016, 11:19:05 PM
Actually the growth is already starting to fill in on the Arizona side between Havazu and I-40. There is all sorts of little developments popping up all the way along AZ 95. I don't see that happening on the California side due to the Needles brand neglect that seems to be the norm in San Bernandino County. I actually had a couple posts in the fictional thread about upgrading NV 163 and AZ 95 to a three digit US Route with all the growth out there.
I need to get back onto AZ 95 between Parker and I-40. Last time I was on there was in 2005 ... and it was in the midst of a building boom. Even with the recession, I'm sure new development has continued in that area. Thanks for the update on development along that route.
Open houses underway this month in the Phoenix and Tucson area for potential alignments for Interstate 11 as part of the EIR process for the southernmost section (from Tucson to Wickenburg): see http://i11study.com/Arizona/
Wednesday, June 15
City of Buckeye Community Center - Multipurpose Room
201 East Centre Ave.
Buckeye, AZ
Tuesday, June 21
Nogales High School Cafeteria
1905 N. Apache Boulevard
Nogales, AZ
Wednesday, June 22
Arizona Riverpark Inn
777 W. Cushing St.
Tucson, AZ
Thursday, June 23
Marana Middle School Gymnasium
11285 W. Grier Rd.
Marana, AZ
Wednesday, June 29
Wickenburg Community Center
160 N Valentine St.
Wickenburg, AZ
And a news article mentions something I've not heard previously, about double decking a portion of Interstate 10 ...
http://tucson.com/news/local/arizona-gives-public-first-glimpse-of-proposed-interstate-routes/article_323f367e-259b-5989-acec-ee7f0daa993d.html
QuoteNorthbound imports could avoid city traffic and connect from I-19 to the Port of Tucson or move to markets on the East Coast via I-10.
Opponents have said widening I-10 and double-decking parts in Pima County would serve the same purpose without additional infrastructure in the desert.
John Moffatt, Pima County's director of strategic planning, said all ideas will be evaluated.
"It's still on the table," he said of double-decking parts of I-10. He said the county continues to collect feedback from residents potentially affected by the new interstate and to work with tribal and state land officials to propose a route with minimum impact.
In general, the article suggests the alignment for Interstate 11 could be on existing or new rights of way:
Quote(T)he final corridor could be one entirely new route or several new routes, connected to improved existing routes.
The maps unveiled Wednesday show alternatives for the interstate run west of Interstate 10 from Wickenburg south to Casa Grande. There, the southern options are east or west of I-10, connecting to Arizona 189 in Nogales with access to the international port.
An earlier proposal by Pima County had I-11 connecting to the existing Interstate 19 for southbound travel.
The Arizona Department of Transportation said no specific alignments are under consideration at this early stage.
The study area for the proposed route is about 280 miles long and between 5 and 25 miles wide.
God a double decker it downtown Tucson would be hideous. It's already a raised freeway with I-10 as is. I'm still not getting this thinking with all these proposals for I-11 to Tucson or the border.
There really isn't the need for an additional freeway between Phoenix and Tucson.
What there is a need for is to complete widening to at least 6 lanes (3EW) from Queen Creek Rd. / AZ 347 to Tucson.
The fact that ADOT isn't in negotiations with the Gila River tribe to make this a priority is a bit upsetting.
It seems like part of this I-11 talk is for an additional freeway so that ADOT can bypass the reservation completely for thru-trucks.
This may alleviate some of the problems but there is a significant amount of local (personal vehicle and truck) traffic that would still use I-10 between Phoenix and Tucson that the I-11 project won't serve as it would go West and South of the Phoenix metropolitan area.
The simplest solution would be to turn AZ85 into a full fledged freeway and widen I-8 to 6 lanes (3EW) from Gila Bend to I-10.
I know this is slightly off topic, but why is I-19 signed as I-19? Wouldn't it just make sense to make it I-17 too?
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on June 11, 2016, 10:54:43 AM
I know this is slightly off topic, but why is I-19 signed as I-19? Wouldn't it just make sense to make it I-17 too?
It's signed as I-19 to avoid a 110 mile multiplex with I-10.
ADOT seems to hate multiplexes and where they exist they aren't signed well at all.
It's the same reason there is an AZ 89 and US 89.
Quote from: ztonyg on June 11, 2016, 11:02:42 AM
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on June 11, 2016, 10:54:43 AM
I know this is slightly off topic, but why is I-19 signed as I-19? Wouldn't it just make sense to make it I-17 too?
It's signed as I-19 to avoid a 110 mile multiplex with I-10.
ADOT seems to hate multiplexes and where they exist they aren't signed well at all.
It's the same reason there is an AZ 89 and US 89.
They aren't nearly as bad as Caltrans is that in that regard. The big thing ADOT has a problem with is a highway terminating at the same place. That's why you see things like AZ 188 replacing AZ 88 to US 60 in Globe and why there was such a big push to give parts of AZ 66 to Yavapai County. But apparently AZ 202 being completed to I-10 past South Mountain is going to be okay now?..I'm surprised that didn't get a 404 designation.
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on June 11, 2016, 10:54:43 AM
I know this is slightly off topic, but why is I-19 signed as I-19? Wouldn't it just make sense to make it I-17 too?
I-19 uses metric, while I-17 uses mileage. Also that would be a long concurrency with I-10. I-19 is shorter in distance than the distance from Tucson to I-17 on I-10.
The real question should be "Why does I-11 need to go farther south than Phoenix or farther north than Las Vegas?". I think the Phoenix - Las Vegas portion is somewhat questionable, but at least its a reasonable idea. Running I-11 to Nogales is just pure insanity. In my opinion if I-11 was to end anywhere besides Phoenix, it should end in Gila Bend, not Nogales.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 11, 2016, 11:08:22 AM
Quote from: ztonyg on June 11, 2016, 11:02:42 AM
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on June 11, 2016, 10:54:43 AM
I know this is slightly off topic, but why is I-19 signed as I-19? Wouldn't it just make sense to make it I-17 too?
It's signed as I-19 to avoid a 110 mile multiplex with I-10.
ADOT seems to hate multiplexes and where they exist they aren't signed well at all.
It's the same reason there is an AZ 89 and US 89.
They aren't nearly as bad as Caltrans is that in that regard. The big thing ADOT has a problem with is a highway terminating at the same place. That's why you see things like AZ 188 replacing AZ 88 to US 60 in Globe and why there was such a big push to give parts of AZ 66 to Yavapai County. But apparently AZ 202 being completed to I-10 past South Mountain is going to be okay now?..I'm surprised that didn't get a 404 designation.
I'd actually argue Caltrans is a bit better.
The US 60 multiplexes with I-10 and I-17 around downtown Phoenix are horrendously signed.
At the Stack on I-10 E/B only US 60 E/B is signed (with no mention of how to access US 60 W/B). On I-10 W/B its even worse as US 60 isn't signed at all.
Not to mention that there is no BGS indicating that mainline US 60 leaves Grand Ave. going E/B. There's simply a "little" green sign indicating US 60 to I-10 and I-17 needs to exit at the 27th Ave. / Thomas Rd. exit.
The AZ 87 and AZ 260 multiplex between Payson and Strawberry is equally poorly signed. Most of the multiplexed portion is simply signed AZ 87 with occasionally a few "TO AZ 260" signs thrown in for good measure.
Quote from: ztonyg on June 11, 2016, 11:29:42 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 11, 2016, 11:08:22 AM
Quote from: ztonyg on June 11, 2016, 11:02:42 AM
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on June 11, 2016, 10:54:43 AM
I know this is slightly off topic, but why is I-19 signed as I-19? Wouldn't it just make sense to make it I-17 too?
It's signed as I-19 to avoid a 110 mile multiplex with I-10.
ADOT seems to hate multiplexes and where they exist they aren't signed well at all.
It's the same reason there is an AZ 89 and US 89.
They aren't nearly as bad as Caltrans is that in that regard. The big thing ADOT has a problem with is a highway terminating at the same place. That's why you see things like AZ 188 replacing AZ 88 to US 60 in Globe and why there was such a big push to give parts of AZ 66 to Yavapai County. But apparently AZ 202 being completed to I-10 past South Mountain is going to be okay now?..I'm surprised that didn't get a 404 designation.
I'd actually argue Caltrans is a bit better.
The US 60 multiplexes with I-10 and I-17 around downtown Phoenix are horrendously signed.
At the Stack on I-10 E/B only US 60 E/B is signed (with no mention of how to access US 60 W/B). On I-10 W/B its even worse as US 60 isn't signed at all.
Not to mention that there is no BGS indicating that mainline US 60 leaves Grand Ave. going E/B. There's simply a "little" green sign indicating US 60 to I-10 and I-17 needs to exit at the 27th Ave. / Thomas Rd. exit.
The AZ 87 and AZ 260 multiplex between Payson and Strawberry is equally poorly signed. Most of the multiplexed portion is simply signed AZ 87 with occasionally a few "TO AZ 260" signs thrown in for good measure.
After the 1964 renumbering they got rid of a ton of multiplexes out in California which led to the demise of most of the US Routes and multiplexes. I'm more surprised when I actually see a miner's spade along with a US Route Shield or Interstate sign, they aren't a common sight. My favorite is how CA 1 technically ends and begins at US 101 in segments.
But that's pretty common nation wide with US Routes being multiplexed onto Interstates; the US Route signage basically disappears until it branches off.
I'm not sure what ADOT was thinking renumbering AZ 279 west of AZ 87 as AZ 260. The designation from Payson to Show Low to Eagar makes sense since it crosses US 60 and basically serves as an alternate route. West of Payson just never made sense I would think that it's signed that way to avoid confusing motorists. I just don't get that renumbering since Arizona has so few route numbers to begin with. The strangest signed multiplex is Valle to the South Rim of the Grand Canyon Entrance station where AZ 64 and US 180 apparently co-exist for some reason.
The strangest are the TO signage for routes like 238 where you wouldn't know it wasn't a state highway unless you'd know something about what sections really belong to ADOT.
I agree that the idea of I-11 going all the way to Nogales is absurd, not to mention that it would look atrocious on a map. I think having it terminate at I-8 somewhere between Gila Bend and Casa Grande, (preferably closer to the latter) and then widening and upgrading I-8, I-10, and I-19 will reap the same benefits as building a whole new freeway while costing much much less.
I wonder which politician is behind this one.
Quote from: ztonyg on June 11, 2016, 10:53:25 AM
There really isn't the need for an additional freeway between Phoenix and Tucson.
What there is a need for is to complete widening to at least 6 lanes (3EW) from Queen Creek Rd. / AZ 347 to Tucson.
The fact that ADOT isn't in negotiations with the Gila River tribe to make this a priority is a bit upsetting.
It seems like part of this I-11 talk is for an additional freeway so that ADOT can bypass the reservation completely for thru-trucks.
This may alleviate some of the problems but there is a significant amount of local (personal vehicle and truck) traffic that would still use I-10 between Phoenix and Tucson that the I-11 project won't serve as it would go West and South of the Phoenix metropolitan area.
The simplest solution would be to turn AZ85 into a full fledged freeway and widen I-8 to 6 lanes (3EW) from Gila Bend to I-10.
Suddenly the extension of I-11 south of Phoenix makes sense. I'm betting that's what they're doing. Otherwise, I don't see why they can't just add a lane to I-10 (which would be cheaper and the more direct route from Tucson to Phoenix). Maybe the extension to Nogales is so they have an excuse to get rid of the metric signs on I-19?
Quote from: US 41 on June 11, 2016, 11:10:29 AM
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on June 11, 2016, 10:54:43 AM
I know this is slightly off topic, but why is I-19 signed as I-19? Wouldn't it just make sense to make it I-17 too?
I-19 uses metric, while I-17 uses mileage. Also that would be a long concurrency with I-10. I-19 is shorter in distance than the distance from Tucson to I-17 on I-10.
The real question should be "Why does I-11 need to go farther south than Phoenix or farther north than Las Vegas?". I think the Phoenix - Las Vegas portion is somewhat questionable, but at least its a reasonable idea. Running I-11 to Nogales is just pure insanity. In my opinion if I-11 was to end anywhere besides Phoenix, it should end in Gila Bend, not Nogales.
ADOT's been looking to get rid of the metric signs on I-19 for a while now. Makes me wonder if I-11 is the excuse they're looking for to bypass the public opposition to changing the signage on I-19.
Quote from: vdeane on June 11, 2016, 06:24:55 PM
Quote from: ztonyg on June 11, 2016, 10:53:25 AM
There really isn't the need for an additional freeway between Phoenix and Tucson.
What there is a need for is to complete widening to at least 6 lanes (3EW) from Queen Creek Rd. / AZ 347 to Tucson.
The fact that ADOT isn't in negotiations with the Gila River tribe to make this a priority is a bit upsetting.
It seems like part of this I-11 talk is for an additional freeway so that ADOT can bypass the reservation completely for thru-trucks.
This may alleviate some of the problems but there is a significant amount of local (personal vehicle and truck) traffic that would still use I-10 between Phoenix and Tucson that the I-11 project won't serve as it would go West and South of the Phoenix metropolitan area.
The simplest solution would be to turn AZ85 into a full fledged freeway and widen I-8 to 6 lanes (3EW) from Gila Bend to I-10.
Suddenly the extension of I-11 south of Phoenix makes sense. I'm betting that's what they're doing. Otherwise, I don't see why they can't just add a lane to I-10 (which would be cheaper and the more direct route from Tucson to Phoenix). Maybe the extension to Nogales is so they have an excuse to get rid of the metric signs on I-19?
Quote from: US 41 on June 11, 2016, 11:10:29 AM
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on June 11, 2016, 10:54:43 AM
I know this is slightly off topic, but why is I-19 signed as I-19? Wouldn't it just make sense to make it I-17 too?
I-19 uses metric, while I-17 uses mileage. Also that would be a long concurrency with I-10. I-19 is shorter in distance than the distance from Tucson to I-17 on I-10.
The real question should be "Why does I-11 need to go farther south than Phoenix or farther north than Las Vegas?". I think the Phoenix - Las Vegas portion is somewhat questionable, but at least its a reasonable idea. Running I-11 to Nogales is just pure insanity. In my opinion if I-11 was to end anywhere besides Phoenix, it should end in Gila Bend, not Nogales.
Yeah, it may be a negotiating tactic. If the Tribe knows ADOT has another option, they may give in on some of what they want. Plus if most of the truck traffic may be taken off the freeway, that hurts the tribes development aspirations- takes away demand for industrial space and even truck stops.
However, most of the developable land for both Phoenix and Tucson for future residential development lies in this I-10 Corridor with the exception of the reservation and a few mountains. Once that develops even four lanes on I-10 won't be enough, and a bypass will be necessary anyway.
Interstate 11 Right of Way in Arizona?
Does anyone know about the right of way for the future Interstate 11 freeway, where is will be west of Phoenix, Arizona or connect to Tucson, Arizona? Many paths, but not one path has been chosen as of yet. :hmmm: :confused:
Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA
Quote from: ACSCmapcollector on July 09, 2016, 03:21:44 PM
Does anyone know about the right of way for the future Interstate 11 freeway, where is will be west of Phoenix, Arizona or connect to Tucson, Arizona?
No decisions have been made yet. If they had decided on an alignment, you can be sure that it would be thoroughly discussed in this thread.
Yes it would sound very ridicoulous for Interstate 11 being extended to Nogales, AZ, where it should end at Casa Grande, AZ at Interstate 8. However it is still up in the air where Tucson, AZ is considered, maybe that section for Interstate 11 is not needed.
Scott C. Presnal
Morro Bay, CA
Quote from: ztonyg on June 11, 2016, 10:53:25 AM
There really isn't the need for an additional freeway between Phoenix and Tucson.
What there is a need for is to complete widening to at least 6 lanes (3EW) from Queen Creek Rd. / AZ 347 to Tucson.
The fact that ADOT isn't in negotiations with the Gila River tribe to make this a priority is a bit upsetting.
It seems like part of this I-11 talk is for an additional freeway so that ADOT can bypass the reservation completely for thru-trucks.
This may alleviate some of the problems but there is a significant amount of local (personal vehicle and truck) traffic that would still use I-10 between Phoenix and Tucson that the I-11 project won't serve as it would go West and South of the Phoenix metropolitan area.
The simplest solution would be to turn AZ85 into a full fledged freeway and widen I-8 to 6 lanes (3EW) from Gila Bend to I-10.
We would benefit from that I-10 upgrade, but it wouldn't hurt to touch up AZ 79 as well, as it is often used as an alternate route for folks in the East Valley and the north/northeast parts of Tucson. The stretch from US 60 to Florence probably ought to be four-laned, and while it would be the ideal for the remainder of the route, you could probably add a few passing lanes here and there and get away with it. The more attractive of an alternate route it is, the more people will opt for that over I-10.
As for I-11, my preference is to connect it to 303 and route it down to I-10 from there, and call it good. The closer you can get the freeway to Phoenix, the better; after all, this is supposed to be a direct freeway connection between Las Vegas and Phoenix, not Las Vegas and Wickenburg. My question it, what are they going to do about Kingman? How are they going to build a direct connection between I-11 North and I-40 without obliterating Beale St?
Quote from: howlincoyote2k1 on July 20, 2016, 10:00:32 PM
Quote from: ztonyg on June 11, 2016, 10:53:25 AM
There really isn't the need for an additional freeway between Phoenix and Tucson.
What there is a need for is to complete widening to at least 6 lanes (3EW) from Queen Creek Rd. / AZ 347 to Tucson.
The fact that ADOT isn't in negotiations with the Gila River tribe to make this a priority is a bit upsetting.
It seems like part of this I-11 talk is for an additional freeway so that ADOT can bypass the reservation completely for thru-trucks.
This may alleviate some of the problems but there is a significant amount of local (personal vehicle and truck) traffic that would still use I-10 between Phoenix and Tucson that the I-11 project won't serve as it would go West and South of the Phoenix metropolitan area.
The simplest solution would be to turn AZ85 into a full fledged freeway and widen I-8 to 6 lanes (3EW) from Gila Bend to I-10.
We would benefit from that I-10 upgrade, but it wouldn't hurt to touch up AZ 79 as well, as it is often used as an alternate route for folks in the East Valley and the north/northeast parts of Tucson. The stretch from US 60 to Florence probably ought to be four-laned, and while it would be the ideal for the remainder of the route, you could probably add a few passing lanes here and there and get away with it. The more attractive of an alternate route it is, the more people will opt for that over I-10.
As for I-11, my preference is to connect it to 303 and route it down to I-10 from there, and call it good. The closer you can get the freeway to Phoenix, the better; after all, this is supposed to be a direct freeway connection between Las Vegas and Phoenix, not Las Vegas and Wickenburg. My question it, what are they going to do about Kingman? How are they going to build a direct connection between I-11 North and I-40 without obliterating Beale St?
Probably can't be done reasonably without Beale Street being wiped out. That would require a huge swing west through Golden Valley or something uber expensive to plow through the mountains around Cerbat to bypass Kingman completely.
There were studies done a few years ago about possibly constructing a new direct interchange between I-40 and US-93 east of the existing Beale St interchange, but I haven't heard any more about anything actually happening yet.
The desired alternative for the interchange involves a directional T, and it using new ROW just north of Beale to make a more east-west approach (as opposed to dropping southeast, as Beale does). If you look at the terrain maps of that corner, it's pretty obvious where they're putting it. The terrain is really rough around there, so there aren't many alternatives.
However, there's no money to build it. I think they're waiting for federal funds.
It's a pretty big bottleneck. It has been for years. And we certainly don't want to decimate West Beale and its historic TA w/ Popeye's.
Quote from: coatimundi on July 21, 2016, 02:07:05 PM
The desired alternative for the interchange involves a directional T, and it using new ROW just north of Beale to make a more east-west approach (as opposed to dropping southeast, as Beale does). If you look at the terrain maps of that corner, it's pretty obvious where they're putting it. The terrain is really rough around there, so there aren't many alternatives.
However, there's no money to build it. I think they're waiting for federal funds.
It's a pretty big bottleneck. It has been for years. And we certainly don't want to decimate West Beale and its historic TA w/ Popeye's.
That's just it you got a huge ridge between Stockton Hill Road and Beale. I've heard the argument that Beale is a historic street, to what end though I find dubious since the downtown district wouldn't be touched. It's not like any historic sections of 66 would be wiped out if Beale west of I40 got razed. And you're forgetting that Mobil that sells the novelty US 66 shields as far as historic structures.
Future Interstate 11 should go no further south than its future junction with Interstate 10, and no further north than its future junction with Interstate 15.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 21, 2016, 05:23:34 PM
Future Interstate 11 should go no further south than its future junction with Interstate 10, and no further north than its future junction with Interstate 15.
Which one with I-10? The one around Phoenix or Casa Grande?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 21, 2016, 05:23:34 PM
Future Interstate 11 should go no further south than its future junction with Interstate 10, and no further north than its future junction with Interstate 15.
I honestly think bringing it up to I-80 near Reno, NV isn't a terrible idea.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 21, 2016, 03:12:01 PM
And you're forgetting that Mobil that sells the novelty US 66 shields as far as historic structures.
I remember that Mobil being like a $1 more per gallon than everyone else on that corner, and I wondered how they could possibly still sell gas.
When they reroute traffic, Beale will not lose any real importance. Most people know that they need to stop in Kingman to avoid the always-higher Nevada gas prices, and taking the extra thru traffic thru of there will, I think, actually encourage more consumer traffic. Personally, I avoid that area on the way up or down because I would rather just not deal with the traffic, and will go for gas on Stockton Hill instead.
Beale will still provide access to Kingman's Downtown, and the Route 66 fans will still have their corridor in tact (at least, as much as it is now).
What I don't understand about the interchange is that it's shown in designs to be full. My question: why would you need a ramp to go from 40E to 93/11N when you could either take Beale Street as a cut off, or take US 95 from Vegas or SR 95 from Bullhead? It just seems like an unnecessary expenditure. Seems like it would be better to have a "To I-11 North - Las Vegas" sign at Beale Street.
And this will likely be the first Business I-11. Maybe they'll even multiplex it along Beale with Business I-40.
Quote from: coatimundi on July 21, 2016, 06:36:38 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 21, 2016, 03:12:01 PM
And you're forgetting that Mobil that sells the novelty US 66 shields as far as historic structures.
I remember that Mobil being like a $1 more per gallon than everyone else on that corner, and I wondered how they could possibly still sell gas.
When they reroute traffic, Beale will not lose any real importance. Most people know that they need to stop in Kingman to avoid the always-higher Nevada gas prices, and taking the extra thru traffic thru of there will, I think, actually encourage more consumer traffic. Personally, I avoid that area on the way up or down because I would rather just not deal with the traffic, and will go for gas on Stockton Hill instead.
Beale will still provide access to Kingman's Downtown, and the Route 66 fans will still have their corridor in tact (at least, as much as it is now).
What I don't understand about the interchange is that it's shown in designs to be full. My question: why would you need a ramp to go from 40E to 93/11N when you could either take Beale Street as a cut off, or take US 95 from Vegas or SR 95 from Bullhead? It just seems like an unnecessary expenditure. Seems like it would be better to have a "To I-11 North - Las Vegas" sign at Beale Street.
And this will likely be the first Business I-11. Maybe they'll even multiplex it along Beale with Business I-40.
Yeah that's probably what is going to ultimately doom that segment of Beale west of I-40, it will need room for a full interchange...if in fact that is what happens. I just can't see all that money being spent on either a full interchange design or blowing all that rock out of the way for something between Beale and Stockton Hill. I'm honestly not sure how much benefit the current BL has when there is probably enough attraction having Historic US 66 signs all down the same stretch...
I always preferred the no-name brand station just directly south of that Mobil since it had a Subway in it. I always had a hard time with getting looped back around on Stockton Hill but the Safeway was usually my go-to if I was in the mood for some chicken strips and it had a gas station in the parking lot. :-D Andy Devine was kind of dicey and seemed to pull a lot of the traffic off of I-40 that really made it worth it go west to Stockton Hill or Beale. The one to avoid on Beale is that Shell Station...I've seen seals tampered with on the pumps several times and the staff was pretty indifferent when I pointed it out.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 21, 2016, 09:57:17 PM
Yeah that's probably what is going to ultimately doom that segment of Beale west of I-40, it will need room for a full interchange
Well, my point (which I failed to properly deliver, in rereading my post) was that the EB-NB and the SB-WB directional traffic flows are likely not going to be very high because they don't make sense. Even if there weren't a ramp, and traffic had to use Beale Street, I don't think it would ever warrant a direct connection ramp and, even if it did, they would probably just put it up at the actual I-11 interchange instead. I think it would likely save a tremendous amount of money if they just left it SB-EB & WB-NB only.
ADOT has the analysis of traffic counts in the same assessment where they have the alternatives and final recommendations, so I may look at that and send out my thoughts on it. Because everyone loves unsolicited advice...
But because Beale is the first gas you see since, I believe, Boulder City, I don't think it will cause issues beyond the businesses who are solely reliant on the "impulse stop" traffic (I'm sure there's a term for it, but I'm adopting the supermarket term to it), since most of that traffic would be able to skip Beale. However, things like gas stations, hotels and restaurants can easily place signs at the new Beale Street exit on I-11, in addition to the I-40 exit that already features them, and all be within sight distance of the new interstate due to the terrain (it comes downhill toward 40).
If anything, the increased traffic will actually improve Beale, I think. It will be an easier and more logical place to pop in more roadside businesses; maybe getting rid of those skeezy low-end motels there and putting up a nice, new chain.
Kingman is so, so poorly planned. They just let anything and everything pop up, with no traffic controls, and Stockton Hill north of I-40 is a mess right now. You can turn left into and out of pretty much anything. I think it's just the typical small town that grew a little too much, but still wants to think it's a small town.
Quote from: coatimundi on July 22, 2016, 02:27:37 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 21, 2016, 09:57:17 PM
Yeah that's probably what is going to ultimately doom that segment of Beale west of I-40, it will need room for a full interchange
Well, my point (which I failed to properly deliver, in rereading my post) was that the EB-NB and the SB-WB directional traffic flows are likely not going to be very high because they don't make sense. Even if there weren't a ramp, and traffic had to use Beale Street, I don't think it would ever warrant a direct connection ramp and, even if it did, they would probably just put it up at the actual I-11 interchange instead. I think it would likely save a tremendous amount of money if they just left it SB-EB & WB-NB only.
ADOT has the analysis of traffic counts in the same assessment where they have the alternatives and final recommendations, so I may look at that and send out my thoughts on it. Because everyone loves unsolicited advice...
But because Beale is the first gas you see since, I believe, Boulder City, I don't think it will cause issues beyond the businesses who are solely reliant on the "impulse stop" traffic (I'm sure there's a term for it, but I'm adopting the supermarket term to it), since most of that traffic would be able to skip Beale. However, things like gas stations, hotels and restaurants can easily place signs at the new Beale Street exit on I-11, in addition to the I-40 exit that already features them, and all be within sight distance of the new interstate due to the terrain (it comes downhill toward 40).
If anything, the increased traffic will actually improve Beale, I think. It will be an easier and more logical place to pop in more roadside businesses; maybe getting rid of those skeezy low-end motels there and putting up a nice, new chain.
Kingman is so, so poorly planned. They just let anything and everything pop up, with no traffic controls, and Stockton Hill north of I-40 is a mess right now. You can turn left into and out of pretty much anything. I think it's just the typical small town that grew a little too much, but still wants to think it's a small town.
No, no I think that I got where you were going with the partial ramp design encouraging traffic to head directly east into downtown Kingman and ultimately Andy Devine/Old 66. I'm sure from the standpoint of how many more people it would push past the Powerhouse Museum the city would be way on board with it. The only crappy thing that is going to prevent growth with new gas stations and hotels is the cliffs on one side followed by the railroad tracks on the other. Things don't open back up until you hit Stockton Hill and Hualapai Mountain Road, come to think of it the downtown was poorly placed for a location founded in the 1880s even.
There is a nasty look Texaco or something up near the state line somewhere around White Hills. I know there is another off-brand one somewhere near there as well but I would gather with the freeway upgrades they would meet their demise at the hands of I-11 construction. Maybe some enterprising individual would a truck service station up on White Hills Road or one of the few places that would actually get an exit ramp. I'm thinking that Santa Claus and Nothing are pretty much doomed at this point, good thing I already got my photos years ago. :-D
A fatal collision happened on US 93 about 30 miles NW of Kingman yesterday (Sun. 7/24/16) between a Dallas Cowboys bus and a van carrying 4 people. All four in the van were killed in the accident. No one on the bus was seriously hurt. No Cowboys players were on the bus, just team staff. The Cowboys bus was headed to an event in Las Vegas.
US 93 is four lane divided between Las Vegas and Kingman, but the road has numerous at-grade crossings. The news report said the van was making an illegal left turn and pulled out in front of the Cowboys bus.
I think the problem is that they get so many tourists up there, going between Vegas and the Grand Canyon, and they get a little lost and do something stupid (or want to get pictures but refuse to stop and just slow down and weave, like they do here) on a very high-speed and dangerous stretch of road.
This isn't necessarily just a line in the desert. You have tourist traffic going to Chloride, because a couple of books told people to go there so they now do, and you have some roads accessing isolated parts of Lake Mead.
But I don't think turning it into a full on interstate would be that hard. In fact, I could see this being like I-10 in Texas, where there actually a couple of grade intersections with some ranch roads. It would be silly to build a frontage road all the way out to some of them. Even just a few interchanges would go a long way.
Damn. Should have killed some Cowboys.
Quote from: coatimundi on July 25, 2016, 03:01:10 PM
I think the problem is that they get so many tourists up there, going between Vegas and the Grand Canyon, and they get a little lost and do something stupid (or want to get pictures but refuse to stop and just slow down and weave, like they do here) on a very high-speed and dangerous stretch of road.
This isn't necessarily just a line in the desert. You have tourist traffic going to Chloride, because a couple of books told people to go there so they now do, and you have some roads accessing isolated parts of Lake Mead.
But I don't think turning it into a full on interstate would be that hard. In fact, I could see this being like I-10 in Texas, where there actually a couple of grade intersections with some ranch roads. It would be silly to build a frontage road all the way out to some of them. Even just a few interchanges would go a long way.
Bus crashes aside that piece of US 93 used to be a wild ride up until a little after the turn of the century. I remember slogging through all that two-lane from Wickenburg to Kingman and trying to pass people whenever possible. US 93 to the Hoover Dam was basically a complete disaster after 9/11 with the back ups. That's really when NV 163, AZ 68 and US 95 got all nice since the truckers couldn't take US 93 to Vegas anymore.
But I do think a lot of tourists get lost up there thinking places like Grasshopper Junction and White Hills are still real towns where they can stop and expect 21st century levels of civilization. Pretty much everything up there was a mining town or something similar and really exist only crumbling shack form.... Makes me wonder...what is going to happen to Santa Claus, AZ or Nothing? I would love a good dirt track off a frontage road with a section of old US 93 for future road lore purposes. :-D
Guy I used to work with back in Ontario bought a 5-acre parcel on the road from 93 to Dolan Springs back around 2010; he was going to put a motorcycle/truck repair shop out there (it was about 600 yards east of the 93 intersection according to the paperwork I saw). Said he'd send pix of his new business; never did (I'm guessing that idea was abandoned; the last cel # I had for him is no longer valid). According to the last census data, Dolan Springs has a population of about 2500 or so. Question: has anybody here actually been to/near this "town" in the last couple of years? Is it a viable town or just a collection of various buildings?
Quote from: sparker on July 28, 2016, 03:12:01 AM
Guy I used to work with back in Ontario bought a 5-acre parcel on the road from 93 to Dolan Springs back around 2010; he was going to put a motorcycle/truck repair shop out there (it was about 600 yards east of the 93 intersection according to the paperwork I saw). Said he'd send pix of his new business; never did (I'm guessing that idea was abandoned; the last cel # I had for him is no longer valid). According to the last census data, Dolan Springs has a population of about 2500 or so. Question: has anybody here actually been to/near this "town" in the last couple of years? Is it a viable town or just a collection of various buildings?
It's actually just a cobbled pile of prefabs, scrap, dirt roads and desert folk. There is a part near 11th Street that "resembles" what most people would consider a town but it's pretty spartan at best...I seem to recall a Family Dollar. It's actually a CDP just like Golden Valley and not anything incorporated.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on July 28, 2016, 08:07:21 AM
It's actually a CDP just like Golden Valley and not anything incorporated.
Golden Valley is a good comparison for Dolan Springs: acres of unimproved lots with no utility hookups that attract people who don't want you around. Mostly retirees. There's some weird stuff in both places.
That's more or less what I figured as far as Dolan Springs' "configuration", such as it is. The western strip of AZ seems to be a magnet for survivalists, pathological "loners", and conspiracy theorists (my acquaintance who bought the property in Dolan certainly fit the latter category!). I suppose it's a decent destination if you're trying to escape from civilization's demons -- real or imagined -- and can handle the summers!
I actually found the summers around Kingman to be kind of...well nice at least in comparison to what I was usually sitting in with Phoenix. That more than anything kind of makes me wonder how Bullhead and Lake Havasu got bigger than Kingman with the favorable weather...AND more importantly location. Basically you're pretty at a good mid-point between two major cities with easy Interstate access.
White Hills and Grasshopper Junction are just like Golden Valley or Dolan Springs. The weirdest story out there is how Santa Claus came to be and how long it was able to survive being basically a colony of all-year Christmas elves on the side of US 93...it's a special brand of insanity you only get out in that desert. :-D
I remember a cross-country trip back in the summer of '92, when I pulled into my motel in Tempe at a little before 1 a.m. -- and it was still 112 degrees outside! The motel room was lukewarm at best, so I spent the next couple of hours at the only restaurant I could find open at 1:30 -- a Chili's (never liked their food; everything except the ribs tastes like canned salsa -- and they were out of ribs that night!). I think I drank them out of iced tea by the time I left! That was the hottest Phoenix summer I've ever experienced (although I understand that recent years have seen even hotter day/night temperatures!) -- and the last time I spent a night in the area! Sorry, Phoenicians, but if I-11 eventually allows me to bypass the city without having to get out of my air-conditioned SUV, I'll be a happy non-camper!
Quote from: sparker on August 09, 2016, 01:18:17 AM
I remember a cross-country trip back in the summer of '92, when I pulled into my motel in Tempe at a little before 1 a.m. -- and it was still 112 degrees outside! The motel room was lukewarm at best, so I spent the next couple of hours at the only restaurant I could find open at 1:30 -- a Chili's (never liked their food; everything except the ribs tastes like canned salsa -- and they were out of ribs that night!). I think I drank them out of iced tea by the time I left! That was the hottest Phoenix summer I've ever experienced (although I understand that recent years have seen even hotter day/night temperatures!) -- and the last time I spent a night in the area! Sorry, Phoenicians, but if I-11 eventually allows me to bypass the city without having to get out of my air-conditioned SUV, I'll be a happy non-camper!
If you're coming through I-10 Phoenix can be pretty easily bypassed already via AZ 85 and I-8. Not that Gila Bend, Casa Grande or even Tucson are much better with hot weather....I'd say Tucson is usually 5-10 degrees cooler on an average day.
I'd already gotten in the habit of bypassing Phoenix by using CA 86/111 and I-8 when I lived in the L.A. area; one of my more common overnight stops was the La Quinta in Marana, near Tucson (and you're right, it's about 7-15 degrees cooler down there). But now that I live "up north", bypassing both greater L.A. and Phoenix (via I-40 and US 93) in one fell swoop is a bit more convoluted (the Inland Empire, traffic-wise, is a lost cause these days). Long-range, I've got a trip planned to Austin & New Orleans (definitely a food-oriented trip); I thought of using 303 and backtracking on 10 to 85 -- but I just might skip Southern AZ altogether and stay on 40 to US 84, then use 84 SE via Lubbock to get to Austin (the last bit on US 183). Never done that corridor aside from 84 between I-20 and Lubbock, so it'll be fresh meat to me!
84 between Lubbock and I-20 is extremely boring, but it's an efficient way to do that. You just have to watch the weather. I drove it last year, and there was a tornado warning with a hailstorm in Clovis. But I was there for the night so just got to be a spectator instead of trying to drive through it.
Going to Tucson, we typically take 40 to US 95 to Parker, then to AZ 85. It takes longer than the LA route but only if you can somehow dodge traffic in LA, which isn't really possible unless you drive through in the middle of the night.
Another alternate I liked was getting to CA 62 and U.S. 95 via something like old 66 and Amboy Road. Certainly not the fastest route but definitely has virtually no traffic. Even 247 was halfway decent to get down to 62 from Barstow.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 09, 2016, 03:01:09 PM
Another alternate I liked was getting to CA 62 and U.S. 95 via something like old 66 and Amboy Road. Certainly not the fastest route but definitely has virtually no traffic. Even 247 was halfway decent to get down to 62 from Barstow.
If you take 62 and Amboy Road, you either have to go out of the way to reach 29 Palms on paved roads or take a dirt road for a couple of miles. I don't mind the latter, but the condition wasn't great and I can see why people would not want to drive it.
On a 64 atlas I just got, that route is shown, and that's surprising to me. I guess the road was paved early on for the salt operation.
Quote from: coatimundi on August 09, 2016, 04:03:49 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 09, 2016, 03:01:09 PM
Another alternate I liked was getting to CA 62 and U.S. 95 via something like old 66 and Amboy Road. Certainly not the fastest route but definitely has virtually no traffic. Even 247 was halfway decent to get down to 62 from Barstow.
If you take 62 and Amboy Road, you either have to go out of the way to reach 29 Palms on paved roads or take a dirt road for a couple of miles. I don't mind the latter, but the condition wasn't great and I can see why people would not want to drive it.
On a 64 atlas I just got, that route is shown, and that's surprising to me. I guess the road was paved early on for the salt operation.
Yeah I never minded some of those dirt tracks out in the salt mines but even detouring to 29 Palms wasn't so bad since they had really the only food available to Parker. Actually I ended up jumping down to 177 and I-10 back in February since I got caught in traffic back on 58 at Kramer Junction on the way to Phoenix, surprisingly it was good time saver. I was hoping to head through Joshua Tree but alas wasn't to be. I was planning on taking all of 247 but took US 395 down to 18 because I got so sick of the truckers.
Do you have a scan of the map? I've always been curious to see what 62 looked like in its early development.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 09, 2016, 04:10:21 PM
Do you have a scan of the map? I've always been curious to see what 62 looked like in its early development.
It's a smaller (maybe 5x13") Hammond US atlas, so the detail is piss poor. I just wanted to see how some of the interstates nationwide had progressed, and it was only like $4. It'd be more worth your time to find someone on here with a California map from the same time period.
Quote from: coatimundi on August 09, 2016, 05:10:57 PM
It'd be more worth your time to find someone on here with a California map from the same time period.
http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/view/search?q=caltrans&sort=Date
Quote from: NE2 on August 09, 2016, 06:25:01 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on August 09, 2016, 05:10:57 PM
It'd be more worth your time to find someone on here with a California map from the same time period.
http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/view/search?q=caltrans&sort=Date
Reported to DHS!
I would hope that Max already knew about David Rumsey and his maptabulous site.
Quote from: coatimundi on August 09, 2016, 09:28:46 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 09, 2016, 06:25:01 PM
Quote from: coatimundi on August 09, 2016, 05:10:57 PM
It'd be more worth your time to find someone on here with a California map from the same time period.
http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/view/search?q=caltrans&sort=Date
Reported to DHS!
I would hope that Max already knew about David Rumsey and his maptabulous site.
Actually that would be a negative. Just opened up the page and it's way more than I expected for California maps....shit I know what I'll be doing tonight now. :rolleyes:
Oh, well there ya go. "A whole new world..."
If you search "Shell", he's also got pretty much every Shell map produced in 1953. That's mostly what I've used it for.
Yeah I've got some really good stuff from Florida, Michigan, Arizona, and Nevada but never had much of a good California map resource. Already confirmed my suspicion about 168 using the Tollhouse Grade. Most of the stuff I had mostly pertained to Southern California US Highways like 66 or 91.
Been almost a full year since this thread has been active. ADOT put this video out today:
That's a whole lot of talk about benefits and far flung plans for a project that really hasn't even been started in Arizona yet.
Canada? lol
Quote from: kkt on April 27, 2017, 12:47:17 AM
Canada? lol
Yeah...I thought that was amusing too. Interesting that there was a computer graphic showing I-11 hooking up with I-580 though.
Obviously, I-11 will extend to San Rafael and then north on 101 to Port Angeles and then bridge the Strait of Juan de Fuca to Victoria. Perhaps Fritzowl's day job is for Arizona DOT.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 27, 2017, 07:50:40 AM
Quote from: kkt on April 27, 2017, 12:47:17 AM
Canada? lol
Yeah...I thought that was amusing too. Interesting that there was a computer graphic showing I-11 hooking up with I-580 though.
Quote from: kkt on April 27, 2017, 03:47:32 PM
Obviously, I-11 will extend to San Rafael and then north on 101 to Port Angeles and then bridge the Strait of Juan de Fuca to Victoria. Perhaps Fritzowl's day job is for Arizona DOT.
Uhh... I think we're dealing with the NV I-580. That's always been considered one of the options: taking the I-11 corridor over the Pine Nut Mountains west of Yerington and coming out on US 395 somewhere around Gardnerville, then using I-580 north into Reno. Looking at GE, however, it becomes clear why there isn't already some sort of route through that ridge. If serving Carson City becomes part of the I-11 "mandate", it'll probably have to take a convoluted route using NV 208 to the south or US 50 via Dayton, both of which would involve some level of backtracking. IMO in the end, should the corridor be developed, I-11 will likely empty out onto I-80 east of Reno, which would be the path of least resistance in terms of overall cost and regional service.
Aw, ruin all the fun.
Quote from: sparker on April 27, 2017, 03:56:33 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 27, 2017, 07:50:40 AM
Quote from: kkt on April 27, 2017, 12:47:17 AM
Canada? lol
Yeah...I thought that was amusing too. Interesting that there was a computer graphic showing I-11 hooking up with I-580 though.
Quote from: kkt on April 27, 2017, 03:47:32 PM
Obviously, I-11 will extend to San Rafael and then north on 101 to Port Angeles and then bridge the Strait of Juan de Fuca to Victoria. Perhaps Fritzowl's day job is for Arizona DOT.
Uhh... I think we're dealing with the NV I-580. That's always been considered one of the options: taking the I-11 corridor over the Pine Nut Mountains west of Yerington and coming out on US 395 somewhere around Gardnerville, then using I-580 north into Reno. Looking at GE, however, it becomes clear why there isn't already some sort of route through that ridge. If serving Carson City becomes part of the I-11 "mandate", it'll probably have to take a convoluted route using NV 208 to the south or US 50 via Dayton, both of which would involve some level of backtracking. IMO in the end, should the corridor be developed, I-11 will likely empty out onto I-80 east of Reno, which would be the path of least resistance in terms of overall cost and regional service.
Yep, that's essentially what is conveyed on the map in the video also. Honestly that I would be my route of preference if there was ever a need to build I-11 out to the Reno-Sparks area. The irony for me is that almost the entire route is still in "study" just between Vegas and Phoenix. The way ADOT presented everything in the video made it sound like it was a certainty that it would not only reach Reno but also Canada when that's far from the truth.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 27, 2017, 10:15:02 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 27, 2017, 03:56:33 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 27, 2017, 07:50:40 AM
Quote from: kkt on April 27, 2017, 12:47:17 AM
Canada? lol
Yeah...I thought that was amusing too. Interesting that there was a computer graphic showing I-11 hooking up with I-580 though.
Quote from: kkt on April 27, 2017, 03:47:32 PM
Obviously, I-11 will extend to San Rafael and then north on 101 to Port Angeles and then bridge the Strait of Juan de Fuca to Victoria. Perhaps Fritzowl's day job is for Arizona DOT.
Uhh... I think we're dealing with the NV I-580. That's always been considered one of the options: taking the I-11 corridor over the Pine Nut Mountains west of Yerington and coming out on US 395 somewhere around Gardnerville, then using I-580 north into Reno. Looking at GE, however, it becomes clear why there isn't already some sort of route through that ridge. If serving Carson City becomes part of the I-11 "mandate", it'll probably have to take a convoluted route using NV 208 to the south or US 50 via Dayton, both of which would involve some level of backtracking. IMO in the end, should the corridor be developed, I-11 will likely empty out onto I-80 east of Reno, which would be the path of least resistance in terms of overall cost and regional service.
Yep, that's essentially what is conveyed on the map in the video also. Honestly that I would be my route of preference if there was ever a need to build I-11 out to the Reno-Sparks area. The irony for me is that almost the entire route is still in "study" just between Vegas and Phoenix. The way ADOT presented everything in the video made it sound like it was a certainty that it would not only reach Reno but also Canada when that's far from the truth.
I got that you would take I-15 to get to Canada from Vegas, but maybe I missed something.
Watch starting at 2:47; the map zooms out showing what is presumably I-11 north to Reno and the narrator eventually talks about the corridor extending to Canada.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 28, 2017, 12:33:06 AM
Watch starting at 2:47; the map zooms out showing what is presumably I-11 north to Reno and the narrator eventually talks about the corridor extending to Canada.
OK, found it now.
That's still silly.
Quote from: SD Mapman on April 28, 2017, 01:25:21 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 28, 2017, 12:33:06 AM
Watch starting at 2:47; the map zooms out showing what is presumably I-11 north to Reno and the narrator eventually talks about the corridor extending to Canada.
OK, found it now.
That's still silly.
Welcome to the wonderful world of hyperbole! I-11 to Canada, I-14 to Savannah, I-69 to the Great White North and the Land of Cheap Labor (but apparently not cheap enough to compete with Asia) -- one needs to take the PR flack with a shaker -- rather than a grain -- of salt! Unfortunately, the fact that most of these corridors have at least
some degree of merit and value becomes overshadowed by the bullshit! But then Boise, Meridian, and Port Huron might not be compelling enough to provoke a "hey, look at me" public reaction; "shooting for the moon" seems to be the vehicle of choice in this regard. :eyebrow:
Quote from: sparker on April 28, 2017, 04:37:44 AM
Quote from: SD Mapman on April 28, 2017, 01:25:21 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 28, 2017, 12:33:06 AM
Watch starting at 2:47; the map zooms out showing what is presumably I-11 north to Reno and the narrator eventually talks about the corridor extending to Canada.
OK, found it now.
That's still silly.
Welcome to the wonderful world of hyperbole! I-11 to Canada, I-14 to Savannah, I-69 to the Great White North and the Land of Cheap Labor (but apparently not cheap enough to compete with Asia) -- one needs to take the PR flack with a shaker -- rather than a grain -- of salt! Unfortunately, the fact that most of these corridors have at least some degree of merit and value becomes overshadowed by the bullshit! But then Boise, Meridian, and Port Huron might not be compelling enough to provoke a "hey, look at me" public reaction; "shooting for the moon" seems to be the vehicle of choice in this regard. :eyebrow:
The funny thing to me about any prospects of I-11 north of Las Vegas is that really given the remoteness of the terrain both US 93 or US 95 are already plenty adequate. I've driven all of both routes entirely and I can't think of a single thing from Vegas north to Canada that would deter commercial transportation....in fact they are BOTH actually fairly well traveled corridors. I'd say that both US 93 and 95 are far less well known to the general public as viable transportation routes. US 95 certainly gets used more because it is the most direct route from Vegas to Reno but is a pretty easy cruise at 70 MPH.
At least its apparent that ADOT wants to build I-11 and they have some legislative pull behind it. I would still argue beyond the Boulder City which is already in the process of being bypassed that US 93 is a pretty adequate route given it is largely an expressway between Vegas and Phoenix.
Kind of reminds me of I-69 further east...
Quote from: Henry on April 28, 2017, 09:10:45 AM
Kind of reminds me of I-69 further east...
The difference is that I-69 existed as a complete route before all this CANMEX stuff started. There are some segments actually seeing real construction, almost all of I-11 just exists on paper or in impact survey...especially in Arizona.
And it is Arizona that would have to build by far the most mileage (as it was originally proposed, from Phoenix to LV).
Quote from: kkt on April 28, 2017, 04:12:56 PM
And it is Arizona that would have to build by far the most mileage (as it was originally proposed, from Phoenix to LV).
Fortunately, AZ DOT is doing something relatively smart -- upgrading US 93 a piece at a time to divided expressway (itself upgradeable!) between Wickenburg and I-40, thus simplifying the eventual Interstate construction process -- and providing a higher capacity and safer facility in the interim -- regardless of whatever path I-11 takes south of Wickenburg.
There is no need for I-11 to go all the way to Canada. Maybe there's a reason for it to go to Reno, but north of there, US 95 and 395 are just fine.
No need for it to go north of Las Vegas. Could go south as far as I-8.
I think the reasoning for extending it north has little to do with local need -- and everything to do with taking pressure off I-5 for international shipping routes (CANAMEX).
Quote from: i-215 on June 09, 2017, 09:54:14 PM
I think the reasoning for extending it north has little to do with local need -- and everything to do with taking pressure off I-5 for international shipping routes (CANAMEX).
I-11 to I-15. If that's too far east, there are several excellent uncongested US routes. Not every route needs to be an interstate.
Quote from: kkt on June 09, 2017, 10:55:17 PM
Quote from: i-215 on June 09, 2017, 09:54:14 PM
I think the reasoning for extending it north has little to do with local need -- and everything to do with taking pressure off I-5 for international shipping routes (CANAMEX).
I-11 to I-15. If that's too far east, there are several excellent uncongested US routes. Not every route needs to be an interstate.
In fact, the CANAMEX corridor already uses I-15 north of Vegas. If traffic between Vegas and Reno ever got to where the current US 95 wasn't enough, it could be upgraded to a 4-lane divided highway like US 550 in NM. It doesn't need to become I-11.
Quote from: i-215 on June 09, 2017, 09:54:14 PM
I think the reasoning for extending it north has little to do with local need -- and everything to do with taking pressure off I-5 for international shipping routes (CANAMEX).
if that is the case, wouldn't it be less money to widen I-5?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 10, 2017, 01:34:56 AM
Quote from: i-215 on June 09, 2017, 09:54:14 PM
I think the reasoning for extending it north has little to do with local need -- and everything to do with taking pressure off I-5 for international shipping routes (CANAMEX).
if that is the case, wouldn't it be less money to widen I-5?
Exactly. It seems like I-11 will be too far away from I-5 to take pressure off of it.
I don't think I-11 would be necessary north of Reno, but "necessary" doesn't describe a lot of the rural interstates in this country. If there's a will, there's a way. And while the will of the states to build new interstates may not be what it was back in the 50s and 60s, the possibilities with a new interstate, spurring economic development and whatnot, is certainly there. I wouldn't consider a border-to-border I-11 to be fictional at all. Just, perhaps, a ways off.
Quote from: compdude787 on June 10, 2017, 02:26:17 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 10, 2017, 01:34:56 AM
Quote from: i-215 on June 09, 2017, 09:54:14 PM
I think the reasoning for extending it north has little to do with local need -- and everything to do with taking pressure off I-5 for international shipping routes (CANAMEX).
if that is the case, wouldn't it be less money to widen I-5?
Exactly. It seems like I-11 will be too far away from I-5 to take pressure off of it.
Quote from: jakeroot on June 10, 2017, 03:35:03 AM
I don't think I-11 would be necessary north of Reno, but "necessary" doesn't describe a lot of the rural interstates in this country. If there's a will, there's a way. And while the will of the states to build new interstates may not be what it was back in the 50s and 60s, the possibilities with a new interstate, spurring economic development and whatnot, is certainly there. I wouldn't consider a border-to-border I-11 to be fictional at all. Just, perhaps, a ways off.
Actually, the most problematic segment of I-5 -- the approximately 300 mile of mountain crossing between Redding, CA and Cottage Grove, OR, a largely winding 4-lane freeway with numerous 45 & 50 mph curves and only sporadic truck lanes -- would be prohibitively costly to expand, even by a single lane per direction (and such an endeavor would not likely pass environmental criteria). A "relief" route on a different alignment would likely involve a similar cost structure. If I-11 were to remain well east of the Cascades (such as a Boise-area option), then it obviously couldn't and wouldn't serve as such an I-5 reliever. One of the options previously discussed in this thread (and the similar I-11 thread in Northwest) was "shunting" any I-11 alignment over to I-5 at some point; the area from and including Eugene to Portland has been cited repeatedly as characterizing the locale of the more "desirable" junction points. However, this would likely not pass muster with ODOT -- not to mention the longstanding Oregon political establishment -- because to do so would require new freeway construction through the "old growth" forests surrounding the Willamette Valley, which is protected/"hallow" ground. Any connection to I-5 would have to be well south of that area. At one point several months ago (after several posters' grenades were lobbed at my original CA 89/Mt. Shasta connection concept), a suggestion was made with which I essentially concur -- that an I-11 alignment via US 395 north from Reno to Alturas, and then along CA 299 and CA 139/OR 39 to Klamath Falls would be optimal, followed by a connection west along OR 140 to a junction with I-5 just north of Medford, OR. It's relatively benign territory and arguably the easiest crossing of the Cascade range within Oregon -- and it stays well away from the politically sensitive region to the north (out of sight, out of mind!). Part of the rationale for such an alignment would be to avoid the "worst of the worst" part of I-5: the Siskiyou Summit crossing at the CA/OR state line. Locating the I-5/I-11 junction near Medford also poses the potential for diverting lumber-product truck traffic intended for Las Vegas, Phoenix, and other inland places with an above-average rate of housing growth, away from I-5 and its SoCal connectors.
Of course, the "classic" Klamath alignment continues north on US 97 to at least Bend; if development was deemed necessary, this could be accomplished under a separate corridor concept (also likely to draw I-5 traffic, but in opposite directions). It could be decided later in the planning process that serving Bend and other areas east of the Cascades would yield more benefit than configuring the corridor to relieve I-5 -- in which case, the Klamath-Medford segment might be eliminated or reserved as a later project. Of course, all this will need to be determined by all the parties involved in this concept -- and I, for one, expect a long and drawn-out slog!
Quote from: sparker on June 10, 2017, 02:27:59 PM
Actually, the most problematic segment of I-5 -- the approximately 300 mile of mountain crossing between Redding, CA and Cottage Grove, OR, a largely winding 4-lane freeway with numerous 45 & 50 mph curves and only sporadic truck lanes -- would be prohibitively costly to expand, even by a single lane per direction (and such an endeavor would not likely pass environmental criteria). A "relief" route on a different alignment would likely involve a similar cost structure. If I-11 were to remain well east of the Cascades (such as a Boise-area option), then it obviously couldn't and wouldn't serve as such an I-5 reliever. One of the options previously discussed in this thread (and the similar I-11 thread in Northwest) was "shunting" any I-11 alignment over to I-5 at some point; the area from and including Eugene to Portland has been cited repeatedly as characterizing the locale of the more "desirable" junction points. However, this would likely not pass muster with ODOT -- not to mention the longstanding Oregon political establishment -- because to do so would require new freeway construction through the "old growth" forests surrounding the Willamette Valley, which is protected/"hallow" ground. Any connection to I-5 would have to be well south of that area. At one point several months ago (after several posters' grenades were lobbed at my original CA 89/Mt. Shasta connection concept), a suggestion was made with which I essentially concur -- that an I-11 alignment via US 395 north from Reno to Alturas, and then along CA 299 and CA 139/OR 39 to Klamath Falls would be optimal, followed by a connection west along OR 140 to a junction with I-5 just north of Medford, OR. It's relatively benign territory and arguably the easiest crossing of the Cascade range within Oregon -- and it stays well away from the politically sensitive region to the north (out of sight, out of mind!). Part of the rationale for such an alignment would be to avoid the "worst of the worst" part of I-5: the Siskiyou Summit crossing at the CA/OR state line. Locating the I-5/I-11 junction near Medford also poses the potential for diverting lumber-product truck traffic intended for Las Vegas, Phoenix, and other inland places with an above-average rate of housing growth, away from I-5 and its SoCal connectors.
Of course, the "classic" Klamath alignment continues north on US 97 to at least Bend; if development was deemed necessary, this could be accomplished under a separate corridor concept (also likely to draw I-5 traffic, but in opposite directions). It could be decided later in the planning process that serving Bend and other areas east of the Cascades would yield more benefit than configuring the corridor to relieve I-5 -- in which case, the Klamath-Medford segment might be eliminated or reserved as a later project. Of course, all this will need to be determined by all the parties involved in this concept -- and I, for one, expect a long and drawn-out slog!
That section of I-5 is mountainous and the weather is a problem fairly often. Many travelers and truckers take US 97 instead. I don't think 97 needs an interstate number or to be built to interstate standards to be a viable bypass. Gradual expansion of the remaining 2-lane portions to 4-lane expressway would be adequate and affordable.
One could argue that interstate standards are set too high. Very wide shoulders and sightlines for 60 mph are so expensive that lots of roads remain 2-lane US or state routes, when they would benefit greatly from being made 4 lanes and bridges updated for current truck sizes and weights.
Quote from: kkt on June 11, 2017, 09:30:33 PM
One could argue that interstate standards are set too high. Very wide shoulders and sightlines for 60 mph are so expensive that lots of roads remain 2-lane US or state routes, when they would benefit greatly from being made 4 lanes and bridges updated for current truck sizes and weights.
I agree on the "wide shoulders" requirement being kind of silly (especially with cars becoming more reliable), but I'm not sure on sightlines. Although "corner radii" might be a better term. US interstates seem to allow rather sharp corners that would be absolutely unacceptable in places like Germany. With driverless cars right around the corner, we should be seeking more strenuous geometry requirements that will allow vehicles to maintain exceptionally high rates of speed (140+).
Quote from: kkt on June 11, 2017, 09:30:33 PM
That section of I-5 is mountainous and the weather is a problem fairly often. Many travelers and truckers take US 97 instead. I don't think 97 needs an interstate number or to be built to interstate standards to be a viable bypass. Gradual expansion of the remaining 2-lane portions to 4-lane expressway would be adequate and affordable.
One could argue that interstate standards are set too high. Very wide shoulders and sightlines for 60 mph are so expensive that lots of roads remain 2-lane US or state routes, when they would benefit greatly from being made 4 lanes and bridges updated for current truck sizes and weights.
Heh...heh...heh.....! If you've ever been on I-80 between Colfax and Gold Run within the Sierra crossing/Donner Pass portion of that route, you'd think the planners functioned on the premise of "...
standards -- we don't need no stinking standards....." Essentially a 4-lane concrete bobsled run with a K-rail down the middle! In the more mountainous portions of the West (and a few corridors in the Appalachians) Interstate standards seem to be sporadically honored more in the breach than in the observance (via the "topographic waiver" methodology).
Having experienced logging trucks driving up my tailpipe on US 97 on numerous occasions, I think that an expansion of that facility to at least an expressway would be appropriate. An Interstate facility could conceivably wait until the Bend/Redmond/Prineville/Madras area gets up to somewhere around 400K aggregate population (it's currently somewhere about 60% there).
Quote from: sparker on June 12, 2017, 12:50:52 AM
Quote from: kkt on June 11, 2017, 09:30:33 PM
That section of I-5 is mountainous and the weather is a problem fairly often. Many travelers and truckers take US 97 instead. I don't think 97 needs an interstate number or to be built to interstate standards to be a viable bypass. Gradual expansion of the remaining 2-lane portions to 4-lane expressway would be adequate and affordable.
One could argue that interstate standards are set too high. Very wide shoulders and sightlines for 60 mph are so expensive that lots of roads remain 2-lane US or state routes, when they would benefit greatly from being made 4 lanes and bridges updated for current truck sizes and weights.
Heh...heh...heh.....! If you've ever been on I-80 between Colfax and Gold Run within the Sierra crossing/Donner Pass portion of that route, you'd think the planners functioned on the premise of "...standards -- we don't need no stinking standards....." Essentially a 4-lane concrete bobsled run with a K-rail down the middle! In the more mountainous portions of the West (and a few corridors in the Appalachians) Interstate standards seem to be sporadically honored more in the breach than in the observance (via the "topographic waiver" methodology).
Yes, I am from California and I've been over Donner Summit dozens of times...
See, that's another aspect of the same problem. There are lots of grandfathered interstates that are nowhere near current interstate standards. So not only are new interstates now much more expensive to build, the interstate brand doesn't really mean such a high quality road because so many of them don't meet current standards. So you get truck drivers surprised when they're driving along an interstate minding their own business and knock down a fracture-critical 14' 7" bridge...
Quote
Having experienced logging trucks driving up my tailpipe on US 97 on numerous occasions, I think that an expansion of that facility to at least an expressway would be appropriate. An Interstate facility could conceivably wait until the Bend/Redmond/Prineville/Madras area gets up to somewhere around 400K aggregate population (it's currently somewhere about 60% there).
Yes, I'm not sure it will happen even long-term. The area has limited water and limited basis for an economy to support such a large population.
Quote from: jakeroot on June 11, 2017, 11:33:38 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 11, 2017, 09:30:33 PM
One could argue that interstate standards are set too high. Very wide shoulders and sightlines for 60 mph are so expensive that lots of roads remain 2-lane US or state routes, when they would benefit greatly from being made 4 lanes and bridges updated for current truck sizes and weights.
I agree on the "wide shoulders" requirement being kind of silly (especially with cars becoming more reliable), but I'm not sure on sightlines. Although "corner radii" might be a better term. US interstates seem to allow rather sharp corners that would be absolutely unacceptable in places like Germany. With driverless cars right around the corner, we should be seeking more strenuous geometry requirements that will allow vehicles to maintain exceptionally high rates of speed (140+).
Sightlines includes vertical curves over rises, gentle enough that drivers can see ahead a safe distance at the design speed. Higher design speeds require much gentler peaks and valleys as well as horizontal curves.
Driverless cars are not close at all except for extremely limited situations. Maybe a driverless shuttle bus carrying passengers from one part of a theme park to another, on a track where no other traffic is permitted and somebody turns it off if the weather gets bad. They're nowhere close to coping with a real road with other traffic driven by impatient humans, pedestrians, wildlife, ice, snow, fallen trees, intersections where google maps isn't current, the cameras being blinded by sun.
We're closer to assisted driving, the car being able to stay on a lane at speed, but a driver able to take over if something unexpected happens. They may even be counterproductive, encouraging people to drive impaired or nap because the car can handle 95% of situations itself.
An awful lot would have to change in the US before we could have speed limits of 140 mph. Rigorous vehicle maintenance, driver's ed and training, retesting on license renewals, much better road maintenance. I don't see anyone wanting to pay for all that. Especially since the great freeway-building era is over so there would be very very few roads built for such speeds for a long time to come.
Quote from: kkt on June 12, 2017, 02:10:30 AM
We're closer to assisted driving, the car being able to stay on a lane at speed, but a driver able to take over if something unexpected happens. They may even be counterproductive, encouraging people to drive impaired or nap because the car can handle 95% of situations itself.
Tesla's Autopilot technology fits this. In fact, people have died because they weren't paying attention when they were using it. See this example (https://www.theverge.com/2016/6/30/12072408/tesla-autopilot-car-crash-death-autonomous-model-s), which was later revealed (https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/19/14326604/tesla-autopilot-crash-driver-seven-seconds-inattentive-nhtsa) to be the driver's fault.
Yes, it's the driver's fault, but the autopilot lulls the driver into a false sense of security. If I have to be watching for errant trucks instead of napping, reading, or watching the scenery, there doesn't seem like much point in the autopilot.
Quote from: kkt on June 12, 2017, 02:10:30 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 11, 2017, 11:33:38 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 11, 2017, 09:30:33 PM
One could argue that interstate standards are set too high. Very wide shoulders and sightlines for 60 mph are so expensive that lots of roads remain 2-lane US or state routes, when they would benefit greatly from being made 4 lanes and bridges updated for current truck sizes and weights.
I agree on the "wide shoulders" requirement being kind of silly (especially with cars becoming more reliable), but I'm not sure on sightlines. Although "corner radii" might be a better term. US interstates seem to allow rather sharp corners that would be absolutely unacceptable in places like Germany. With driverless cars right around the corner, we should be seeking more strenuous geometry requirements that will allow vehicles to maintain exceptionally high rates of speed (140+).
Sightlines includes vertical curves over rises, gentle enough that drivers can see ahead a safe distance at the design speed. Higher design speeds require much gentler peaks and valleys as well as horizontal curves.
Driverless cars are not close at all except for extremely limited situations. Maybe a driverless shuttle bus carrying passengers from one part of a theme park to another, on a track where no other traffic is permitted and somebody turns it off if the weather gets bad. They're nowhere close to coping with a real road with other traffic driven by impatient humans, pedestrians, wildlife, ice, snow, fallen trees, intersections where google maps isn't current, the cameras being blinded by sun.
We're closer to assisted driving, the car being able to stay on a lane at speed, but a driver able to take over if something unexpected happens. They may even be counterproductive, encouraging people to drive impaired or nap because the car can handle 95% of situations itself.
An awful lot would have to change in the US before we could have speed limits of 140 mph. Rigorous vehicle maintenance, driver's ed and training, retesting on license renewals, much better road maintenance. I don't see anyone wanting to pay for all that. Especially since the great freeway-building era is over so there would be very very few roads built for such speeds for a long time to come.
Don't get me wrong, we're not right on top of massive changes in terms of "who's driving who". Humans will be at the helm for many, many more years. I'm just suggesting we don't roll back standards that may or may not come in handy later.
As for driverless cars, while they won't be here in the next two or three years, I don't think they're more than ten years away. From being the norm? Probably forty years. But forty years in "road years" is not a long time. I bet WSDOT already has budget plans that far out!
Driverless car technology that can handle 99.9% of situations isn't far out (fair comparison, as humans can't handle every situation either). Google has been working on driverless car tech for probably ten years now, and the only thing stopping them from testing it all over the US is state-to-state regulations. Full rollout will require massive federal regulation overhaul. In fact, regulations will keep this stuff from happening sooner, not the tech.
How far north does Interstate 11 really need to go? I honestly don't see it going north of Interstate 80, if it really does need to, that is. Having it go any further, such as into Oregon or even Washington state seems to me more like fantasy than something that would become reality. It seems unlikely to me that any substantial portion of proposed Interstate 11 will be built anytime soon, with the exception of the Las Vegas-Boulder City alignment.
Only as far north as I-15. US 95 is plenty for the traffic it's got.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 13, 2017, 04:28:32 PM
How far north does Interstate 11 really need to go? I honestly don't see it going north of Interstate 80, if it really does need to, that is. Having it go any further, such as into Oregon or even Washington state seems to me more like fantasy than something that would become reality. It seems unlikely to me that any substantial portion of proposed Interstate 11 will be built anytime soon, with the exception of the Las Vegas-Boulder City alignment.
What about south? I don't think it needs to go past I-10.
Quote from: roadguy2 on June 13, 2017, 05:34:21 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 13, 2017, 04:28:32 PM
How far north does Interstate 11 really need to go? I honestly don't see it going north of Interstate 80, if it really does need to, that is. Having it go any further, such as into Oregon or even Washington state seems to me more like fantasy than something that would become reality. It seems unlikely to me that any substantial portion of proposed Interstate 11 will be built anytime soon, with the exception of the Las Vegas-Boulder City alignment.
What about south? I don't think it needs to go past I-10.
I can see wanting I-11 to go as far south as I-8, so that I-8 to I-11 form a wide bypass around the Phoenix area.
Quote from: roadguy2 on June 13, 2017, 05:34:21 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 13, 2017, 04:28:32 PM
How far north does Interstate 11 really need to go? I honestly don't see it going north of Interstate 80, if it really does need to, that is. Having it go any further, such as into Oregon or even Washington state seems to me more like fantasy than something that would become reality. It seems unlikely to me that any substantial portion of proposed Interstate 11 will be built anytime soon, with the exception of the Las Vegas-Boulder City alignment.
What about south? I don't think it needs to go past I-10.
Yeah, going past the ten seems unnecessary. It's
supposed to end at some unbuilt North-South Fwy between Mesa and near Eloy.
I'd be okay with an I-8 routing, as suggested by kkt. Perhaps re-using the AZ-85 freeway between the 10 and Gila Bend?
Some of the folks pushing I-11 want the road to go farther South, loop around Tucson and then parallel I-19 to Nogales. IMHO, extending the road any farther South than I-8 is just ridiculous. I think it would be good enough to hook I-11 into AZ-303 and then send it South to I-10.
Planners are using I-11 to bundle in all sorts of other highway projects in the Phoenix and Tucson metro areas. I don't know the chances for any of those to be completed. The Hassayampa Freeway would be the most ambitious part of the plan. It looks like the Southern portion of the Hassaympa Freeway would cut East-West through tribal lands just North of Casa Grande before ending at the proposed Pinal North-South Freeway.
I think it's funny they have some of these new-terrain freeway routes proposed, but some other existing corridors, like AZ-85 between Gila Bend and Buckeye could be upgraded to Interstate quality relatively easily without needing a bunch of new ROW. Part of the Hassayampa Freeway could be routed along AZ-85.
I can accept 11 going all the way to 8 only if they upgrade AZ-85 and route 11 there.
Quote from: jakeroot on June 13, 2017, 06:00:23 PM
I'd be okay with an I-8 routing, as suggested by kkt. Perhaps re-using the AZ-85 freeway between the 10 and Gila Bend?
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 13, 2017, 06:37:28 PM
...AZ-85 between Gila Bend and Buckeye could be upgraded to Interstate quality relatively easily without needing a bunch of new ROW.
Quote from: roadguy2 on June 13, 2017, 09:02:32 PM
I can accept 11 going all the way to 8 only if they upgrade AZ-85 and route 11 there.
Well, that's that settled.
I think the best option is to route it down Loop 303 from the current U.S. 60 interchange, and then either have it terminate at I-10 or go south to terminate at I-8 (regardless of alignment). Going farther south with it is an even sillier idea than wanting to build it north of Vegas, IMO. That way, it would serve the Phoenix metro area as originally intended. I'm losing hope for that outcome though, because no substantial part of the metro area is included in the study boundary. I think they really want their Hassayampa freeway, and they're going to get it, one way or another.
IMO, while the Hassayampa alignment does dovetail into greater Phoenix's overall master plan, including infill south to at least Casa Grande, it's unlikely that such regional expansion will continue unabated; recurring slowdowns and even more recession will likely make development at the outer reaches iffy at best. And the Hassayampa area is essentially a rocky wasteland; developers usually find the path of least resistance, which doesn't bode well for much of anything west of Buckeye. 2 scenarios are likely: if indeed the Hassayampa alignment is developed, don't look for it to go southeast past AZ 85 in the foreseeable future; I-11 may just assume an AZ 85 alignment south from the junction point to I-8 near Gila Bend (saving quite a bit of land purchase). The second scenario is simply to take I-11 down US 60 (on an exact alignment TBD) to 303, where it could conceivably turn in either direction: east to I-17 or south to I-10 (the odds-on favorite here!).
Unless Phoenix experiences a population influx that dwarfs the aggregate growth of the last 3 decades or so, I anticipate that one of the above "truncated" options will actually prevail.
Quote from: pumpkineater2 on June 14, 2017, 12:30:41 AM
I think the best option is to route it down Loop 303 from the current U.S. 60 interchange, and then either have it terminate at I-10 or go south to terminate at I-8 (regardless of alignment). Going farther south with it is an even sillier idea than wanting to build it north of Vegas, IMO. That way, it would serve the Phoenix metro area as originally intended. I'm losing hope for that outcome though, because no substantial part of the metro area is included in the study boundary. I think they really want their Hassayampa freeway, and they're going to get it, one way or another.
Agreed. I've said before, this is a freeway whose main purpose is to connect the metropolitan areas of Las Vegas and Phoenix. If the freeway hooks up to I-10 40 miles west of Phoenix, does it really get that job done? Now you have a direct freeway connection from Las Vegas to Wickenburg, Tonopah and Gila Bend instead of Phoenix. You'd have to get off I-11 in Wickenburg and take US 60/Grand Ave into town, or go way out of your way to take I-11 down to I-10.
Sending the freeway west of the White Tanks completely defeats the purpose of the freeway entirely, and is a bad, bad, bad idea.
I see lots and lots of grade crossings along US 60 between Wickenburg and 303. It would be very expensive to bypass all of them, as well as unpopular. Land would have to be taken to make space for interchanges, overpasses, and frontage roads. All of a sudden what was previously a 2-minute drive across Grand Ave to visit family or friends because 20 minutes because of the need to get to an overpass. Maybe building a new ROW parallel to US 60 would be better, though it would be a challenge getting that ROW together too.
Freeways can serve cities without having to enter them. I-80 serves the NYC area, even though it ends in New Jersey.
Quote from: kkt on June 14, 2017, 01:23:24 PM
Freeways can serve cities without having to enter them. I-80 serves the NYC area, even though it ends in New Jersey.
Yep. It isn't the 60s anymore. We don't need to pile-drive freeways through neighbourhoods to make them useful. Even if it connects to the 10 outside of Buckeye, it's still light years faster than the current route.
I-80 is in the NYC metro area. I-11 would connect with I-10 in the middle of nowhere and would require people to drive way out of the way or take US 60. Note that this idea would still keep I-11 out of Phoenix (though I-211 would enter the city limits), but it would at least be in the metro area (IMO a metro area cannot include rural areas that happen to be nearby) - were this the 60s, it would have been proposed even further in, going down US 60 to I-17!
Personally, I'd route it to AZ 303 and down to I-10, with the rest of AZ 303 becoming I-211, go between the mountains and Sonoran Desert National Monument to I-8 if necessary, and scrap the rest of it to the south.
Quote from: vdeane on June 14, 2017, 02:05:10 PM
(IMO a metro area cannot include rural areas that happen to be nearby)
That's what happens in the West though, because the counties are huge compared to midwest and eastern states.
But do metro areas really have to be contiguous with county boundaries? I would not consider Alexandria Bay to be part of the Watertown metro area, yet both are in Jefferson County. The Rochester metro area includes parts of Livingston, Ontario, and Wayne Counties, but not all of them.
Quote from: jakeroot on June 14, 2017, 01:50:07 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 14, 2017, 01:23:24 PM
Freeways can serve cities without having to enter them. I-80 serves the NYC area, even though it ends in New Jersey.
Yep. It isn't the 60s anymore. We don't need to pile-drive freeways through neighbourhoods to make them useful. Even if it connects to the 10 outside of Buckeye, it's still light years faster than the current route.
I disagree. It makes it a lot easier having freeways enter the city cores for cars. It needs to stay that way and be expanded, imo. That's what makes American freeways a lot different that other systems is the ease of access which is really nice.
Quote from: vdeane on June 14, 2017, 02:52:33 PM
But do metro areas really have to be contiguous with county boundaries? I would not consider Alexandria Bay to be part of the Watertown metro area, yet both are in Jefferson County. The Rochester metro area includes parts of Livingston, Ontario, and Wayne Counties, but not all of them.
According to the US Census, they do. I agree that counties might not be the best way to define metro areas, but that's how it works.
Quote from: roadguy2 on June 14, 2017, 03:02:21 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 14, 2017, 02:52:33 PM
But do metro areas really have to be contiguous with county boundaries? I would not consider Alexandria Bay to be part of the Watertown metro area, yet both are in Jefferson County. The Rochester metro area includes parts of Livingston, Ontario, and Wayne Counties, but not all of them.
According to the US Census, they do. I agree that counties might not be the best way to define metro areas, but that's how it works.
For Census Bureau purposes metro areas
do have to be contained with one county; but MPO's can and do encompass multi-county jurisdictions, depending upon how they were chartered. Portland metro (often referred to as PDX after the main airport ID) in Oregon is one of these, with their jurisdiction being all of Multnomah County and substantial parts of Washington and Clackamas counties -- and, IIRC, some populated slivers of Yamhill and Mount Hood counties as well. So what is and what isn't a specific metro area is dependent upon the criteria of the agency making the distinction.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 14, 2017, 02:58:46 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on June 14, 2017, 01:50:07 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 14, 2017, 01:23:24 PM
Freeways can serve cities without having to enter them. I-80 serves the NYC area, even though it ends in New Jersey.
Yep. It isn't the 60s anymore. We don't need to pile-drive freeways through neighbourhoods to make them useful. Even if it connects to the 10 outside of Buckeye, it's still light years faster than the current route.
I disagree. It makes it a lot easier having freeways enter the city cores for cars. It needs to stay that way and be expanded, imo. That's what makes American freeways a lot different that other systems is the ease of access which is really nice.
It's also why American downtowns suck. Freeways are barriers that physically and psychologically divide cities. Downtown Phoenix already has enough of these monstrosities. Keep the freeways in the suburbs.
Alternatively, build I-11 straight into downtown Phoenix as a tunnel. Tunnels are the only good way to mix freeways and dense urban cores.
Traffic heading for Phoenix could still take US 60 into town, or jog over to I-17 if their destination was closer to the north end. And there's nothing stopping Arizona from eliminating cross-traffic along US 60 if they want to. I just don't see it as a problem for the interstate system to solve. Building I-11 south to I-8 should divert traffic from going through Phoenix, thus making I-10 and US 60 flow a bit better. And allowing through traffic to bypass congested city centers is appropriate for the interstate system to address.
Quote from: kkt on June 14, 2017, 04:35:12 PM
Traffic heading for Phoenix could still take US 60 into town, or jog over to I-17 if their destination was closer to the north end. And there's nothing stopping Arizona from eliminating cross-traffic along US 60 if they want to. I just don't see it as a problem for the interstate system to solve. Building I-11 south to I-8 should divert traffic from going through Phoenix, thus making I-10 and US 60 flow a bit better. And allowing through traffic to bypass congested city centers is appropriate for the interstate system to address.
And
that would be the main saving grace of a Hassayampa I-11 alignment -- if combined with an upgraded AZ 85 south to I-8 -- that it be able to do "double duty" as not only a bypass for what is now merely potential I-11 traffic but also an Interstate-grade/signed southern bypass of greater Phoenix for I-10 (the Loop 202 extension now under construction remains too close to the city center to function as an effective bypass; it'll probably function like CA 210 did when fully opened out to Redlands in 2007: congested within the first month of use).
As much as Loop 303 is intuitively an ideal way to get I-11 to serve central Phoenix more directly, it still doesn't solve the regional need to get through traffic away from the city core. Even the proposed parallel I-10 southern relief route, AZ 30, will feed into the 202 loop, adding to that route's likely problems -- and 303 is eventually scheduled to terminate at and feed into that corridor. AZ 85's already there; it's partially constructed, with the only obstacle left to overcome the final alignment just north of an I-8 junction.
Not utilizing it as a multi-purpose relief route seems at best silly and at worst wasteful!
AZ 303 is exurbs, not "city core". AZ 85 is "middle of nowhere". And isn't the whole point of I-11 to connect Phoenix and Vegas? Without connecting to Phoenix, I-11 has no reason to exist. None. And using AZ 85 as a bypass of Phoenix for I-10 traffic is still way out of the way.
Regardless of where I-11 ends up being routed, there should be an effort to upgrade the US 60 corridor to a freeway northwest of Loop 303 up to Wickenburg to connect to I-11. I'd be in favor of this.
How much traffic uses US 60 between Wickenburg and Phoenix? And since a railroad line parallels US 60 all the way into downtown Phoenix, how much of a factor would it be in a potential US 60 freeway conversion?
The railroad makes all the difference in the world between US-60 being able to be upgraded into a freeway or not. The railroad would have to be removed to create enough room for a freeway. Still, even if the railroad was removed a freeway upgrade would still be a very tight squeeze at several spots in Glendale. About all that can be done with US-60 inside the 303 loop is building bridges and partial interchanges at busy intersections.
That's an in-service railroad! Why would anyone want to remove it? Freight railroads are a lot more important to the economy than upgrading an expressway.
Roads take tighter turns and steeper grades than railroads. If the route is necessary, a bypass road could be built outside the urbanized area a lot more easily than a railroad.
Quote from: vdeane on June 15, 2017, 01:13:51 PM
AZ 303 is exurbs, not "city core". AZ 85 is "middle of nowhere". And isn't the whole point of I-11 to connect Phoenix and Vegas? Without connecting to Phoenix, I-11 has no reason to exist. None. And using AZ 85 as a bypass of Phoenix for I-10 traffic is still way out of the way.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 15, 2017, 03:27:53 PM
How much traffic uses US 60 between Wickenburg and Phoenix? And since a railroad line parallels US 60 all the way into downtown Phoenix, how much of a factor would it be in a potential US 60 freeway conversion?
Quote from: kkt on June 15, 2017, 05:17:06 PM
That's an in-service railroad! Why would anyone want to remove it? Freight railroads are a lot more important to the economy than upgrading an expressway.
Roads take tighter turns and steeper grades than railroads. If the route is necessary, a bypass road could be built outside the urbanized area a lot more easily than a railroad.
I've used the AZ 85/I-8 combination to bypass Phoenix traffic several times; although somewhat longer in terms of pure mileage than the I-10 (relative) "straight shot", it
does save time if one is attempting to traverse Phoenix during commute hours (something only recommended for a devout masochist); as a "economy" bypass -- saving overall money on AZ 85 upgrades rather than deploying a new-terrain I-11 from Buckeye to Casa Grande -- it'll work, particularly if $$ outlay becomes an issue (as it invariably does!). The south of I-10 I-11 alignment as locally planned
does make for a close-to-optimal I-10 bypass -- but hardly one that is likely to be fully developed in the next 20-30 years unless the "infill" growth south of Phoenix outstrips current projections; the AZ 85 routing, while certainly not the optimal bypass path, has a much greater chance of showing up in a near-term budget!
As far as taking some sort of freeway down US 60 -- it's not likely anything could be built efficiently southeast of 303 -- and actually laying an Interstate-grade facility atop the current route is probably not going to happen either; a parallel new facility would have to be developed. Besides the proximity of the rail line (BNSF's sole line into Phoenix), there's just too much in the way of development inside the 303 loop -- and if an alignment in that direction were to be developed, the ROW preservation for such need to be done sooner than later, considering the pace at which housing is being deployed along or near this corridor. But the plans for anything south and/or east of Wickenburg seem to be part of a juggling act, with the Hassayampa corridor being the only one seeming to warrant official consideration at this time. If an alignment anywhere near US 60 is to be considered, the local/state planning entities need to get their shit together and actually present a viable alternative to what's out there now!
As it stands, the state and local governments have to start acting as soon as possible on acquiring and preserving ROW along US-60 from Wickenburg to at least the 303 loop. Upgrading US-60 into I-11 along that stretch is still very do-able. But that could easily change if developers plop big new residential and commercial developments right up to the edge of the existing Phoenix-Wickenburg highway.
Quote from: vdeane on June 15, 2017, 01:13:51 PM
AZ 303 is exurbs, not "city core". AZ 85 is "middle of nowhere". And isn't the whole point of I-11 to connect Phoenix and Vegas? Without connecting to Phoenix, I-11 has no reason to exist. None. And using AZ 85 as a bypass of Phoenix for I-10 traffic is still way out of the way.
L-303 is rapidly transitioning from exurbs to suburbs. Exurbs are moving out to the west side of the White Tanks, where I-11 could potentially run. I-11 connecting south to I-10 at/near AZ 85 (and maybe a freeway spur either over US 60 to L-303 or over AZ 74 to I-17) is certainly a reasonable path. Using I-8 and AZ 85 as a bypass of Phoenix is under 9 miles longer than I-10, and is probably the best route any time between 6a and 7p. A better connection to I-8 should cut a mile or two off of that as well.
Maybe I-11 could still be routed down AZ 85 to I-8, and a new 3di (I-311?) could run down the US 60 corridor as far SE as it is feasible.
Quote from: roadguy2 on June 17, 2017, 11:53:15 PM
Maybe I-11 could still be routed down AZ 85 to I-8, and a new 3di (I-311?) could run down the US 60 corridor as far SE as it is feasible.
At the risk of edging into Fictional, something a bit east of US 60 may be the ticket for a even-first-digit x11 to get over to I-17 by using the northeast end of Loop 303 to do so, even if the Hassayampa corridor is used for the main trunk. Or, if I-11 itself ends up following (more or less) US 60 down to 303, the eastern part of 303 could be given a similar designation (despite AZDOT's track record re avoiding 3di's).
Quote from: sparker on June 14, 2017, 03:43:22 PM
Quote from: roadguy2 on June 14, 2017, 03:02:21 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 14, 2017, 02:52:33 PM
But do metro areas really have to be contiguous with county boundaries? I would not consider Alexandria Bay to be part of the Watertown metro area, yet both are in Jefferson County. The Rochester metro area includes parts of Livingston, Ontario, and Wayne Counties, but not all of them.
According to the US Census, they do. I agree that counties might not be the best way to define metro areas, but that's how it works.
For Census Bureau purposes metro areas do have to be contained with one county; but MPO's can and do encompass multi-county jurisdictions, depending upon how they were chartered. Portland metro (often referred to as PDX after the main airport ID) in Oregon is one of these, with their jurisdiction being all of Multnomah County and substantial parts of Washington and Clackamas counties -- and, IIRC, some populated slivers of Yamhill and Mount Hood counties as well. So what is and what isn't a specific metro area is dependent upon the criteria of the agency making the distinction.
There's no Mt Hood County, and the Portland metro has nothing to do with Hood River County. An argument could be made for Scappoose and St Helens in Columbia County, but that's only because the Portland address grid extends out to the eastern fringe of Rainier along US 30.
Metro's jurisdiction barely extends east of Gresham and Troutdale, and excludes most of the satellite cities around Portland (Forest Grove being the notable exception). (Source: map (http://www.oregonmetro.gov/sites/default/files/JurisdictionRegional11x17.pdf))
The Census-defined metropolitan area includes Clackamas, Columbia, Multnomah, Washington, and Yamhill Counties in Oregon, and Clark and Skamania Counties in Washington.
Quote from: sparker on June 14, 2017, 03:43:22 PM
Quote from: roadguy2 on June 14, 2017, 03:02:21 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 14, 2017, 02:52:33 PM
But do metro areas really have to be contiguous with county boundaries? I would not consider Alexandria Bay to be part of the Watertown metro area, yet both are in Jefferson County. The Rochester metro area includes parts of Livingston, Ontario, and Wayne Counties, but not all of them.
According to the US Census, they do. I agree that counties might not be the best way to define metro areas, but that's how it works.
For Census Bureau purposes metro areas do have to be contained with one county; but MPO's can and do encompass multi-county jurisdictions, depending upon how they were chartered. Portland metro (often referred to as PDX after the main airport ID) in Oregon is one of these, with their jurisdiction being all of Multnomah County and substantial parts of Washington and Clackamas counties -- and, IIRC, some populated slivers of Yamhill and Mount Hood counties as well. So what is and what isn't a specific metro area is dependent upon the criteria of the agency making the distinction.
Quote from: Bickendan on June 20, 2017, 02:54:25 AM
There's no Mt Hood County, and the Portland metro has nothing to do with Hood River County. An argument could be made for Scappoose and St Helens in Columbia County, but that's only because the Portland address grid extends out to the eastern fringe of Rainier along US 30.
I
meant Hood River county (misstatement -- sorry!); for some reason, I recall seeing a map at PDX metro when I was up there in the '90's that included the northern portion of the Hood River valley within metro limits (in retrospect, that indication may have been speculative or for ancillary purposes -- possibly an indication of a separate district). Back during that era (20+ years ago) there was talk at Metro about trying to include the Multnomah Falls park/recreational area within Metro as an additional bulwark against development along I-84 -- or the periodic requests by UP to double-track their line through the Columbia Gorge (the most recent of which was shot down in flames just this month!). If that had materialized, it's likely that measures to extend jurisdiction to the Hood River area immediately to the east would have followed in short order.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/news-columns/road-warrior/2-mile-stretch-of-southbound-i-11-to-open-by-the-end-of-july/
"Opening up the small, southbound segment marks a big step toward completing the first leg of an international trade route that is expected to eventually ease cross-border trade from the Mexico border to Canada by running through Arizona, Nevada and Idaho."
This article makes it sound as if it's been decided that I-11 will eventually reach as far north as Idaho. I wasn't aware that was the case.
I think it is a pipe dream to say Interstate 11 will go to Idaho. Realistically, I see future Interstate 11 going no further north than Interstate 80 in Nevada (if it even makes it that far).
Quote from: foolsgold on July 17, 2017, 04:25:42 PM
https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/news-columns/road-warrior/2-mile-stretch-of-southbound-i-11-to-open-by-the-end-of-july/
"Opening up the small, southbound segment marks a big step toward completing the first leg of an international trade route that is expected to eventually ease cross-border trade from the Mexico border to Canada by running through Arizona, Nevada and Idaho."
This article makes it sound as if it's been decided that I-11 will eventually reach as far north as Idaho. I wasn't aware that was the case.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 17, 2017, 06:05:50 PM
I think it is a pipe dream to say Interstate 11 will go to Idaho. Realistically, I see future Interstate 11 going no further north than Interstate 80 in Nevada (if it even makes it that far).
If the Treasure Valley/Boise area keeps expanding at anything close to its present rate, upgrading US 95 (and likely the southern reaches of ID 55) might be given serious consideration to provide enhanced access from California and other Southwest points. Whether that would imply a I-11 extension would be something TBD; but I wouldn't expect any activity regarding this to occur for at least another decade; it'll likely take that long for purpose-driven political activity to "gel" from simple local interest. Curiously, the only portion of US 95 north of Las Vegas that isn't included in the high-priority corridor compendium is the stretch from Winnemucca to the OR/ID state line (although it
is a NHS route, of course). If rumblings
do occur, expect the "first strike" to be a dedicated HPC, possibly with accompanying Interstate designation; that seems to have become the default method for such activity.
Quote from: sparker on July 17, 2017, 09:35:31 PM
Quote from: foolsgold on July 17, 2017, 04:25:42 PM
https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/news-columns/road-warrior/2-mile-stretch-of-southbound-i-11-to-open-by-the-end-of-july/
"Opening up the small, southbound segment marks a big step toward completing the first leg of an international trade route that is expected to eventually ease cross-border trade from the Mexico border to Canada by running through Arizona, Nevada and Idaho."
This article makes it sound as if it's been decided that I-11 will eventually reach as far north as Idaho. I wasn't aware that was the case.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 17, 2017, 06:05:50 PM
I think it is a pipe dream to say Interstate 11 will go to Idaho. Realistically, I see future Interstate 11 going no further north than Interstate 80 in Nevada (if it even makes it that far).
If the Treasure Valley/Boise area keeps expanding at anything close to its present rate, upgrading US 95 (and likely the southern reaches of ID 55) might be given serious consideration to provide enhanced access from California and other Southwest points. Whether that would imply a I-11 extension would be something TBD; but I wouldn't expect any activity regarding this to occur for at least another decade; it'll likely take that long for purpose-driven political activity to "gel" from simple local interest. Curiously, the only portion of US 95 north of Las Vegas that isn't included in the high-priority corridor compendium is the stretch from Winnemucca to the OR/ID state line (although it is a NHS route, of course). If rumblings do occur, expect the "first strike" to be a dedicated HPC, possibly with accompanying Interstate designation; that seems to have become the default method for such activity.
2 years ago when I was considering a move to Emmett ID, the county master plan update had 2 freeways on it.
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on July 17, 2017, 09:51:42 PM
2 years ago when I was considering a move to Emmett ID, the county master plan update had 2 freeways on it.
AFAIK, the sole freeway project active at this time within that region is the ID 16 connector from I-84 to Eagle, prompted by the outsized growth of that particular community.
Quote from: sparker on July 17, 2017, 09:35:31 PM
Quote from: foolsgold on July 17, 2017, 04:25:42 PM
https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/news-columns/road-warrior/2-mile-stretch-of-southbound-i-11-to-open-by-the-end-of-july/
"Opening up the small, southbound segment marks a big step toward completing the first leg of an international trade route that is expected to eventually ease cross-border trade from the Mexico border to Canada by running through Arizona, Nevada and Idaho."
This article makes it sound as if it's been decided that I-11 will eventually reach as far north as Idaho. I wasn't aware that was the case.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 17, 2017, 06:05:50 PM
I think it is a pipe dream to say Interstate 11 will go to Idaho. Realistically, I see future Interstate 11 going no further north than Interstate 80 in Nevada (if it even makes it that far).
If the Treasure Valley/Boise area keeps expanding at anything close to its present rate, upgrading US 95 (and likely the southern reaches of ID 55) might be given serious consideration to provide enhanced access from California and other Southwest points. Whether that would imply a I-11 extension would be something TBD; but I wouldn't expect any activity regarding this to occur for at least another decade; it'll likely take that long for purpose-driven political activity to "gel" from simple local interest. Curiously, the only portion of US 95 north of Las Vegas that isn't included in the high-priority corridor compendium is the stretch from Winnemucca to the OR/ID state line (although it is a NHS route, of course). If rumblings do occur, expect the "first strike" to be a dedicated HPC, possibly with accompanying Interstate designation; that seems to have become the default method for such activity.
Just to be abundantly clear — there is exactly a 0% chance that Oregon invests in duplexing US 95, which carried 58 cars an hour in 2015. At this point, Oregon can't even afford to upgrade heavily used, in-state two laners like US 97.
Any I-11 extension to Idaho, however far off, will either have to use a new alignment that bypasses Oregon, or involve Nevada and Idaho paying Oregon to do the work.
All that being said, I maintain that the most practical routing for I-11 is across northeastern California to Klamath Falls, then up US 97 to Madras, then over the Cascades along 26 to Sandy and the Portland area.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on July 18, 2017, 11:19:17 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 17, 2017, 09:35:31 PM
Quote from: foolsgold on July 17, 2017, 04:25:42 PM
https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/news-columns/road-warrior/2-mile-stretch-of-southbound-i-11-to-open-by-the-end-of-july/
"Opening up the small, southbound segment marks a big step toward completing the first leg of an international trade route that is expected to eventually ease cross-border trade from the Mexico border to Canada by running through Arizona, Nevada and Idaho."
This article makes it sound as if it's been decided that I-11 will eventually reach as far north as Idaho. I wasn't aware that was the case.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 17, 2017, 06:05:50 PM
I think it is a pipe dream to say Interstate 11 will go to Idaho. Realistically, I see future Interstate 11 going no further north than Interstate 80 in Nevada (if it even makes it that far).
If the Treasure Valley/Boise area keeps expanding at anything close to its present rate, upgrading US 95 (and likely the southern reaches of ID 55) might be given serious consideration to provide enhanced access from California and other Southwest points. Whether that would imply a I-11 extension would be something TBD; but I wouldn't expect any activity regarding this to occur for at least another decade; it'll likely take that long for purpose-driven political activity to "gel" from simple local interest. Curiously, the only portion of US 95 north of Las Vegas that isn't included in the high-priority corridor compendium is the stretch from Winnemucca to the OR/ID state line (although it is a NHS route, of course). If rumblings do occur, expect the "first strike" to be a dedicated HPC, possibly with accompanying Interstate designation; that seems to have become the default method for such activity.
Just to be abundantly clear – there is exactly a 0% chance that Oregon invests in duplexing US 95, which carried 58 cars an hour in 2015. At this point, Oregon can't even afford to upgrade heavily used, in-state two laners like US 97.
Any I-11 extension to Idaho, however far off, will either have to use a new alignment that bypasses Oregon, or involve Nevada and Idaho paying Oregon to do the work.
All that being said, I maintain that the most practical routing for I-11 is across northeastern California to Klamath Falls, then up US 97 to Madras, then over the Cascades along 26 to Sandy and the Portland area.
Then we can set a record for the longest spur as I-111 is built to connect a deserted corner of Oregon to Boise to north Idaho and from there we'll end it at the Canadian border. ADT's should get up to an average of one vehicle per minute...LOL!
Rick
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on July 18, 2017, 11:19:17 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 17, 2017, 09:35:31 PM
Quote from: foolsgold on July 17, 2017, 04:25:42 PM
https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/news-columns/road-warrior/2-mile-stretch-of-southbound-i-11-to-open-by-the-end-of-july/
"Opening up the small, southbound segment marks a big step toward completing the first leg of an international trade route that is expected to eventually ease cross-border trade from the Mexico border to Canada by running through Arizona, Nevada and Idaho."
This article makes it sound as if it's been decided that I-11 will eventually reach as far north as Idaho. I wasn't aware that was the case.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 17, 2017, 06:05:50 PM
I think it is a pipe dream to say Interstate 11 will go to Idaho. Realistically, I see future Interstate 11 going no further north than Interstate 80 in Nevada (if it even makes it that far).
If the Treasure Valley/Boise area keeps expanding at anything close to its present rate, upgrading US 95 (and likely the southern reaches of ID 55) might be given serious consideration to provide enhanced access from California and other Southwest points. Whether that would imply a I-11 extension would be something TBD; but I wouldn't expect any activity regarding this to occur for at least another decade; it'll likely take that long for purpose-driven political activity to "gel" from simple local interest. Curiously, the only portion of US 95 north of Las Vegas that isn't included in the high-priority corridor compendium is the stretch from Winnemucca to the OR/ID state line (although it is a NHS route, of course). If rumblings do occur, expect the "first strike" to be a dedicated HPC, possibly with accompanying Interstate designation; that seems to have become the default method for such activity.
Just to be abundantly clear — there is exactly a 0% chance that Oregon invests in duplexing US 95, which carried 58 cars an hour in 2015. At this point, Oregon can't even afford to upgrade heavily used, in-state two laners like US 97.
Any I-11 extension to Idaho, however far off, will either have to use a new alignment that bypasses Oregon, or involve Nevada and Idaho paying Oregon to do the work.
All that being said, I maintain that the most practical routing for I-11 is across northeastern California to Klamath Falls, then up US 97 to Madras, then over the Cascades along 26 to Sandy and the Portland area.
I'm in
general agreement as to Oregon financially contributing to anything along US 95 -- seeing as much of that route, viewed as a through facility from Winnemucca to Marsing, has little or no benefit to the state; the present routing is simply topographic happenstance. That being said, ODOT and their handlers might be, with a few "goodies" thrown in to sweeten the pot, convinced to kick in a few bucks for the portion from the Nevada line to OR 78 -- the only segment that has the potential to provide even a modicum of benefit to the state. NE of there, it'll have to be a project with virtually all the funding coming from either the feds or from within Idaho, which stands to reap the rewards, be they as they will, of a Winnemucca-Boise (general vicinity) corridor. These are arrangements that will need to be hashed out if & when such a corridor is in the early planning stages.
As far as I-11 extending from I-80 (likely Reno area) to Klamath Falls and beyond, again, I'm in agreement that the ideal routing takes it directly into the Portland area (let's get that wonderful/infamous "Boring Oregon City" sign on an Interstate so it can provide yuks to a wider audience!). Having lived & done grad school up there (albeit a quarter-century ago), I worry that attitudes within the greater state planning circles would make such a routing riddled with controversy -- if not actually DOA! -- which is one of the reasons I suggested taking I-11 west to I-5 near Medford -- lower cost, and definitely nowhere near PDX Metro; with a reasonable level of support from the Rogue River Valley, such a route might fall within the realm of feasibility. I've outlined this concept previously; don't see any reason to reiterate it in nauseating detail once again (just look through the previous replies, plus any of the other I-11 threads in other regional coverage). Bottom line -- if I-11 can be kept away from greater Portland (actually, Eugene would likely complain as well if it landed there via OR 58) there's less of a chance that the folks up there who regularly engage in such things would piss & moan to the point that any project of this type would be jeopardized.
With Nevada making significant progress on future Interstate 11, how much of the freeway on the Arizona side of the bridge is built to interstate standards?
How much could be signed as I-11?
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on August 20, 2017, 11:30:28 AM
With Nevada making significant progress on future Interstate 11, how much of the freeway on the Arizona side of the bridge is built to interstate standards?
How much could be signed as I-11?
From my understanding of present conditions, nothing really beyond the Arizona portion of the Hoover Dam bypass project could be signed as I-11, save for the presumed overlap with I-40.
Arizona has been working on widening portions of US 93 for a while, but this has been to divided highway status and not full freeway/Interstate standards–that effort began well before the notion of I-11 was conceived.
Nevada, on the other hand, has considerably less mileage along the I-11 corridor to link Vegas and Phoenix. The only real length of Interstate construction Nevada needed for I-11 to reach the Las Vegas valley after I-11 was made official was the Hoover Dam Byapss (under construction if not complete at that time) and the Boulder City Bypass project. The Boulder City Bypass was also conceived about a decade before I-11 was ever a thing–if I recall correctly, the project cleared the final environmental reviews and was well into initial design a couple years before I-11 was signed into law–so it ended up as the first new construction under I-11.
Quote from: roadfro on August 20, 2017, 02:32:32 PM
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on August 20, 2017, 11:30:28 AM
With Nevada making significant progress on future Interstate 11, how much of the freeway on the Arizona side of the bridge is built to interstate standards?
How much could be signed as I-11?
From my understanding of present conditions, nothing really beyond the Arizona portion of the Hoover Dam bypass project could be signed as I-11, save for the presumed overlap with I-40.
Arizona has been working on widening portions of US 93 for a while, but this has been to divided highway status and not full freeway/Interstate standards–that effort began well before the notion of I-11 was conceived.
Nevada, on the other hand, has considerably less mileage along the I-11 corridor to link Vegas and Phoenix. The only real length of Interstate construction Nevada needed for I-11 to reach the Las Vegas valley after I-11 was made official was the Hoover Dam Byapss (under construction if not complete at that time) and the Boulder City Bypass project. The Boulder City Bypass was also conceived about a decade before I-11 was ever a thing–if I recall correctly, the project cleared the final environmental reviews and was well into initial design a couple years before I-11 was signed into law–so it ended up as the first new construction under I-11.
The only full-freeway segment of AZ's portion of the I-11 corridor is the short section north of central Kingman containing the AZ 68 interchange; all of about a mile and a half of length (hardly worth signage). I would anticipate that the US 93 corridor between I-40 and the Colorado River bridge would be the first to be upgraded, including the Kingman bypass connector to I-40 -- the existing facility could be upgraded with a moderate amount of effort and expense, and it would not only serve traffic to & from greater Phoenix but also provide a somewhat more efficient path from I-40 to the Vegas area. Since the opening of the bridge a few years back -- and the corresponding return of truck traffic to the US 93 corridor -- I would guess that the 4-lane divided facility may be due for repaving or other maintenance; doing what is necessary to upgrade that segment instead of a basic repaving might be the most economically feasible way to go in the long haul.
Are there any updates on the Kingman Bypass?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 20, 2017, 07:39:37 PM
Are there any updates on the Kingman Bypass?
Any freeway upgrade around Kingman is still in the planning stages.
https://azdot.gov/planning/transportation-studies/i-40-us-93-system-traffic-interchange-design-concept-and-environmental-studies
As of now, any upgrades on current US 93 are just to widen it to a 4 lane divided highway. There is one current grade separated interchange at AZ 71, but that bridge (US 93 goes over AZ 71) would have to be widened or replaced to be used for a freeway. Here's a link to ADOT's current plans for the US 93 corridor:
https://azdot.gov/projects/northwest-district-projects/us-93-corridor-projects
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on August 21, 2017, 09:28:17 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 20, 2017, 07:39:37 PM
Are there any updates on the Kingman Bypass?
Any freeway upgrade around Kingman is still in the planning stages.
https://azdot.gov/planning/transportation-studies/i-40-us-93-system-traffic-interchange-design-concept-and-environmental-studies
As of now, any upgrades on current US 93 are just to widen it to a 4 lane divided highway. There is one current grade separated interchange at AZ 71, but that bridge (US 93 goes over AZ 71) would have to be widened or replaced to be used for a freeway. Here's a link to ADOT's current plans for the US 93 corridor:
https://azdot.gov/projects/northwest-district-projects/us-93-corridor-projects
I swear I read within the past year that they have essentially eliminated 3 out of the 5 potential routes for the bypass and agreed to study only the two options to the west (the closer ones). But I can't find that article right now, and see they are still showing all 5.
Once the Boulder City bypass opens next year, it will shift all of the choke points down to Beale St in Kingman. It already gets that way at busier times, but I think it will get to being a priority, kind of like how Nevada stepped up for Boulder City after the bridge opened.
Quote from: kdk on August 22, 2017, 03:39:56 PM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on August 21, 2017, 09:28:17 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 20, 2017, 07:39:37 PM
Are there any updates on the Kingman Bypass?
Any freeway upgrade around Kingman is still in the planning stages.
https://azdot.gov/planning/transportation-studies/i-40-us-93-system-traffic-interchange-design-concept-and-environmental-studies
As of now, any upgrades on current US 93 are just to widen it to a 4 lane divided highway. There is one current grade separated interchange at AZ 71, but that bridge (US 93 goes over AZ 71) would have to be widened or replaced to be used for a freeway. Here's a link to ADOT's current plans for the US 93 corridor:
https://azdot.gov/projects/northwest-district-projects/us-93-corridor-projects
I swear I read within the past year that they have essentially eliminated 3 out of the 5 potential routes for the bypass and agreed to study only the two options to the west (the closer ones). But I can't find that article right now, and see they are still showing all 5.
Once the Boulder City bypass opens next year, it will shift all of the choke points down to Beale St in Kingman. It already gets that way at busier times, but I think it will get to being a priority, kind of like how Nevada stepped up for Boulder City after the bridge opened.
IIRC, AZDOT's original preference was for Alternative "D", the alignment east of Beale and intersecting I-40 about a half mile east of the present interchange. Apparently that would have involved truncating Beale about three-quarters of a mile north of the interchange, isolating several businesses largely dependent upon a mix of local and through traffic; a virtual "dead end" wouldn't do them a lot of good. So local blowback shifted the selections west, which would position Beale as an effective business route
(and potentially signed as such), preserving full local access and, with logo signs on both I-40 and the nascent I-11, a good chance of retaining much of the through-traffic business.
So what alternative is most likely? It also looks like they plan to widen I-40 to 3 lanes in each direction in Kingman which I will say needs it.
(https://azdot.gov/images/default-source/far-west-projects/i-40-us-93-ti-project-map.jpg?sfvrsn=2)
If this were a bet, my bucks would be on alternative "A" (orange line); gives enough of the town a wide berth, but has the trajectory approaching I-40 that would be optimal for a directional or wide trumpet interchange. 2nd in terms of likelihood would be "G" (dark green) -- and only if something in the path of "A" were to prove problematic.
Alternative H is very interesting to me. Why would they consider that? Seems way more expensive with a much greater impact to the environment.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 23, 2017, 12:05:32 AM
Alternative H is very interesting to me. Why would they consider that? Seems way more expensive with a much greater impact to the environment.
Probably a "sop" to those who don't want a new freeway corridor anywhere near town (it hits I-40 well west of the business-loop divergence). Given that it hugs the north and west boundaries of a protected area, I'd give it the chance of a snowball in hell re serious consideration.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 23, 2017, 12:05:32 AM
Alternative H is very interesting to me. Why would they consider that? Seems way more expensive with a much greater impact to the environment.
An alternatives analysis requires alternatives. Better to spend $500 putting together a report that says "Alternative H would threaten endangered species, disrupt tribal resources and only divert 60% of traffic, and should not be considered," than to leave it out, get sued by someone because you didn't consider it and spend $200,000 on lawyers and court costs to defend the AA.
Quote from: sparker on August 22, 2017, 09:31:27 PM
Quote from: kdk on August 22, 2017, 03:39:56 PM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on August 21, 2017, 09:28:17 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 20, 2017, 07:39:37 PM
Are there any updates on the Kingman Bypass?
Any freeway upgrade around Kingman is still in the planning stages.
https://azdot.gov/planning/transportation-studies/i-40-us-93-system-traffic-interchange-design-concept-and-environmental-studies
As of now, any upgrades on current US 93 are just to widen it to a 4 lane divided highway. There is one current grade separated interchange at AZ 71, but that bridge (US 93 goes over AZ 71) would have to be widened or replaced to be used for a freeway. Here's a link to ADOT's current plans for the US 93 corridor:
https://azdot.gov/projects/northwest-district-projects/us-93-corridor-projects
I swear I read within the past year that they have essentially eliminated 3 out of the 5 potential routes for the bypass and agreed to study only the two options to the west (the closer ones). But I can't find that article right now, and see they are still showing all 5.
Once the Boulder City bypass opens next year, it will shift all of the choke points down to Beale St in Kingman. It already gets that way at busier times, but I think it will get to being a priority, kind of like how Nevada stepped up for Boulder City after the bridge opened.
IIRC, AZDOT's original preference was for Alternative "D", the alignment east of Beale and intersecting I-40 about a half mile east of the present interchange. Apparently that would have involved truncating Beale about three-quarters of a mile north of the interchange, isolating several businesses largely dependent upon a mix of local and through traffic; a virtual "dead end" wouldn't do them a lot of good. So local blowback shifted the selections west, which would position Beale as an effective business route
(and potentially signed as such), preserving full local access and, with logo signs on both I-40 and the nascent I-11, a good chance of retaining much of the through-traffic business.
Looking at the presentation from 2013, the preferred alternative "D3" shown appears to have included a (half?) diamond interchange between US 93 and the west end of Beale St–if true, the access would have been preserved.
Quote from: roadfro on August 23, 2017, 10:15:46 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 22, 2017, 09:31:27 PM
Quote from: kdk on August 22, 2017, 03:39:56 PM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on August 21, 2017, 09:28:17 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 20, 2017, 07:39:37 PM
Are there any updates on the Kingman Bypass?
Any freeway upgrade around Kingman is still in the planning stages.
https://azdot.gov/planning/transportation-studies/i-40-us-93-system-traffic-interchange-design-concept-and-environmental-studies
As of now, any upgrades on current US 93 are just to widen it to a 4 lane divided highway. There is one current grade separated interchange at AZ 71, but that bridge (US 93 goes over AZ 71) would have to be widened or replaced to be used for a freeway. Here's a link to ADOT's current plans for the US 93 corridor:
https://azdot.gov/projects/northwest-district-projects/us-93-corridor-projects
I swear I read within the past year that they have essentially eliminated 3 out of the 5 potential routes for the bypass and agreed to study only the two options to the west (the closer ones). But I can't find that article right now, and see they are still showing all 5.
Once the Boulder City bypass opens next year, it will shift all of the choke points down to Beale St in Kingman. It already gets that way at busier times, but I think it will get to being a priority, kind of like how Nevada stepped up for Boulder City after the bridge opened.
IIRC, AZDOT's original preference was for Alternative "D", the alignment east of Beale and intersecting I-40 about a half mile east of the present interchange. Apparently that would have involved truncating Beale about three-quarters of a mile north of the interchange, isolating several businesses largely dependent upon a mix of local and through traffic; a virtual "dead end" wouldn't do them a lot of good. So local blowback shifted the selections west, which would position Beale as an effective business route
(and potentially signed as such), preserving full local access and, with logo signs on both I-40 and the nascent I-11, a good chance of retaining much of the through-traffic business.
Looking at the presentation from 2013, the preferred alternative "D3" shown appears to have included a (half?) diamond interchange between US 93 and the west end of Beale St–if true, the access would have been preserved.
Can you post a detailed map of the alternatives that shows this sort of detail? Everything I've seen to date just shows broad-stroke lines -- and having spent a little more time on Beale Street in that area (which functions as "auto repair row") that I would have liked, I couldn't see how to connect the street physically with the "D" optional corridor absent uprooting many of the businesses there -- which may account at least in part for the eventual choice of a more westerly corridor. I figured if that slightly eastern option were selected, those businesses would have to depend upon primarily I-40 traffic (most of these places have signage that can be seen from I-40); US 93 (I-11) traffic would have had to go west on I-40 for a few hundred yards before getting off on Beale. IIRC, there was a Big-O store there, along with a Pep Boys and a Kragen's (well before they were sold to O'Reilly); all had sizeable tire and suspension shops attached (I had to fix a tire that was going there flat several years back, and opted for the Kragen store). But still, I'd love to see the map showing a set of ramps from Beale to Corridor D -- might tell me how much of that business block would have been taken with that corridor option.
Quote from: sparker on August 23, 2017, 05:16:37 PM
Quote from: roadfro on August 23, 2017, 10:15:46 AM
Looking at the presentation from 2013, the preferred alternative "D3" shown appears to have included a (half?) diamond interchange between US 93 and the west end of Beale St–if true, the access would have been preserved.
Can you post a detailed map of the alternatives that shows this sort of detail? Everything I've seen to date just shows broad-stroke lines -- and having spent a little more time on Beale Street in that area (which functions as "auto repair row") that I would have liked, I couldn't see how to connect the street physically with the "D" optional corridor absent uprooting many of the businesses there -- which may account at least in part for the eventual choice of a more westerly corridor. I figured if that slightly eastern option were selected, those businesses would have to depend upon primarily I-40 traffic (most of these places have signage that can be seen from I-40); US 93 (I-11) traffic would have had to go west on I-40 for a few hundred yards before getting off on Beale. IIRC, there was a Big-O store there, along with a Pep Boys and a Kragen's (well before they were sold to O'Reilly); all had sizeable tire and suspension shops attached (I had to fix a tire that was going there flat several years back, and opted for the Kragen store). But still, I'd love to see the map showing a set of ramps from Beale to Corridor D -- might tell me how much of that business block would have been taken with that corridor option.
https://azdot.gov/planning/transportation-studies/i-40-us-93-system-traffic-interchange-design-concept-and-environmental-studies/documents
Not super detailed, but gives some idea... That's all I've looked at.
The 9/26/2013 public meeting presentation will open a PDF file that goes through the alternatives selection process and mentions Alt D3 as preferred on slide 14. The image there isn't high resolution, so I couldn't tell specifically about that western connection (but it looked like Beale St tying into Fort Beale Road, and a half diamond interchange constructed between future I-11 and Beale St with ramps to/from the north/west).
The 3/29/2012 alignment alternatives shows better resolution on some of the alignment alternatives, but it appears these were refined/changed after the meeting. In this document, Alt D3 looks different than described above–it just has directional ramps to/from the north/west.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on August 23, 2017, 01:17:12 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 23, 2017, 12:05:32 AM
Alternative H is very interesting to me. Why would they consider that? Seems way more expensive with a much greater impact to the environment.
An alternatives analysis requires alternatives. Better to spend $500 putting together a report that says "Alternative H would threaten endangered species, disrupt tribal resources and only divert 60% of traffic, and should not be considered," than to leave it out, get sued by someone because you didn't consider it and spend $200,000 on lawyers and court costs to defend the AA.
Yes. Your homework isn't done until you've completed all the parts of the assignment.
Preferred alternative and record of decision comes in 2019.
https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/AZDOT/bulletins/1cc9b17
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 15, 2017, 10:51:42 PM
Preferred alternative and record of decision comes in 2019.
https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/AZDOT/bulletins/1cc9b17
It'll be interesting to see if a "partial-build" option taking I-11 directly toward Phoenix metro (basically down US 60/Grand Ave.) to at least Loop 303 is one of the options presented -- something like that would essentially curtail anything between Phoenix and Tucson unless 303 itself is extended south to curl around SE toward Casa Grande. Somehow, I think corridor duplication will be one of the first things to be eliminated.
Quote from: sparker on December 16, 2017, 08:54:20 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 15, 2017, 10:51:42 PM
Preferred alternative and record of decision comes in 2019.
https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/AZDOT/bulletins/1cc9b17
It'll be interesting to see if a "partial-build" option taking I-11 directly toward Phoenix metro (basically down US 60/Grand Ave.) to at least Loop 303 is one of the options presented -- something like that would essentially curtail anything between Phoenix and Tucson unless 303 itself is extended south to curl around SE toward Casa Grande. Somehow, I think corridor duplication will be one of the first things to be eliminated.
I doubt it. As has been typical of the new freeways in the Phoenix area, the large developers will land speculate early, then will make sure the freeway goes across their land, even if they have to "donate" the right of way to ADOT. There's been a land grab west of Buckeye, even Bill Gates got in on this one with his new planned "smart city".
Some good info is in this article- http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/bill-gates-adot-study-positive-signs-for-interstate-11-9976163
Although to your point I will likely always use the 303 up to the 60 just because it does make the trip a little shorter than for me to head west on I-10 that far. Also the 303 was always planned to eventually swing southeast to reach down to the city of Maricopa with a spur connecting to I-8, until the I-11 plans started to basically take over that route.
Quote from: kdk on January 03, 2018, 06:00:10 PM
Quote from: sparker on December 16, 2017, 08:54:20 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 15, 2017, 10:51:42 PM
Preferred alternative and record of decision comes in 2019.
https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/AZDOT/bulletins/1cc9b17
It'll be interesting to see if a "partial-build" option taking I-11 directly toward Phoenix metro (basically down US 60/Grand Ave.) to at least Loop 303 is one of the options presented -- something like that would essentially curtail anything between Phoenix and Tucson unless 303 itself is extended south to curl around SE toward Casa Grande. Somehow, I think corridor duplication will be one of the first things to be eliminated.
I doubt it. As has been typical of the new freeways in the Phoenix area, the large developers will land speculate early, then will make sure the freeway goes across their land, even if they have to "donate" the right of way to ADOT. There's been a land grab west of Buckeye, even Bill Gates got in on this one with his new planned "smart city".
Some good info is in this article- http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/bill-gates-adot-study-positive-signs-for-interstate-11-9976163
Although to your point I will likely always use the 303 up to the 60 just because it does make the trip a little shorter than for me to head west on I-10 that far. Also the 303 was always planned to eventually swing southeast to reach down to the city of Maricopa with a spur connecting to I-8, until the I-11 plans started to basically take over that route.
If developers have been grabbing land along the Hassayampa alignment -- and ADOT or their political handlers are "in the pocket", so to speak, of these developers, then that routing might just be a backhanded "done deal". The corridor portion south of I-10 down to Casa Grande is clearly planned for two reasons: providing an outer bypass of metro Phoenix for traffic now using I-10 (and also providing business opportunities for entities such as truck plazas, restaurants, and even possibly casinos along the corridor), and to encourage growth of the Maricopa area even beyond what is presently occurring by providing a new arterial freeway through the middle of the area. North of I-10 the development would likely be garden-variety suburban amenities carved out of the desert (essentially how much of metro Phoenix came to be), possibly including Gates' "planned city". Businesses dedicated to the I-11 traveler would likely commence in the Wickenburg area, leaving the area between there and I-10 to the developers; unlike the "Phoenix bypass" role of I-11 south of I-10 (to be shared by traffic from both routes), the purpose of I-11 north of I-10 will be twofold -- long distance to Vegas, and access to new communities springing up along the facility. And if developers have their way, the freeway configuration will reflect more of the latter than the former (multiple interchanges, frontage roads, and a shopping center or two).
The easiest solution and fastest to implement is to make I-11 a relatively short freeway between Kingman AZ and Las Vegas NV. Let the Phoenix bypass sort itself out along with US 97 improvements in Oregon. So long as those who drive between Elvis Impersonator Central and The Valley Of The Sun have a freeway between them to travel on, even if it does use I-40 and I-17 for routing, the job got done for connecting these two cities in my eyes.
Or is there a Really Good Reason for doing a new routing of long length that will take decades and billions of dinero to implement? Save some moolah (plus a whole lot of time) and use it for some upgrades on US 95 to make the Reno-Vegas route a better highway and pour the remainder into the US 97 Oregon section.
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on January 03, 2018, 10:09:44 PM
The easiest solution and fastest to implement is to make I-11 a relatively short freeway between Kingman AZ and Las Vegas NV. Let the Phoenix bypass sort itself out along with US 97 improvements in Oregon. So long as those who drive between Elvis Impersonator Central and The Valley Of The Sun have a freeway between them to travel on, even if it does use I-40 and I-17 for routing, the job got done for connecting these two cities in my eyes.
Or is there a Really Good Reason for doing a new routing of long length that will take decades and billions of dinero to implement? Save some moolah (plus a whole lot of time) and use it for some upgrades on US 95 to make the Reno-Vegas route a better highway and pour the remainder into the US 97 Oregon section.
Rick
The only problem with that solution is that the southern PHX-LV segment is as close to a done deal as is possible outside NC and TX. Both states want it, ADOT is reconstructing US 93 to Interstate geometry as the first step in the conversion process (baby steps.....), AZ developers want it, LV interests want it, and apparently a basic Phoenix-area corridor will be selected by 2020 (they say 2019, but if history is any indication, the decision will take an extra year or so). It
is likely that the segment from Kingman to LV will be done in advance of the other sections; for the time being it'll serve as a
de facto SIU to and from easterly I-40. But the chances of any pressure to terminate the corridor at Kingman are slim and none (and slim's left the building!). IMO, I-11 will get down to I-10 one way or another by 2030-32 -- probably at about the same time northern NV interests will be bickering over the alignment of the northern extension (see the I-11/points north thread in SW to see the back-and-forth in this forum alone!).
What does SIU stand for?
"Section of Independent Utility"
Quote from: sparker on January 03, 2018, 09:29:54 PM
[...]
If developers have been grabbing land along the Hassayampa alignment -- and ADOT or their political handlers are "in the pocket", so to speak, of these developers, then that routing might just be a backhanded "done deal". The corridor portion south of I-10 down to Casa Grande is clearly planned for two reasons: providing an outer bypass of metro Phoenix for traffic now using I-10 (and also providing business opportunities for entities such as truck plazas, restaurants, and even possibly casinos along the corridor), and to encourage growth of the Maricopa area even beyond what is presently occurring by providing a new arterial freeway through the middle of the area. North of I-10 the development would likely be garden-variety suburban amenities carved out of the desert (essentially how much of metro Phoenix came to be), possibly including Gates' "planned city". Businesses dedicated to the I-11 traveler would likely commence in the Wickenburg area, leaving the area between there and I-10 to the developers; unlike the "Phoenix bypass" role of I-11 south of I-10 (to be shared by traffic from both routes), the purpose of I-11 north of I-10 will be twofold -- long distance to Vegas, and access to new communities springing up along the facility. And if developers have their way, the freeway configuration will reflect more of the latter than the former (multiple interchanges, frontage roads, and a shopping center or two).
Whatever happened to the option of simply upgrading AZ 85 to Interstate freeway standards and adding a freeway/freeway connection to I-8 at Gila Bend? Wouldn't that be cheaper than an I-11 extension along AZ 303 to Casa Grande?
Just an observation: I don't think I-40/I-17 would work even as a temporary I-11 routing between Phoenix and Kingman, because the length difference is almost 100 miles (169 miles from I-40/US 93 east of Kingman to just south of the Stack in Phoenix via US 93/US 60, versus 262 miles via I-40 and I-17). This is about a third of the shortest Phoenix-Las Vegas distance.
How much of US 93/Future I-11 between Kingman and the Colorado River is at Interstate standards?
Excluding the Kingman area, how much actually needs major work, and how much could be given an I-10 exemption for ranches and the like?
Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 04, 2018, 10:39:30 AM
Whatever happened to the option of simply upgrading AZ 85 to Interstate freeway standards and adding a freeway/freeway connection to I-8 at Gila Bend? Wouldn't that be cheaper than an I-11 extension along AZ 303 to Casa Grande?
Now
that would be the most logical and certainly least costly way to go -- and much of AZ 85 has got the "Texas Frontage Road" treatment with reserved space for an eventual freeway; it's pretty much good to go! The problem with that route is that it sits down in the Gila River valley, which is used for agricultural purposes -- one of AZ's big "cash cows", given the all-year growing season down in irrigation country -- not a lot of room nor desire for extensive development there. In the greater Phoenix area, it's all about where the next growth spurt is going to occur; and the diagonal I-11 corridor from Buckeye to Casa Grande via or near Maricopa seems to have piqued the interest of the developers who "run the show" down there (through the usual means -- political donations). It's seen as a viable "stem" around which to place housing and the amenities attached to such. Couple this with the interest in development along the Hassayampa corridor portion north of I-10 and west of Buckeye, and you've got the perfect recipe for the next "big thing" in regional growth. And although, IMO, the steam will run out before plans are made to run I-11 parallel to I-10 & I-19 through Tucson and Nogales, it looks like what is ultimately envisioned is a developmental corridor rivaling San Diego to L.A. via Orange County. It's an archetypal "Sun Belt" mindset -- actually welcoming sprawl as the accepted means of economic growth -- but in this case making general plans regarding the preferences as to where the tenets of such sprawl will go. The AZ 85 corridor
will likely be developed as a separate concept (possibly an upgrade of the Phoenix-Yuma-San Diego corridor); but unless the development "fever" can be reined in -- and that hasn't happened to date -- its being an integral part of I-11 isn't likely in the cards.
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 04, 2018, 11:18:30 AM
Just an observation: I don't think I-40/I-17 would work even as a temporary I-11 routing between Phoenix and Kingman, because the length difference is almost 100 miles (169 miles from I-40/US 93 east of Kingman to just south of the Stack in Phoenix via US 93/US 60, versus 262 miles via I-40 and I-17). This is about a third of the shortest Phoenix-Las Vegas distance.
Although NYC cabbies might disagree, most commercial drivers would never consider the roundabout path between Phoenix and LV posed by a I-17/40/Flagstaff routing; they'd stick to US 60 and 93, the region's functional "hypotenuse" (sorry to stir bad memories -- but in this case, the option
is and existing route!). I still think that taking I-11 down to Loop 303 and then down to I-10 (and further if desired) is the best option for general Phoenix access -- but apparently the powers that be in the region, for reasons elucidated earlier, disagree. But considering the time, money, and regional rivalries at play here, nothing appears to be written in stone at this time -- the intrigue is probably just beginning!
Regarding AZ 85 as a route for I-11, I don't think the agricultural uses of the Gila Valley are a factor. On the aerial view, it looks like the AZ 85 right of way west of Buckey passes through irrigated area, but the right of way is already wide enough for an interstate. Farther south, AZ 85 passes through hills east of the irrigated land. Very, very little land would be lost if an interchange was needed.
However, once real estate development interests get lined up, it's very hard to do it another way just because it would fulfill the stated purpose of access from Mexico to the intermountain west just as well for less money and less construction time.
Quote from: kkt on January 04, 2018, 01:12:32 PM
Regarding AZ 85 as a route for I-11, I don't think the agricultural uses of the Gila Valley are a factor. On the aerial view, it looks like the AZ 85 right of way west of Buckey passes through irrigated area, but the right of way is already wide enough for an interstate. Farther south, AZ 85 passes through hills east of the irrigated land. Very, very little land would be lost if an interchange was needed.
However, once real estate development interests get lined up, it's very hard to do it another way just because it would fulfill the stated purpose of access from Mexico to the intermountain west just as well for less money and less construction time.
Right. From about Broadway Road to Hazen Road, there's between 200 and 300 feet between NB and SB SR 85. One could easily place a mainline freeway in between that, and use the existing road(s) as frontage roads.
any chance this will follow us 60 all the way to i-17 in the phoenix area?
Quote from: silverback1065 on January 04, 2018, 02:16:55 PM
any chance this will follow us 60 all the way to i-17 in the phoenix area?
Probably not, for the reasons (developer preference) given previously. But if the Hassayampa option, for some reason, is rejected, it's possible that something down US 60 as far as Loop 303 might be a possibility; given the density of the area inside the loop, there's not much place to put an Interstate-grade facility without serious use of eminent domain (and that doesn't go over too well in the region given the reaction to property taking for the South Mountain freeway -- best not to poke that hornets' nest too often!). At least once on Loop 303, I-10's just a few miles south.
Between AZ-303 and AZ-101:
I don't think there's enough space unless one of two options is used.
1. Relocate the rail line elsewhere, freeing up space for an at-grade freeway
2. Build a new elevated freeway over the existing rail line and at-grade US-60.
Inside the AZ-101 loop space gets really tight. An elevated freeway is probably the only workable solution to upgrade US-60 to freeway standards all the way to I-17 near downtown. Urban elevated freeways are very unpopular politically speaking. The current divided street with some hybrid intersections featuring main line overpasses or underpasses is about as good at that street will get for the foreseeable future.
they should at least fix that stupid zig-zag 60 does at 17.
Quote from: silverback1065 on January 04, 2018, 06:21:50 PM
they should at least fix that stupid zig-zag 60 does at 17.
That zig-zag is the "fix". A long time ago, it was a six-way at-grade intersection between Thomas Rd, Grand Ave and 27th Ave.
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on January 04, 2018, 07:50:07 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on January 04, 2018, 06:21:50 PM
they should at least fix that stupid zig-zag 60 does at 17.
That zig-zag is the "fix". A long time ago, it was a six-way at-grade intersection between Thomas Rd, Grand Ave and 27th Ave.
A long time ago, all Grand Ave. intersections on the one-mile grids between 7th Ave/Van Buren and 75th Ave./Olive were six-way intersections. So were some of the intersections on 1/2-mile grids. If a train was on the adjacent Santa Fe track, things could really get screwed up. :)
Also, US 60 left Grand Ave. and went south on 19th Ave. to I-17, where it was routed back on the freeway and then merged into I-10. IIRC, the change to Thomas Rd. between I-17 and Grand happened about 15 years ago.
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on January 04, 2018, 11:58:49 AM
How much of US 93/Future I-11 between Kingman and the Colorado River is at Interstate standards?
Excluding the Kingman area, how much actually needs major work, and how much could be given an I-10 exemption for ranches and the like?
I just drove the route last week. ADOT has been doing some work along this area to repave but also widen the shoulders along this route, they look to be up to interstate standards now, so from the state line down to around mile marker 30 the road is up to interstate standards. There are two intersection still in this area- one is more/less a turnaround and the other is a road that says it goes to nowhere. The old 93 route over the dam on the AZ side has an interchange as well as a scenic point on the west side. Where the work stops though there are several truck stop/gas stations all with direct access to 93 which will need to be figured out. South of that there is a lot of shoulder widening work and I think maybe 4 intersections that are actually used. Not a lot of private access points surprisingly along this part. The intersection at AZ 68 just north of Kingman was rebuilt as an interchange about 15 years ago. So other than the actual Beale St bypass in Kingman at I-40 this portion there isn't a whole lot to do overall that I can see by driving the route.
Quote from: Zonie on January 04, 2018, 01:35:53 PM
Quote from: kkt on January 04, 2018, 01:12:32 PM
Regarding AZ 85 as a route for I-11, I don't think the agricultural uses of the Gila Valley are a factor. On the aerial view, it looks like the AZ 85 right of way west of Buckey passes through irrigated area, but the right of way is already wide enough for an interstate. Farther south, AZ 85 passes through hills east of the irrigated land. Very, very little land would be lost if an interchange was needed.
However, once real estate development interests get lined up, it's very hard to do it another way just because it would fulfill the stated purpose of access from Mexico to the intermountain west just as well for less money and less construction time.
Right. From about Broadway Road to Hazen Road, there's between 200 and 300 feet between NB and SB SR 85. One could easily place a mainline freeway in between that, and use the existing road(s) as frontage roads.
Actually a lot of planning of 85 has been done as far back as the mid 1980's into making it into a freeway. One interesting thing is about 4 years ago just immediately north of Gila Bend, there was the old T intersection with Maricopa Road. That was all redone and it seems odd that if you are traveling on 85 northbound this new configuration essentially takes you directly onto Maricopa Road now and you have to make a left turn to get back onto 85 north. It didn't make any sense until I saw that this was to accomodate an elevated overpass of 85 and these new roads will become the ramps to get either into Gila Bend or to exit onto Maricopa Road. You can kind of see it now on an aerial but when I saw the future plan it made sense all of the sudden.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 04, 2018, 05:28:43 PM
Inside the AZ-101 loop space gets really tight. An elevated freeway is probably the only workable solution to upgrade US-60 to freeway standards all the way to I-17 near downtown. Urban elevated freeways are very unpopular politically speaking. The current divided street with some hybrid intersections featuring main line overpasses or underpasses is about as good at that street will get for the foreseeable future.
Yeah, this Grand Ave freeway idea was tried back in the late 80's early 90's, and it was too expensive and unpopular back then I can't see it ever being resurrected. The hybrid idea you mention was the compromise they settled on, and even that isn't even completely done, with Bell Road finally just getting finished.
Quote from: kdk on January 05, 2018, 06:12:39 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 04, 2018, 05:28:43 PM
Inside the AZ-101 loop space gets really tight. An elevated freeway is probably the only workable solution to upgrade US-60 to freeway standards all the way to I-17 near downtown. Urban elevated freeways are very unpopular politically speaking. The current divided street with some hybrid intersections featuring main line overpasses or underpasses is about as good at that street will get for the foreseeable future.
Yeah, this Grand Ave freeway idea was tried back in the late 80's early 90's, and it was too expensive and unpopular back then I can't see it ever being resurrected. The hybrid idea you mention was the compromise they settled on, and even that isn't even completely done, with Bell Road finally just getting finished.
For these very reasons it is unlikely, in the event that I-11 is routed along US 60 SE of Wickenburg, that it will reach beyond Loop 303; south via 303 is the most effectual way to access I-10 -- and it's planned to go considerably farther south than that -- it could readily be extended to the diagonal alignment proposed for I-11 via the Hassayampa routing. Now whether such a route would get a fair hearing with all the noise from planners & developers in the outlying area remains to be seen.
Agreed with many of the responses here. I-11 probably should not go any further than AZ 303. The qn remains as to whether a signing of I-11 all the way from AZ 303 to at least Las Vegas should have the efffect of truncating US 93 in Las Vegas, truncating US 60 to Tempe, and renumbering the orphaned sections of US 60 (AZ 303-I-17 and Wickenburg to Quartzsite) as two separate state highways. If there is no reason to designate the Grand Ave corridor (between I-17 and AZ 303) as a section of I-11, there is really no reason to direct interregional traffic down that corridor either. All interregional traffic heading to Pheonix and further east should use 303 to I-10, and the signage should indicate as such. Grand Ave, even with its improvements should be left for locals.
Quote from: mrsman on January 15, 2018, 08:33:07 PM
Agreed with many of the responses here. I-11 probably should not go any further than AZ 303. The qn remains as to whether a signing of I-11 all the way from AZ 303 to at least Las Vegas should have the efffect of truncating US 93 in Las Vegas, truncating US 60 to Tempe, and renumbering the orphaned sections of US 60 (AZ 303-I-17 and Wickenburg to Quartzsite) as two separate state highways. If there is no reason to designate the Grand Ave corridor (between I-17 and AZ 303) as a section of I-11, there is really no reason to direct interregional traffic down that corridor either. All interregional traffic heading to Pheonix and further east should use 303 to I-10, and the signage should indicate as such. Grand Ave, even with its improvements should be left for locals.
Actually the concept evoked in several posts including my own, was that the optimal path for I-11 was following US 60 down to Loop 303, then actually replacing 303 south of that junction to I-10. At that point, it would be up to AZDOT and its political handlers whether it should extend south and eventually southeast to Casa Grande as an effective Phoenix bypass. But I do agree that if this should happen, US 60 should be truncated to its junction with I-10 near Tempe and AZ 74 should replace the portion of US 60 west of Wickenburg. US 93 would be truncated back to its junction with I-15 northeast of Las Vegas (the
Garnet interchange that's the subject of another thread). As far as Grand Avenue inside the 303 loop is concerned, that could be relinquished to the local jurisdictions -- or revert back to its pre-1970's designation as part of a revived AZ 93 if for some reason AZDOT elects to retain control and maintenance. But all that is speculation until the final I-11 routing in the metro area -- and whether it is defined as an interregional connector, a vehicle for regional development, or both -- is resolved.
Here is a question for the portion between Las Vegas and Boulder City. When the Boulder City Bypass is completed, does anyone know if there will be modifications to the pre-existing US 93/95 diamond interchange where the two routes presently split. I would think with the new alignment being built, that diamond interchange would see a lot less traffic.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 16, 2018, 06:37:17 PM
Here is a question for the portion between Las Vegas and Boulder City. When the Boulder City Bypass is completed, does anyone know if there will be modifications to the pre-existing US 93/95 diamond interchange where the two routes presently split. I would think with the new alignment being built, that diamond interchange would see a lot less traffic.
It'll likely stay the same; it
does provide a nice safe transition from US 95 to the Boulder City business loop. While there's no real need for any upgrades beyond what's presently on the ground, doing the opposite and removing the interchange in favor of either a signalized intersection or a roundabout would pose unnecessary construction expenses for little or no gain.
Quote from: sparker on January 17, 2018, 12:55:45 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 16, 2018, 06:37:17 PM
Here is a question for the portion between Las Vegas and Boulder City. When the Boulder City Bypass is completed, does anyone know if there will be modifications to the pre-existing US 93/95 diamond interchange where the two routes presently split. I would think with the new alignment being built, that diamond interchange would see a lot less traffic.
It'll likely stay the same; it does provide a nice safe transition from US 95 to the Boulder City business loop. While there's no real need for any upgrades beyond what's presently on the ground, doing the opposite and removing the interchange in favor of either a signalized intersection or a roundabout would pose unnecessary construction expenses for little or no gain.
Probably better if this were posted in the BC Bypass thread in Pacific Southwest, but anyway... There are no plans to make alterations to this interchange. My question is: What does NDOT plan to do numbering wise with the existing segment of US 95 between this diamond interchange and the new interchange with I-11 (since US 95 will be rerouted off this segment onto the bypass)?
Quote from: roadfro on January 17, 2018, 02:05:56 AM
Quote from: sparker on January 17, 2018, 12:55:45 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 16, 2018, 06:37:17 PM
Here is a question for the portion between Las Vegas and Boulder City. When the Boulder City Bypass is completed, does anyone know if there will be modifications to the pre-existing US 93/95 diamond interchange where the two routes presently split. I would think with the new alignment being built, that diamond interchange would see a lot less traffic.
It'll likely stay the same; it does provide a nice safe transition from US 95 to the Boulder City business loop. While there's no real need for any upgrades beyond what's presently on the ground, doing the opposite and removing the interchange in favor of either a signalized intersection or a roundabout would pose unnecessary construction expenses for little or no gain.
Probably better if this were posted in the BC Bypass thread in Pacific Southwest, but anyway... There are no plans to make alterations to this interchange. My question is: What does NDOT plan to do numbering wise with the existing segment of US 95 between this diamond interchange and the new interchange with I-11 (since US 95 will be rerouted off this segment onto the bypass)?
Unless NDOT allows "spur" designations (i.e., "95 SPUR"), it might just become its own 3ds number, batched with others in the area. Question: is the US 93 business loop retained within the state highway system, and has it been assigned a "silent" number for the purposes of maintenance and ID?
Quote from: sparker on January 17, 2018, 03:48:00 PM
Quote from: roadfro on January 17, 2018, 02:05:56 AM
Quote from: sparker on January 17, 2018, 12:55:45 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 16, 2018, 06:37:17 PM
Here is a question for the portion between Las Vegas and Boulder City. When the Boulder City Bypass is completed, does anyone know if there will be modifications to the pre-existing US 93/95 diamond interchange where the two routes presently split. I would think with the new alignment being built, that diamond interchange would see a lot less traffic.
It'll likely stay the same; it does provide a nice safe transition from US 95 to the Boulder City business loop. While there's no real need for any upgrades beyond what's presently on the ground, doing the opposite and removing the interchange in favor of either a signalized intersection or a roundabout would pose unnecessary construction expenses for little or no gain.
Probably better if this were posted in the BC Bypass thread in Pacific Southwest, but anyway... There are no plans to make alterations to this interchange. My question is: What does NDOT plan to do numbering wise with the existing segment of US 95 between this diamond interchange and the new interchange with I-11 (since US 95 will be rerouted off this segment onto the bypass)?
Unless NDOT allows "spur" designations (i.e., "95 SPUR"), it might just become its own 3ds number, batched with others in the area. Question: is the US 93 business loop retained within the state highway system, and has it been assigned a "silent" number for the purposes of maintenance and ID?
NDOT a does not currently have a spur (only US Alt, Bus, and one Truck route not recognized by AASHTO), but maps indicate there was an ALT US 95 SPUR in Fernley once upon a time.
The 2018 NDOT route log hasn't been made available yet. I imagine the Boulder City business route will likely retained as a hidden state highway, at least for now.
Just curious.. why is I-11 only signed for 2 miles? why isn't it signed along either I-515 up to I-15 or I-215? It would be a logical for it to replace I-515.
Quote from: Strider on January 21, 2018, 10:58:02 PM
Just curious.. why is I-11 only signed for 2 miles? why isn't it signed along either I-515 up to I-15 or I-215? It would be a logical for it to replace I-515.
I believe this has been covered before, but the short answer is that the path of I-11 through Las Vegas itself hasn't yet been determined. I-515 and US 95 NW of I-15 would seem to be the initial path of choice, but some speculation has it replacing I-215 (and the county 215 loop) around the west side of metro Las Vegas, with a connector from the loop's northwest corner north to US 95. Other speculation suggests a new bypass around the
east side, connecting with the end of the 215 loop at I-15 NE of North Las Vegas. The timeframe for a decision regarding an exact route is up in the air as well; it could be several years before a path is selected. In the meantime, I-11 is being signed southeast of the present 215/515 junction, as that portion isn't open for debate.
Quote from: sparker on January 22, 2018, 12:41:50 AM
Quote from: Strider on January 21, 2018, 10:58:02 PM
Just curious.. why is I-11 only signed for 2 miles? why isn't it signed along either I-515 up to I-15 or I-215? It would be a logical for it to replace I-515.
I believe this has been covered before, but the short answer is that the path of I-11 through Las Vegas itself hasn't yet been determined. I-515 and US 95 NW of I-15 would seem to be the initial path of choice, but some speculation has it replacing I-215 (and the county 215 loop) around the west side of metro Las Vegas, with a connector from the loop's northwest corner north to US 95. Other speculation suggests a new bypass around the east side, connecting with the end of the 215 loop at I-15 NE of North Las Vegas. The timeframe for a decision regarding an exact route is up in the air as well; it could be several years before a path is selected. In the meantime, I-11 is being signed southeast of the present 215/515 junction, as that portion isn't open for debate.
Couldn't they just sign it as "Temporary I-11?" I don't know if that is possible.
Quote from: sparker on January 22, 2018, 12:41:50 AM
Quote from: Strider on January 21, 2018, 10:58:02 PM
Just curious.. why is I-11 only signed for 2 miles? why isn't it signed along either I-515 up to I-15 or I-215? It would be a logical for it to replace I-515.
I believe this has been covered before, but the short answer is that the path of I-11 through Las Vegas itself hasn't yet been determined. I-515 and US 95 NW of I-15 would seem to be the initial path of choice, but some speculation has it replacing I-215 (and the county 215 loop) around the west side of metro Las Vegas, with a connector from the loop's northwest corner north to US 95. Other speculation suggests a new bypass around the east side, connecting with the end of the 215 loop at I-15 NE of North Las Vegas. The timeframe for a decision regarding an exact route is up in the air as well; it could be several years before a path is selected. In the meantime, I-11 is being signed southeast of the present 215/515 junction, as that portion isn't open for debate.
This is covered more in the similar thread on the Pacific Southwest board, but to summarize: Nevada DOT has launched a study of the three corridors Sparker listed above, which were identified as part of the overall I-11 study (I'm not aware of a timetable for study completion). NDOT has received AASHTO approval to sign I-11 over I-515 south of the I-215 interchange (even though, if the east route is taken, most of that stretch will not ultimately become I-11), but they won't be changing signs until the whole Boulder City Bypass project is completed later this year.
Quote from: sparker on January 22, 2018, 12:41:50 AM
Quote from: Strider on January 21, 2018, 10:58:02 PM
Just curious.. why is I-11 only signed for 2 miles? why isn't it signed along either I-515 up to I-15 or I-215? It would be a logical for it to replace I-515.
I believe this has been covered before, but the short answer is that the path of I-11 through Las Vegas itself hasn't yet been determined. I-515 and US 95 NW of I-15 would seem to be the initial path of choice, but some speculation has it replacing I-215 (and the county 215 loop) around the west side of metro Las Vegas, with a connector from the loop's northwest corner north to US 95. Other speculation suggests a new bypass around the east side, connecting with the end of the 215 loop at I-15 NE of North Las Vegas. The timeframe for a decision regarding an exact route is up in the air as well; it could be several years before a path is selected. In the meantime, I-11 is being signed southeast of the present 215/515 junction, as that portion isn't open for debate.
Oh I see.. Okay. Appreciate you telling me that. :) *thumbs up*
I've said this before, I'll say it again. I believe any route of Interstate 11 in Las Vegas, other than the one that completely replaces all of Interstate 515 (and continues up US 95 past Interstate 15), is batshit crazy!
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 22, 2018, 05:52:19 PM
I've said this before, I'll say it again. I believe any route of Interstate 11 in Las Vegas, other than the one that completely replaces all of Interstate 515 (and continues up US 95 past Interstate 15), is batshit crazy!
The sole drawback of using 515/95 is the level of traffic on that facility during commute times, since it tends to funnel Henderson residents (almost 300K population) into the principal employment area for both tourism and warehousing, of which LV has plenty! But the east bypass concept is a bit dicey; that leg of the loop was cancelled some time ago due to residential opposition. It'll probably come down to town center versus the part of the loop that is at least partially constructed; at that point, I'd rate it as a tossup!
Quote from: sparker on January 22, 2018, 11:59:21 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 22, 2018, 05:52:19 PM
I've said this before, I'll say it again. I believe any route of Interstate 11 in Las Vegas, other than the one that completely replaces all of Interstate 515 (and continues up US 95 past Interstate 15), is batshit crazy!
The sole drawback of using 515/95 is the level of traffic on that facility during commute times, since it tends to funnel Henderson residents (almost 300K population) into the principal employment area for both tourism and warehousing, of which LV has plenty! But the east bypass concept is a bit dicey; that leg of the loop was cancelled some time ago due to residential opposition. It'll probably come down to town center versus the part of the loop that is at least partially constructed; at that point, I'd rate it as a tossup!
But that's standard of any 2di - they are generally routed through the city center. Many cities have bypasses of some sort, and long distance travelers will know to take them, but there is no need to sign the 2di along the bypass. The 2di will represent the shortest distance route.
In a simiilar vein, LA to SLC traffic might be better served by bypassing LV along 215, yet I-15 is still signed on the direct route through the resort district and Downtown LV.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 22, 2018, 05:52:19 PM
I've said this before, I'll say it again. I believe any route of Interstate 11 in Las Vegas, other than the one that completely replaces all of Interstate 515 (and continues up US 95 past Interstate 15), is batshit crazy!
Crazy doesn't necessarily mean impossible but it does mean it is going to be a lot more expensive.
Quote from: mrsman on January 23, 2018, 01:02:03 AM
Quote from: sparker on January 22, 2018, 11:59:21 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 22, 2018, 05:52:19 PM
I've said this before, I'll say it again. I believe any route of Interstate 11 in Las Vegas, other than the one that completely replaces all of Interstate 515 (and continues up US 95 past Interstate 15), is batshit crazy!
The sole drawback of using 515/95 is the level of traffic on that facility during commute times, since it tends to funnel Henderson residents (almost 300K population) into the principal employment area for both tourism and warehousing, of which LV has plenty! But the east bypass concept is a bit dicey; that leg of the loop was cancelled some time ago due to residential opposition. It'll probably come down to town center versus the part of the loop that is at least partially constructed; at that point, I'd rate it as a tossup!
But that's standard of any 2di - they are generally routed through the city center. Many cities have bypasses of some sort, and long distance travelers will know to take them, but there is no need to sign the 2di along the bypass. The 2di will represent the shortest distance route.
In a simiilar vein, LA to SLC traffic might be better served by bypassing LV along 215, yet I-15 is still signed on the direct route through the resort district and Downtown LV.
Des Moines and Tulsa say a big "hello"! While there
is something of an idiom regarding the path of 2di vs. 3di within an urban area, it certainly isn't written in stone. And remember that 215 around the west side of LV isn't anywhere near completion presently; there's still some frontage-road travel while the actual projects commence; thus any current signage will direct travelers to the direct and functioning facility.
That being said -- if it were my decision, I-11 would shoot straight down the city center via I-515 and US 95; the existing I-215 section has been in operation for over 20 years, and the number "215", even with a county pentagon shield, has referenced the western loop for almost as long. Changing that loop to I-11 would likely lend an element of confusion to an area that's expecting a "215" loop to happen in time. And since NDOT plainly hasn't been averse to cosigning both Interstate and US highways along a freeway, the replacement of I-515 with I-11 would be the sole change to be absorbed by the local driving public.
if they route it along 215, it will probably be just an easy effort by them to get it finished.
Quote from: sparker on January 22, 2018, 11:59:21 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 22, 2018, 05:52:19 PM
I've said this before, I'll say it again. I believe any route of Interstate 11 in Las Vegas, other than the one that completely replaces all of Interstate 515 (and continues up US 95 past Interstate 15), is batshit crazy!
The sole drawback of using 515/95 is the level of traffic on that facility during commute times, since it tends to funnel Henderson residents (almost 300K population) into the principal employment area for both tourism and warehousing, of which LV has plenty! But the east bypass concept is a bit dicey; that leg of the loop was cancelled some time ago due to residential opposition. It'll probably come down to town center versus the part of the loop that is at least partially constructed; at that point, I'd rate it as a tossup!
You've got alignments confused... The eastern beltway idea was given a preliminary concept study and ultimately shelved several years ago–this would have gone through various neighborhoods and commercial areas on the east side of the Las Vegas Valley to complete the 215 loop. The east option being considered for I-11 runs outside of the Las Vegas Valley (behind Sunrise & Frenchmans Mountains) through the Lake Mead NRA to connect to I-15, then backtracks slightly to the north leg of 215.
Quote from: silverback1065 on January 23, 2018, 09:25:29 AM
if they route it along 215, it will probably be just an easy effort by them to get it finished.
By the time an I-11 alignment decision is made, the lone remaining stretch of the western 215 beltway segment that isn't up to Interstate standard will have been converted to freeway–that project has been underway for about a year and should be completed this year. So if the south/west 215 option is chosen, they'll just have to build the connector between 215 and 95.
Quote from: roadfro on January 23, 2018, 09:47:30 AM
Quote from: sparker on January 22, 2018, 11:59:21 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 22, 2018, 05:52:19 PM
I've said this before, I'll say it again. I believe any route of Interstate 11 in Las Vegas, other than the one that completely replaces all of Interstate 515 (and continues up US 95 past Interstate 15), is batshit crazy!
The sole drawback of using 515/95 is the level of traffic on that facility during commute times, since it tends to funnel Henderson residents (almost 300K population) into the principal employment area for both tourism and warehousing, of which LV has plenty! But the east bypass concept is a bit dicey; that leg of the loop was cancelled some time ago due to residential opposition. It'll probably come down to town center versus the part of the loop that is at least partially constructed; at that point, I'd rate it as a tossup!
You've got alignments confused... The eastern beltway idea was given a preliminary concept study and ultimately shelved several years ago–this would have gone through various neighborhoods and commercial areas on the east side of the Las Vegas Valley to complete the 215 loop. The east option being considered for I-11 runs outside of the Las Vegas Valley (behind Sunrise & Frenchmans Mountains) through the Lake Mead NRA to connect to I-15, then backtracks slightly to the north leg of 215.
Quote from: silverback1065 on January 23, 2018, 09:25:29 AM
if they route it along 215, it will probably be just an easy effort by them to get it finished.
By the time an I-11 alignment decision is made, the lone remaining stretch of the western 215 beltway segment that isn't up to Interstate standard will have been converted to freeway–that project has been underway for about a year and should be completed this year. So if the south/west 215 option is chosen, they'll just have to build the connector between 215 and 95.
will it become i-215? or stay a county highway?
Quote from: silverback1065 on January 23, 2018, 09:49:34 AM
Quote from: roadfro on January 23, 2018, 09:47:30 AM
Quote from: sparker on January 22, 2018, 11:59:21 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 22, 2018, 05:52:19 PM
I've said this before, I'll say it again. I believe any route of Interstate 11 in Las Vegas, other than the one that completely replaces all of Interstate 515 (and continues up US 95 past Interstate 15), is batshit crazy!
The sole drawback of using 515/95 is the level of traffic on that facility during commute times, since it tends to funnel Henderson residents (almost 300K population) into the principal employment area for both tourism and warehousing, of which LV has plenty! But the east bypass concept is a bit dicey; that leg of the loop was cancelled some time ago due to residential opposition. It'll probably come down to town center versus the part of the loop that is at least partially constructed; at that point, I'd rate it as a tossup!
You've got alignments confused... The eastern beltway idea was given a preliminary concept study and ultimately shelved several years ago–this would have gone through various neighborhoods and commercial areas on the east side of the Las Vegas Valley to complete the 215 loop. The east option being considered for I-11 runs outside of the Las Vegas Valley (behind Sunrise & Frenchmans Mountains) through the Lake Mead NRA to connect to I-15, then backtracks slightly to the north leg of 215.
Quote from: silverback1065 on January 23, 2018, 09:25:29 AM
if they route it along 215, it will probably be just an easy effort by them to get it finished.
By the time an I-11 alignment decision is made, the lone remaining stretch of the western 215 beltway segment that isn't up to Interstate standard will have been converted to freeway–that project has been underway for about a year and should be completed this year. So if the south/west 215 option is chosen, they'll just have to build the connector between 215 and 95.
will it become i-215? or stay a county highway?
Once finished all the way around the west & north sides of town, NDOT will probably apply for Interstate status to make the whole thing I-215. Regarding the east alignment, I was referring to the original beltway that would have impinged upon east side housing development, not the more recent routing that would pass through the Mead NRA (which might in itself be a bit dicey regarding environmental clearance).
Quote from: sparkerDes Moines and Tulsa say a big "hello"! While there is something of an idiom regarding the path of 2di vs. 3di within an urban area, it certainly isn't written in stone.
Des Moines and Tulsa are very unique exceptions. Both places have somewhat strange geographical layouts and city plans. In Tulsa's case I-44 is still taking the most direct route through the central geometric area of the city. Tulsa's downtown is actually on the NW side of the city, not the center. Some of the busiest areas of Tulsa are South of I-44. In the case of Des Moines, no freeway cuts straight across that city at all; I-235 does this strange L-shape as it skirts the North side of the downtown district.
I think it would be far more logical to route I-11 along existing I-515/US-95 out to the NW side of Las Vegas, either terminating at the 215 loop or even going past it however far Interstate quality highway will take it.
Routing I-11 along I-215/CC-215 would result in I-11 ending at the same US-95/CC-215 intersection. The thru lanes on I-11 would have to change into another route number, be it a very short I-215 segment or something else. I think it would look pretty stupid on a map.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 23, 2018, 04:08:53 PM
Quote from: sparkerDes Moines and Tulsa say a big "hello"! While there is something of an idiom regarding the path of 2di vs. 3di within an urban area, it certainly isn't written in stone.
Des Moines and Tulsa are very unique exceptions. Both places have somewhat strange geographical layouts and city plans. In Tulsa's case I-44 is still taking the most direct route through the central geometric area of the city. Tulsa's downtown is actually on the NW side of the city, not the center. Some of the busiest areas of Tulsa are South of I-44. In the case of Des Moines, no freeway cuts straight across that city at all; I-235 does this strange L-shape as it skirts the North side of the downtown district.
I think it would be far more logical to route I-11 along existing I-515/US-95 out to the NW side of Las Vegas, either terminating at the 215 loop or even going past it however far Interstate quality highway will take it.
Routing I-11 along I-215/CC-215 would result in I-11 ending at the same US-95/CC-215 intersection. The thru lanes on I-11 would have to change into another route number, be it a very short I-215 segment or something else. I think it would look pretty stupid on a map.
Actually, the plans I've seen for a potential I-11 loop on what's now I-215 and CC-215 show a new-terrain facility extending north from where the loop turns from N-S to E-W in the northwest LV quadrant and merging with US 95 some 5 miles north of there. The E-W portion across to I-15 NE of North LV would retain, in some form, the "215" number. That portion will almost certainly be the last part of the loop to be fully constructed (the ROW and most frontage roads to carry interim traffic are present).
That little addition to the 215 loop would depend on ROW acquisition on the edge of Providence between the homes there and a big flood control berm or dam. I see a new freeway segment there as just as much a long shot proposition as the East loop alternative of running I-11 along the East edge of Henderson. They might as well put money that would be spent on that highway segment into upgrading the US-95/CC-215 interchange into a complete freeway to freeway interchange with direct connect flyover ramps. They're already building one of the flyover ramps there.
As far as Henderson goes I still expect that city to be forced to upgrade NV-564 (W Lake Mead Pkwy) to an urban freeway from the I-215/I-515 interchange out to Lake Las Vegas Pkwy or Northshore Road. For an East loop option I could see I-11 going through there. But then again it would be just as good to have I-215 signed along it.
I'm assuming they will fix that bizarre interchange with us 95? (at cc 215) also, is summerlin parkway up to interstate standards at all?
For reference, there is a topic on the Pacific Southwest board that also discusses I-11 routing in Nevada:
Interstate 11 alignment, through Vegas and points north (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7881.0)
Quote from: silverback1065 on January 23, 2018, 06:38:43 PM
I'm assuming they will fix that bizarre interchange with us 95? (at cc 215) also, is summerlin parkway up to interstate standards at all?
Also see Pacific Southwest:
US 95 and County 215 Centennial Bowl Interchange (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16212.0)
Summerlin Parkway (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11315.0)
Quote from: roadfro on January 24, 2018, 09:41:28 AM
For reference, there is a topic on the Pacific Southwest board that also discusses I-11 routing in Nevada:
Interstate 11 alignment, through Vegas and points north (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7881.0)
Quote from: silverback1065 on January 23, 2018, 06:38:43 PM
I'm assuming they will fix that bizarre interchange with us 95? (at cc 215) also, is summerlin parkway up to interstate standards at all?
Also see Pacific Southwest:
US 95 and County 215 Centennial Bowl Interchange (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16212.0)
Summerlin Parkway (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11315.0)
thank you, i'm almost never in this part of the board, so i wasn't aware of all of these topics
Summerlin Parkway looks like it needs some work on the road's main lanes and shoulders to be brought up to Interstate standards. It probably needs to happen, right along with an upgraded freeway to freeway interchange between it and CC-215.
In addition to figuring out where I-11 should be routed through Las Vegas, planners there urgently need to look at some other corridor situations and start thinking about upgrades. There is a LOT of residential and urban sprawl growing rapidly along St Rose Pkwy (NV-146) between I-15 and I-215. I could see that being converted into a freeway. It would be a tight squeeze for the exits though. NV-160 in Enterprise to the South of the 215 loop is already too covered up with development to do any kind of freeway upgrade. One could try to build a South loop around Enterprise from I-15 and out West and North to connect into the 215 loop. But there's already so much development and various mountains the way. I don't know how such a relief loop could connect into 215.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 24, 2018, 02:04:14 PM
Summerlin Parkway looks like it needs some work on the road's main lanes and shoulders to be brought up to Interstate standards. It probably needs to happen, right along with an upgraded freeway to freeway interchange between it and CC-215.
In addition to figuring out where I-11 should be routed through Las Vegas, planners there urgently need to look at some other corridor situations and start thinking about upgrades. There is a LOT of residential and urban sprawl growing rapidly along St Rose Pkwy (NV-146) between I-15 and I-215. I could see that being converted into a freeway. It would be a tight squeeze for the exits though. NV-160 in Enterprise to the South of the 215 loop is already too covered up with development to do any kind of freeway upgrade. One could try to build a South loop around Enterprise from I-15 and out West and North to connect into the 215 loop. But there's already so much development and various mountains the way. I don't know how such a relief loop could connect into 215.
NDOT built out SR 146 & SR 160 to 8 lanes within the last decade or so to address development in these areas. Freeway facilities would be a bit much.
Quote from: roadfro on January 24, 2018, 03:39:11 PM
NDOT built out SR 146 & SR 160 to 8 lanes within the last decade or so to address development in these areas. Freeway facilities would be a bit much.
SR 146's junction with I-15 isn't too far south of the I-15/215 interchange; I-215 is more than sufficient to handle traffic from I-15 to Henderson, Boulder City, and the dam area. Just because housing is being built in a specific area, such as along the surface portion of SR 146, that alone isn't reason enough to deploy a freeway which would be, in terms of service, a duplicate of existing facilities. If
that were the case -- considering the development of the region in the last couple of decades -- greater LV would be criss-crossed with grid-pattern and/or radial freeways every couple of miles rather than its "cross" of US 95 (I-515), I-15, and the developmental 215 ring (plus Summerlin Pkwy.). For a fast-growing Sun Belt metro area, its freeway development has been, in a relative sense, remarkably restrained.
Quote from: sparker on January 26, 2018, 12:30:56 AM
Quote from: roadfro on January 24, 2018, 03:39:11 PM
NDOT built out SR 146 & SR 160 to 8 lanes within the last decade or so to address development in these areas. Freeway facilities would be a bit much.
SR 146's junction with I-15 isn't too far south of the I-15/215 interchange; I-215 is more than sufficient to handle traffic from I-15 to Henderson, Boulder City, and the dam area. Just because housing is being built in a specific area, such as along the surface portion of SR 146, that alone isn't reason enough to deploy a freeway which would be, in terms of service, a duplicate of existing facilities. If that were the case -- considering the development of the region in the last couple of decades -- greater LV would be criss-crossed with grid-pattern and/or radial freeways every couple of miles rather than its "cross" of US 95 (I-515), I-15, and the developmental 215 ring (plus Summerlin Pkwy.). For a fast-growing Sun Belt metro area, its freeway development has been, in a relative sense, remarkably restrained.
160 tends to move along at a reasonable rate anyways and the traffic county drops off a ton by the time you reach 159 westbound. West of Mountain Springs Summit it is a fairly high quality divided expressway to Pahrump.
There was preliminary discussion in the mid-2000s about a direct 160-to-215 link, but that went nowhere. It was a much better idea when there was nothing but desert linking the two, than it is now with development everywhere in the area.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on January 26, 2018, 11:28:29 AM
There was preliminary discussion in the mid-2000s about a direct 160-to-215 link, but that went nowhere. It was a much better idea when there was nothing but desert linking the two, than it is now with development everywhere in the area.
Isn't Pahrump up to something like 40,000 people? Kind of amazing to think a population Center like that is just an hour from Death Valley. I vaguely recall when it was largely just a swath of empty desert.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 26, 2018, 11:50:05 AM
Isn't Pahrump up to something like 40,000 people? Kind of amazing to think a population Center like that is just an hour from Death Valley. I vaguely recall when it was largely just a swath of empty desert.
If it isn't at 40, it's closing in. SR 160 has an ADT of about 8,700, down from close to 10k a decade ago. Got hit hard by the recession, which isn't surprising for a distant exurb.
The Southwest is so funny. Pahrump is 60 miles from Furnace Creek and we think of it as on the doorstep.
Quote from: sparkerSR 146's junction with I-15 isn't too far south of the I-15/215 interchange; I-215 is more than sufficient to handle traffic from I-15 to Henderson, Boulder City, and the dam area.
The I-15/NV-146 exit is 7 miles South of the I-15/I-215 interchange. It's 8 miles from the I-15/I-215 interchange up to the I-15/I-515 interchange. St Rose Pkwy is about 7 miles long from I-15 diagonally up to I-215 and has 10 traffic light controlled intersections between the two Interstate exits. Staying on I-15 and then taking I-215 over to the same spot to avoid all the traffic signals is 14 miles in length. As both commercial and residential development continues to blow up in that area I expect traffic to get a whole lot more busy on St Rose Pkwy. But, considering how close some of the development has built up next to the divided street it may be too late to do anything about it.
Building a loop around the housing development on the southern fringes of Henderson and Enterprise is a non-starter. All the relatively flat areas of land are getting filled in with development and new homes are going up on the foothills and higher up into the mountains.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on January 26, 2018, 01:57:18 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 26, 2018, 11:50:05 AM
Isn't Pahrump up to something like 40,000 people? Kind of amazing to think a population Center like that is just an hour from Death Valley. I vaguely recall when it was largely just a swath of empty desert.
If it isn't at 40, it's closing in. SR 160 has an ADT of about 8,700, down from close to 10k a decade ago. Got hit hard by the recession, which isn't surprising for a distant exurb.
The Southwest is so funny. Pahrump is 60 miles from Furnace Creek and we think of it as on the doorstep.
Might as well be, that 60 miles is nothing on CA 190 and State Line Road on a fast day. Funny to think that 60 miles would be considered a massive empty stretch through most of the eastern part of the country.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 23, 2018, 04:08:53 PM
Quote from: sparkerDes Moines and Tulsa say a big "hello"!
Des Moines and Tulsa are very unique exceptions. Both places have somewhat strange geographical layouts and city plans. In Tulsa's case I-44 is still taking the most direct route through the central geometric area of the city. Tulsa's downtown is actually on the NW side of the city, not the center. Some of the busiest areas of Tulsa are South of I-44.
Tulsa is that way because Skelly Drive was always planned as a bypass long before the Interstate highway system came into existence. When the Turner was completed in 1953, the plans (some places even called it Skelly Bypass) took it along what was at that time the developed fringe of Tulsa. 51st Street was the boonies back then. No one anticipated Tulsa growing so asymmetrically when it was planned, although the plans for a Creek Freeway corridor were on the books shortly after that. AFAIK, there were never plans to reroute 44 over 244 when it was completed in the early 70's.
Quote from: rte66man on January 28, 2018, 05:17:29 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 23, 2018, 04:08:53 PM
Quote from: sparkerDes Moines and Tulsa say a big "hello"!
Des Moines and Tulsa are very unique exceptions. Both places have somewhat strange geographical layouts and city plans. In Tulsa's case I-44 is still taking the most direct route through the central geometric area of the city. Tulsa's downtown is actually on the NW side of the city, not the center. Some of the busiest areas of Tulsa are South of I-44.
Tulsa is that way because Skelly Drive was always planned as a bypass long before the Interstate highway system came into existence. When the Turner was completed in 1953, the plans (some places even called it Skelly Bypass) took it along what was at that time the developed fringe of Tulsa. 51st Street was the boonies back then. No one anticipated Tulsa growing so asymmetrically when it was planned, although the plans for a Creek Freeway corridor were on the books shortly after that. AFAIK, there were never plans to reroute 44 over 244 when it was completed in the early 70's.
Isn't part of Tulsa's "asymmetry" due to the Osage Nation's territory being adjacent to the city, limiting growth to the west and northwest of downtown except for the immediate north bank of the Arkansas River? In any case, the city core is served by I-244, while the trunk I-44 follows a city-core bypass which, like so many, has since been subsumed by urban development (in this case, well before the Interstate aspect was present). Since the developmental path of least resistance is to the south and southeast on both riverbanks, any corridor tracing the trajectory of former US 66 has little choice but to be city-bound.
Quote from: sparker on January 22, 2018, 11:59:21 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 22, 2018, 05:52:19 PM
I've said this before, I'll say it again. I believe any route of Interstate 11 in Las Vegas, other than the one that completely replaces all of Interstate 515 (and continues up US 95 past Interstate 15), is batshit crazy!
The sole drawback of using 515/95 is the level of traffic on that facility during commute times, since it tends to funnel Henderson residents (almost 300K population) into the principal employment area for both tourism and warehousing, of which LV has plenty! But the east bypass concept is a bit dicey; that leg of the loop was cancelled some time ago due to residential opposition. It'll probably come down to town center versus the part of the loop that is at least partially constructed; at that point, I'd rate it as a tossup!
I think Interstates should go around cities for the through traffic and the spurs should be the alternate numbers
Quote from: texaskdog on January 29, 2018, 08:35:53 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 22, 2018, 11:59:21 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 22, 2018, 05:52:19 PM
I've said this before, I'll say it again. I believe any route of Interstate 11 in Las Vegas, other than the one that completely replaces all of Interstate 515 (and continues up US 95 past Interstate 15), is batshit crazy!
The sole drawback of using 515/95 is the level of traffic on that facility during commute times, since it tends to funnel Henderson residents (almost 300K population) into the principal employment area for both tourism and warehousing, of which LV has plenty! But the east bypass concept is a bit dicey; that leg of the loop was cancelled some time ago due to residential opposition. It'll probably come down to town center versus the part of the loop that is at least partially constructed; at that point, I'd rate it as a tossup!
I think Interstates should go around cities for the through traffic and the spurs should be the alternate numbers
I'm fundamentally the opposite: Interstates need to access the central cores of inner cities in order to serve the inner neighborhoods and downtowns. Let the suburban loops be the alternatives.
^^^^ I agree!
Why take a major cross-country artery through a city? All that's going to do is put an unnecessary burden on a road that commuters might use. Traffic that is not destined for a city should not pass through it.
It depends on the time of day and the city's highway layout. If you're not passing through the city during rush hour (such as moving through later at night) you'll probably save time and distance staying on the main route rather than taking the loop highway around.
I've driven East-West through Indianapolis a few times. In that case it was nearly the same distance to leave I-70 and take I-465/I-74 around the South side and reconnect with I-70 on the other side. But that's only because I-70 takes a very crooked path through Indianapolis.
Then there's cities like Houston where I-610 can get just as badly jammed with traffic as I-10 or I-45.
The one thing that hasn't been brought up in the discussion of I-11 as a bypass or a city-bound route is that Las Vegas really isn't like most other cities; tourists rarely need access to the city center (since nobody downtown seems to deal single-deck blackjack anymore, I certainly don't!); the current I-15/I-215 junction west of the airport is closer to the major hotels than the I-515/US 95 through-town route. I'm sure that particular point will be made by Strip interests when the corridor decision is debated -- i.e., "route I-11 where the action is!"
Quote from: jakeroot on January 30, 2018, 02:35:38 PM
Why take a major cross-country artery through a city? All that's going to do is put an unnecessary burden on a road that commuters might use. Traffic that is not destined for a city should not pass through it.
Because that's the whole point of Interstate 11. To connect Las Vegas and Phoenix.
Connecting I-11 to I-10 out in friggen Tonopah does *not* connect Las Vegas to Phoenix.
Quote from: howlincoyote2k1 on January 30, 2018, 06:08:19 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 30, 2018, 02:35:38 PM
Why take a major cross-country artery through a city? All that's going to do is put an unnecessary burden on a road that commuters might use. Traffic that is not destined for a city should not pass through it.
Because that's the whole point of Interstate 11. To connect Las Vegas and Phoenix.
Connecting I-11 to I-10 out in friggen Tonopah does *not* connect Las Vegas to Phoenix.
The original 2012 legislation that authorized I-11 over a portion of High Priority Corridor #26 was only between Phoenix and Las Vegas. In 2016 the I-11 designation was legislatively extended north along US 95 to I-80 in Northern Nevada via the co-designation of High Priority Corridor #68 (itself dating from 2005) as an I-11 extension. So the present "official" corridor extends from the Phoenix area to I-80 somewhere in the vicinity of Reno. Now whether one considers the extension past LV to be unnecessary, foolish, stupid, or any otherwise dismissive term, it's there and is garnering some attention if not immediate prioritization. Past I-80: that's anybody's guess.
Quote from: jakeroot on January 30, 2018, 02:35:38 PM
Why take a major cross-country artery through a city? All that's going to do is put an unnecessary burden on a road that commuters might use. Traffic that is not destined for a city should not pass through it.
Well to be fair that's what bypasses are for.
But for me, I enjoy going through cities. Better food options usually and I simply enjoy driving and seeing cities from freeways.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 30, 2018, 06:37:27 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 30, 2018, 02:35:38 PM
Why take a major cross-country artery through a city? All that's going to do is put an unnecessary burden on a road that commuters might use. Traffic that is not destined for a city should not pass through it.
Well to be fair that's what bypasses are for.
Right. But as a driver, it's easier to follow (eg) I-70, than I-70 to I-270 to I-70. Most through traffic, not really knowing if a 3di will take them back to their 2di, will just stay on the 2di to be safe. During rush hour, this can mix them up with commuter traffic, and create headaches where there doesn't necessarily need to be one.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 30, 2018, 06:37:27 PM
But for me, I enjoy going through cities. Better food options usually and I simply enjoy driving and seeing cities from freeways.
I'm fine with intercity freeways (well, not really -- I'd rather freeways stay away from urban cores). But I don't see why 2di's have to be routed through a city center. Through traffic is not interested in the sights and sounds of a city. They're just trying to get through. And the residents of the city will appreciate traffic staying away, as it's just that many fewer cars on their road.
Quote from: howlincoyote2k1 on January 30, 2018, 06:08:19 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 30, 2018, 02:35:38 PM
Why take a major cross-country artery through a city? All that's going to do is put an unnecessary burden on a road that commuters might use. Traffic that is not destined for a city should not pass through it.
Because that's the whole point of Interstate 11. To connect Las Vegas and Phoenix.
Connecting I-11 to I-10 out in friggen Tonopah does *not* connect Las Vegas to Phoenix.
I don't think the point is to connect the strip to downtown Phoenix. It's to connect those major metro areas. You can do that without plowing through an urban area.
Quote from: howlincoyote2k1 on January 30, 2018, 06:08:19 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 30, 2018, 02:35:38 PM
Why take a major cross-country artery through a city? All that's going to do is put an unnecessary burden on a road that commuters might use. Traffic that is not destined for a city should not pass through it.
Because that's the whole point of Interstate 11. To connect Las Vegas and Phoenix.
Connecting I-11 to I-10 out in friggen Tonopah does *not* connect Las Vegas to Phoenix.
Oh....this poster was referring to Tonopah, AZ; not Tonopah, NV; must be referring to the Hassayampa routing variant in greater PHX. Well, as the late great Gilda Radner's character Emily Litella would say:
never mind!.
Quote from: sparkerThe one thing that hasn't been brought up in the discussion of I-11 as a bypass or a city-bound route is that Las Vegas really isn't like most other cities; tourists rarely need access to the city center (since nobody downtown seems to deal single-deck blackjack anymore, I certainly don't!); the current I-15/I-215 junction west of the airport is closer to the major hotels than the I-515/US 95 through-town route. I'm sure that particular point will be made by Strip interests when the corridor decision is debated -- i.e., "route I-11 where the action is!"
Las Vegas is a large enough city that it is more than just a place for gambling tourists. There are more traffic generators than just McCarran aiport and the big hotels on the Southern part of the Strip. Summerlin on the NW side of the metro is growing rapidly. Henderson on the SE side of the metro is also growing rapidly. US-95/I-515 is the most direct route between those two booming suburbs. If more of the tourist traffic is moving farther South along I-215 & I-15 that's even better for both the locals and long distance traffic using the route.
Most of the gamling traffic arriving by car to Vegas is coming in from California via I-15. Not nearly as much will be using I-11. In terms of highway network logic, it makes far more sense to establish I-215 along all of the 215 loop rather than mixing various route numbers along it. It also makes more sense for US-95 and I-11 to share the same route through Vegas.
QuoteI'm fine with intercity freeways (well, not really -- I'd rather freeways stay away from urban cores). But I don't see why 2di's have to be routed through a city center.
The United States is a car-centric culture. Most people move from point a to point b using automobiles. That's not going to change any time soon. If you have to sit through dozens of traffic lights to reach a downtown destination chances are strong you'll find similar destinations in bustling suburbs far easier to reach. Elminating freeways inside of a city's loop highway would be bad for downtown business.
Most of our nation's cities are not nearly as densely packed as very old cities in Europe. Between that and the insane construction price inflation of things like subways and light rail it's very difficult for mass transit to fully serve American urban populations. Most people will still be stuck driving at least some distance of their trip. Riding buses and trains is a time draining activity. I wonder just how much "strap-hanging" some of these new urbanists have actually done. I did years of it living in New York City. I don't romanticize that experience at all.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 31, 2018, 02:48:27 PM
Quote from: sparkerThe one thing that hasn't been brought up in the discussion of I-11 as a bypass or a city-bound route is that Las Vegas really isn't like most other cities; tourists rarely need access to the city center (since nobody downtown seems to deal single-deck blackjack anymore, I certainly don't!); the current I-15/I-215 junction west of the airport is closer to the major hotels than the I-515/US 95 through-town route. I'm sure that particular point will be made by Strip interests when the corridor decision is debated -- i.e., "route I-11 where the action is!"
Las Vegas is a large enough city that it is more than just a place for gambling tourists. There are more traffic generators than just McCarran aiport and the big hotels on the Southern part of the Strip. Summerlin on the NW side of the metro is growing rapidly. Henderson on the SE side of the metro is also growing rapidly. US-95/I-515 is the most direct route between those two booming suburbs. If more of the tourist traffic is moving farther South along I-215 & I-15 that's even better for both the locals and long distance traffic using the route.
Most of the gamling traffic arriving by car to Vegas is coming in from California via I-15. Not nearly as much will be using I-11. In terms of highway network logic, it makes far more sense to establish I-215 along all of the 215 loop rather than mixing various route numbers along it. It also makes more sense for US-95 and I-11 to share the same route through Vegas.
QuoteI'm fine with intercity freeways (well, not really -- I'd rather freeways stay away from urban cores). But I don't see why 2di's have to be routed through a city center.
The United States is a car-centric culture. Most people move from point a to point b using automobiles. That's not going to change any time soon. If you have to sit through dozens of traffic lights to reach a downtown destination chances are strong you'll find similar destinations in bustling suburbs far easier to reach. Elminating freeways inside of a city's loop highway would be bad for downtown business.
Most of our nation's cities are not nearly as densely packed as very old cities in Europe. Between that and the insane construction price inflation of things like subways and light rail it's very difficult to for mass transit to fully serve American urban populations. Most people will still be stuck driving at least some distance of their trip. Riding buses and trains is a time draining activity. I wonder just how much "strap-hanging" some of these new urbanists have actually done. I did years of it living in New York City. I don't romanticize that experience at all.
tell that to the "new urbanists"
New urbanist don't really care about cars vs. transit thing as some might think. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but new urbanism specifically addresses cars while "old" urbanism ignores them because they didn't exists in many older cities. There was obviously some guideline on how to develop cities given that many in Europe are alike in their grids and blocks centering around transit as US cities are more centered around the car. It also seems as BRIC countries are starting to invest more and more into roads and car centric infrastructure.
The problem I have with new urbanist is they want to reduce size is the cities land mass to be what they view as more functional and practical which seems true. That's doesnt stop me from preferring cars though. They are newer and offer more comfort and privacy than transit that also take you way more places any transit can. What my problem with then boils down to is that they want to alter the lifestyle people live.
Though they're not outright telling people they can't drive, they are in a sense punishing people who drive, by making traffic horrible to the point of misery. Portland is a prime example of this. A city it's size shouldn't have traffic issues like it does. Likewise with California as of late.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 31, 2018, 02:48:27 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 30, 2018, 07:00:50 PM
I'm fine with intercity freeways (well, not really -- I'd rather freeways stay away from urban cores). But I don't see why 2di's have to be routed through a city center.
The United States is a car-centric culture Most people move from point a to point b using automobiles. That's not going to change any time soon. If you have to sit through dozens of traffic lights to reach a downtown destination chances are strong you'll find similar destinations in bustling suburbs far easier to reach. Eliminating freeways inside of a city's loop highway would be bad for downtown business.
Most of our nation's cities are not nearly as densely packed as very old cities in Europe. Between that and the insane construction price inflation of things like subways and light rail it's very difficult to for mass transit to fully serve American urban populations. Most people will still be stuck driving at least some distance of their trip. Riding buses and trains is a time draining activity. I wonder just how much "strap-hanging" some of these new urbanists have actually done. I did years of it living in New York City. I don't romanticize that experience at all.
The part that I've bolded is the key point here. Our cities are not as dense as those in Europe.
Has it
ever occurred to those who are opposed to urban planning that our cities are still growing? I honestly get the feeling that people look at cities like Indianapolis, St Louis, or Houston, and say "right, let's build a road network to fit what we have". It doesn't seem to occur to them that these cities, no matter how apparent it may be at first glance, are growing. And unless a terrible economic situation hits, like in Detroit, they will continue to grow.
As our cities grow, we have to start thinking more sustainability. Is the practice of suburb after suburb connected by arterials and freeways a sustainable growth plan? It has been, sure. But, what happens in 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? Can Houston's freeway network cope with another 50 years of growth? I'm not so sure. Would anyone really drive three hours to work one-way at 75 mph? What I (and many others) know is that it's entirely possible to take
urban freeways out of the picture. Cities just need to make it easier for people to live
inside the "core" without having to worry about a car **if they so choose**. Urban freeways do not make urban living nice. They are unsightly, divide neighborhoods, and take up vast amounts of land that could be dedicated to literally anything else.
FWIW: the US is car-centric because we've built our cities around the car, not the other way around. In the early 20th century, transport by trolley and train were far more popular than anything a private citizen could operate. Once the automobile became more affordable, making land far outside the city easy to access, our cities very quickly became less dense. It became popular for regional planners to develop extensive arterial and freeway networks that could ferry these suburbanites to and from work...and now here we are. Basically on the verge of boiling over.
Something has to change.
Quote from: jakeroot on January 31, 2018, 07:42:58 PM
Would anyone really drive three hours to work one-way at 75 mph?
That's about 225 miles; you think urban sprawl will get that big?
I know people that drive 2.5 hours to work one way.
Growth won't stop. People still want to drive regardless. So it's probably inevitable that sprawl grows that large.
Quote from: jakerootHas it ever occurred to those who are opposed to urban planning that our cities are still growing? I honestly get the feeling that people look at cities like Indianapolis, St Louis, or Houston, and say "right, let's build a road network to fit what we have". It doesn't seem to occur to them that these cities, no matter how apparent it may be at first glance, are growing. And unless a terrible economic situation hits, like in Detroit, they will continue to grow.
American cities vary on how well they plan for future traffic needs. Cities in Texas have been better at this than most, such as building divided streets with big grassy medians able to hold new freeways if or when they're needed years or decades later. Overall it is very difficult to predict what a city's growth pattern will be 20 to 50 years into the future. If explosive growth starts to happen all a city can do is try its best to get ahead of it.
There is no guarantee certain American cities are going to keep growing rapidly. Simple economics of living costs are going to affect that. The United States has been registering new all time lows in total fertility rate. This past year the TFR of American born women fell to 1.77 children per adult female. You need a TFR of 2.1 just to replace all the people who die. All of the costs that come with having children (health care, housing, day care, family sized vehicles, etc) are all rising well above average wage growth levels. We're also seeing cultural changes where fewer women are tying their identities to marriage and motherhood. Many want to have careers first and then maybe do the mom and wife stuff later,
if ever. America's teen pregnancy rate is a mere 1/3 what it was in 1990.
If the US maintains these current trends we could usher in a Japanese style population crash. If US birth rate continues dropping, even at a modest pace it will start affecting things like public school systems in a matter of just a few years. Long term it could devastate the government's budget & social programs and have it struggling to properly staff a national defense.
Quote from: jakerootAs our cities grow, we have to start thinking more sustainability. Is the practice of suburb after suburb connected by arterials and freeways a sustainable growth plan? It has been, sure. But, what happens in 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? Can Houston's freeway network cope with another 50 years of growth? I'm not so sure. Would anyone really drive three hours to work one-way at 75 mph? What I (and many others) know is that it's entirely possible to take urban freeways out of the picture. Cities just need to make it easier for people to live inside the "core" without having to worry about a car **if they so choose**. Urban freeways do not make urban living nice. They are unsightly, divide neighborhoods, and take up vast amounts of land that could be dedicated to literally anything else.
Suburban sprawl is caused by a number of factors with
high, unaffordable housing prices inside the city core being a chief culprit. The cost of housing inside many US city cores is ridiculous. The situation in places like New York City and San Francisco is disgustingly profane. Workers get pushed farther and farther out to the fringes until they can find an affordable living situation. New Urbanists act like this problem of affordability simply doesn't exist. They don't bother to notice all the Millennial workers struggling to live in the "cool" big city, doing things like piling up together, two, three or more at a time in one apartment to share living costs (the wife and kids thing doesn't work well in that situation).
Doing something like ripping out all the freeways inside I-610 or Beltway 8 in Houston is not going to change any of that, not while city core housing keeps pricing people out to the suburbs. If anything, such a stunt could speed up more disruptive changes to business, like using developments in robotics and artificial intelligence to replace many human jobs. Faster internet is allowing more people to work from home offices. If America's population starts going into serious decline that will correct the orgy of real estate price gouging in city cores. It still may be a hard sell to convince suburbanites to move into an area where property values are falling.
Quote from: jakerootFWIW: the US is car-centric because we've built our cities around the car, not the other way around. In the early 20th century, transport by trolley and train were far more popular than anything a private citizen could operate. Once the automobile became more affordable, making land far outside the city easy to access, our cities very quickly became less dense. It became popular for regional planners to develop extensive arterial and freeway networks that could ferry these suburbanites to and from work...and now here we are. Basically on the verge of boiling over. Something has to change.
All cities when initially founded were built around the dominant form of transportation of that age. European cities being much older were laid out with buildings crammed in more tightly together. Streets only needed to be wide enough to hold foot traffic and horse-drawn carriages. Over the centuries those cities have had to adapt, painfully, to changes in transportation, technology, culture and even safety standards. Some of these old, densely packed cities were great at going up in flames (London in 1666, Chicago in 1871, San Francisco in 1906). Newer cities don't tend to repeat those mistakes.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 02, 2018, 01:22:50 PM
There is no guarantee certain American cities are going to keep growing rapidly. Simple economics of living costs are going to affect that. The United States has been registering new all time lows in total fertility rate. This past year the TFR of American born women fell to 1.77 children per adult female. You need a TFR of 2.1 just to replace all the people who die. All of the costs that come with having children (health care, housing, day care, family sized vehicles, etc) are all rising well above average wage growth levels. We're also seeing cultural changes where fewer women are tying their identities to marriage and motherhood. Many want to have careers first and then maybe do the mom and wife stuff later, if ever. America's teen pregnancy rate is a mere 1/3 what it was in 1990.
If the US maintains these current trends we could usher in a Japanese style population crash. If US birth rate continues dropping, even at a modest pace it will start affecting things like public school systems in a matter of just a few years. Long term it could devastate the government's budget & social programs and have it struggling to properly staff a national defense.
The fertility rate is just around replacement rate, but there's still immigration. That's why the population continues to grow.
Ten years go the Total Fertility Rate in the US was near the replacement rate level of 2.1 before the start of the Great Recession. And it had been hovering at or just under that level since 1975. America's fertility rate has been dropping since late last decade. The 1.77 TFR figure is factual. I didn't make it up. Here's one news story link about it:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2017/12/08/the-baby-boom-long-gone-get-ready-for-baby-bust/x9JYDX7zzV6xeCkP76RC0M/story.html (https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2017/12/08/the-baby-boom-long-gone-get-ready-for-baby-bust/x9JYDX7zzV6xeCkP76RC0M/story.html)
There is a good amount of other articles covering this issue. One thing that scares me is some of the sad, tragedies going on in Japan: "lonely deaths." Japan's population is in serious decline. They have a large elderly population and many of these people have no other surviving family members. So when they die in their apartments or homes they may not be discovered for days or weeks until someone notices the smell. One guy's body wasn't discovered for 3 years. These "lonely deaths" are common over there. I could see the same thing happening in the US a couple or so decades from now.
Through much of its history the US has grown its population through liberal immigration policies. But now even those who are emigrating to the US are having fewer children. So we're not going continue seeing net population gains at the pace we did in the past. The birth rate in many developing countries is falling closer to the replacement rate.
How can someone go undiscovered for three years? Someone needs to pay the rent or property taxes, and if they didn't do it, eventually a deputy sheriff or process server or someone would come to the door.
Quote from: kkt on February 02, 2018, 04:32:20 PM
How can someone go undiscovered for three years? Someone needs to pay the rent or property taxes, and if they didn't do it, eventually a deputy sheriff or process server or someone would come to the door.
Death by auto-pay.
Bingo. Indeed, the man wasn't discovered until the automatic bank drafting of his rent & utilities finally emptied his bank account. Japanese people have a term for these undiscovered, elderly deaths, "Kodokushi," which we translate as "Lonely Death."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodokushi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodokushi)
Quote from: sparker on January 29, 2018, 03:27:53 AM
Quote from: rte66man on January 28, 2018, 05:17:29 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 23, 2018, 04:08:53 PM
Quote from: sparkerDes Moines and Tulsa say a big "hello"!
Des Moines and Tulsa are very unique exceptions. Both places have somewhat strange geographical layouts and city plans. In Tulsa's case I-44 is still taking the most direct route through the central geometric area of the city. Tulsa's downtown is actually on the NW side of the city, not the center. Some of the busiest areas of Tulsa are South of I-44.
Tulsa is that way because Skelly Drive was always planned as a bypass long before the Interstate highway system came into existence. When the Turner was completed in 1953, the plans (some places even called it Skelly Bypass) took it along what was at that time the developed fringe of Tulsa. 51st Street was the boonies back then. No one anticipated Tulsa growing so asymmetrically when it was planned, although the plans for a Creek Freeway corridor were on the books shortly after that. AFAIK, there were never plans to reroute 44 over 244 when it was completed in the early 70's.
Isn't part of Tulsa's "asymmetry" due to the Osage Nation's territory being adjacent to the city, limiting growth to the west and northwest of downtown except for the immediate north bank of the Arkansas River? In any case, the city core is served by I-244, while the trunk I-44 follows a city-core bypass which, like so many, has since been subsumed by urban development (in this case, well before the Interstate aspect was present). Since the developmental path of least resistance is to the south and southeast on both riverbanks, any corridor tracing the trajectory of former US 66 has little choice but to be city-bound.
part of it, but there are also a lot of hills, once you move away from the north bank of the Arkansas River, and oil wells in that area as well, and the mid-century sprawl couldn't quickly and easily fill that area.
44 still had an at grade rail crossing between Southwest Blvd and South 33rd until the mid 1980s. There were also at-grade crossings at South 49th and New Sapulpa Road until around that same time as well.
Nothing really new here: https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/AZDOT/bulletins/1ddf945
On a Random note about I-11 meeting I-10 30-40 miles West of Phoenix, I-15 meets I-10 40 miles East of Los Angeles, and I-15 still connects them both. South of I-10 the 15 is serving other communites
Quote from: Interstate Trav on March 12, 2018, 02:55:22 PM
On a Random note about I-11 meeting I-10 30-40 miles West of Phoenix, I-15 meets I-10 40 miles East of Los Angeles, and I-15 still connects them both. South of I-10 the 15 is serving other communites
One thing to remember is that the western/Hassayampa routing option in greater PHX is intended to function more as (a) a spur for growth and development in that area, and (b) the northern portion of a west/southwest metro bypass which, when it gets over the hills into the Maricopa area will (c) see (a)! Greater PHX is still operating on a "boom town" basis, and is intending to do so for some time to come. For better or worse, enhancing this concept seems to have been prioritized more than the role of I-11 as a direct PHX-LV connector. Right now, the purported intersect point of I-10 and the I-11 corridor largely matches the description "out in the middle of nowhere". That can't even begin to compare with the I-10/I-15 Ontario (CA) meeting point; by the time that interchange was opened circa '79 or so, the area was already rife with development in both housing and commercial activity. It's not a stretch to think that PHX developers have something like
that in mind as their long-range goal -- obviously, they haven't internalized the downside -- 10/15 is functionally "congestion central" for 8-10 hours per weekday; to utilize either of those routes for long-distance travel requires limiting ones traversal of that area to off-peak periods (or to simply hang around in L.A. until the weekend then hope for the best!).
Let's just hope (maybe against hope) that PHX interests (public & private sectors -- if not merely colluding) can and will look at examples such as the area east of L.A. and think twice about deploying development to the point where any route, such as I-10, extending out from the core becomes a continuous series of congestive nodes that render interregional travel (
and commerce) inefficient and even onerous.
Quote from: sparker on March 12, 2018, 05:59:00 PM
Quote from: Interstate Trav on March 12, 2018, 02:55:22 PM
On a Random note about I-11 meeting I-10 30-40 miles West of Phoenix, I-15 meets I-10 40 miles East of Los Angeles, and I-15 still connects them both. South of I-10 the 15 is serving other communites
One thing to remember is that the western/Hassayampa routing option in greater PHX is intended to function more as (a) a spur for growth and development in that area, and (b) the northern portion of a west/southwest metro bypass which, when it gets over the hills into the Maricopa area will (c) see (a)! Greater PHX is still operating on a "boom town" basis, and is intending to do so for some time to come. For better or worse, enhancing this concept seems to have been prioritized more than the role of I-11 as a direct PHX-LV connector. Right now, the purported intersect point of I-10 and the I-11 corridor largely matches the description "out in the middle of nowhere". That can't even begin to compare with the I-10/I-15 Ontario (CA) meeting point; by the time that interchange was opened circa '79 or so, the area was already rife with development in both housing and commercial activity. It's not a stretch to think that PHX developers have something like that in mind as their long-range goal -- obviously, they haven't internalized the downside -- 10/15 is functionally "congestion central" for 8-10 hours per weekday; to utilize either of those routes for long-distance travel requires limiting ones traversal of that area to off-peak periods (or to simply hang around in L.A. until the weekend then hope for the best!).
Good point- going back 10-12 years ago before the I-11 concept began to really take off, there was the Loop 404 concept at the time. I-11 essentially replaced that as a future route, although Loop 404 was intended to loop north and east, eventually connecting to I-17 vs the I-11 plan of connecting to points north and west.
Quote from: kdk on March 13, 2018, 03:22:42 PM
Quote from: sparker on March 12, 2018, 05:59:00 PM
Quote from: Interstate Trav on March 12, 2018, 02:55:22 PM
On a Random note about I-11 meeting I-10 30-40 miles West of Phoenix, I-15 meets I-10 40 miles East of Los Angeles, and I-15 still connects them both. South of I-10 the 15 is serving other communites
One thing to remember is that the western/Hassayampa routing option in greater PHX is intended to function more as (a) a spur for growth and development in that area, and (b) the northern portion of a west/southwest metro bypass which, when it gets over the hills into the Maricopa area will (c) see (a)! Greater PHX is still operating on a "boom town" basis, and is intending to do so for some time to come. For better or worse, enhancing this concept seems to have been prioritized more than the role of I-11 as a direct PHX-LV connector. Right now, the purported intersect point of I-10 and the I-11 corridor largely matches the description "out in the middle of nowhere". That can't even begin to compare with the I-10/I-15 Ontario (CA) meeting point; by the time that interchange was opened circa '79 or so, the area was already rife with development in both housing and commercial activity. It's not a stretch to think that PHX developers have something like that in mind as their long-range goal -- obviously, they haven't internalized the downside -- 10/15 is functionally "congestion central" for 8-10 hours per weekday; to utilize either of those routes for long-distance travel requires limiting ones traversal of that area to off-peak periods (or to simply hang around in L.A. until the weekend then hope for the best!).
Good point- going back 10-12 years ago before the I-11 concept began to really take off, there was the Loop 404 concept at the time. I-11 essentially replaced that as a future route, although Loop 404 was intended to loop north and east, eventually connecting to I-17 vs the I-11 plan of connecting to points north and west.
IIRC, the E-W portion of the proposed Loop 404 was essentially adjacent to the present AZ 74 alignment from US 60 to I-17. Regardless of the final I-11 alignment, I would guess that original 404 alignment segment would still be in play, since the area near the 17/74 junction is the site of substantial development (but being as this is greater PHX; if it's relatively flat and utilities can be brought in, it's probably targeted for such).
you got me thinking, I remember the 404 connecting east, but there was a plan to also upgrade AZ 74 into more of a freeway as well. Turns out they are/were two different highways, only the 404 alignment was to cut further south of AZ 74.
I found the old future freeway map showing the 404, then the one showing the I-11 overlay of most of it, but not all. Forgot about the idea of the 174 which essentially also folded into I-11.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Phoenix_Metro_Area_Future_Freeway_System.svg)
(https://phxdowntown.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/interstate-11-js1.jpg)
From those plans pictured above, except for a short portion of the "White Tanks" (presumably part of Loop 404) freeway, a NW/SE alignment down or paralleling Grand Avenue was never an integral part of the plans, particularly from Wickenburg down to the Surprise area. It looks as if the plan was to shunt as much through traffic away from the Grand corridor onto AZ 74, 174, and Loop 404 and leave Grand Avenue (likely by that time relinquished as a state facility) as a local server and probably commercial attractant -- a plan designed to gain support of developers, who would be free to reconfigure not only the street itself but the adjoining area -- limited only by the parallel BNSF rail line.
Since developers seem to have the upper hand when dealing with public planning and transportation agencies in the PHX area, considerations such as these will probably prevail when it comes to the I-11 alignment; despite the logic of getting interregional traffic as close as possible to the city itself, that concept will likely take a back seat to the wishes of the regional developers (e.g., the push for the Hassayampa alignment), making a I-11 SE extension down to at least Loop 303 unlikely (although such a route could conceivably piggyback onto part of the White Tanks/404 route). IMO, ideally I-11 would simply subsume Loop 303 south from the Grand area and use it all the way down to where it multiplexes with the present projected I-11 route near Goodyear, where it would resume its trek over to I-10 north of Casa Grande. But such a scenario is a long shot; the plans, historic and present, never included a "pink line" straight down US 60 to 303; I-11 is simply routed over the existing planned corridor pathway south of Wickenburg -- one that just happens to bisect an area slated for large-scale commercial/housing development. No surprises here -- the local powers that be get what they want -- unabated/uninterrupted growth, and folks heading off to Vegas for the weekend just have to put a few more miles on their cars. Welcome to the PHX version of Econ 101!
Considering it will take at least several years, a decade or multiple decades for I-11 to get funding and be completed a whole lot can happen, both good and bad, in the Greater Phoenix real estate market between now and then. These developers are betting on uninterrupted growth to just keep going on without any economic hiccups, changes in politics, changes in customer demographics, etc. There's a few things I think are in the cards that will catch a bunch of these guys flat-footed several years from now (or sooner than that).
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 28, 2018, 09:39:35 PM
Considering it will take at least several years, a decade or multiple decades for I-11 to get funding and be completed a whole lot can happen, both good and bad, in the Greater Phoenix real estate market between now and then. These developers are betting on uninterrupted growth to just keep going on without any economic hiccups, changes in politics, changes in customer demographics, etc. There's a few things I think are in the cards that will catch a bunch of these guys flat-footed several years from now (or sooner than that).
For better or worse, housing developers -- particularly the larger players (Broad, Pulte, etc.) have shown a tendency to milk the market as long as possible before pulling back. They did that out in the high desert in CA (Hesperia, Victorville, Adelanto) back in 2007-2008, continuing to build housing until the 2009 market nadir, at which time they simply stopped construction (regardless of state of completion of individual housing units) for several years, boarded things up, and sat back to see what transpired. When signs of the market coming back became apparent around late 2011 and early 2012, they quietly resumed the building process, starting with uncompleted homes and moving on to full new tracts. When I left the area in November 2012, there was a sizeable number of full-scale housing projects underway. The PHX dynamic seems much the same; if developers were able to absorb the 2007-2011 downturn and remain basically solvent, they may have internalized the notion that the market will continue to grow -- if not by a constant series of leaps and bounds, then by incremental stages. Now -- whether that is something that can be anticipated to continue on a longer-term basis (they've basically had a period of 5-6 fiscal years to compile their data) is probably more of a crapshoot than some of the players would care to believe -- but as the survivors of the last recession might surmise, the variegated ups & downs
are merely part of the long-term process. I would expect PHX developers to be nailing up 2x4's until it becomes unprofitable for them to do so -- and then they'll just lay back and wait it out. And, of course, the public sector is just as embedded in that process as the developers themselves; the development of I-11 and other connecting routes will proceed, but likely in concert with the remaining development. The sole advantage of the Interstate 11 designation (as opposed to the remainder of Loop 404, AZ 30, and other lines on the various planning maps) is that while developers have certainly engaged in "massaging" the corridor to its benefit, its status as an interregional connector means that once the initial project has started, it'll probably be the first one off the blocks if and when any cyclical or other downturns run their course.
Quote from: sparker on April 03, 2018, 04:41:30 PM
continuing to build housing until the 2009 market nadir, at which time they simply stopped construction (regardless of state of completion of individual housing units) for several years, boarded things up, and sat back to see what transpired. When signs of the market coming back became apparent around late 2011 and early 2012, they quietly resumed the building process, starting with uncompleted homes and moving on to full new tracts.
That sounds like a good way to build defective, rotting homes.
Quote from: vdeane on April 03, 2018, 08:32:37 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 03, 2018, 04:41:30 PM
continuing to build housing until the 2009 market nadir, at which time they simply stopped construction (regardless of state of completion of individual housing units) for several years, boarded things up, and sat back to see what transpired. When signs of the market coming back became apparent around late 2011 and early 2012, they quietly resumed the building process, starting with uncompleted homes and moving on to full new tracts.
That sounds like a good way to build defective, rotting homes.
True -- if it wasn't a desert environment with very low average humidity. One thing I noticed (circa 2010) was that there were very few "skeleton" structures with interrupted construction (i.e., just the framework); the contractor(s) had secured the usual particle-board side panels to the structures to avoid any oddball water-bearing events (the occasional monsoon rainstorms coming up from the Gulf of California that occur a couple of times in winter and early spring in that area). If the panels (which are really inexpensive and thus widely used for walls with external siding or heavy stucco attached) became waterlogged, they were simply replaced when construction re-commenced. Not too many instances of defective houses out in that particular region; almost all construction was based on concrete slabs -- so underpinning rot didn't occur -- and the period between construction phases was short enough to avoid dry rot.
An Update Intunegames goes a segment on US-93 or soon to be I-11
Quote from: bing101 on May 19, 2018, 09:56:19 PM
An Update Intunegames goes a segment on US-93 or soon to be I-11
I'm stating the following based on what I've seen personally, and read. Feel free to correct anything I say, but I'm standing by it until I hear better info.
"Soon to be I-11?" Try "might eventually become I-11. If not in this life, then in the next."
I'll be absolutely shocked if US 93 south of I-40 becomes I-11 in my lifetime (I'm 62), if ever. First of all, many parts of the road are, and will likely remain for the foreseeable future, two lanes. The longest being the Joshua Tree Parkway, where the 4-lane segment NW of Wickenburg abruptly ends, and it doesn't resume until just south of The Cellsite Formerly Known As Nothing. This is a politically protected stretch of road, and I've never heard one peep about adding another pair of lanes on 93 through here, let alone bringing it up to Interstate standards. I'll be driving it next month; we'll see if any new segments are open.
Second, there are a lot of ranches -- close to 3 dozen, based on my informal count -- that will need turnoffs, regardless of the status of the road. No way will they all get interchanges. I-11 may have to be like I-40 in Texas and keep the at-grade intersections.
Third, there is Wickieup. Small town with a lot of fight. I stop there whenever I go to and from Las Vegas or Laughlin, and they insist that I-11 will not be built without a fight. I happen to agree with them. No more destroying towns for highways that are barely needed. There's enough traffic to justify four-laning the entire Wickenburg-to-I-40 segment, but a full Interstate is overkill.
And finally, there is ADOT, and what seems to be their insistence that no construction begins at all in Arizona until the portion between Wickenburg and Nogales is finalized. It cannot be justified south of I-8, and the segment between I-10 and I-8 can be only if the current AZ 85 between the two is part of the route. Beyond that, we have I-10 and I-19 to get to Nogales.
The I-11 corridor itself has at least as many politically connected backers as detractors; as long as AZ maintains a "developmental" mode, the backers have the edge. As far as "politically protected" segments of US 93 are concerned, except for the usual suspects taking a "BANANA" position regarding any new freeway/Interstate deployment, there's nothing special about the segment between AZ 71 and Nothing; expressway development just hasn't been let as of yet. Even absent the I-11 prospects, US 93 was eventually going to be fully 4-lanes divided in any case. Ranches can still be accessed via RIRO's separated from the main carriageway -- similar to the TX King Ranch segment of I-69E.
And the Wickieup situation doesn't really need a bypass arcing away from the relatively compact business area; there's enough ROW easement along the current route to place a 4-lane freeway with parallel frontage roads to serve the local businesses, with 2 or 3 grade separation structures required to effect this. A quixotic "status quo or nothing" stance on the part of the town would be rendered unnecessary. It's likely any contrarian stance from this town is simply an initial establishment of bargaining rules regarding just how a freeway there would be configured. I'll agree with the previous post that completely ignoring towns such as this is inappropriate; steps need to be taken to make sure that any new freeway facility preserves as much as possible traveler access to the town's roadside businesses. Travelers need services in remote locations such as this; Wickieup is the logical place along this stretch of highway to locate such facilities -- but a Arizona version of Breezewood is hardly necessary!
ADOT can plan a freeway all the way down to Guaymas if they want -- but political support extending to D.C. seems to end at Casa Grande. I-11 from that point NW to I-10 west of Buckeye is intended to accomplish two things: provide a line along which to place development in the Maricopa area -- as well as giving ADOT the opportunity to raise a giant middle finger to the Gila reservation -- the I-11 corridor neatly bypasses both Phoenix and Gila land. This allows through E-W traffic now either confined to I-10 or a "jog" on AZ 85 south to Gila Bend and then east on I-8 to have an alternative that more efficiently bypasses greater PHX, providing an overall capacity increase from I-10 alone, the expansion of which is unlikely on Gila property.
As I iterated above, ADOT can plan whatever they like down to the border; but unless Tucson folks press for a new freeway facility paralleling both I-10 and I-19, it's likely -- despite any and all posturing otherwise -- that the corridor, at least for the near and medium terms -- will terminate at or near Casa Grande. Any plans further south are just ADOT and their legislative handlers tipping their respective hats to the developers who pay the re-election bills.
Quote from: sparker on May 20, 2018, 03:00:36 AM
ADOT can plan a freeway all the way down to Guaymas if they want -- but political support extending to D.C. seems to end at Casa Grande. I-11 from that point NW to I-10 west of Buckeye is intended to accomplish two things: provide a line along which to place development in the Maricopa area -- as well as giving ADOT the opportunity to raise a giant middle finger to the Gila reservation -- the I-11 corridor neatly bypasses both Phoenix and Gila land. This allows through E-W traffic now either confined to I-10 or a "jog" on AZ 85 south to Gila Bend and then east on I-8 to have an alternative that more efficiently bypasses greater PHX, providing an overall capacity increase from I-10 alone, the expansion of which is unlikely on Gila property.
Why is this? Does ADOT need to get approval from the Gilas to do something with the road? Is there a reason the Gilas wouldn't want I-10 to be expanded to three lanes each direction?
Quote from: sparker on May 20, 2018, 03:00:36 AM
As I iterated above, ADOT can plan whatever they like down to the border; but unless Tucson folks press for a new freeway facility paralleling both I-10 and I-19, it's likely -- despite any and all posturing otherwise -- that the corridor, at least for the near and medium terms -- will terminate at or near Casa Grande. Any plans further south are just ADOT and their legislative handlers tipping their respective hats to the developers who pay the re-election bills.
Why would Tucson press for a parallel facility to I-19? That would result in Nogales-bound traffic bypassing Tucson.
Quote from: US 89 on May 20, 2018, 09:44:41 AM
Quote from: sparker on May 20, 2018, 03:00:36 AM
ADOT can plan a freeway all the way down to Guaymas if they want -- but political support extending to D.C. seems to end at Casa Grande. I-11 from that point NW to I-10 west of Buckeye is intended to accomplish two things: provide a line along which to place development in the Maricopa area -- as well as giving ADOT the opportunity to raise a giant middle finger to the Gila reservation -- the I-11 corridor neatly bypasses both Phoenix and Gila land. This allows through E-W traffic now either confined to I-10 or a "jog" on AZ 85 south to Gila Bend and then east on I-8 to have an alternative that more efficiently bypasses greater PHX, providing an overall capacity increase from I-10 alone, the expansion of which is unlikely on Gila property.
Why is this? Does ADOT need to get approval from the Gilas to do something with the road? Is there a reason the Gilas wouldn't want I-10 to be expanded to three lanes each direction?
They don't, unless the road runs on Reservation land. The GRIC, like the other Native American governments, controls its own land, and has been in a pissing contest for years over the Loop 202 alignment through Ahwatukee (a Phoenix city councilman who was trying to line his pockets at their expense didn't help matters any). The highway is being built, and they're still angry about it.
QuoteQuote from: sparker on May 20, 2018, 03:00:36 AM
As I iterated above, ADOT can plan whatever they like down to the border; but unless Tucson folks press for a new freeway facility paralleling both I-10 and I-19, it's likely -- despite any and all posturing otherwise -- that the corridor, at least for the near and medium terms -- will terminate at or near Casa Grande. Any plans further south are just ADOT and their legislative handlers tipping their respective hats to the developers who pay the re-election bills.
Why would Tucson press for a parallel facility to I-19? That would result in Nogales-bound traffic bypassing Tucson.
They wouldn't. Tucson hates freeways as much as Phoenix did in the 1960s and '70s.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on May 20, 2018, 11:28:36 AM
Quote from: US 89 on May 20, 2018, 09:44:41 AM
Quote from: sparker on May 20, 2018, 03:00:36 AM
ADOT can plan a freeway all the way down to Guaymas if they want -- but political support extending to D.C. seems to end at Casa Grande. I-11 from that point NW to I-10 west of Buckeye is intended to accomplish two things: provide a line along which to place development in the Maricopa area -- as well as giving ADOT the opportunity to raise a giant middle finger to the Gila reservation -- the I-11 corridor neatly bypasses both Phoenix and Gila land. This allows through E-W traffic now either confined to I-10 or a "jog" on AZ 85 south to Gila Bend and then east on I-8 to have an alternative that more efficiently bypasses greater PHX, providing an overall capacity increase from I-10 alone, the expansion of which is unlikely on Gila property.
Why is this? Does ADOT need to get approval from the Gilas to do something with the road? Is there a reason the Gilas wouldn't want I-10 to be expanded to three lanes each direction?
They don't, unless the road runs on Reservation land. The GRIC, like the other Native American governments, controls its own land, and has been in a pissing contest for years over the Loop 202 alignment through Ahwatukee (a Phoenix city councilman who was trying to line his pockets at their expense didn't help matters any). The highway is being built, and they're still angry about it.
QuoteQuote from: sparker on May 20, 2018, 03:00:36 AM
As I iterated above, ADOT can plan whatever they like down to the border; but unless Tucson folks press for a new freeway facility paralleling both I-10 and I-19, it's likely -- despite any and all posturing otherwise -- that the corridor, at least for the near and medium terms -- will terminate at or near Casa Grande. Any plans further south are just ADOT and their legislative handlers tipping their respective hats to the developers who pay the re-election bills.
Why would Tucson press for a parallel facility to I-19? That would result in Nogales-bound traffic bypassing Tucson.
They wouldn't. Tucson hates freeways as much as Phoenix did in the 1960s and '70s.
On the issue of widening I-10 to 6 lanes thru the GRIC - Is there a reason ADOT couldn't add the 2 new lanes in the existing median, wholly within the existing ROW? Would the GRIC still have veto power over that?
Quote from: SSR_317 on May 21, 2018, 11:45:39 AM
On the issue of widening I-10 to 6 lanes thru the GRIC - Is there a reason ADOT couldn't add the 2 new lanes in the existing median, wholly within the existing ROW? Would the GRIC still have veto power over that?
I believe they would, yes.
i feel like this proposed location for i-11 will just spur more urban sprawl where its not needed (the desert)
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 21, 2018, 03:25:36 PM
i feel like this proposed location for i-11 will just spur more urban sprawl where its not needed (the desert)
I think so too. Arizona still has serious water problems that they're in denial about. Their water is not replacing itself fast enough for the people Arizona has now, without trying to build more empty sand subdivisions. They're likely to be calling Uncle Sugar to bail them out somehow within 10-20 years. The least we can do now is not make the problem worse by encouraging sprawl.
Is Arizona genuinely running out, or "running out" like California?
In CA, if the agricultural growers switched to drip irrigation and residential/commercial properties cut back on landscape watering, California's water situation appears to not be really that bad. Good management is needed.
But I can see the argument that Phoenix could, legitimately, run out of water -- like nothing coming out of the tap running out. But is that actually the case? (I've never lived in Arizona).
Quote from: i-215 on May 21, 2018, 04:36:16 PM
Is Arizona genuinely running out, or "running out" like California?
In CA, if the agricultural growers switched to drip irrigation and residential/commercial properties cut back on landscape watering, California's water situation appears to not be really that bad. Good management is needed.
But I can see the argument that Phoenix could, legitimately, run out of water -- like nothing coming out of the tap running out. But is that actually the case? (I've never lived in Arizona).
given the water agreements, and the unreliable flow of the colorado, yes it could happen. arizona is last to get water when the red line is crossed (water level of lake mead)
No Southwestern city will run out of water.
Phoenix, for example, could pump its treated effluent back into the Colorado and get credited for that (as Las Vegas already does). Or, Phoenix or Las Vegas could "buy" California's water by building a desalination plant and increasing its Colorado consumption to match. (The Carlsbad facility makes about 50,000 acre-feet a year, which is about 2 months' of Las Vegas' Colorado consumption).
Water is too cheap in the desert. The Republican government has slashed infrastructure funding, so gone are the days when Arizona could get a $5 billion straw to the Colorado for $2 billion in local match. Point is, at some point, the Colorado won't be sufficient, and it's going to increase the cost of living in the desert to match with the reality of having that many people with that little water. Capitalism, baby!
Phoenix also has four lakes(Saguaro, Canyon, Apache, and Roosevelt), created by damming up the Salt River, that hold much of our water supply. They get the rain and snow runoff from the mountains upstate. We are in no danger of running out of water.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on May 21, 2018, 08:27:55 PM
Phoenix also has four lakes(Saguaro, Canyon, Apache, and Roosevelt), created by damming up the Salt River, that hold much of our water supply. They get the rain and snow runoff from the mountains upstate. We are in no danger of running out of water.
you say that now...
According to the ADOT website, construction on extending the US 93 divided highway segment from mile 161 to 166 is expected to begin in 2025.
https://www.azdot.gov/projects/northwest-district-projects/us-93-corridor-projects/map
Quote from: AZDude on May 22, 2018, 01:43:20 PM
According to the ADOT website, construction on extending the US 93 divided highway segment from mile 161 to 166 is expected to begin in 2025.
https://www.azdot.gov/projects/northwest-district-projects/us-93-corridor-projects/map
That's the "Big Jim Wash" segment, if I recall correctly. Will connect to the existing 4-lane "Santa Maria River" section at the north end.
I also show that the US 93 segment known as "The Gap" (formerly known as "Vista Royale") between reference post (RP) 190.5 & 193.5 is presently in design this year & scheduled for construction in 2020. That section is just south of where I-11 is tentatively planned to break away from the existing US 93 alignment (around RP 190 or so) and bypass Wickenburg to the west. Sure hope that when it's finally built, the Wickenburg Bypass will have a spur south of town (I-711, perhaps?) over to US 60/Grand Ave, possibly connecting at SR 74. Otherwise, I-11 will most likely be totally useless for people/commercial interests in the northern portions of the Valley until it joins US 93 northbound at the point mentioned above (north of Wickenburg).
Quote from: SSR_317 on May 22, 2018, 02:57:58 PM
Quote from: AZDude on May 22, 2018, 01:43:20 PM
According to the ADOT website, construction on extending the US 93 divided highway segment from mile 161 to 166 is expected to begin in 2025.
https://www.azdot.gov/projects/northwest-district-projects/us-93-corridor-projects/map
That's the "Big Jim Wash" segment, if I recall correctly. Will connect to the existing 4-lane "Santa Maria River" section at the north end.
I also show that the US 93 segment known as "The Gap" (formerly known as "Vista Royale") between reference post (RP) 190.5 & 193.5 is presently in design this year & scheduled for construction in 2020. That section is just south of where I-11 is tentatively planned to break away from the existing US 93 alignment (around RP 190 or so) and bypass Wickenburg to the west. Sure hope that when it's finally built, the Wickenburg Bypass will have a spur south of town (I-711, perhaps?) over to US 60/Grand Ave, possibly connecting at SR 74. Otherwise, I-11 will most likely be totally useless for people/commercial interests in the northern portions of the Valley until it joins US 93 northbound at the point mentioned above (north of Wickenburg).
Given AZDOT's longstanding allergy to 3di's, it's likely that any spur extending east from the I-11 alignment (once finalized!?) will simply be signed as US 60 or even AZ 74 (depending upon whether US 60 is itself rerouted over part of the Wickenburg bypass or maintains its present in-town routing).
But I'll acknowledge that an I-711 would be an appropriate location for a cluster of convenience stores! :-P
Quote from: sparker on May 22, 2018, 03:53:38 PM
Quote from: SSR_317 on May 22, 2018, 02:57:58 PM
Quote from: AZDude on May 22, 2018, 01:43:20 PM
According to the ADOT website, construction on extending the US 93 divided highway segment from mile 161 to 166 is expected to begin in 2025.
https://www.azdot.gov/projects/northwest-district-projects/us-93-corridor-projects/map
That's the "Big Jim Wash" segment, if I recall correctly. Will connect to the existing 4-lane "Santa Maria River" section at the north end.
I also show that the US 93 segment known as "The Gap" (formerly known as "Vista Royale") between reference post (RP) 190.5 & 193.5 is presently in design this year & scheduled for construction in 2020. That section is just south of where I-11 is tentatively planned to break away from the existing US 93 alignment (around RP 190 or so) and bypass Wickenburg to the west. Sure hope that when it's finally built, the Wickenburg Bypass will have a spur south of town (I-711, perhaps?) over to US 60/Grand Ave, possibly connecting at SR 74. Otherwise, I-11 will most likely be totally useless for people/commercial interests in the northern portions of the Valley until it joins US 93 northbound at the point mentioned above (north of Wickenburg).
Given AZDOT's longstanding allergy to 3di's, it's likely that any spur extending east from the I-11 alignment (once finalized!?) will simply be signed as US 60 or even AZ 74 (depending upon whether US 60 is itself rerouted over part of the Wickenburg bypass or maintains its present in-town routing).
But I'll acknowledge that an I-711 would be an appropriate location for a cluster of convenience stores! :-P
Not to mention craps players!
I think the grandiose I-11 plans they have for the Phoenix and Tuscon metros, with a parallel Interstate route clear down to Nogales no less, are a giant pipe dream. I'm skeptical the Loop 404 will ever take hold, and if it does it may consist of just a modest 2-lane standard access highway. I think the best shot I-11 has at linking into Phoenix within the foreseeable future is just getting I-11 to Loop 303 via US-60/US-93 and then multiplexing I-11 along Loop 303 down to I-10. And that's it. I think all the other extra plans, especially anything involving Tucson or routes clear down to the Mexico border are desperately wishful thinking.
Arizona may have enough water to handle more residents. But water is not the worst problem. Money is it. The cost of living, the cost of raising a family (rather than just going it alone) is getting flat out ridiculous and into mathematically unsustainable territory. Yet these planners are acting like the current economy and growth trends can stay on the same track, uninterrupted, for decades into the future. All I can do is laugh at that. Just this past week news headlines mentioned the US has hit a new low in fertility rate for the 2nd year in a row. If this turns into a long term trend there will be considerably fewer working age taxpayers and home buyers in the 20-30 year time frames in which these planners are currently, blissfully dreaming.
Decades ahead urban areas will keep adding population, but that growth will be all at the expense of smaller cities, towns and rural areas. Many of those towns will be less able to fund infrastructure, police & fire departments and other services we take for granted. Inflation and aging residents will see to that. Even more and more older people will be forced closer to cities for access to health care.
In the long run I think an Interstate 11 directly linking Las Vegas and Phoenix will become a reality. There's no reason for it not to happen. As of the latest census estimates the Phoenix MSA has 4.7 million people. And the Las Vegas MSA is 2.2 million. The distance between the two metros is roughly 270 miles. So it's at least justifiable to upgrade the US-93 and US-60 corridors to Interstate quality.
As for the stuff to the South, I think that's overkill. It might be worth it to upgrade AZ-85 to Interstate quality between Gila Bend and Buckeye (I-8 to I-10). Expansions of Loop 202 and Loop 303 in Phoenix are worthwhile. Tucson needs some additional freeway work. However working I-11 into all of that is just nuts, especially stretching it all the way down to the border. Texas is growing like crazy in some parts, adding residents at a much faster clip than Arizona, yet there are no concrete plans to build new Interstate corridors where the most growth is taking place. In Texas it all seems to be about various I-69 routes while areas along the I-35 corridor are bursting at the seams.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 23, 2018, 01:11:18 AM
I think the grandiose I-11 plans they have for the Phoenix and Tuscon metros, with a parallel Interstate route clear down to Nogales no less, are a giant pipe dream. I'm skeptical the Loop 404 will ever take hold, and if it does it may consist of just a modest 2-lane standard access highway. I think the best shot I-11 has at linking into Phoenix within the foreseeable future is just getting I-11 to Loop 303 via US-60/US-93 and then multiplexing I-11 along Loop 303 down to I-10. And that's it. I think all the other extra plans, especially anything involving Tucson or routes clear down to the Mexico border are desperately wishful thinking.
Arizona may have enough water to handle more residents. But water is not the worst problem. Money is it. The cost of living, the cost of raising a family (rather than just going it alone) is getting flat out ridiculous and into mathematically unsustainable territory. Yet these planners are acting like the current economy and growth trends can stay on the same track, uninterrupted, for decades into the future. All I can do is laugh at that. Just this past week news headlines mentioned the US has hit a new low in fertility rate for the 2nd year in a row. If this turns into a long term trend there will be considerably fewer working age taxpayers and home buyers in the 20-30 year time frames in which these planners are currently, blissfully dreaming.
Decades ahead urban areas will keep adding population, but that growth will be all at the expense of smaller cities, towns and rural areas. Many of those towns will be less able to fund infrastructure, police & fire departments and other services we take for granted. Inflation and aging residents will see to that. Even more and more older people will be forced closer to cities for access to health care.
In the long run I think an Interstate 11 directly linking Las Vegas and Phoenix will become a reality. There's no reason for it not to happen. As of the latest census estimates the Phoenix MSA has 4.7 million people. And the Las Vegas MSA is 2.2 million. The distance between the two metros is roughly 270 miles. So it's at least justifiable to upgrade the US-93 and US-60 corridors to Interstate quality.
As for the stuff to the South, I think that's overkill. It might be worth it to upgrade AZ-85 to Interstate quality between Gila Bend and Buckeye (I-8 to I-10). Expansions of Loop 202 and Loop 303 in Phoenix are worthwhile. Tucson needs some additional freeway work. However working I-11 into all of that is just nuts, especially stretching it all the way down to the border. Texas is growing like crazy in some parts, adding residents at a much faster clip than Arizona, yet there are no concrete plans to build new Interstate corridors where the most growth is taking place. In Texas it all seems to be about various I-69 routes while areas along the I-35 corridor are bursting at the seams.
texas is too busy adding more letter suffixes to 69
Like I iterated before, it's likely that I-11 will eventually extend as a southwest loop around Phoenix because (a) local developers want an artery in areas where they're planning to build (for better or worse) and they have the state legislature, and through them AZDOT, more or less under their thumb as far as funding and support are concerned; and (b) the loop circumvents the Gila reservation, providing an alternate through-traffic artery and thus ameliorating (if not solving) the issues regarding expanding I-10 through their territory. Southward beyond that is simply a pipedream, cobbled together by wishful thinking regarding a Tucson bypass (which will probably never happen) and projections of vastly increased commerce to and from Nogales (even though the over-the-border maquiledora manufacturing strategy has been largely supplanted by even more inexpensive Asian manufacturing). Anything south of the I-8/10 junction likely won't happen in at least the next 30-35 years.
After reading this thread again, I thought I'd add some more input.
Interstate 11 south of the Valley is absolutely unnecessary. If you want to make this a trade corridor, why not improve existing I-10 and I-19? Sure, I get that there's still the issue of I-10 on the GRIC where it can't be widened, but finding a way to come to some kind of agreement with the GRIC to expand that road is a far better solution than building a whole new freeway that isn't needed. Another idea: why not four-lane AZ 86 and 85 between Tucson and Gila Bend?
Using Interstate 11 as part of a bypass of Phoenix on I-10 would be helpful, but again, there's better ways to accomplish that without using the Interstate. Really all that needs to be done is an improvement of the intersection with I-8 and remove the stoplight at MC85 (and replace it with a diamond interchange), and functionally it works almost just as well as an Interstate. You could even improve Aguila/Vulture Mine Road as an SR 85 extension; it's already a paved road that seems to be in pretty good condition and I don't imagine much would need to be done to bring it to state highway standards.
The main purpose of Interstate 11 is to connect the cities of Las Vegas, Nevada and Phoenix, Arizona. Routing I-11 to meet I-10 in Buckeye or Tonopah only partially accomplishes this and adds miles to the trip that do not need to be added. The freeway needs to be routed down US 60 to meet L303 on the edge of Surprise (which, oddly enough, is still a good 20 miles from the "city core" and literally on the far fringe of current development), and down to I-10 using the current L303. Maybe to avoid the railroad, build the freeway parallel to US60 about a mile to the northeast? I get that it would be redundant, but with the railroad in the way, it might be the best option.
As far as north of Las Vegas goes....I guess sending it to Reno might make sense, but north of that I'm not sure.
Quote from: howlincoyote2k1 on July 05, 2018, 12:53:13 PM
After reading this thread again, I thought I'd add some more input.
Interstate 11 south of the Valley is absolutely unnecessary. If you want to make this a trade corridor, why not improve existing I-10 and I-19? Sure, I get that there's still the issue of I-10 on the GRIC where it can't be widened, but finding a way to come to some kind of agreement with the GRIC to expand that road is a far better solution than building a whole new freeway that isn't needed. Another idea: why not four-lane AZ 86 and 85 between Tucson and Gila Bend?
Using Interstate 11 as part of a bypass of Phoenix on I-10 would be helpful, but again, there's better ways to accomplish that without using the Interstate. Really all that needs to be done is an improvement of the intersection with I-8 and remove the stoplight at MC85 (and replace it with a diamond interchange), and functionally it works almost just as well as an Interstate. You could even improve Aguila/Vulture Mine Road as an SR 85 extension; it's already a paved road that seems to be in pretty good condition and I don't imagine much would need to be done to bring it to state highway standards.
The main purpose of Interstate 11 is to connect the cities of Las Vegas, Nevada and Phoenix, Arizona. Routing I-11 to meet I-10 in Buckeye or Tonopah only partially accomplishes this and adds miles to the trip that do not need to be added. The freeway needs to be routed down US 60 to meet L303 on the edge of Surprise (which, oddly enough, is still a good 20 miles from the "city core" and literally on the far fringe of current development), and down to I-10 using the current L303. Maybe to avoid the railroad, build the freeway parallel to US60 about a mile to the northeast? I get that it would be redundant, but with the railroad in the way, it might be the best option.
As far as north of Las Vegas goes....I guess sending it to Reno might make sense, but north of that I'm not sure.
Pretty much agreed on all counts, particularly the concept of
actually serving the more populated areas of greater PHX via a route that utilizes the N-S section of Loop 303 rather than a "side-trip" over to Hassayampa and Buckeye. In a more perfect world, I-11 would terminate at I-10 -- period. But in the developmental world of that neck of the woods, the motto seems to be "expand or die" -- and expansion into previously untapped territory has been the hallmark of the region for as long as I can remember. If the Hassayampa alignment is retained, the best and most efficient way to extend it further south is simply to multiplex it east over I-10 to AZ 85 and then upgrade that route (which is specifically designed for such) down to Gila Bend and I-8. The only reason to shunt it over to Maricopa is, as previously iterated, to provide an artery for developers to use on the territory south and west of the Gila reservation. But it's likely that the only thing that would prompt either a Loop 303 or AZ 85 reroute of I-11 would be a significant slowdown of developmental activity in the area, itself prompted by less and less folks moving in. As long as commercial/real estate activity in the area is geared toward the "churning" of housing, including establishing large tracts in outlying areas that have historically been relatively quick sales -- the regional "model" will persist, along with plans to deploy highway facilities to serve it. If the "gravy train" of inbound residents slows down, more measured and reasonable plans -- utilizing existing facilities where possible -- might take hold; if not, then expect to see the same speculative planning that has gone on for the past several decades. I hate to sound overly cynical -- but while there's that "gravy train" flowing, planners -- in & out of the public sector -- will simply continue to ride it!
And as far as extending I-11 past I-80/Reno -- that will all depend upon if & when a particular state or region wants the extension more -- be it Oregon, the Boise area, etc. It's likely NV will merely go along with plans fomented elsewhere. But no one should hold their breath -- except for the Boise/Treasure Valley area reached via US 95, huge population growth in the Northwest isn't something that's anticipated or planned for. I think the results of the 2020 census will have a lot to do with where I-11 goes; if that part of Idaho exceeds 1M then, there may be a push for increased connectivity, particularly to the southwest. Even with other "boom towns" in the NW (I'm thinking Bend, OR and environs), it's unlikely that any region not already well established will exceed 200-250K -- pretty marginal for service by a new long-distance Interstate corridor. If and when I-11 is actually constructed north of Vegas, it's northern terminus -- unless something like that mentioned above intervenes -- will be somewhere along I-80 (my money's on something within 10 miles of Fernley).
As for the stuff to the South, I think that's overkill. It might be worth it to upgrade AZ-85 to Interstate quality between Gila Bend and Buckeye (I-8 to I-10). Expansions of Loop 202 and Loop 303 in Phoenix are worthwhile. Tucson needs some additional freeway work. However working I-11 into all of that is just nuts, especially stretching it all the way down to the border. Texas is growing like crazy in some parts, adding residents at a much faster clip than Arizona, yet there are no concrete plans to build new Interstate corridors where the most growth is taking place. In Texas it all seems to be about various I-69 routes while areas along the I-35 corridor are bursting at the seams.
[/quote]
"Tucson needs some additional work" Yes, amen to that. It actually needs a lot. There was a median crossover on I-10 on the east side yesterday, between exits 270 and 273. The EB two lanes were closed down. All rush hour and through freight were pushed onto east side arterials that simply are terrible. Such as "hourglass" sections of surface road that morph from six lanes into the original two lane cross section. Valencia, Houghton, etc. And massive amounts of tractor trailers and rush hour traffic were pushed onto these. No frontages on I-10 there, no way to get around. An interesting question for ADOT might be: Why no barrier, from at least between the Sonoita Highway, and the Wilmot exit? Speeds are too high, and should be lowered to 65 mph west of Exit 281 into town from the east. Massive guardrail damage in evident in a short section of I-10 WB between 279 and 275 exits. No seeming desire to repair or even warn with advance signage. Any liability there? Would assume that they (ADOT), and transportation agencies in general, have immunity from liability in such crossover incidents, and guardrail damage incidents such as these.
Quote from: DJStephens on July 07, 2018, 11:29:06 AM
"Tucson needs some additional work" Yes, amen to that. It actually needs a lot. There was a median crossover on I-10 on the east side yesterday, between exits 270 and 273. The EB two lanes were closed down. All rush hour and through freight were pushed onto east side arterials that simply are terrible. Such as "hourglass" sections of surface road that morph from six lanes into the original two lane cross section. Valencia, Houghton, etc. And massive amounts of tractor trailers and rush hour traffic were pushed onto these. No frontages on I-10 there, no way to get around. An interesting question for ADOT might be: Why no barrier, from at least between the Sonoita Highway, and the Wilmot exit? Speeds are too high, and should be lowered to 65 mph west of Exit 281 into town from the east. Massive guardrail damage in evident in a short section of I-10 WB between 279 and 275 exits. No seeming desire to repair or even warn with advance signage. Any liability there? Would assume that they (ADOT), and transportation agencies in general, have immunity from liability in such crossover incidents, and guardrail damage incidents such as these.
Simply put, there's no push from Tucson or area interests to place additional Interstate-grade facilities in the region. The odds of I-11 ever extending south past Casa Grande are slim & none -- the rationales for such just don't hold up. Northwest of there are the previously mentioned developmental pressures to build up pretty much all buildable areas that aren't within the Gila reservation; any extension of I-11 south of I-10 is functionally the "main street" of such ambitions. Beyond Casa Grande, that particular interest wanes with simple distance and diminishing lack of influence. Besides, there may be federal pushback on any additional service routes to the Mexican border -- the Border Patrol/ICE may just bitch like hell about the possibility of having to expend manpower and their facility budget on any new high-capacity roads serving border crossings.
There does need to be a complete rebuild of Interstate 10, east of downtown Tucson, just as there has been to the west of downtown Tucson. However, there is a lot more traffic heading west, towards Phoenix, so the upgrades west of downtown do make sense.
All of the interchanges east of the early nineties six lane project just east of I-19, are original, mid to late sixties. The only things that have been changed, are the overlay of the original concrete pavement (which was still visible in mid nineties) and the changeover to the Clearview signage on original overhead gantries. Several "merge or die" interchanges exist - the wB on ramp at the Kino Parkway / Ajo way interchange, and the EB half cloverleaf at the Palo Verde interchange. And one original bridge (steel girder, concrete round piers and pier cap) at Alvernon Way appears to have been replaced. With a box beam design, with allowance for widening into the median, for a six lane cross section, which is not being utilized.
The Wilmot and Craycroft bridge redeckings have not added a future lane to the inside, nor do there seem to be even bearing seat provisions for such on the backwalls which appear to not be part of the bridge reconstructions. Redecking original two lane cross sections only.
Posters based closer to Tucson may be able to either confirm or debunk this statement, but the last several times I used I-10 east of Tucson it seemed that once past Vail the facility seemed to deteriorate the closer to Benson one got! The RR overpasses seemed to be the worst of the lot -- narrow lanes and what seemed to be very old structure. Compounding the problem was the constant truck traffic; a number of commercial drivers seemed to know just where the dips, ruts, and potholes were and were constantly changing lanes ostensibly to avoid these. IMO, AZDOT needs to get out there, assess the situation, and get remedial contracts let sooner than later. It has been nearly a decade since I've been on I-10 out that way; if the condition has markedly improved, it certainly would be good news!
Quote from: sparker on July 15, 2018, 02:33:26 AMPosters based closer to Tucson may be able to either confirm or debunk this statement, but the last several times I used I-10 east of Tucson it seemed that once past Vail the facility seemed to deteriorate the closer to Benson one got! The RR overpasses seemed to be the worst of the lot -- narrow lanes and what seemed to be very old structure.
The one that sticks out in my mind as the worst by far--Marsh Station, just east of Tucson--has been reconstructed out of existence in the last five years. I believe the railroad line through the area was relocated. Previously the speed limit dropped to 65 as the I-10 roadbed narrowed to pass underneath the railroad (complete with interrupted shoulders and a center median barrier with green headlight screen); now geometry is easy and the speed limit stays 75.
Truck traffic is still heavy and blowing dust is much more of a problem now than it has been in the past, largely because of one plot of land near San Simon which is being seriously mismanaged by an absentee owner based in Atlanta. There are new flashing signs for low visibility and there is also an extended zone around the San Simon POE where lane changing is prohibited (double white stripe).
The reason it seems old - is the fact that the EB side is the pre-existing two lane Benson Highway. When the 10 facility was funded and built in the area (MP 282 - 290, roughly '69 - '70) it placed a new carriageway for the WB lanes, with a varying median. Between it, and the older Benson highway, which became the EB side lanes. The older two lane (EB) was not re-built, with greater cuts and fills. Guess it could be called "virginia twinning" by some on this site.
The worst section, the original marsh station road exit (289) was moved a mile and a half to the E, to become exit 291, and the railroad was straightened by placing it entirely to the north. The steel plate girder RR overpass was removed, and new twin bridges were built for 10 over the Cienega Creek, which is an oasis for plants and birds in the desert. The agency did provide for a future third lane in each direction, oddly way out in the desert, while they aren't now, in the east side of tucson on wilmot and craycroft.
The other RR set of bridges still exists, which is a pair of bridges over the former RR mainline just W of exit 292. This former RR mainline is now used as a spur for storage. This is just W of the Empirita road exit (292), which is another old ranch access exit.
The varying width wide median is very good, and eliminates glare, and allows use of high beams late at night without affecting oncoming traffic. A major arroyo (wash) crossing, Davidson Canyon, has had it's pair of bridges either completely repaired, or replaced. But no provision for a third lane, on either of them. And they are further west, closer to Tucson.
Don't believe that three laning is warranted, east of the Sonoita highway, exit 281. Aside from truck climbing lanes in the Benson area. But complete reconstruction should be done, from there, all the way to the western edge of the early nineties six lane project near milepost 262. The roller coaster EB section, in the ranch land is kind of neat, and should be left alone for the time being.
I do know that UPRR recently revised their trackage between Vail & Benson. The original configuration, which wound around the I-10 lanes like braiding, was a result of the line originally being two separate but parallel railroads -- the original Southern Pacific, which essentially follows I-10 (and old AZ 86 before that) via Willcox, and the El Paso & Southwestern, which veered south at Benson, paralleling old US 80 (now AZ 80) via Douglas en route to El Paso, mostly hugging the Mexican border (but an SP subsidiary after 1924). Those tracks were abandoned as a through line in the early '80's after the Staggers Act made such abandonment an easier process; SP upgraded the Willcox line to handle the additional traffic. But because of the gradients, the twin RR lines from Vail to Benson were retained until recently, when the line was straightened out to better accommodate exceptionally long container trains (slow going with those on the old "braided" alignment). However, from the above accounts, the old track that variously ducked under & over I-10 still remains but is now a storage loop, which would account for the original US 80 bridges remaining. Another thing I recall from various trips on that stretch is that the approaches to those bridges had settled; leaving a substantial "bump" in the roadway at each end of the bridge structure. Correcting/upgrading those substandard features would likely have to be a joint project of AZDOT and UPRR; whether the latter actually needs that old trackage or is simply utilizing it for convenience will probably be discussed -- elimination of that track would go a long way to simplifying a long-overdue realignment of I-10 itself.
Personally I'd have Interstate 11's southern terminus be at Interstate 10. Is there really a need for it to go any further south?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 16, 2018, 03:46:44 PM
Personally I'd have Interstate 11's southern terminus be at Interstate 10. Is there really a need for it to go any further south?
Not really. Unless you want to run it diagonally through Maricopa to Casa Grande (which could be useful, but a bit overkill), but I'm having trouble finding a reasonable route to do so while avoiding populated areas and the GRIC.
Edit: I just looked again. You also have the Estrella Mountains and Sonoran Desert NM in the way too. You'd have to swing west and south of Maricopa to connect the freeway, and there's a lot of agricultural/rural communities out that way. Folks living way out in the boonies. The mileage savings over Interstate 8 and AZ 85 to bypass Phoenix would be limited, and the costs wouldn't be worth. So, to answer your question...no, there really is no need for it to go further south.
However, I will say that the Maricopa/Casa Grande highway ought to be a four-lane 65 MPH extension of AZ 238. Two cities like this approaching 50K in population need more than a two-lane county road as its direct connector. Heck, at this point you could renumber the whole road as AZ 284 or 687 or something.
Quote from: howlincoyote2k1 on July 16, 2018, 05:21:23 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 16, 2018, 03:46:44 PM
Personally I'd have Interstate 11's southern terminus be at Interstate 10. Is there really a need for it to go any further south?
Not really. Unless you want to run it diagonally through Maricopa to Casa Grande (which could be useful, but a bit overkill), but I'm having trouble finding a reasonable route to do so while avoiding populated areas and the GRIC.
Edit: I just looked again. You also have the Estrella Mountains and Sonoran Desert NM in the way too. You'd have to swing west and south of Maricopa to connect the freeway, and there's a lot of agricultural/rural communities out that way. Folks living way out in the boonies. The mileage savings over Interstate 8 and AZ 85 to bypass Phoenix would be limited, and the costs wouldn't be worth. So, to answer your question...no, there really is no need for it to go further south.
However, I will say that the Maricopa/Casa Grande highway ought to be a four-lane 65 MPH extension of AZ 238. Two cities like this approaching 50K in population need more than a two-lane county road as its direct connector. Heck, at this point you could renumber the whole road as AZ 284 or 687 or something.
The interregional aspect of I-11 ends at its
first intersection with I-10 after coming south from Wickenburg -- wherever that ends up. Any extension south or southeast beyond that (unless simply replacing AZ 85 south to Gila Bend) is a connector within the greater PHX urban area and intended to serve as a location along which to site development (housing and the associated commercial activities). The practical limitations of such an extension are at either I-8 or I-10 in the Casa Grande area; any extension south of there parallel to I-10 and I-19 is simply a gratuitous reading of the I-11 authorizing language, likely fomented by frustrated Tucson-area developers looking for an additional corridor to "sprawl" upon. It certainly wouldn't be justified by the volume of commercial traffic crossing the Nogales border.
If the Buckeye-Casa Grande extension of I-11 is cancelled or remains unfunded, then it's more than likely that an arterial or expressway following the UP tracks from the Estrellas southeast to Casa Grande would in time be constructed ; whether it would retain the AZ 238 designation of the current conventional facility or renumbered as a "child" of one of the nearby trunks (84, 87) remains to be seen. While not having the cachet of a full-fledged Interstate, such a corridor may well prove about as useful when it comes to nearby housing expansion -- and would certainly cost less! Face it -- if someone's looking for entry-level housing prices and such are offered in outlying areas, whether the closest road is an Interstate or state-designated expressway will only marginally matter -- the price will be the deciding factor (up here in the Bay Area we have a front row seat regarding that phenomenon!).
I'd go for I-11 using AZ 85 to the Gila Bend vicinity. Yes, the mileage savings compared to going through Phoenix would be small to none, but Phoenix traffic is congested. It would be a win both for people bypassing Phoenix not to have to go through it, and for the people who must drive Phoenix freeways to have the through traffic bypass the city.
Quote from: kkt on July 16, 2018, 07:00:10 PM
I'd go for I-11 using AZ 85 to the Gila Bend vicinity. Yes, the mileage savings compared to going through Phoenix would be small to none, but Phoenix traffic is congested. It would be a win both for people bypassing Phoenix not to have to go through it, and for the people who must drive Phoenix freeways to have the through traffic bypass the city.
Agree 110%!!!! However.....the developers who historically have driven the growth in greater PDX still hold sway, and they still want their "main street" down which to place housing, WalMarts, Costcos, Safeways.......you get the drift! Hopefully by the time I-11 actually creeps into the area, the local housing market will have subsided to the point where massive new development just isn't all that profitable -- and reason just might slink back into the picture. Hell, AZ 85 is
deliberately upgradeable (most likely as the enhancement of its current role as a PHX-San Diego artery); the I-11 planners would be fools not to take a look at it as a viable alternative.
Makes more sense to keep it on Grand Avenue. To Loop 101 most likely. To go any farther into Phoenix would take decades, although it would be a long term worthy goal.
They might be able to accomplish it bit by bit via zoning and minimum property setbacks. Existing property would be grandfathered. But many commercial properties have relatively short life spans and as they're replaced over the decades more room would open up for road expansion.
I'd be tickled pink to see I-11 extended parallel to US 60 just to Loop 303 (101 might be a "berm too far", so to speak). But as time goes by and infill along the Grand corridor happens, the Hassayampa option seems more likely. Farther south than I-10, although still a inked-in line on the map, is anyone's guess at this point as to whether it'll ever occur.
I'd love to see I-11 go to AZ 303 and take it to either I-10 or I-17, with the remainder becoming I-211; with what Arizona is planning now, would anyone really take I-10 to I-11 instead of US 60? My guess is no.
Quote from: vdeane on July 29, 2018, 05:21:39 PM
I'd love to see I-11 go to AZ 303 and take it to either I-10 or I-17, with the remainder becoming I-211; with what Arizona is planning now, would anyone really take I-10 to I-11 instead of US 60? My guess is no.
Other than for continuity, there is no reason whatsoever for Grand Ave. southeast of the 303 to be numbered as anything. The current route from the 303 to Wickenburg could be an extension of US 93. The section of US 60 west of Wickenburg could be an extension of AZ 74, which was its original number, BTW. There'd be a 10-mile multiplex between Morristown and Wickenburg. Or, the whole thing could be renumbered as AZ 60. They could do that today. Once I-11 is built, and if it's along Grand Ave., then US 93 would be decommissioned statewide, including this stretch.
And no, the northern section of what is now the 303 (Grand to I-17) will not be numbered I-211 if the southern section does become I-11. ADOT doesn't use 3DIs, and haven't done so, either actually signed (I-510, the I-10 to Buckeye Rd. section of the current AZ 51) or planned (I-710 in Tucson) for close to 50 years. They'll probably leave it as 303.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on July 29, 2018, 07:35:35 PM
Other than for continuity, there is no reason whatsoever for Grand Ave. southeast of the 303 to be numbered as anything. The current route from the 303 to Wickenburg could be an extension of US 93. The section of US 60 west of Wickenburg could be an extension of AZ 74, which was its original number, BTW. There'd be a 10-mile multiplex between Morristown and Wickenburg. Or, the whole thing could be renumbered as AZ 60. They could do that today. Once I-11 is built, and if it's along Grand Ave., then US 93 would be decommissioned statewide, including this stretch.
What does the numbering of Grand Avenue have to do with anything I said at all? I was pointing out the absurdity of diverting all the way down I-10 to Arizona's proposed location for I-11 over taking the existing route.
Quote
And no, the northern section of what is now the 303 (Grand to I-17) will not be numbered I-211 if the southern section does become I-11. ADOT doesn't use 3DIs, and haven't done so, either actually signed (I-510, the I-10 to Buckeye Rd. section of the current AZ 51) or planned (I-710 in Tucson) for close to 50 years. They'll probably leave it as 303.
Just because they haven't seen any need for 3dis doesn't mean they're banned or anything. I'd say, that if I-11 did go down AZ 303, that the section it didn't go down would be a glaring gap in the interstate system and thus SHOULD be an interstate (if I-11 went that way). I'm pretty sure there was also an official proposal for a 3di near I-19 if I-11 went there as well.
Quote from: DJStephens on July 28, 2018, 04:04:48 PM
Makes more sense to keep it on Grand Avenue. To Loop 101 most likely. To go any farther into Phoenix would take decades, although it would be a long term worthy goal.
No freeway will ever make it SE down Grand Ave all the way to Loop 101. The reason? Two words: Sun City. And one acronym: NIMBY!!!
Terminating at Loop 303 would be sufficient.
And the railroad.
That's why you have a left exit now at Bell.
Quote from: Zonie on August 06, 2018, 06:17:55 PM
And the railroad.
That's why you have a left exit now at Bell.
Yep. Grand was initially planned on being a full freeway from 17 all the way up to at least the 101 in the initial 1985 plans, but the costs of acquiring the right of way and the construction that would have been required killed those plans. Instead, we got the pseudo-interchanges where one of the three intersecting roads were elevated or depressed away from the other two. That is as close as we will ever get inside the 303 now that the Bell interchange is complete.
Quote from: DJStephens on July 28, 2018, 04:04:48 PM
Makes more sense to keep it on Grand Avenue. To Loop 101 most likely. To go any farther into Phoenix would take decades, although it would be a long term worthy goal.
I agree with that statement! I-17 would be a much better connection than I-10 far west of there. I mean, they can build the Hassayampa if they want, but I-11 ought to end in Phoenix.
Quote from: Henry on August 07, 2018, 11:05:19 AM
Quote from: DJStephens on July 28, 2018, 04:04:48 PM
Makes more sense to keep it on Grand Avenue. To Loop 101 most likely. To go any farther into Phoenix would take decades, although it would be a long term worthy goal.
I agree with that statement! I-17 would be a much better connection than I-10 far west of there. I mean, they can build the Hassayampa if they want, but I-11 ought to end in Phoenix.
IMO, the Hassayampa is simply a "developmental" corridor, designed to provide a place along which to put housing and any associated commercial development. That, and the prospects for extension SE into the Maricopa area, where it is intended to fulfill much the same role, are the only reasons why it's being seriously considered for I-11 to begin with. Ideally, I-11 would simply head SE
parallel to Grand Ave. down to Loop 303 and then utilize that route south to I-10. The portion of the Hassayampa south of I-10 could become a x10 PHX metro bypass (needed). But that combined scenario probably won't happen; PHX still functions as a metro area politically and economically geared toward constant expansion; outer loops like the Hassayampa are merely tools to be used toward this end.
Opening Day :D
Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on August 09, 2018, 11:10:25 AM
Opening Day :D
Great for Nevada. Now what is Arizona going to do to speed up any of the remaining widening projects for current US 93? Is Kingman going to be the next bad chokepoint (going southbound)?
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on August 09, 2018, 04:14:29 PM
Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on August 09, 2018, 11:10:25 AM
Opening Day :D
Great for Nevada. Now what is Arizona going to do to speed up any of the remaining widening projects for current US 93? Is Kingman going to be the next bad chokepoint (going southbound)?
I would like that to be Arizona's next big project, probably moreso than widening the remainder of US 93. That intersection is a simple diamond and woefully underpowered. However, there's just a lot of obstacles and development in the way that makes that complicated, so this will probably be the toughest stretch of I-11 Arizona would have to build.
Quote from: howlincoyote2k1 on August 09, 2018, 06:15:42 PM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on August 09, 2018, 04:14:29 PM
Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on August 09, 2018, 11:10:25 AM
Opening Day :D
Great for Nevada. Now what is Arizona going to do to speed up any of the remaining widening projects for current US 93? Is Kingman going to be the next bad chokepoint (going southbound)?
I would like that to be Arizona's next big project, probably moreso than widening the remainder of US 93. That intersection is a simple diamond and woefully underpowered. However, there's just a lot of obstacles and development in the way that makes that complicated, so this will probably be the toughest stretch of I-11 Arizona would have to build.
The last I heard the option west of US 93 and connecting with I-40 about a mile west of the present 40/93 NB interchange, was the preferred choice with both locals and AZDOT; it would essentially leave the businesses along present US 93 intact (a sticking point with a closer-in connection). This would connect with the existing short freeway section of US 93 that included the AZ 68 interchange.
That might be the way to go. It would look a bit strange on a map. The only thing is, even west (south?) of the Beale St interchange on I-40, the terrain is still very rugged and the road is still lined with steep cliffs that will need to be blown out...and if you go further south than more than a mile or two, it starts to be a bit too far out of the way to have any kind of benefit.
I'm really interested to see how ADOT works this out.
Quote from: howlincoyote2k1 on August 09, 2018, 06:15:42 PM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on August 09, 2018, 04:14:29 PM
Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on August 09, 2018, 11:10:25 AM
Opening Day :D
Great for Nevada. Now what is Arizona going to do to speed up any of the remaining widening projects for current US 93? Is Kingman going to be the next bad chokepoint (going southbound)?
I would like that to be Arizona's next big project, probably moreso than widening the remainder of US 93. That intersection is a simple diamond and woefully underpowered. However, there's just a lot of obstacles and development in the way that makes that complicated, so this will probably be the toughest stretch of I-11 Arizona would have to build.
It's already been a choke point for several years now. I drive it about once per month and particularly the northbound route is the worst. Over any heavy travel time like holiday weekends there are signs on I-40 westbound saying "US 93 heavy traffic ahead, expect delays". What seems to happen is the northbound 93 exit off of WB 40 backs up because of the stoplight at 93/Beale St. In addition, the first couple of gas stations on the east side of 93 get full and vehicles (particularly large RV's) will back up into the road trying to get in to line up for gas.
SB actually isn't as bad, unless there is an accident along Beale which happens often, then it's a disaster.
Quote from: howlincoyote2k1 on August 10, 2018, 03:18:23 PM
That might be the way to go. It would look a bit strange on a map. The only thing is, even west (south?) of the Beale St interchange on I-40, the terrain is still very rugged and the road is still lined with steep cliffs that will need to be blown out...and if you go further south than more than a mile or two, it starts to be a bit too far out of the way to have any kind of benefit.
I'm really interested to see how ADOT works this out.
They have already done the preliminary work on the routing/design for this junction. I have some of the documents, if you have specific questions I might be able to answer a few of them based on those plans.
Quote from: howlincoyote2k1 on August 09, 2018, 06:15:42 PM
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on August 09, 2018, 04:14:29 PM
Quote from: Interstate 69 Fan on August 09, 2018, 11:10:25 AM
Opening Day :D
Great for Nevada. Now what is Arizona going to do to speed up any of the remaining widening projects for current US 93? Is Kingman going to be the next bad chokepoint (going southbound)?
I would like that to be Arizona's next big project, probably moreso than widening the remainder of US 93. That intersection is a simple diamond and woefully underpowered. However, there's just a lot of obstacles and development in the way that makes that complicated, so this will probably be the toughest stretch of I-11 Arizona would have to build.
If ADOT were INDOT, they would leave it to LAST simply BECAUSE it is the toughest and most expensive to do. But I concur, it needs to be done ASAP! Been over a decade now since I've driven through that particular interchange, and it was bad even back then.
Quote from: Sonic99 on August 07, 2018, 02:38:48 AM
Quote from: Zonie on August 06, 2018, 06:17:55 PM
And the railroad.
That's why you have a left exit now at Bell.
Yep. Grand was initially planned on being a full freeway from 17 all the way up to at least the 101 in the initial 1985 plans, but the costs of acquiring the right of way and the construction that would have been required killed those plans. Instead, we got the pseudo-interchanges where one of the three intersecting roads were elevated or depressed away from the other two. That is as close as we will ever get inside the 303 now that the Bell interchange is complete.
So there was actual planning for a full blown freeway along the corridor (Grand) after the 1985 sales tax passage? Guessing the only way it could have been done would have been via whole sale acquisition and clearance, along the east side of existing Grand Ave. And then using the pre-existing avenue and the acquired strip, to construct a full blown facility with frontages. How it could have (and where) connected to the older Black Canyon Fwy (I-17) in a dense industrial environment is something else to ponder.
Quote from: SSR_317 on August 10, 2018, 05:54:55 PM
If ADOT were INDOT, they would leave it to LAST simply BECAUSE it is the toughest and most expensive to do. But I concur, it needs to be done ASAP! Been over a decade now since I've driven through that particular interchange, and it was bad even back then.
And if it were Caltrans, they'd build I-11 down to within 1/4 mile of I-40 and stick a wide diamond there with plans to build flyovers later. One thing about AZDOT -- if they can avoid taking improved properties, they'll do so, even if it means a slightly longer or out-of-the-way alignment; they figure less political blowback that way. So anything directly down Beale or close to it wouldn't likely make it to the final round of options. Hey, if they can participate in the type of construction required for the approaches to the O'Callaghan/Tillman bridge, blasting a few rocks or bridging/diverting a couple of gullies won't pose much of an issue!
I'd like to see ADOT put any I-11 plans south of Casa Grande on hold for now. Focus on the I-40/US 93 Kingman connection, 4-laning US 93 south of I-40, and a route from the Wickenburg area to either I-10 or Loop 303. Also maybe make use of SR 85 between I-8 and I-10. If it doesn't become part of the I-11 corridor, it still makes sense as an overall Phoenix freeway bypass of I-10.
Might be better to focus on repairing and upgrading EXISTING Interstate mileage in the state. Before any wild plans to extend 11 south of 10 to anywhere. (Mainly referring to Interstate 10 east of Tucson's downtown - Exit 262 to Exit 281). Just my opinion.
Quote from: DJStephens on August 12, 2018, 09:35:41 AM
Might be better to focus on repairing and upgrading EXISTING Interstate mileage in the state. Before any wild plans to extend 11 south of 10 to anywhere. (Mainly referring to Interstate 10 east of Tucson's downtown - Exit 262 to Exit 281). Just my opinion.
The only plans I've seen recently regarding I-10 east of I-19 have to do with the possible SR 210 extension. I'm not sure if ADOT has plans to widen I-10 that would happen regardless of what happens with SR 210.
https://www.azdot.gov/planning/transportation-studies/i-10-and-sr-210-feasibility-study
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGHctcTwuNQ
Rockersk08 does a shot on I-11.
From ADOT
2019 Public Hearing Meetings
The I-11 Draft Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement and Preliminary Section 4(f) Evaluation ( Draft Tier 1 EIS) is available for public review and comment. Visit the Public Meetings and Outreach page for more information, including meeting details, Draft Tier 1 EIS document repository locations, and how to comment.
Comment on the Draft Tier 1 EIS
Zoom in on a satellite view of the corridor alternatives.
http://origin.i11study.com/Arizona/map.asp
Reports may be found at: http://origin.i11study.com/Arizona/Documents.asp
Quote from: splashflash on April 06, 2019, 02:00:31 AM
From ADOT
2019 Public Hearing Meetings
The I-11 Draft Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement and Preliminary Section 4(f) Evaluation ( Draft Tier 1 EIS) is available for public review and comment. Visit the Public Meetings and Outreach page for more information, including meeting details, Draft Tier 1 EIS document repository locations, and how to comment.
Comment on the Draft Tier 1 EIS
Zoom in on a satellite view of the corridor alternatives.
http://origin.i11study.com/Arizona/map.asp
Reports may be found at: http://origin.i11study.com/Arizona/Documents.asp
A few things stand out from the provided map: first, the section south of Casa Grande looks like a combination "relief route" for I-10 as well as a west Tucson bypass -- and it'll cut back to I-19 well north of the original (and, IMO, unnecessary) plan. And the short "cutoff" branch between I-11 and I-10 near Marana looks as if funding is a problem or the concept of a parallel/relief route for I-10 runs into trouble, the Tucson bypass could be reconfigured as a stand-alone project. Also -- it looks like part of the corridor near Buckeye utilizes the AZ 30 E-W corridor before striking out south toward Maricopa; this may simply be an economizing move. But except for the closely parallel alignment along I-10, it definitely looks like the plan has been winnowed down a bit from its original outlandish configuration.
Honestly, it still looks pretty outlandish. Is there really a need to overlap I-19 down to Mexico? Might as well decommission it. Unless maybe that's how they plan to get the locals to accept mile-based exit numbers down there? And is there really need to parallel I-10 so closely in multiple locations?
Quote from: vdeane on April 06, 2019, 11:14:54 PM
Honestly, it still looks pretty outlandish. Is there really a need to overlap I-19 down to Mexico? Might as well decommission it. Unless maybe that's how they plan to get the locals to accept mile-based exit numbers down there? And is there really need to parallel I-10 so closely in multiple locations?
There is no need whatsoever for I-11 to exist anywhere south of I-8 as a standalone freeway. They should just build it down to Gila Bend, incorporating AZ 85 between there and Buckeye. Maybe extend it down to the border for Rocky Point access, but that's it. If that's not desirable or practical, then co-sign I-11 with I-8 to Casa Grande, then with I-10 to Tucson. Then replace I-19 with I-11 to Nogales and reassign 19 elsewhere.
I don't know what politician(s) are pushing this parallel route, but it's not necessary. Besides, if anyone thinks that pathologically anti-freeway Tucson will go along, they're delusional.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on April 06, 2019, 11:32:28 PM
Quote from: vdeane on April 06, 2019, 11:14:54 PM
Honestly, it still looks pretty outlandish. Is there really a need to overlap I-19 down to Mexico? Might as well decommission it. Unless maybe that's how they plan to get the locals to accept mile-based exit numbers down there? And is there really need to parallel I-10 so closely in multiple locations?
There is no need whatsoever for I-11 to exist anywhere south of I-8 as a standalone freeway. They should just build it down to Gila Bend, incorporating AZ 85 between there and Buckeye. Maybe extend it down to the border for Rocky Point access, but that's it. If that's not desirable or practical, then co-sign I-11 with I-8 to Casa Grande, then with I-10 to Tucson. Then replace I-19 with I-11 to Nogales and reassign 19 elsewhere.
I don't know what politician(s) are pushing this parallel route, but it's not necessary. Besides, if anyone thinks that pathologically anti-freeway Tucson will go along, they're delusional.
The report has three second-to-last-round options, one of which, the orange option, runs just as you describe, down to an interchange at I-10 and 363rd St from just west of Wickenburg. AZ 85 would be upgraded to become a freeway.
One of the other two second-to-last options runs from Casa Grande to Marana along the I-10, to the Tucson bypass.
Not shown in the report and lately denied by ADOT is that the Sonoran Corridor freeway and Avra Valley freeway would be essentially a part of the same I-11 project as shown here.
https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2018/09/18/building-a-new-i-11-avra-valley-coalition-offers-pros-and-cons/
The final recommended route does ccoordinate with the planned projects SR30, five mile south of I-10, and a south leg of a 303 extension to the Hassayampa Freeway.
Apple Maps how Interstate 11 all the way up to an interchange north of the Hoover Dam, I assume that's how much of I-11 has been completed. However, I-11 is not highlighted in yellow on Apple Maps to indicate it's a freeway. :hmmm:
Apple seems to take longer to update their maps than others (specifically Google Maps or Waze). Look how long it took to update the completed I-95 in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Anyway, in the field, I-11 signage starts northbound just past the bridge crossing from Arizona.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_11
Quote from: SoCal Kid on April 07, 2019, 08:29:07 PM
Apple Maps how Interstate 11 all the way up to an interchange north of the Hoover Dam, I assume that's how much of I-11 has been completed. However, I-11 is not highlighted in yellow on Apple Maps to indicate it's a freeway. :hmmm:
Show, not how. Typo, apologies for that
From looking at the corridor alternatives, it's good to see that there is at least one option of using existing parts of AZ 85, I-19, I-8, and I-10. Realistically it will be really hard for ADOT to build any new alignments south of Casa Grande. Also interesting to note is that ADOT doesn't want to use any part of current US 60 for I-11, so the idea of Grand Ave ever becoming a freeway should be put to rest.
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on April 07, 2019, 09:04:34 PM
Apple seems to take longer to update their maps than others (specifically Google Maps or Waze). Look how long it took to update the completed I-95 in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Anyway, in the field, I-11 signage starts northbound just past the bridge crossing from Arizona.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_11
Yea Apple is a bit slow. Thanks for the info!
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on April 07, 2019, 09:10:20 PM
From looking at the corridor alternatives, it's good to see that there is at least one option of using existing parts of AZ 85, I-19, I-8, and I-10. Realistically it will be really hard for ADOT to build any new alignments south of Casa Grande. Also interesting to note is that ADOT doesn't want to use any part of current US 60 for I-11, so the idea of Grand Ave ever becoming a freeway should be put to rest.
IIRC, there was never any consideration given to simply upgrading Grand Avenue to Interstate standards; the level of businesses and housing, along with the parallel BNSF rail line made that concept exceptionally difficult if not impossible (both logistically and politically). If anything, one of the considerations aside from the Hassayampa alignment was a facility parallel to Grand/US 60 and extending to at least Loop 303. But for the last few years most of the information released indicates that the N-S Hassayampa corridor to the west is all but a "done deal"; AZDOT, the local MPO, and most other regional players in this process have tended to favor an alignment that
diverts traffic away from central Phoenix rather than directly toward it; whether such a corridor ends up on AZ 85 down to Gila Bend and I-8 or cuts across diagonally, per published plans, toward Casa Grande (likely on the wish list of Maricopa-area developers) has yet TBD. It seems they're utilizing "horseshoe" rules here -- intersecting I-10 out in Buckeye is effectively a "leaner"; close enough to Phoenix even though not a direct hit!
Interstate 11's southern terminus should be at Interstate 8. Is there really a traffic need for the Interstate to go beyond Interstate 8? Any Interstate 11 extension south of Interstate 8 appears to go through sparsely populated areas, which hardly need an Interstate connection.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 08, 2019, 03:57:21 PM
Interstate 11's southern terminus should be at Interstate 8. Is there really a traffic need for the Interstate to go beyond Interstate 8? Any Interstate 11 extension south of Interstate 8 appears to go through sparsely populated areas, which hardly need an Interstate connection.
Novel concept:
- Don't spend $2-4 billion building a new freeway between West Phoenix and Tucson
- Connect Tucson and Phoenix with reliable, fast rail transit
- Toll any driver who gets on I-10 between Empirita and Tangerine, and exits anywhere between 587 and 85, or vice-versa.
- Let through traffic enjoy reduced volumes and congestion and charge drivers for the convenience of going by car and the expense of the congestion that goes with it
I agree that anything south of I-8 seems unnecessary, but it's being planned right now just for the corridor preservation. There is a lot of new residential planned and in the works SW of Tucson- along the Irvington and Valencia corridors stretching west from I-19 for about 10 miles right now. That trend will continue through the next few cycles. While I don't see much happening between I-8 and the Avra Valley along that part of the corridor in the next 30 years, the areas closer to Tucson will likely develop and if/when the need arises for an I-10 reliever as the two metros develop and begin to merge together the option will be there.
Quote from: kdk on April 08, 2019, 04:25:00 PM
I agree that anything south of I-8 seems unnecessary, but it's being planned right now just for the corridor preservation. There is a lot of new residential planned and in the works SW of Tucson- along the Irvington and Valencia corridors stretching west from I-19 for about 10 miles right now. That trend will continue through the next few cycles. While I don't see much happening between I-8 and the Avra Valley along that part of the corridor in the next 30 years, the areas closer to Tucson will likely develop and if/when the need arises for an I-10 reliever as the two metros develop and begin to merge together the option will be there.
There is a lot of resistence in the Avra Valley to the I-11 project. In their opposition they could easily pick up on the grandiosity of two parallel interstates in locations between but far from Phoenix or Tucson. I-11 should terminate at I-8, the closer to SR-85, the better. The Tucson south-west, south ring-road bypass should be made a separate project, probably an I-410 project, and perhaps bundled together with the Sonoran Corridor Freeway.
The I-10 in Phoenix has a garganuan amount of traffic, 200,000+ /hr where the South Mountain Freeway will interchange. The proposed SR-30 routing of I-11 makes sense, basically providing redundancy to I-10; the environmental review is in progress. The southward connection from the SR-30 segment of the route, linking 303L south of CR85 to follow the Hassayumpa Freeway corridor (segment I2) should be contentious. Segment 'J', the western-most noth-south connection between the Hassayumpa freeway corridor and I-8 was dropped and not included in the three chosen options. Miles of parallel I-11 and I-8 is the result.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on April 08, 2019, 04:06:46 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 08, 2019, 03:57:21 PM
Interstate 11's southern terminus should be at Interstate 8. Is there really a traffic need for the Interstate to go beyond Interstate 8? Any Interstate 11 extension south of Interstate 8 appears to go through sparsely populated areas, which hardly need an Interstate connection.
Novel concept:
- Don't spend $2-4 billion building a new freeway between West Phoenix and Tucson
- Connect Tucson and Phoenix with reliable, fast rail transit
- Toll any driver who gets on I-10 between Empirita and Tangerine, and exits anywhere between 587 and 85, or vice-versa.
- Let through traffic enjoy reduced volumes and congestion and charge drivers for the convenience of going by car and the expense of the congestion that goes with it
Slapping full-facility tolls on existing roads in Arizona? Haven't seen any pigs with wings anywhere in the vicinity! Down the line tolled express lanes may be a possibility (and even probability) -- but that's about as far as the political sensibilities of that state will go. Now -- having said that, I could see the parallel-to-I-10 facility, on the off-chance it gets past the discussion stage, being a dedicated tolled road, functionally the oft-cited "Lexus Lanes", giving those willing (& able) to pay the ability to bypass I-10 traffic. AZ is if anything a state prone to libertarian urges -- and those often can and do include favoring direct user fees over general taxes for infrastructure development. But any future tolled facility development would need to be framed in such a way as to provide a
choice to the driving public rather than a simple requirement that if one goes between points "A" and "B", a toll/fee will be involved. AZ has given no indication that its policies should or will focus on the
demand side of traffic management; the historic -- and likely long-term -- approach will be to address changing demand by augmenting or upgrading the facilities under their jurisdiction.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on April 08, 2019, 04:06:46 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 08, 2019, 03:57:21 PM
Interstate 11's southern terminus should be at Interstate 8. Is there really a traffic need for the Interstate to go beyond Interstate 8? Any Interstate 11 extension south of Interstate 8 appears to go through sparsely populated areas, which hardly need an Interstate connection.
Novel concept:
- Don't spend $2-4 billion building a new freeway between West Phoenix and Tucson
- Connect Tucson and Phoenix with reliable, fast rail transit
- Toll any driver who gets on I-10 between Empirita and Tangerine, and exits anywhere between 587 and 85, or vice-versa.
- Let through traffic enjoy reduced volumes and congestion and charge drivers for the convenience of going by car and the expense of the congestion that goes with it
Novel concept:
Spend 2-4 billion dollars building the freeway understanding drivers ALREADY pay to drive WITHOUT TOLLS!
Offer HSR between Tucson and Phoenix as an alternative
Do NOT toll any interstates with the exception of HO/T lanes with a mandatory two free GP lanes added for a single tolled lane.
This gives people choice but as we know if people are offered great rail service or great infrastructure that allows them to drive cars they will choose cars. That is what the pro transit and bike crowd are afraid of.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 08, 2019, 11:44:17 PM
This gives people choice
But at a huge cost. I highly doubt current income could pay for a $2-4B freeway
and a proper HSR line, not least without tolling the new freeway or raising taxes, or some combination of the two.
I had no idea ADOT was planning for I-11 to completely bypass Phoenix. Still, we don't need to build a completely new parallel route for it. We can use already existing or planned corridors instead.
Quote from: MantyMadTown on April 09, 2019, 02:14:45 AM
I had no idea ADOT was planning for I-11 to completely bypass Phoenix. Still, we don't need to build a completely new parallel route for it. We can use already existing or planned corridors instead.
At least now ADOT is even considering utilizing AZ 85 -- which is readily upgradeable except for a Gila Bend bypass. Maybe the fiscal reality of what was originally considered is starting to sink in -- or perhaps the stranglehold that developers have had regarding what is to be placed on the ground is loosening somewhat. At least the "winnowing down" process regarding the corridor's alignment and configuration is proceeding; maybe construction will commence within the next decade.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on April 08, 2019, 04:06:46 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 08, 2019, 03:57:21 PM
Interstate 11's southern terminus should be at Interstate 8. Is there really a traffic need for the Interstate to go beyond Interstate 8? Any Interstate 11 extension south of Interstate 8 appears to go through sparsely populated areas, which hardly need an Interstate connection.
Novel concept:
- Don't spend $2-4 billion building a new freeway between West Phoenix and Tucson
- Connect Tucson and Phoenix with reliable, fast rail transit
- Toll any driver who gets on I-10 between Empirita and Tangerine, and exits anywhere between 587 and 85, or vice-versa.
- Let through traffic enjoy reduced volumes and congestion and charge drivers for the convenience of going by car and the expense of the congestion that goes with it
Even noveller concept:
- Terminate I-11 at I-8 in Gila Bend using an upgraded AR 85 and a freeway connection with I-8.
- Build a bypass of Tucson, but using an I-x19 designation; otherwise, widen I-19 through Tucson.
- Improve Amtrak service between Phoenix and Tucson, or implement some form of commuter rail.
Cheaper, and no tolls needed.
Quote from: sparker on April 09, 2019, 02:47:17 AM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on April 09, 2019, 02:14:45 AM
I had no idea ADOT was planning for I-11 to completely bypass Phoenix. Still, we don't need to build a completely new parallel route for it. We can use already existing or planned corridors instead.
At least now ADOT is even considering utilizing AZ 85 -- which is readily upgradeable except for a Gila Bend bypass. Maybe the fiscal reality of what was originally considered is starting to sink in -- or perhaps the stranglehold that developers have had regarding what is to be placed on the ground is loosening somewhat. At least the "winnowing down" process regarding the corridor's alignment and configuration is proceeding; maybe construction will commence within the next decade.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Forigin.i11study.com%2FArizona%2Fmap.asp&hash=7d1bb98cc380caaf67a8203c1ce31acf3d009b33)
The mention of tolls is interesting, as in 2016 ADOT bandied about the concept for SR-30, only for that to seemingly be subsequently dropped.
https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2016/09/27/exclusive-adot-ready-to-start-planning-first-az.html
Perhaps tolls could be used to construct the US 93 to I-10 link, together with development fees? ;)
Quote from: Anthony_JK on April 09, 2019, 03:25:07 AM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on April 08, 2019, 04:06:46 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 08, 2019, 03:57:21 PM
Interstate 11's southern terminus should be at Interstate 8. Is there really a traffic need for the Interstate to go beyond Interstate 8? Any Interstate 11 extension south of Interstate 8 appears to go through sparsely populated areas, which hardly need an Interstate connection.
Novel concept:
- Don't spend $2-4 billion building a new freeway between West Phoenix and Tucson
- Connect Tucson and Phoenix with reliable, fast rail transit
- Toll any driver who gets on I-10 between Empirita and Tangerine, and exits anywhere between 587 and 85, or vice-versa.
- Let through traffic enjoy reduced volumes and congestion and charge drivers for the convenience of going by car and the expense of the congestion that goes with it
Even noveller concept:
- Terminate I-11 at I-8 in Gila Bend using an upgraded AR 85 and a freeway connection with I-8.
- Build a bypass of Tucson, but using an I-x19 designation; otherwise, widen I-19 through Tucson.
- Improve Amtrak service between Phoenix and Tucson, or implement some form of commuter rail.
Cheaper, and no tolls needed.
I really like the idea of a high-speed rail line between Phoenix and Tucson.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 09, 2019, 12:03:44 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on April 08, 2019, 11:44:17 PM
This gives people choice
But at a huge cost. I highly doubt current income could pay for a $2-4B freeway and a proper HSR line, not least without tolling the new freeway or raising taxes, or some combination of the two.
I am 100 percent against tolling roads with an interstate designation. It wouldn't be cheap but in the end would likely give the best possible product.
I like the parallel freeway to I-10 because it offers another option in case I-10 is shut down for whatever reason. Tucson and Phoenix are two major cities fairly close to each other. A world class and resilient transportation corridor is more of what projects in this country need and less of half assing things.
There might need to be a modest increase in taxes. The United States already pays some pretty low taxes when it comes to the "developed" world. I'm not advocating for outrageous taxes with that being said.
As far as HSR, I suspect it could be built for a reasonable price mainly along I-10 ROW. The terrain isn't that bad and it is a fairly straight shot.
I firmly believe overbuilding capacity isn't a bad thing especially a crucial link between two major cities. I also think any efforts should be as followed:
First tackle Hoover Dam to I-40 then I-40 to Phoenix. Once that is done then worry about going further south.
Bring I-11 to Idaho. Boise and the state of Idaho need the Economic opportunity and safety!
Quote from: nosrac52 on April 11, 2019, 04:31:51 PM
Bring I-11 to Idaho. Boise and the state of Idaho need the Economic opportunity and safety!
I-11 will allow potatoes to leave the state in droves. Keep I-11 out!
Quote from: nosrac52 on April 11, 2019, 04:31:51 PM
Bring I-11 to Idaho. Boise and the state of Idaho need the Economic opportunity and safety!
Welcome to the forum!
Quote from: NE2 on April 11, 2019, 05:15:49 PM
Quote from: nosrac52 on April 11, 2019, 04:31:51 PM
Bring I-11 to Idaho. Boise and the state of Idaho need the Economic opportunity and safety!
I-11 will allow potatoes to leave the state in droves. Keep I-11 out!
Actually the deal on transporting potatoes is that instead of using droves, the farms use trucks. Droves are so 19th century...LOL!
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on April 12, 2019, 12:13:52 AM
Quote from: NE2 on April 11, 2019, 05:15:49 PM
Quote from: nosrac52 on April 11, 2019, 04:31:51 PM
Bring I-11 to Idaho. Boise and the state of Idaho need the Economic opportunity and safety!
I-11 will allow potatoes to leave the state in droves. Keep I-11 out!
Actually the deal on transporting potatoes is that instead of using droves, the farms use trucks. Droves are so 19th century...LOL!
Rick
That is so true.
It's probably likely something, regardless of number, will eventually connect the Treasure Valley/Boise region with I-80 to expedite travel to CA and other southwest points. But the most efficient path to do so remains US 95 -- with the reality that OR will have to be brought into the process on a route that really doesn't provide much benefits to them -- more of a "pass-through", so to speak. They'll likely expect -- and strongly suggest if not outright demand -- considerable contribution from outside to even consider upgrading their portion of such a corridor. That in itself might be a principal factor in any decision as to where a continuation of I-11 will go.
And I doubt that they'll take that contribution in potatoes! :)
Quote from: MantyMadTown on April 09, 2019, 08:03:54 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on April 09, 2019, 03:25:07 AM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on April 08, 2019, 04:06:46 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 08, 2019, 03:57:21 PM
Interstate 11's southern terminus should be at Interstate 8. Is there really a traffic need for the Interstate to go beyond Interstate 8? Any Interstate 11 extension south of Interstate 8 appears to go through sparsely populated areas, which hardly need an Interstate connection.
Novel concept:
- Don't spend $2-4 billion building a new freeway between West Phoenix and Tucson
- Connect Tucson and Phoenix with reliable, fast rail transit
- Toll any driver who gets on I-10 between Empirita and Tangerine, and exits anywhere between 587 and 85, or vice-versa.
- Let through traffic enjoy reduced volumes and congestion and charge drivers for the convenience of going by car and the expense of the congestion that goes with it
Even noveller concept:
- Terminate I-11 at I-8 in Gila Bend using an upgraded AR 85 and a freeway connection with I-8.
- Build a bypass of Tucson, but using an I-x19 designation; otherwise, widen I-19 through Tucson.
- Improve Amtrak service between Phoenix and Tucson, or implement some form of commuter rail.
Cheaper, and no tolls needed.
I really like the idea of a high-speed rail line between Phoenix and Tucson.
The chances of a passenger rail service of any kind between Phoenix and Tucson are several orders of magnitude less than zero. Phoenix is about to kill all future Light Rail expansion inside the city if the voters approve in August. Mesa is now complaining about its portion of the line, where it was in favor earlier. It loses money, ridership is down, and some say it brought more crime into the areas where the tracks are. If the Light Rail fails, don't even think about anything being built from here to Tucson, LA, or anywhere else on the planet.
We just don't do trains here. The original "light rail" (trolley) lines were shut down in 1948. What makes anyone think that HSR is viable in a state that lives in and for its cars?
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2019/04/12/ligh-rail-opponents-win-court-august-election-continue/3446767002/
Quote from: sparker on April 12, 2019, 04:34:44 PM
It's probably likely something, regardless of number, will eventually connect the Treasure Valley/Boise region with I-80 to expedite travel to CA and other southwest points. But the most efficient path to do so remains US 95 -- with the reality that OR will have to be brought into the process on a route that really doesn't provide much benefits to them -- more of a "pass-through", so to speak. They'll likely expect -- and strongly suggest if not outright demand -- considerable contribution from outside to even consider upgrading their portion of such a corridor. That in itself might be a principal factor in any decision as to where a continuation of I-11 will go.
And I doubt that they'll take that contribution in potatoes! :)
I just can't see Oregon biting barring a massive sea change in politics. Even if Idaho and Nevada were to decide to pay in full for an Oregon portion of I-11, you'd get a chorus of "Idaho shouldn't be paying for new freeways, they should be building safe bike lanes" and "the planet can't handle any more freeways."
As much as I'd like to see it happen — not to Boise but to Bend and Portland — I'm confident that there will never be an I-11 shield in the state of Oregon.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on April 12, 2019, 04:42:41 PM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on April 09, 2019, 08:03:54 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on April 09, 2019, 03:25:07 AM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on April 08, 2019, 04:06:46 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 08, 2019, 03:57:21 PM
Interstate 11's southern terminus should be at Interstate 8. Is there really a traffic need for the Interstate to go beyond Interstate 8? Any Interstate 11 extension south of Interstate 8 appears to go through sparsely populated areas, which hardly need an Interstate connection.
Novel concept:
- Don't spend $2-4 billion building a new freeway between West Phoenix and Tucson
- Connect Tucson and Phoenix with reliable, fast rail transit
- Toll any driver who gets on I-10 between Empirita and Tangerine, and exits anywhere between 587 and 85, or vice-versa.
- Let through traffic enjoy reduced volumes and congestion and charge drivers for the convenience of going by car and the expense of the congestion that goes with it
Even noveller concept:
- Terminate I-11 at I-8 in Gila Bend using an upgraded AR 85 and a freeway connection with I-8.
- Build a bypass of Tucson, but using an I-x19 designation; otherwise, widen I-19 through Tucson.
- Improve Amtrak service between Phoenix and Tucson, or implement some form of commuter rail.
Cheaper, and no tolls needed.
I really like the idea of a high-speed rail line between Phoenix and Tucson.
The chances of a passenger rail service of any kind between Phoenix and Tucson are several orders of magnitude less than zero. Phoenix is about to kill all future Light Rail expansion inside the city if the voters approve in August. Mesa is now complaining about its portion of the line, where it was in favor earlier. It loses money, ridership is down, and some say it brought more crime into the areas where the tracks are. If the Light Rail fails, don't even think about anything being built from here to Tucson, LA, or anywhere else on the planet.
We just don't do trains here. The original "light rail" (trolley) lines were shut down in 1948. What makes anyone think that HSR is viable in a state that lives in and for its cars?
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2019/04/12/ligh-rail-opponents-win-court-august-election-continue/3446767002/
I'd like to post another article to respond to this:
https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/abekwok/2019/04/12/phoenix-stop-light-rail-expansion-initiative-unnecessary/3448531002/
I think Interstate 11 should be constructed with a southern terminus at Interstate 8, and a northern terminus at Interstate 80. Any portion of Interstate 11 being built beyond those two Interstates seems unnecessary to me.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on April 09, 2019, 03:25:07 AM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on April 08, 2019, 04:06:46 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 08, 2019, 03:57:21 PM
Interstate 11's southern terminus should be at Interstate 8. Is there really a traffic need for the Interstate to go beyond Interstate 8? Any Interstate 11 extension south of Interstate 8 appears to go through sparsely populated areas, which hardly need an Interstate connection.
Novel concept:
- Don't spend $2-4 billion building a new freeway between West Phoenix and Tucson
- Connect Tucson and Phoenix with reliable, fast rail transit
- Toll any driver who gets on I-10 between Empirita and Tangerine, and exits anywhere between 587 and 85, or vice-versa.
- Let through traffic enjoy reduced volumes and congestion and charge drivers for the convenience of going by car and the expense of the congestion that goes with it
Even noveller concept:
- Terminate I-11 at I-8 in Gila Bend using an upgraded AR 85 and a freeway connection with I-8.
- Build a bypass of Tucson, but using an I-x19 designation; otherwise, widen I-19 through Tucson.
- Improve Amtrak service between Phoenix and Tucson, or implement some form of commuter rail.
Cheaper, and no tolls needed.
What about a rubber tired Bus? Yes it uses existing Roads. No need for any additional infrastructure.
Quote from: DJStephens on April 12, 2019, 11:45:34 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on April 09, 2019, 03:25:07 AM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on April 08, 2019, 04:06:46 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 08, 2019, 03:57:21 PM
Interstate 11's southern terminus should be at Interstate 8. Is there really a traffic need for the Interstate to go beyond Interstate 8? Any Interstate 11 extension south of Interstate 8 appears to go through sparsely populated areas, which hardly need an Interstate connection.
Novel concept:
- Don't spend $2-4 billion building a new freeway between West Phoenix and Tucson
- Connect Tucson and Phoenix with reliable, fast rail transit
- Toll any driver who gets on I-10 between Empirita and Tangerine, and exits anywhere between 587 and 85, or vice-versa.
- Let through traffic enjoy reduced volumes and congestion and charge drivers for the convenience of going by car and the expense of the congestion that goes with it
Even noveller concept:
- Terminate I-11 at I-8 in Gila Bend using an upgraded AR 85 and a freeway connection with I-8.
- Build a bypass of Tucson, but using an I-x19 designation; otherwise, widen I-19 through Tucson.
- Improve Amtrak service between Phoenix and Tucson, or implement some form of commuter rail.
Cheaper, and no tolls needed.
What about a rubber tired Bus? Yes it uses existing Roads. No need for any additional infrastructure.
Rail service wouldn't be
that difficult; there's existing UP lines connecting PHX with the main UP E-W main at Pichaco; those lines were used for Amtrak service before the line heading west from PHX to Yuma was taken out of service in the late '90's after a derailment near Hyder. However, the section from downtown Phoenix to Pichaco is still in use for freight service -- and it would also serve Tempe, Mesa, and Chandler -- providing potential ridership if regional Amtrak service (
a la the various CA Amtrak state-supported lines) were instituted between Phoenix and Tucson. The rails are in place; some signaling would require upgrades, including the addition of PTC. No need to screw around with new trackage along or in the median of I-10; what's currently on the ground reasonably parallels the roadway.
UP would shit a brick if ADOT proposed adding HSR to their tracks. Plus i can almost promise that any HSR would require extensive upgrades to make it able to handle high speeds like would be necessary for HSR to be appealing. The existing 70mph limits are slower than the interstate running right next to it.
Quote from: Sonic99 on April 15, 2019, 01:19:20 AM
UP would shit a brick if ADOT proposed adding HSR to their tracks. Plus i can almost promise that any HSR would require extensive upgrades to make it able to handle high speeds like would be necessary for HSR to be appealing. The existing 70mph limits are slower than the interstate running right next to it.
Who said anything about HSR? I was thinking more of a "regional" conventional Amtrak service similar to the "Capitol" service between San Jose and Sacramento in CA. That might make UP shit a pebble or two, but hardly a brick; this is something with which they've had considerable experience (although UP
will certainly piss & moan about the provision of such service more than BNSF, which seems to take a bit more stoic attitude).
Quote from: NE2 on April 11, 2019, 05:15:49 PM
Quote from: nosrac52 on April 11, 2019, 04:31:51 PM
Bring I-11 to Idaho. Boise and the state of Idaho need the Economic opportunity and safety!
I-11 will allow potatoes to leave the state in droves. Keep I-11 out!
And they bring their toxic voting patterns with them!
:wow:
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on April 15, 2019, 10:44:22 AM
Quote from: NE2 on April 11, 2019, 05:15:49 PM
Quote from: nosrac52 on April 11, 2019, 04:31:51 PM
Bring I-11 to Idaho. Boise and the state of Idaho need the Economic opportunity and safety!
I-11 will allow potatoes to leave the state in droves. Keep I-11 out!
And they bring their toxic voting patterns with them!
:wow:
Mike
Seems more folks are migrating
to Idaho these days; the influx more or less split between the Boise/Treasure Valley area (where housing is supplanting agriculture) and the far north (Post Falls/Coeur d'Alene and up US 95 from there). While undoubtedly some of those who are making the move are doing so to be the proverbial "birds of a feather" flocking with their purported political equivalents -- nominally right of center -- the aggregate number coming in from CA, OR, and WA for financial reasons may over time tend to mitigate against the harsh politics that have dominated the state since Frank Church was kicked out of office. The Boise/Treasure area is expected to pass the 1M population mark about 2022-23; we'll see how the 2024 electoral cycle pans out in the state and whether the newer arrivals shift the overall picture. And not coincidentally, that 1M figure may well prompt heightened interest in improved access from the south/southwest -- possibly foreshadowing development of the I-11 (or I-13?) corridor down to I-80.
It's pretty sad Boise doesn't have any north-south interstate access. You have US 93 and I-84 from the southeast, and US 95 from the southwest. But neither of those are interstates. There ought to be some sort of connection to fill that gap, but maybe there's not enough traffic from California, Nevada, and Arizona to justify making either US 93 or US 95 an interstate.
Quote from: MantyMadTown on April 15, 2019, 05:51:53 PM
It's pretty sad Boise doesn't have any north-south interstate access. You have US 93 and I-84 from the southeast, and US 95 from the southwest. But neither of those are interstates. There ought to be some sort of connection to fill that gap, but maybe there's not enough traffic from California, Nevada, and Arizona to justify making either US 93 or US 95 an interstate.
There definitely isn't enough traffic on either route, especially in Nevada. It isn't uncommon to see trailer trucks and being able to pass them with ease.
The main focus should be on Las Vegas to Phoenix and then slowly building out from there. As far as the Phoenix metro goes, ADOT needs to just work on the basics: getting I-11 built to Loop 303 on the NW side of the metro. Anything else from there is something of an extravagance, like all these conceptual routes going around the West and South side of Phoenix and even on down to Tucson and freaking Nogales. That's quite a pork orgy there.
Quote from: sparkerWho said anything about HSR? I was thinking more of a "regional" conventional Amtrak service similar to the "Capitol" service between San Jose and Sacramento in CA. That might make UP shit a pebble or two, but hardly a brick; this is something with which they've had considerable experience (although UP will certainly piss & moan about the provision of such service more than BNSF, which seems to take a bit more stoic attitude).
I don't think there would be very much appeal for a slow speed regional rail line between the Phoenix metro and Las Vegas, at least not enough for it to be profitable. There would be little, if any, time savings versus driving.
As for any notion of high speed rail being added to an existing freight line, that doesn't really work. True high speed rail systems in other countries run separate from the freight and slow speed commuter rail networks. Part of what keeps the Acela Express from DC to Boston being regarded as a true high speed line is the fact it has to share the line with freight rail traffic. Only a short portion of the line allows trains to run at the max 150mph speed.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 15, 2019, 05:56:17 PM
Quote from: MantyMadTown on April 15, 2019, 05:51:53 PM
It's pretty sad Boise doesn't have any north-south interstate access. You have US 93 and I-84 from the southeast, and US 95 from the southwest. But neither of those are interstates. There ought to be some sort of connection to fill that gap, but maybe there's not enough traffic from California, Nevada, and Arizona to justify making either US 93 or US 95 an interstate.
There definitely isn't enough traffic on either route, especially in Nevada. It isn't uncommon to see trailer trucks and being able to pass them with ease.
To put some numbers to the statement:
ODOT AADT numbers 2017US 95 at NV/OR: 1600 total, 450 trucks
US 95 north of Jordan Valley: 1800 total, 550 trucks
US 95 at OR/ID: 1800 total, 560 trucks
US 97 at Chiloquin: 4700 total, 400 trucks
US 26 at Warm Springs: 8200 total, 850 trucks
OR 39 at Malin: 4500 total, 490 trucks
I 84 at Huntington: 10700 total, 4400 trucks
I 82 at OR/WA: 21600 total, 4700 trucks
I 5 at Grants Pass: 23300 total, 6700 trucks
Quote from: mgk920 on April 15, 2019, 10:44:22 AM
Quote from: NE2 on April 11, 2019, 05:15:49 PM
Quote from: nosrac52 on April 11, 2019, 04:31:51 PM
Bring I-11 to Idaho. Boise and the state of Idaho need the Economic opportunity and safety!
I-11 will allow potatoes to leave the state in droves. Keep I-11 out!
And they bring their toxic voting patterns with them!
:wow:
Mike
Boise will always be blue. Just look at the football field of the Broncos...LOL!
Rick
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 15, 2019, 06:37:12 PM
The main focus should be on Las Vegas to Phoenix and then slowly building out from there. As far as the Phoenix metro goes, ADOT needs to just work on the basics: getting I-11 built to Loop 303 on the NW side of the metro. Anything else from there is something of an extravagance, like all these conceptual routes going around the West and South side of Phoenix and even on down to Tucson and freaknig Nogales. That's quite a pork orgy there.
Quote from: sparkerWho said anything about HSR? I was thinking more of a "regional" conventional Amtrak service similar to the "Capitol" service between San Jose and Sacramento in CA. That might make UP shit a pebble or two, but hardly a brick; this is something with which they've had considerable experience (although UP will certainly piss & moan about the provision of such service more than BNSF, which seems to take a bit more stoic attitude).
I don't think there would be very much appeal for a slow speed regional rail line between the Phoenix metro and Las Vegas, at least not enough for it to be profitable. There would be little, if any, time savings versus driving.
As for any notion of high speed rail being added to an existing freight line, that doesn't really work. True high speed rail systems in other countries run separate from the freight and slow speed commuter rail networks. Part of what keeps the Acela Express from DC to Boston being regarded as a true high speed line is the fact it has to share the line with freight rail traffic. Only a short portion of the line allows trains to run at the max 150mph speed.
UPRR is expecting to increase freight operations, up to 100 freight trains daily (this was the impetus for putting an overpass at SR 347 in Maricopa). I don't see how you slot passenger service on that corridor to Tucson with any reliability.
^^^^^^^^^
Unless I-80 and/or 680 are at a virtual standstill, the Capitol service between the Bay area and Sacramento is often quite a bit slower than a road trip between those points; the service is sold on the convenience of not having to self-schlep between the cities. Now -- when extreme congestion occurs, watching Amtrak scoot on by (this happens regularly on 680 in the Benicia area and 80 between Davis and Sacramento) is the service's own best advertisement.
However -- I'm going to play devil's advocate for my own suggestion here -- property values in PHX, unlike the Bay Area, haven't yet reached critical point where locating 100 or so miles away to avail one's self of relatively affordable housing may not be S.O.P. there -- thus Tucson as a "safety valve" for PHX may not be a viable concept presently. There would need to be some regular commute activity to warrant any type of rail service; sporadic trips for recreational or non-work reasons just won't cut it as far as the aggregate demand required for even rudimentary rail service over existing trackage is concerned. But if such demand crops up in the next decade or two, the basic rail structure is there that can be "tweaked" to accommodate such service.
Quote from: sparker on April 15, 2019, 01:00:53 PM
While undoubtedly some of those who are making the move are doing so to be the proverbial "birds of a feather" flocking with their purported political equivalents -- nominally right of center -- the aggregate number coming in from CA, OR, and WA for financial reasons may over time tend to mitigate against the harsh politics that have dominated the state since Frank Church was kicked out of office.
However, in St. George UT, which is also experiencing meteoric growth (on a percentage basis, even more than Boise), data from the 2018 elections showed that, despite the influx of Californians and others, the electorate was almost as exactly heavily Republican as it was before. Whether or not that's considered a good thing is a matter of personal preference (which we will not discuss here), but it's a sign that mushrooming populations in the Intermountain West will not necessarily bring wholesale political realignment.
Quote from: Kniwt on April 15, 2019, 08:00:36 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 15, 2019, 01:00:53 PM
While undoubtedly some of those who are making the move are doing so to be the proverbial "birds of a feather" flocking with their purported political equivalents -- nominally right of center -- the aggregate number coming in from CA, OR, and WA for financial reasons may over time tend to mitigate against the harsh politics that have dominated the state since Frank Church was kicked out of office.
However, in St. George UT, which is also experiencing meteoric growth (on a percentage basis, even more than Boise), data from the 2018 elections showed that, despite the influx of Californians and others, the electorate was almost as exactly heavily Republican as it was before. Whether or not that's considered a good thing is a matter of personal preference (which we will not discuss here), but it's a sign that mushrooming populations in the Intermountain West will not necessarily bring wholesale political realignment.
My guess is that those people were already Republican before they moved there. Certain places attract certain types of people based on their political reputation. Utah (aside from maybe SLC) is pretty prominently conservative so it's maybe a magnet for conservative Californians to move there.
Quote from: nexus73 on April 15, 2019, 06:42:49 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on April 15, 2019, 10:44:22 AM
Quote from: NE2 on April 11, 2019, 05:15:49 PM
Quote from: nosrac52 on April 11, 2019, 04:31:51 PM
Bring I-11 to Idaho. Boise and the state of Idaho need the Economic opportunity and safety!
I-11 will allow potatoes to leave the state in droves. Keep I-11 out!
And they bring their toxic voting patterns with them!
:wow:
Mike
Boise will always be blue. Just look at the football field of the Broncos...LOL!
Rick
Other college football stadiums have different colored fields - red for Eastern Washington, purple and gray for Central Arkansas.
Quote from: MantyMadTown on April 16, 2019, 02:58:38 AM
Quote from: Kniwt on April 15, 2019, 08:00:36 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 15, 2019, 01:00:53 PM
While undoubtedly some of those who are making the move are doing so to be the proverbial "birds of a feather" flocking with their purported political equivalents -- nominally right of center -- the aggregate number coming in from CA, OR, and WA for financial reasons may over time tend to mitigate against the harsh politics that have dominated the state since Frank Church was kicked out of office.
However, in St. George UT, which is also experiencing meteoric growth (on a percentage basis, even more than Boise), data from the 2018 elections showed that, despite the influx of Californians and others, the electorate was almost as exactly heavily Republican as it was before. Whether or not that's considered a good thing is a matter of personal preference (which we will not discuss here), but it's a sign that mushrooming populations in the Intermountain West will not necessarily bring wholesale political realignment.
My guess is that those people were already Republican before they moved there. Certain places attract certain types of people based on their political reputation. Utah (aside from maybe SLC) is pretty prominently conservative so it's maybe a magnet for conservative Californians to move there.
Since St. George tends to attract retirees at about the same rate as those of working or school age moving into the area, it would follow that a more conservative cross-section would persist in the "target" metro area. And while the benign climate of the region (quite a difference from summertime Vegas!) is certainly an attractant, the relative isolation of the area would make it a less than optimal location for large-scale manufacturing and/or distribution (besides the fact that it isn't located on a rail line). Business influx into the area will probably be dominated by small manufacturing (products that can be shipped out by truck rather than bulk-loaded), retail, and possibly the service and/or information firms -- anything that can take advantage of electronic connection rather than sheer physical volume. The presence of I-11 in the Las Vegas area -- and the potential for multidirectional connection (coupled with NV's historic business-friendly policies) may well enhance
that city's role as a warehousing/distribution hub.
Viewed on Fox 10 News the other day (Phoenix). They (ADOT) extended their deadline to accept public feedback on the proposed I-11 alignment in central Arizona. To apparently July 1st. Maps on the newscast, of the proposed alignment - paralleling and duplicating I-10 south of Phoenix will likely kill the southerly extension. It really does seem ridiculous.
Quote from: DJStephens on May 01, 2019, 06:48:01 PM
Viewed on Fox 10 News the other day (Phoenix). They (ADOT) extended their deadline to accept public feedback on the proposed I-11 alignment in central Arizona. To apparently July 1st. Maps on the newscast, of the proposed alignment - paralleling and duplicating I-10 south of Phoenix will likely kill the southerly extension. It really does seem ridiculous.
Haven't had a chance to peruse the documents in detail as of yet, but apparently parts of the original EIS regarding I-11 from Wickenburg south to Nogales are undergoing some scrutiny (info gleaned from the 5/1/19 edition of the AASHTO DTU). Whether this is part of a re-thinking of that corridor concept in general or just dotting I's and crossing T's -- or somehow connected to this ADOT deadline extension -- is yet TBD.
Anything that doesn't include upgrading US-60 to Interstate standards from Loop 303 up to Wickenburg will be absolutely stupid. That probably needs to happen regardless of what develops regarding I-11 around the Phoenix area and points farther South and Southeast.
Last week I was personally able to ride on parts of I-11 for the first time (via a bus tour down to Hoover Dam last Friday morning). My girlfriend and I were in Las Vegas for a major sign industry convention. I-11 is signed from the I-215/I-515 interchange down to the Pat Tillman Bridge. Most of the post-mounted reassurance signs have big I-11 shields over smaller US-93/US-95 shields.
Our bus went through Boulder City; we didn't get to drive on the new bypass unfortunately. We drove over the the dam itself. The view from the road winding down to the dam was pretty spectacular. The dam is one thing, but the bridge towering over the canyon is another. I couldn't believe how tall that bridge looked seeing it in person. The vertical concrete pylons on that thing are scary tall. We made a couple stops on the NV and AZ sides of the dam and then spent 30 minutes checking out the walking path on the Pat Tillman Bridge. I held onto my phone pretty tight taking photos over the edge. The tour guide said lots of people have lost phones, hats and sunglasses over that bridge. The winds are one thing. The bridge vibrates a bit as heavy trucks blow by on the other side of the tall Jersey barrier. Can't let that rattle an expensive smart phone loose from the hands!
I-11 traffic over the Colorado River seemed busy enough to me. I hope the road can be upgraded at least down to Kingman and I-40 sometime soon.
^^^^^^^^^^
From the various plans I've seen, ADOT has in essence abandoned any plans for a US 60-based freeway SE of the AZ 74 junction, electing instead for plans for a freeway more or less along 74 over to I-17 not too far from the present NE end of Loop 303. Apparently that was done in part in response to the dense development along the 60/Grand Ave. corridor; it seems ADOT would rather pull their own teeth without anesthetic than exercise eminent domain (hence the planned corridors "out in the boonies") -- probably a defensive measure against the older residents who dominate the population in that part of the region and who might have more propensity for litigation if their properties were in jeopardy. So ADOT is essentially -- at least in the long run -- planning to provide those entering the region via Wickenburg two options -- south to I-10 or east to I-17 (I have yet to hear about any proposed 3di status for the AZ 74 corridor -- but, then, this is AZ, with their long and bizarre history regarding 3di's!).
Quote from: sparker on May 01, 2019, 10:07:48 PM
^^^^^^^^^^
From the various plans I've seen, ADOT has in essence abandoned any plans for a US 60-based freeway SE of the AZ 74 junction, electing instead for plans for a freeway more or less along 74 over to I-17 not too far from the present NE end of Loop 303. Apparently that was done in part in response to the dense development along the 60/Grand Ave. corridor; it seems ADOT would rather pull their own teeth without anesthetic than exercise eminent domain (hence the planned corridors "out in the boonies") -- probably a defensive measure against the older residents who dominate the population in that part of the region and who might have more propensity for litigation if their properties were in jeopardy. So ADOT is essentially -- at least in the long run -- planning to provide those entering the region via Wickenburg two options -- south to I-10 or east to I-17 (I have yet to hear about any proposed 3di status for the AZ 74 corridor -- but, then, this is AZ, with their long and bizarre history regarding 3di's!).
If this is the case, then I'd reluctantly pick the AZ 74 corridor, which would be closer to Phoenix than the others.
Quote from: sparker on May 01, 2019, 10:07:48 PM
^^^^^^^^^^
From the various plans I've seen, ADOT has in essence abandoned any plans for a US 60-based freeway SE of the AZ 74 junction, electing instead for plans for a freeway more or less along 74 over to I-17 not too far from the present NE end of Loop 303. Apparently that was done in part in response to the dense development along the 60/Grand Ave. corridor; it seems ADOT would rather pull their own teeth without anesthetic than exercise eminent domain (hence the planned corridors "out in the boonies") -- probably a defensive measure against the older residents who dominate the population in that part of the region and who might have more propensity for litigation if their properties were in jeopardy. So ADOT is essentially -- at least in the long run -- planning to provide those entering the region via Wickenburg two options -- south to I-10 or east to I-17 (I have yet to hear about any proposed 3di status for the AZ 74 corridor -- but, then, this is AZ, with their long and bizarre history regarding 3di's!).
I was hoping for a bypass along AZ 85 and I-8. That really sucks.
Quote from: sparkerFrom the various plans I've seen, ADOT has in essence abandoned any plans for a US 60-based freeway SE of the AZ 74 junction, electing instead for plans for a freeway more or less along 74 over to I-17 not too far from the present NE end of Loop 303. Apparently that was done in part in response to the dense development along the 60/Grand Ave. corridor; it seems ADOT would rather pull their own teeth without anesthetic than exercise eminent domain (hence the planned corridors "out in the boonies") -- probably a defensive measure against the older residents who dominate the population in that part of the region and who might have more propensity for litigation if their properties were in jeopardy. So ADOT is essentially -- at least in the long run -- planning to provide those entering the region via Wickenburg two options -- south to I-10 or east to I-17 (I have yet to hear about any proposed 3di status for the AZ 74 corridor -- but, then, this is AZ, with their long and bizarre history regarding 3di's!).
There is
currently not much development outside the AZ-303 loop. I certainly wouldn't attempt to plow an I-11 corridor down Grand Ave to a point like the AZ-101 loop. Outside AZ-303 is still do-able.
The routes that go way the f*** around the Phoenix metro add lots of extra miles to an I-11 drive between Las Vegas and Phoenix. The planners have to realize that will be by far the primary function of that route. The plans they're drawing up show entirely different priorities, some of which are pure pork (like the parallel route clear down to Nogales). At least one or more of the proposed routes is fraught with political controversy and will likely have tribal leadership doing their best to block it. It's as if those who are drawing up the plans are trying to bundle in every freaking potential outer loop highway concept possible for Phoenix and Tucson into this effort. The main thing that needs to be built is the
direct Las Vegas to Phoenix element. All the rest of it is mostly fluff.
^^^^^^^^
The term currently is the key here; metro Phoenix has long been the playground of developers; the chances are that most of the land surrounding US 60 is not only privately owned but slated for development in short order. My guess is (a) that I-11 will indeed head down the Hassayampa corridor to I-10 -- but will either (a) shift to a AZ 85 alignment down to Gila Bend (the most logical as well as economical choice) or (b), as has been recently discussed, cut over along the AZ 30 corridor until a few miles east of AZ 85, then head SE toward Maricopa and Casa Grande. IMO the cost of taking it any further SE than that will truncate those plans before any actual ROW purchase, much less construction, takes place; I don't see the corridor heading past Casa Grande in any instance -- and hopefully, it'll just shoot down AZ 85 to I-8 instead -- which will in essence kill 2 birds with 1 stone -- finally provide a nonstop Phoenix-San Diego corridor, and provide the same as a bypass alternative to I-10 around PHX. Given all that's occurred in the region in the last few years, I don't see an Interstate-grade facility paralleling US 60 down to 303 -- but it sure would be nice to have been a fly on the wall when the decision not to take I-11 directly into Phoenix (or Phoenix adjacent!) was reached, just to see what rationales were used to justify such a move.
QuoteI don't see the corridor heading past Casa Grande in any instance -- and hopefully, it'll just shoot down AZ 85 to I-8 instead -- which will in essence kill 2 birds with 1 stone -- finally provide a nonstop Phoenix-San Diego corridor, and provide the same as a bypass alternative to I-10 around PHX.
That's NOT a non-stop corridor to Phoenix. Not when it makes I-11 only a bypass of Phoenix that stays 20 freaking miles West of the metro. That would make it a Vegas to Gila Bend corridor. Shifting the road South off US-60 at the AZ-74 intersection makes a big non-freeway gap for people actually driving between Las Vegas and Phoenix. Those motorists will have even more stop lights to endure outside the 303 loop, if development is indeed allowed to hug up close to the existing US-60 lanes.
I guarantee that stretch of US-60 between AZ-74 and the 303 loop will become a cluster**** of traffic if I-11 is built toward Phoenix but routed way the hell around it. It will be just as bad as US-60 inside the loops.
As for these developers and their porky needs, if they want a future freeway routed out there 20 miles on the other side of the mountains from Phoenix maybe they need to pony up some of their own money for the ROW. Put down some frontage roads and a big median. That can be their
Field of Dreams. Let them put some skin i the game and see if the development comes.
^^^^^^^^^
If configured as a PPP (it's AZ, so I wouldn't put it past them), it's possible that some of the $$ for Hassayampa could and would come from developers looking to locate housing and commercial facilities along that corridor. Yeah, it's not the most direct route into Phoenix -- but if something along AZ 74 is built (which in all likelihood would intersect Loop 303 near its NE end rather than be a direct route to I-17), that might be the best that one could hope for. Frankly, I think the developers wouldn't give a flying fuck if US 60/Grand Ave. gets congested; they'd probably view such congestion as an indicator that the businesses they've plopped down along the boulevard are doing well!
And when referring to AZ 85 as a "nonstop route", that wasn't in reference to traffic coming in from Vegas, which would have already turned off onto EB I-10 by that time if heading into Phoenix proper. I was talking about using a full-freeway connection along AZ 85 between I-10 and I-8 (if that actually becomes part of I-11, that would be icing on the cake, as far as I'm concerned!) as a nonstop connector between Phoenix and San Diego -- or, alternately, as a Phoenix bypass for I-10 using I-8 between Gila Bend and Casa Grande.
Any extension of I-11 on new alignment southeast of Buckeye is simply for the sake of Maricopa-area developers; and any further extension past Casa Grande is simply ludicrous.
I-11 existing south of Casa Grande only makes sense if ADOT wants a single route number for the CANAMEX corridor within the state of Arizona. If ADOT plans on replacing (or cosigning) I-19 with I-11, and cosigning I-10 and I-11 from Tucson to the Casa Grande area, fine. Any new alignment south of Casa Grande will probably be fought tooth and nail. I would prefer they upgrade I-8 and AZ 85 and just worry about a new connection from Wickenburg to I-10 in the Buckeye/Tonopah area.
On the surface, I-11 in Arizona shouldn't be too difficult, provided they don't over-complicate it
1. Upgrade US 93 to Interstate standards, from Nevada down south. They're doing good so far.
2. Sort out the Kingman bypass.
3. Build the Hassyampa corridor south to I-10. Bypass Wickenburg.
4. Build up AZ 85 between I-10 and I-8. That will be I-11.
5. I-11 ends at I-8.
6. Done.
In return, Arizona gets...
1. A much cheaper, yet very effective direct Interstate connection between the Phoenix area and Las Vegas.
2. A legitimate southern bypass of Phoenix, via I-8/11. Perfect for Canamex traffic.
3. None of that ridiculous fairy tale pork adventure about doubling freeways all the way down to the border. That's just crazy talk.
4. A more direct connector from Phoenix (via I-10, etc.) to San Diego, via the I-11/AZ 85 freeway through Buckeye.
5. Very few houses and buildings will be sacrificed.
So, who cares if I-11 doesn't roll directly into Downtown Phoenix? It doesn't have to. I-10 to I-11 from Downtown and the west still works.
What about the northwestern suburban residents? They can still hop on to I-11 via the US 60 expressway before or just past Wickenburg. That's the most logical option. Because, converting US 60 to an Interstate highway from Wickenburg to AZ 303 will be very tricky (never mind trying to do that IN Wickenburg). Meanwhile, turning Grand Ave. into I-11 between AZ 303 and AZ 101 is asinine.
Again, this is 2019. No shame in I-11 skirting town and bypassing through the 'burbs. This ain't the 60s. Many of the people live in the suburbs, and there's far more flexibility with land out there to build freeways, if need be.
This sounds like a pretty logical solution. Much more practical than upgrading US 60 to Loop 303 or 101 and much better than building the entire Hassayampa Freeway as a redundant bypass of I-10 and I-8. There's no shame in having I-11 end outside Phoenix because it still serves the Phoenix metro via I-10.
Personally I like the US 60 to 303 idea better but if that's not practical this will have to do for me.
What are the benefits of extending it to I-8 versus having it end at I-10? I just don't think it really needs to be an Interstate corridor, unless the traffic counts on AZ-85 are really high.
Quote from: thspfc on May 05, 2019, 08:03:10 AM
What are the benefits of extending it to I-8 versus having it end at I-10? I just don't think it really needs to be an Interstate corridor, unless the traffic counts on AZ-85 are really high.
The AADT is between 10,000 and 20,000 depending on where you are, per ADOT - https://www.azdot.gov/docs/default-source/planning/2017-aadt-state-routes.pdf?sfvrsn=8
AZ-85 acts a bypass of the Phoenix area, and traffic coming down I-11 could just continue all the way to I-8, then head eastward on I-10, as opposed to having to join I-10 then travel through the heart of Phoenix.
AZ-85 is mostly limited-access as is, and is designed for interchanges. It wouldn't be an expensive upgrade project.
Quote from: FightingIrishSo, who cares if I-11 doesn't roll directly into Downtown Phoenix? It doesn't have to. I-10 to I-11 from Downtown and the west still works.
I never said I-11 should run all the way to Downtown Phoenix. Run it to AZ-303 and then down South along that route to I-10. That's the path most of the vehicles driving from Las Vegas to Phoenix are going to take. Just building I-11 to AZ-303 would be far less expensive than all the strange extra stuff various parties are drawing on maps. Doing any freeway upgrades along US-60 inside AZ-303 is impossible. Outside the AZ-303 loop is do-able.
Currently there is plenty of space along US-60 from the AZ-303 loop Northwest for freeway conversion. Partial frontage roads are built parallel to to US-60 in most of the spots that have development up to the AZ-74 intersection. The situation along US-60 doesn't really get tight until the road gets within the Southern outskirts of Wickenburg.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 05, 2019, 05:36:32 PM
Quote from: FightingIrishSo, who cares if I-11 doesn't roll directly into Downtown Phoenix? It doesn't have to. I-10 to I-11 from Downtown and the west still works.
I never said I-11 should run all the way to Downtown Phoenix. Run it to AZ-303 and then down South along that route to I-10. That's the path most of the vehicles driving from Las Vegas to Phoenix are going to take. Just building I-11 to AZ-303 would be far less expensive than all the strange extra stuff various parties are drawing on maps. Doing any freeway upgrades along US-60 inside AZ-303 is impossible. Outside the AZ-303 loop is do-able.
Currently there is plenty of space along US-60 from the AZ-303 loop Northwest for freeway conversion. Partial frontage roads are built parallel to to US-60 in most of the spots that have development up to the AZ-74 intersection. The situation along US-60 doesn't really get tight until the road gets within the Southern outskirts of Wickenburg.
What might be a good exercise for an amateur sleuth is to (a) determine the ownership of the adjoining properties within a mile of US 60 and/or the parallel BNSF tracks and subsequently (b) determine if ADOT ever explored the idea of taking the I-11 corridor down or closely paralleling that facility at least to the 303 alignment. As was stated earlier, ADOT seems to avoid the eminent domain process wherever possible (though I'm quite certain that was waived when the I-10 downtown alignment was selected) preferring to simply purchase outlying properties well before plans for development are forthcoming. Even though there seems to be enough open land, particularly on the NE side of US 60, to push a freeway alignment through without taking much in the way of existing structures, it may be possible that whoever actually owns that land has managed, through whatever means available, to render it "off-limits" to public use, including transportation corridors. There's a reason out there regarding why there's no planned corridor along 60 -- and likely that reason has its roots in localized politics -- instead there's two sides of a virtual square (the Hassayampa potential I-11 alignment and the proposed facility along AZ 74) shunting traffic
away from the existing route. Also, most of the land that could conceivably be used for a 60-centered corridor is within the incorporated city of Surprise rather than on unincorporated county territory; perhaps that city is the entity putting the
kibosh on a potential freeway, instead preferring to advance their own developmental plans for their jurisdiction. In short, there are a sizeable number of players that in all likelihood have long put their two cents' worth into any discussion, with the ensuing result being the plans as they are today.
QuoteEven though there seems to be enough open land, particularly on the NE side of US 60, to push a freeway alignment through without taking much in the way of existing structures, it may be possible that whoever actually owns that land has managed, through whatever means available, to render it "off-limits" to public use, including transportation corridors. There's a reason out there regarding why there's no planned corridor along 60 -- and likely that reason has its roots in localized politics -- instead there's two sides of a virtual square (the Hassayampa potential I-11 alignment and the proposed facility along AZ 74) shunting traffic away from the existing route.
The land within the US-60 ROW is not private property. If ADOT can fit a freeway inside that existing ROW and not take any property adjacent to it then there's not much anyone else living or doing business nearby can say about it.
Make no mistake, if I-11 is routed way the hell around Phoenix (either to the North via AZ-74 or out West past Barry Goldwater Peak) the bulk of Phoenix-Vegas traffic is still going to take the shortest, most direct route available. And in this case that is US-60. As the Vegas area continues to grow rapidly and the Phoenix area grows the traffic counts on US-60 is going grow right along with it. If someone is going to drive from Las Vegas to Phoenix he is not going to drive 50 freaking miles out of the way to get there. But that's what that I-11 routing way the hell out past Buckeye would expect to do.
The AZ-85 corridor between Buckeye and Gila Bend has been improved a bit. But it's still not a full blown Interstate quality freeway because there's not nearly enough traffic on it to justify the expense. It's too far outside Phoenix to function as an I-10 relief route for long distance traffic. That's one of the reasons why the AZ-202 extension is necessary.
I think if I-11 is built way out west of Phoenix, even farther west than AZ-85, the traffic counts on that section South of Wickenburg aren't going to be for squat. Most of the traffic will leave I-11 and get on US-60 to go the rest of the way into Phoenix.
I decided to draw out the exact "preferred alignment" on Google My Maps, and from what I got, driving on the proposed I-11 then connecting to I-10 to head into Phoenix was 88 miles, while the existing route is 74 miles - a 14 mile difference.
Google Maps says the existing route takes 1 hour 12 minutes, whereas at an average of 74 MPH on an I-11 to I-10 route (most of the route would be 75 MPH), it would take 1 hour 11 minutes on I-11 to I-10.
So it likely would be used as a route into Phoenix.
I do agree though, US-60 should just be upgraded to Phoenix instead of this whole out of the way alignment. But it will probably get a lot more traffic north of I-10 rather than south of I-10, that's for sure.
^^^^^^^^^^
Giving the benefit of the doubt to posters preferring a I-11 alignment along US 60 -- at least as far as Loop 303 -- I took another look via GE/GSV with an eye toward simply upgrading the existing ROW. And I agree that it could be done -- but at a not insignificant price! First of all, the presence of the parallel BNSF tracks means that much of the route, at least SE of Wittman, would need to be elevated or sunk in order to clear the RR crossings of intersecting roadways. Tight construction with the freeway on a berm and close-in diamond ramps might be feasible in some instances; a TX-style system of frontage roads and J-turns might be one of the options. Of course, if interchanges could be limited to only a few major intersecting arterials, then the remainder could simply be bridged over the combined freeway/RR ROW. But in any case the interchange with Loop 303 would likely have to be located away from the current folded diamond; there's just not sufficient room within the current layout to install anything but the tightest of turbines; more likely is an interchange just NE of the current one (again, to minimize taking of improved properties).
Disclaimer: I'm basing my observations on what I've seen on other routes closely paralleling RR lines, such as much of CA 99 in the San Joaquin Valley and even I-10 out in the Coachella desert. It's feasible, but with considerable expense regarding structures. And I'm sure the concept of minimal interchanges wouldn't go over particularly well with the regional population dominated by retirees and their planned communities; US 60 passes through a much denser population base than, say, CA 99 from Bakersfield to Tulare -- but there are still interchanges every 2 miles or less. But both Bobby and sprjus are likely correct in their assumptions that if I-11 were located away from that corridor that much of Phoenix-bound traffic would simply exit somewhere around Wickenburg and use the existing route for their final leg. But it's also likely that ADOT and the local MPO don't consider that to be a particularly compelling reason for marching I-11 straight down the existing corridor -- they're probably employing a calculus that includes the cost of construction of such a route versus a new-terrain facility through unimproved lands, what the localized political powers that be want to see (which probably incorporates public opinion from the affected suburbs), and elements of the regional "master plan" -- generally a mixture of pipedream and projection. To most DOT's, it's rarely a matter of direct/indirect -- but rather what they calculate they can actually get built without roadblocks. They'll let long-distance traffic venture a bit out of the way rather than piss off voters who live in their region; figuring that since it's already around 285 miles to Vegas, then 300-305 miles of traversable roadway isn't too much of an imposition -- and that anyone who demurs can simply exit I-11, get on US 60, and be done with it. It's all a series of trade-offs -- and most DOT's and even MPO's won't sacrifice the doable for a shot at the ideal!
Put the tracks in the median. Duh.
Quote from: NE2 on May 06, 2019, 08:11:54 PM
Put the tracks in the median. Duh.
I was thinking of a similar concept, similar to how VA-164 and I-664 here in Hampton Roads are setup. The only problem is cost - you not only have to build highway, but also re-route miles of tracks. It may well be cheaper to do what CA-99 has, with tighter ramps with retaining wall.
But obviously the cheapest option would be how they have it proposed. Maybe they could also widen I-10 from the I-11 junction into Phoenix from 4 to 6 lanes if traffic demands warranted it. Upgrading US-60 would be more direct, but a bit of a challenge. The I-11 rural alignment sticks to relatively open fields, and connects to I-10 which already makes the trek straight to Downtown Phoenix. It's only 10 miles additional, and there wouldn't be any time savings sticking to the existing routing. I-11 to I-10 would end up being a few minutes quicker either way, factoring in a continuous 75 MPH speed limit.
Quote from: sparker on May 06, 2019, 07:31:22 PM
^^^^^^^^^^
Giving the benefit of the doubt to posters preferring a I-11 alignment along US 60 -- at least as far as Loop 303 -- I took another look via GE/GSV with an eye toward simply upgrading the existing ROW. And I agree that it could be done -- but at a not insignificant price! First of all, the presence of the parallel BNSF tracks means that much of the route, at least SE of Wittman, would need to be elevated or sunk in order to clear the RR crossings of intersecting roadways. Tight construction with the freeway on a berm and close-in diamond ramps might be feasible in some instances; a TX-style system of frontage roads and J-turns might be one of the options. Of course, if interchanges could be limited to only a few major intersecting arterials, then the remainder could simply be bridged over the combined freeway/RR ROW. But in any case the interchange with Loop 303 would likely have to be located away from the current folded diamond; there's just not sufficient room within the current layout to install anything but the tightest of turbines; more likely is an interchange just NE of the current one (again, to minimize taking of improved properties).
Disclaimer: I'm basing my observations on what I've seen on other routes closely paralleling RR lines, such as much of CA 99 in the San Joaquin Valley and even I-10 out in the Coachella desert. It's feasible, but with considerable expense regarding structures. And I'm sure the concept of minimal interchanges wouldn't go over particularly well with the regional population dominated by retirees and their planned communities; US 60 passes through a much denser population base than, say, CA 99 from Bakersfield to Tulare -- but there are still interchanges every 2 miles or less. But both Bobby and sprjus are likely correct in their assumptions that if I-11 were located away from that corridor that much of Phoenix-bound traffic would simply exit somewhere around Wickenburg and use the existing route for their final leg. But it's also likely that ADOT and the local MPO don't consider that to be a particularly compelling reason for marching I-11 straight down the existing corridor -- they're probably employing a calculus that includes the cost of construction of such a route versus a new-terrain facility through unimproved lands, what the localized political powers that be want to see (which probably incorporates public opinion from the affected suburbs), and elements of the regional "master plan" -- generally a mixture of pipedream and projection. To most DOT's, it's rarely a matter of direct/indirect -- but rather what they calculate they can actually get built without roadblocks. They'll let long-distance traffic venture a bit out of the way rather than piss off voters who live in their region; figuring that since it's already around 285 miles to Vegas, then 300-305 miles of traversable roadway isn't too much of an imposition -- and that anyone who demurs can simply exit I-11, get on US 60, and be done with it. It's all a series of trade-offs -- and most DOT's and even MPO's won't sacrifice the doable for a shot at the ideal!
I noticed the same thing with US 60 down to AZ 303. That's a pretty tough fit. And replacing a major street like that might rub a few locals the wrong way. Wickenburg is going to be really tough.
Aside from widening US 93 in parts, Arizona is really taking their time with I-11. Especially considering all the ridiculous plans they have for it (Nogales). Perhaps they should just keep it as simple as possible for now, and at least build it to I-10. The Hassyampa corridor is easy - open, unimproved land.
Oh, and figure out the Kingman interchange.
^^^^^^^^
I was under the impression that I-11 was going to be looped around the west side of Kingman, intersecting I-40 about a mile west of the current 93/40 junction -- although adding a couple of miles, pretty doable in regards to both topography and property acquisition.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 06, 2019, 09:15:43 PM
Quote from: NE2 on May 06, 2019, 08:11:54 PM
Put the tracks in the median. Duh.
I was thinking of a similar concept, similar to how VA-164 and I-664 here in Hampton Roads are setup. The only problem is cost - you not only have to build highway, but also re-route miles of tracks. It may well be cheaper to do what CA-99 has, with tighter ramps with retaining wall.
The difference is the railroad in Virginia was built after the freeways. Both freeway medians were originally planned quite wide from the beginning to accommodate the future railroad. It was strange to see bridges over empty rail underpasses during my time there. (The railroad was built not long after I left.) I'm not sure the same method would work for a preexisting railroad. The CA-99 construction model may be more useful.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 03, 2019, 01:32:38 PM
Quote from: sparkerFrom the various plans I've seen, ADOT has in essence abandoned any plans for a US 60-based freeway SE of the AZ 74 junction, electing instead for plans for a freeway more or less along 74 over to I-17 not too far from the present NE end of Loop 303. Apparently that was done in part in response to the dense development along the 60/Grand Ave. corridor; it seems ADOT would rather pull their own teeth without anesthetic than exercise eminent domain (hence the planned corridors "out in the boonies") -- probably a defensive measure against the older residents who dominate the population in that part of the region and who might have more propensity for litigation if their properties were in jeopardy. So ADOT is essentially -- at least in the long run -- planning to provide those entering the region via Wickenburg two options -- south to I-10 or east to I-17 (I have yet to hear about any proposed 3di status for the AZ 74 corridor -- but, then, this is AZ, with their long and bizarre history regarding 3di's!).
There is currently not much development outside the AZ-303 loop. I certainly wouldn't attempt to plow an I-11 corridor down Grand Ave to a point like the AZ-101 loop. Outside AZ-303 is still do-able.
The routes that go way the f*** around the Phoenix metro add lots of extra miles to an I-11 drive between Las Vegas and Phoenix. The planners have to realize that will be by far the primary function of that route. The plans they're drawing up show entirely different priorities, some of which are pure pork (like the parallel route clear down to Nogales). At least one or more of the proposed routes is fraught with political controversy and will likely have tribal leadership doing their best to block it. It's as if those who are drawing up the plans are trying to bundle in every freaking potential outer loop highway concept possible for Phoenix and Tucson into this effort. The main thing that needs to be built is the direct Las Vegas to Phoenix element. All the rest of it is mostly fluff.
The entirety of I-11 is pure pork. US 93 is sufficient.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 07, 2019, 05:01:40 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 03, 2019, 01:32:38 PM
Quote from: sparkerFrom the various plans I've seen, ADOT has in essence abandoned any plans for a US 60-based freeway SE of the AZ 74 junction, electing instead for plans for a freeway more or less along 74 over to I-17 not too far from the present NE end of Loop 303. Apparently that was done in part in response to the dense development along the 60/Grand Ave. corridor; it seems ADOT would rather pull their own teeth without anesthetic than exercise eminent domain (hence the planned corridors "out in the boonies") -- probably a defensive measure against the older residents who dominate the population in that part of the region and who might have more propensity for litigation if their properties were in jeopardy. So ADOT is essentially -- at least in the long run -- planning to provide those entering the region via Wickenburg two options -- south to I-10 or east to I-17 (I have yet to hear about any proposed 3di status for the AZ 74 corridor -- but, then, this is AZ, with their long and bizarre history regarding 3di's!).
There is currently not much development outside the AZ-303 loop. I certainly wouldn't attempt to plow an I-11 corridor down Grand Ave to a point like the AZ-101 loop. Outside AZ-303 is still do-able.
The routes that go way the f*** around the Phoenix metro add lots of extra miles to an I-11 drive between Las Vegas and Phoenix. The planners have to realize that will be by far the primary function of that route. The plans they're drawing up show entirely different priorities, some of which are pure pork (like the parallel route clear down to Nogales). At least one or more of the proposed routes is fraught with political controversy and will likely have tribal leadership doing their best to block it. It's as if those who are drawing up the plans are trying to bundle in every freaking potential outer loop highway concept possible for Phoenix and Tucson into this effort. The main thing that needs to be built is the direct Las Vegas to Phoenix element. All the rest of it is mostly fluff.
The entirety of I-11 is pure pork. US 93 is sufficient.
And in what way does this contribute to the thread?
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 07, 2019, 05:01:40 PM
The entirety of I-11 is pure pork. US 93 is sufficient.
The I-11 corridor was brought to light back in '97 with the
Roads & Bridges article about the locations where new Interstates would be appropriate, taking into account not only the cities served but the commercial usage of the extant corridors. It took 15 years until the Interstate designation after that -- and Las Vegas has grown since then, as has greater Phoenix. Despite local efforts to satisfy every developer whim, the long-established rationale for the corridor hasn't changed; trucks continue to plow down the 2-lane sections of US 93. This is one of those corridors with ample justification; its extension NW of Vegas a bit less so (more of a NV thing!). But contrary to the oft-stated opinions of some, not all new Interstate trunk corridors are completely porcine!
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 07, 2019, 05:01:40 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 03, 2019, 01:32:38 PM
Quote from: sparkerFrom the various plans I've seen, ADOT has in essence abandoned any plans for a US 60-based freeway SE of the AZ 74 junction, electing instead for plans for a freeway more or less along 74 over to I-17 not too far from the present NE end of Loop 303. Apparently that was done in part in response to the dense development along the 60/Grand Ave. corridor; it seems ADOT would rather pull their own teeth without anesthetic than exercise eminent domain (hence the planned corridors "out in the boonies") -- probably a defensive measure against the older residents who dominate the population in that part of the region and who might have more propensity for litigation if their properties were in jeopardy. So ADOT is essentially -- at least in the long run -- planning to provide those entering the region via Wickenburg two options -- south to I-10 or east to I-17 (I have yet to hear about any proposed 3di status for the AZ 74 corridor -- but, then, this is AZ, with their long and bizarre history regarding 3di's!).
There is currently not much development outside the AZ-303 loop. I certainly wouldn't attempt to plow an I-11 corridor down Grand Ave to a point like the AZ-101 loop. Outside AZ-303 is still do-able.
The routes that go way the f*** around the Phoenix metro add lots of extra miles to an I-11 drive between Las Vegas and Phoenix. The planners have to realize that will be by far the primary function of that route. The plans they're drawing up show entirely different priorities, some of which are pure pork (like the parallel route clear down to Nogales). At least one or more of the proposed routes is fraught with political controversy and will likely have tribal leadership doing their best to block it. It's as if those who are drawing up the plans are trying to bundle in every freaking potential outer loop highway concept possible for Phoenix and Tucson into this effort. The main thing that needs to be built is the direct Las Vegas to Phoenix element. All the rest of it is mostly fluff.
The entirety of I-11 is pure pork. US 93 is sufficient.
I'll remember that the next time I'm stuck behind six RVs on US 93.
Quote from: Henry on May 03, 2019, 10:22:33 AM
Quote from: sparker on May 01, 2019, 10:07:48 PM
^^^^^^^^^^
From the various plans I've seen, ADOT has in essence abandoned any plans for a US 60-based freeway SE of the AZ 74 junction, electing instead for plans for a freeway more or less along 74 over to I-17 not too far from the present NE end of Loop 303. Apparently that was done in part in response to the dense development along the 60/Grand Ave. corridor; it seems ADOT would rather pull their own teeth without anesthetic than exercise eminent domain (hence the planned corridors "out in the boonies") -- probably a defensive measure against the older residents who dominate the population in that part of the region and who might have more propensity for litigation if their properties were in jeopardy. So ADOT is essentially -- at least in the long run -- planning to provide those entering the region via Wickenburg two options -- south to I-10 or east to I-17 (I have yet to hear about any proposed 3di status for the AZ 74 corridor -- but, then, this is AZ, with their long and bizarre history regarding 3di's!).
If this is the case, then I'd reluctantly pick the AZ 74 corridor, which would be closer to Phoenix than the others.
The AZ 74 corridor is not a bad option. I make the drive to Las Vegas from my home in Scottsdale about once per month on average. In theory, taking I-10 up 303 to the 60 is the shortest route, and the route I take if it is a weekend. However, being that I-10 west is insanely congested and will continue to get worse as the suburbs to the west grow (even with the opening of the 202 SMF and AZ 30) this route takes a lot longer. I now will take I-17 north to AZ 74 to avoid this congestion and it's always the recommended route on Waze. The only negative is AZ 74 is only two lanes with the exception of a couple of passing lanes, and is too busy to pass slow traffic for the most part. So getting stuck behind a slow RV is usually the biggest issue, but still a fairly efficient route.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 07, 2019, 05:01:40 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 03, 2019, 01:32:38 PM
Quote from: sparkerFrom the various plans I've seen, ADOT has in essence abandoned any plans for a US 60-based freeway SE of the AZ 74 junction, electing instead for plans for a freeway more or less along 74 over to I-17 not too far from the present NE end of Loop 303. Apparently that was done in part in response to the dense development along the 60/Grand Ave. corridor; it seems ADOT would rather pull their own teeth without anesthetic than exercise eminent domain (hence the planned corridors "out in the boonies") -- probably a defensive measure against the older residents who dominate the population in that part of the region and who might have more propensity for litigation if their properties were in jeopardy. So ADOT is essentially -- at least in the long run -- planning to provide those entering the region via Wickenburg two options -- south to I-10 or east to I-17 (I have yet to hear about any proposed 3di status for the AZ 74 corridor -- but, then, this is AZ, with their long and bizarre history regarding 3di's!).
There is currently not much development outside the AZ-303 loop. I certainly wouldn't attempt to plow an I-11 corridor down Grand Ave to a point like the AZ-101 loop. Outside AZ-303 is still do-able.
The routes that go way the f*** around the Phoenix metro add lots of extra miles to an I-11 drive between Las Vegas and Phoenix. The planners have to realize that will be by far the primary function of that route. The plans they're drawing up show entirely different priorities, some of which are pure pork (like the parallel route clear down to Nogales). At least one or more of the proposed routes is fraught with political controversy and will likely have tribal leadership doing their best to block it. It's as if those who are drawing up the plans are trying to bundle in every freaking potential outer loop highway concept possible for Phoenix and Tucson into this effort. The main thing that needs to be built is the direct Las Vegas to Phoenix element. All the rest of it is mostly fluff.
The entirety of I-11 is pure pork. US 93 is sufficient.
Says someone from Tennessee.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 07, 2019, 08:33:15 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 07, 2019, 05:01:40 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 03, 2019, 01:32:38 PM
Quote from: sparkerFrom the various plans I've seen, ADOT has in essence abandoned any plans for a US 60-based freeway SE of the AZ 74 junction, electing instead for plans for a freeway more or less along 74 over to I-17 not too far from the present NE end of Loop 303. Apparently that was done in part in response to the dense development along the 60/Grand Ave. corridor; it seems ADOT would rather pull their own teeth without anesthetic than exercise eminent domain (hence the planned corridors "out in the boonies") -- probably a defensive measure against the older residents who dominate the population in that part of the region and who might have more propensity for litigation if their properties were in jeopardy. So ADOT is essentially -- at least in the long run -- planning to provide those entering the region via Wickenburg two options -- south to I-10 or east to I-17 (I have yet to hear about any proposed 3di status for the AZ 74 corridor -- but, then, this is AZ, with their long and bizarre history regarding 3di's!).
There is currently not much development outside the AZ-303 loop. I certainly wouldn't attempt to plow an I-11 corridor down Grand Ave to a point like the AZ-101 loop. Outside AZ-303 is still do-able.
The routes that go way the f*** around the Phoenix metro add lots of extra miles to an I-11 drive between Las Vegas and Phoenix. The planners have to realize that will be by far the primary function of that route. The plans they're drawing up show entirely different priorities, some of which are pure pork (like the parallel route clear down to Nogales). At least one or more of the proposed routes is fraught with political controversy and will likely have tribal leadership doing their best to block it. It's as if those who are drawing up the plans are trying to bundle in every freaking potential outer loop highway concept possible for Phoenix and Tucson into this effort. The main thing that needs to be built is the direct Las Vegas to Phoenix element. All the rest of it is mostly fluff.
The entirety of I-11 is pure pork. US 93 is sufficient.
Says someone from Tennessee.
Well since you are from North Carolina you are pretty used to Porky Pig interstate projects.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 07, 2019, 08:50:06 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 07, 2019, 08:33:15 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 07, 2019, 05:01:40 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 03, 2019, 01:32:38 PM
Quote from: sparkerFrom the various plans I've seen, ADOT has in essence abandoned any plans for a US 60-based freeway SE of the AZ 74 junction, electing instead for plans for a freeway more or less along 74 over to I-17 not too far from the present NE end of Loop 303. Apparently that was done in part in response to the dense development along the 60/Grand Ave. corridor; it seems ADOT would rather pull their own teeth without anesthetic than exercise eminent domain (hence the planned corridors "out in the boonies") -- probably a defensive measure against the older residents who dominate the population in that part of the region and who might have more propensity for litigation if their properties were in jeopardy. So ADOT is essentially -- at least in the long run -- planning to provide those entering the region via Wickenburg two options -- south to I-10 or east to I-17 (I have yet to hear about any proposed 3di status for the AZ 74 corridor -- but, then, this is AZ, with their long and bizarre history regarding 3di's!).
There is currently not much development outside the AZ-303 loop. I certainly wouldn't attempt to plow an I-11 corridor down Grand Ave to a point like the AZ-101 loop. Outside AZ-303 is still do-able.
The routes that go way the f*** around the Phoenix metro add lots of extra miles to an I-11 drive between Las Vegas and Phoenix. The planners have to realize that will be by far the primary function of that route. The plans they're drawing up show entirely different priorities, some of which are pure pork (like the parallel route clear down to Nogales). At least one or more of the proposed routes is fraught with political controversy and will likely have tribal leadership doing their best to block it. It's as if those who are drawing up the plans are trying to bundle in every freaking potential outer loop highway concept possible for Phoenix and Tucson into this effort. The main thing that needs to be built is the direct Las Vegas to Phoenix element. All the rest of it is mostly fluff.
The entirety of I-11 is pure pork. US 93 is sufficient.
Says someone from Tennessee.
Well since you are from North Carolina you are pretty used to Porky Pig interstate projects.
Uhh -- look at his location; he's from VA, which is where Interstate projects go to die!
is i-11 supposed to go through Bend, Oregon?
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 07, 2019, 08:50:06 PM
Well since you are from North Carolina you are pretty used to Porky Pig interstate projects.
Close... Hampton Roads is close... I wouldn't call it NC though. Only 10 minutes away though, so who knows :confused:
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 07, 2019, 10:08:05 PM
is i-11 supposed to go through Bend, Oregon?
If I'm not mistaken, it's supposed to end at I-80 in Reno.
Quote from: sparker on May 07, 2019, 09:18:17 PM
which is where Interstate projects go to die!
Preaching to the choir... I think the last true interstate proposal was I-73. The last one constructed... well that'd be the original 5 from 1956. That could change by 2040... if I-87 is brought to I-64... by constructing a few interchanges on existing rural limited-access road... or the Martinsville Southern Connector is built... 5 miles long... and I-73 is completed to the border in NC then up the MSC to US-58... but nothing else I could foresee after that. For a looooong time. A new interstate long-distancing across Virginia soil? Never.
(to be clear, I'm referring to long-distance 2-d, not 3-d)
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 07, 2019, 10:08:51 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 07, 2019, 10:08:05 PM
is i-11 supposed to go through Bend, Oregon?
If I'm not mistaken, it's supposed to end at I-80 in Reno.
I just saw the I-87 NC shield and didn't look further.
Quote from: kdk on May 07, 2019, 06:29:58 PM
Quote from: Henry on May 03, 2019, 10:22:33 AM
Quote from: sparker on May 01, 2019, 10:07:48 PM
^^^^^^^^^^
From the various plans I've seen, ADOT has in essence abandoned any plans for a US 60-based freeway SE of the AZ 74 junction, electing instead for plans for a freeway more or less along 74 over to I-17 not too far from the present NE end of Loop 303. Apparently that was done in part in response to the dense development along the 60/Grand Ave. corridor; it seems ADOT would rather pull their own teeth without anesthetic than exercise eminent domain (hence the planned corridors "out in the boonies") -- probably a defensive measure against the older residents who dominate the population in that part of the region and who might have more propensity for litigation if their properties were in jeopardy. So ADOT is essentially -- at least in the long run -- planning to provide those entering the region via Wickenburg two options -- south to I-10 or east to I-17 (I have yet to hear about any proposed 3di status for the AZ 74 corridor -- but, then, this is AZ, with their long and bizarre history regarding 3di's!).
If this is the case, then I'd reluctantly pick the AZ 74 corridor, which would be closer to Phoenix than the others.
The AZ 74 corridor is not a bad option. I make the drive to Las Vegas from my home in Scottsdale about once per month on average. In theory, taking I-10 up 303 to the 60 is the shortest route, and the route I take if it is a weekend. However, being that I-10 west is insanely congested and will continue to get worse as the suburbs to the west grow (even with the opening of the 202 SMF and AZ 30) this route takes a lot longer. I now will take I-17 north to AZ 74 to avoid this congestion and it's always the recommended route on Waze. The only negative is AZ 74 is only two lanes with the exception of a couple of passing lanes, and is too busy to pass slow traffic for the most part. So getting stuck behind a slow RV is usually the biggest issue, but still a fairly efficient route.
AZ 74 or down US 60 / Grand Ave is not an alignment of the latest three I-11 short-listed options. All three of those have similar routes, due south from between AZ 71 and AZ 89 on US 93 west of Wickenburg. A bypass of Wickenburg tying into AZ 74 may eventually be built, as shown by the southwest route option:
http://wickenburg.civilnet.sverdrup.com/Bypass/Maps/recommended%20corrs.jpg
The southern loop route option may supersede the southwest route as it looks like a it bestrides more of the chosen three routes heading to I-10. It is interesting that the bypass route was not included, that I can see, among the options examined in the 2017 Alternatives Report. Only one continued further down US60, option W. Incidentally, it was dismissed because of the close proximity to the Hassayumpa River and loss of arterial road access if a limited access freeway were built straight down US60 to Morristown. The bypass would have solved much of that issue.
Greenfields building was chosen over using existing highways such as the Sun Valley Parkway. It was dismissed as a corridor because of access issues red-flagged for US60 (which would be worst in Wickenburg, but could have been avoided if the bypass were entertained).
The maps of the chosen corridors may be found at: http://origin.i11study.com/Arizona/Map.asp
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 07, 2019, 10:08:51 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 07, 2019, 10:08:05 PM
is i-11 supposed to go through Bend, Oregon?
If I'm not mistaken, it's supposed to end at I-80 in Reno.
Most likely, from NDOT's preferences, I-11 will intersect I-80 somewhere around Fernley, about 35 miles east of Reno; Reno-bound (or originating) traffic will simply head east on I-80 to get to I-11 (in a similar fashion to today's most common surface route). That's considered a reasonable place to effect the intersection; since it's where I-80 makes a drastic turn NE toward Winnemucca, so Idaho-bound traffic can head east, while Reno (and possibly CA or OR) traffic would head west. If I-11 is eventually continued northward, it can multiplex in either direction, depending upon where it's eventually planned to go. Don't expect any northward action for the next 25-30 years, however -- unless the Boise/Treasure Valley population increased by leaps & bounds over its present rate of growth.
All this has been previously discussed in some detail within the I-11 northern extension thread in Southwest, including the pros and cons of Boise vs. Oregon as an ultimate (or penultimate, if those wanting to drag the corridor all the way to Canada have their way) destination.
Quote from: sparker on May 08, 2019, 12:34:06 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 07, 2019, 10:08:51 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 07, 2019, 10:08:05 PM
is i-11 supposed to go through Bend, Oregon?
If I'm not mistaken, it's supposed to end at I-80 in Reno.
Most likely, from NDOT's preferences, I-11 will intersect I-80 somewhere around Fernley, about 35 miles east of Reno; Reno-bound (or originating) traffic will simply head east on I-80 to get to I-11 (in a similar fashion to today's most common surface route). That's considered a reasonable place to effect the intersection; since it's where I-80 makes a drastic turn NE toward Winnemucca, so Idaho-bound traffic can head east, while Reno (and possibly CA or OR) traffic would head west. If I-11 is eventually continued northward, it can multiplex in either direction, depending upon where it's eventually planned to go. Don't expect any northward action for the next 25-30 years, however -- unless the Boise/Treasure Valley population increased by leaps & bounds over its present rate of growth.
All this has been previously discussed in some detail within the I-11 northern extension thread in Southwest, including the pros and cons of Boise vs. Oregon as an ultimate (or penultimate, if those wanting to drag the corridor all the way to Canada have their way) destination.
Boise's urban area is expected to hit a million within 5 years. What would be "leaps and bounds" over that? Two million? Five million? 10 million? IMO the exact population is irrelevant. What counts is the traffic count. Is there enough for Boise to Reno traffic to justify I-11 going that way?
Look at a map of the Boise area. See what a mess it is to go from there to US 95? That is where an I-380 would be the solution. Get down to Homedale. bypass the town and end the freeway at the Oregon border. US 95 in Oregon is a 70 MPH highway. There are no real towns or cities along it. Cross into Nevada for some rinkydink hamlet. then see empty road all the way to Winnemucca. If Nevada's speed limit on US 95 is not already 70 MPH. it should be.
By going with an I-380 you get the Boise urban area traffic situation in a better way and make it real easy to get to and from Boise when US 95 is part of the route. Win-win! No need for an I-11 to Boise unless the truck traffic climbs to I-40 levels. I do not see that happening. Just add in some short 4-lane stretches and 3-lane stretches for passing what trucks, RV's and slowpokes are present. That will get us to 2050 short of a gold rush in the middle of nowhere...LOL!
Rick
^^^^^^^^
Like I said re a Boise connector -- a long-term prospect, no more, no less; probably 25-30 years if at all -- and who knows what'll happen by then. But shouldn't your idea be an I-384 since it'll branch off I-84 rather than I-80? Or -- since it'll terminate at US 95, I-584.
Quote from: sparker on May 08, 2019, 02:14:27 AM
^^^^^^^^
Like I said re a Boise connector -- a long-term prospect, no more, no less; probably 25-30 years if at all -- and who knows what'll happen by then. But shouldn't your idea be an I-384 since it'll branch off I-84 rather than I-80? Or -- since it'll terminate at US 95, I-584.
Typo.
Rick
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 08, 2019, 12:13:42 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 07, 2019, 10:08:51 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on May 07, 2019, 10:08:05 PM
is i-11 supposed to go through Bend, Oregon?
If I'm not mistaken, it's supposed to end at I-80 in Reno.
I just saw the I-87 NC shield and didn't look further.
I support the route, which would be mainly in North Carolina, but it would connect into Hampton Roads, where I'm at.
does boise even need any more interstates?
^^^^ if they keep up their growth they will.
I don't even know where an additional interstate would go in Boise. Terrain's an issue on the northside, at least. Don't think there's a need for a I-x84 route to the south of I-84.
Quote from: Rothman on May 10, 2019, 12:09:57 AM
I don't even know where an additional interstate would go in Boise. Terrain's an issue on the northside, at least. Don't think there's a need for a I-x84 route to the south of I-84.
ID 16 is proposed to be extended south from US 20/26 to I-84, as a freeway. The existing portion between 20/26 and ID 44 is currently a four-lane expressway with a 65 mph speed limit.
Quote from: Rothman on May 10, 2019, 12:09:57 AM
I don't even know where an additional interstate would go in Boise. Terrain's an issue on the northside, at least. Don't think there's a need for a I-x84 route to the south of I-84.
Given the maze of surface streets between US 95, the primary conduit to Boise from the south and Boise itself, which is expected to hit for 1 million within 5 years, I would definitely say there had better be an I-x84 between these two points. Smooth out the city traffic and accommodate the long range stuff and do it before land and construction costs climb any more. Think ahead!
Rick
^^^^^^^^^^
Rick makes a decent point -- do you build a facility based on statistical extrapolation and stay ahead of the curve re inflation or wait until doing so is a clear and present necessity? In this case a reasonable "middle ground" could be achieved in the near term by building a spur freeway as discussed above between I-84 somewhere in the Caldwell area SW roughly along ID 55 to US 95 west of Marsing -- to at least ensure that the ROW in that growing area isn't compromised -- with the potential to extend it down US 95 to I-80 when the need for that facility arises.
Quote from: sparker on May 10, 2019, 02:04:42 AM
^^^^^^^^^^
Rick makes a decent point -- do you build a facility based on statistical extrapolation and stay ahead of the curve re inflation or wait until doing so is a clear and present necessity? In this case a reasonable "middle ground" could be achieved in the near term by building a spur freeway as discussed above between I-84 somewhere in the Caldwell area SW roughly along ID 55 to US 95 west of Marsing -- to at least ensure that the ROW in that growing area isn't compromised -- with the potential to extend it down US 95 to I-80 when the need for that facility arises.
Maybe an I-284 along the southern periphery from somewhere near Exit 64 (Blacks Creek Rd), roughly following Kuna Mora Rd, Tenmile Creek Rd, Hubbard Rd, Deer Flat Rd, south of Lake Lowell, then north somewhere around Chicken Dinner Rd (LOL), then northeasterly toward Exit 25 (ID 44/Middleton).
They have made some modest upgrades on ID-55 between I-84 (Nampa) and US-95 (Marsing) in the past few years, but nothing groundbreaking. Mostly improving intersections by adding more/better turn lanes, adding some signals, and a bit of widening. Plus repaving (the previous pavement quality was bad). It is a far better highway now than it was the first time I went on it (around 2012). It is mostly a 2 lane highway still, though. I don't see any major changes beyond possibly widening what's there to 4-5 lanes, though. Which I think would be adequate for the foreseeable future. The only real problem is at the Karcher Rd./Caldwell Blvd intersection in Nampa right off the freeway. Not sure what can be done about that, but once you're past that it's mostly smooth sailing unless it's in the heart of rush hour.
There hasn't been any serious discussions of any other freeways around Boise, besides the ID-16 freeway that's already partially constructed and the rest is in planning stages. People throw out the idea of a southern bypass, but I don't think that is likely in my lifetime, never heard an official agency so much as mention it. It would be quite expensive, and I don't think it would be a huge benefit, primarily only serving through traffic (which is a valid, but it's not a big percentage of traffic).
More useful potential pie in the sky freeway corridors come to mind along State St, Chinden (US-20/26), or Eagle Rd (ID-55), but I think it's far too late to do anything with those (other than maybe grade separating a couple intersections along Eagle Rd, notably Franklin or Fairview), and I think solutions like the "ThrU Turn" at State St and Veterans Memorial Parkway, or contra-flow left turns like they may be planning for some parts of Chinden between Meridian and Caldwell, in addition to some modest widening (6 lanes), signal adjustments, and maybe bus and/or HOV lanes will have to do the trick.
^^^^^^^^^
This discussion has started mixing apples and oranges (typical when "detoured" away from the original thread subject). I'm certain that any number of bypass or spur iterations closer to Boise would enhance the prospect of local commute travel or congestion relief -- but the Caldwell-Marsing spur previously suggested would address a particular situation -- how to expedite traffic from southward US 95 to I-84 via a limited-access facility -- something that would certainly come in handy if, down the line, an Interstate connector to I-80 was deemed appropriate. At this point, we're not talking about incremental changes to the existing ID 55 corridor that presently serves this purpose but rather a new-terrain facility roughly parallel to it. Now -- whether such a project is politically or fiscally feasible would have to be determined. It's possible such a project could be divided into a couple of phases -- identifying the alignment and acquiring the ROW would be job #1; once that was done, actual construction could occur whenever fiscally possible. Since the area seems to feature new residential tracts on a regular basis, ROW preservation -- for any project, not just this one -- would be a necessary first step.
Random, stupid, useless musing: Why not go ahead and co-sign I-11 on I-40 for the 93 segment?
Quote from: doorknob60 on May 10, 2019, 04:16:33 PM
There hasn't been any serious discussions of any other freeways around Boise, besides the ID-16 freeway that's already partially constructed and the rest is in planning stages. People throw out the idea of a southern bypass, but I don't think that is likely in my lifetime, never heard an official agency so much as mention it. It would be quite expensive, and I don't think it would be a huge benefit, primarily only serving through traffic (which is a valid, but it's not a big percentage of traffic).
There is one generally sketched out on ACHD's Master Street Map (based on the COMPASS model) along Kuna-Mora Rd, but yes, it's never actually going to happen.
https://www.achdidaho.org/Documents/Engineering/Etrakit/FunctionalClassMap2040.pdf
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on May 10, 2019, 06:53:52 PM
Random, stupid, useless musing: Why not go ahead and co-sign I-11 on I-40 for the 93 segment?
Question: are there currently any "Future I-11 signs along the coincidental I-40/US 93 segment? If there aren't even those, chances are that ADOT wouldn't even entertain the notion of actual reassurance signage until at least the Kingman Bypass is completed and carrying traffic.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on May 10, 2019, 06:53:52 PM
Random, stupid, useless musing: Why not go ahead and co-sign I-11 on I-40 for the 93 segment?
That's not the current plan? Anyone with a brain would see that's the best routing to go. I was always under the assumption that was the proposal, just follow US-93 including the I-40 overlap. Works fine today, would work fine in the future. Maybe widen I-40 to 3 lanes if needed, but far less cheaper and far less impacts then a whole new alignment.
We'll find out exactly what happens when the time comes. Until then, we can only speculate.
I now see the comment was referring to sign-posting I-11 on the existing interstate portion. I thought it was referring to some plan to construct I-11 on new alignment near I-40, and questioning why not just use the existing I-40.
Apologize about the misreading.
ADOT has already improved US 93 up to within a couple of miles of I-40 with Interstate-spec carriageway geometry; at this point duplicating that effort would be pointless. The existing interchange will require upgrades or replacement, but otherwise there will definitely be a I-11/40 multiplex.
Quote from: sparker on May 11, 2019, 06:21:49 PM
ADOT has already improved US 93 up to within a couple of miles of I-40 with Interstate-spec carriageway geometry; at this point duplicating that effort would be pointless. The existing interchange will require upgrades or replacement, but otherwise there will definitely be a I-11/40 multiplex.
The only new road north of Wickenburg that I'm aware of, other than rebuilding that 40/93 interchange, are bypasses around Kingman and Wickieup. How they're going to connect it to the current 93 to Vegas is beyond me. I assume it'll be somewhere just before Coyote Pass and the AZ 68 interchange.
Beyond that, I-11 will directly replace US 93 between the Nevada state line and just north of Wickenburg.
They're finally beginning construction on the remaining two-lane sections of 93 between the I-40 interchange and Wickieup. Once that's finished, 93 will be divided highway between about 1/2 mile south of I-40 and the Joshua Tree area north of Wickenburg (no idea when that section will be built), except for in Wickieup itself.
It's unfortunate that AZDOT's links for the US93/I40 interchange are no longer working. IIRC, Sparker is correct in that the Preferred Alternative was to swing US93 north just west of the existing interchange and have it rejoin the existing road just north of the commercial development area.
Let me guess they will axe US 93 once the I-11 pork boondoggle project is completed.
Quote from: rte66man on May 12, 2019, 12:49:23 PM
It's unfortunate that AZDOT's links for the US93/I40 interchange are no longer working. IIRC, Sparker is correct in that the Preferred Alternative was to swing US93 north just west of the existing interchange and have it rejoin the existing road just north of the commercial development area.
The terrain on US 93 on Beale Street poses a significant challenge in addition it would require massive eminent domain. To the west there is somewhat clear path in Golden Valley through a thinly inhabited area. Back when I-11 was first being proposed this was the preferred route and I'd imagine it still is due to the cost savings.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 12, 2019, 12:52:05 PM
Let me guess they will axe US 93 once the I-11 pork boondoggle project is completed.
How is this a "pork boondoggle project"? It's constructing interstate highway for a long distance paralleling a 2 lane road between I-80 and Vegas, and connecting Phoenix and Las Vegas, two major metros not linked via an interstate, and parts of US-93 down that way still have 2-lanes. Also links I-40 traffic with Las Vegas which doesn't have an interstate connection.
Are you just against any new interstate highways or any freeway for that matter being constructed anywhere?
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 12, 2019, 02:41:28 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 12, 2019, 12:52:05 PM
Let me guess they will axe US 93 once the I-11 pork boondoggle project is completed.
How is this a "pork boondoggle project"? It's constructing interstate highway for a long distance paralleling a 2 lane road between I-80 and Vegas, and connecting Phoenix and Las Vegas, two major metros not linked via an interstate, and parts of US-93 down that way still have 2-lanes. Also links I-40 traffic with Las Vegas which doesn't have an interstate connection.
Are you just against any new interstate highways or any freeway for that matter being constructed anywhere?
Yes, he is.
He'd turn all Interstates back into 2-lane roads because "sufficient".
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 12, 2019, 03:19:31 PM
Yes, he is.
He'd turn all Interstates back into 2-lane roads because "sufficient".
If he's calling this a boondoggle, we might as well demolish the entire system because it's all a "boondoggle". :rolleyes: :no:
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 12, 2019, 12:52:05 PM
Let me guess they will axe US 93 once the I-11 pork boondoggle project is completed.
Rather than comment on his editorialization -- A71 is probably correct in his assumption that US 93 will be truncated -- likely at the north I-15/US 93 interchange NE of Vegas. Since ADOT never requested that US 93 multiplex with US 60 into central Phoenix (like AZ 93 before it), there's no particular need to maintain its presence south of NV.
Alternate thought (verging on fictional): If indeed I-11 subsumes much if not all of US 95 south of Fallon, NV, it might be appropriate to truncate
US 95 in Fallon, and reroute US 93 down the southern independent section of US 95 through Needles, Blythe, and Yuma (with the requisite renumbering of AZ 195 to 193).
Quote from: sparker on May 12, 2019, 04:26:18 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 12, 2019, 12:52:05 PM
Let me guess they will axe US 93 once the I-11 pork boondoggle project is completed.
Rather than comment on his editorialization -- A71 is probably correct in his assumption that US 93 will be truncated -- likely at the north I-15/US 93 interchange NE of Vegas. Since ADOT never requested that US 93 multiplex with US 60 into central Phoenix (like AZ 93 before it), there's no particular need to maintain its presence south of NV.
Alternate thought (verging on fictional): If indeed I-11 subsumes much if not all of US 95 south of Fallon, NV, it might be appropriate to truncate US 95 in Fallon, and reroute US 93 down the southern independent section of US 95 through Needles, Blythe, and Yuma (with the requisite renumbering of AZ 195 to 193).
Hell if they was the case I'd rather have a US Route on AZ 95 or a combo of AZ 95 and CA 62. The latter would be better to minimize some of the Interstate multiplex US 95 does with I-10.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 12, 2019, 04:36:41 PM
Quote from: sparker on May 12, 2019, 04:26:18 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 12, 2019, 12:52:05 PM
Let me guess they will axe US 93 once the I-11 pork boondoggle project is completed.
Rather than comment on his editorialization -- A71 is probably correct in his assumption that US 93 will be truncated -- likely at the north I-15/US 93 interchange NE of Vegas. Since ADOT never requested that US 93 multiplex with US 60 into central Phoenix (like AZ 93 before it), there's no particular need to maintain its presence south of NV.
Alternate thought (verging on fictional): If indeed I-11 subsumes much if not all of US 95 south of Fallon, NV, it might be appropriate to truncate US 95 in Fallon, and reroute US 93 down the southern independent section of US 95 through Needles, Blythe, and Yuma (with the requisite renumbering of AZ 195 to 193).
Hell if they was the case I'd rather have a US Route on AZ 95 or a combo of AZ 95 and CA 62. The latter would be better to minimize some of the Interstate multiplex US 95 does with I-10.
That would work as well; and would probably divert some traffic to the Parker area; could bring a bit more business to the Big River recreational area. Just extend CA 78 up over current US 95 from I-10 to Vidal Junction. And it could conceivably solve the issue of having multiple "95" routes on both sides of the river.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 12, 2019, 01:53:29 PM
Quote from: rte66man on May 12, 2019, 12:49:23 PM
It's unfortunate that AZDOT's links for the US93/I40 interchange are no longer working. IIRC, Sparker is correct in that the Preferred Alternative was to swing US93 north just west of the existing interchange and have it rejoin the existing road just north of the commercial development area.
The terrain on US 93 on Beale Street poses a significant challenge in addition it would require massive eminent domain. To the west there is somewhat clear path in Golden Valley through a thinly inhabited area. Back when I-11 was first being proposed this was the preferred route and I'd imagine it still is due to the cost savings.
Well, you have the elevation issue, where AZ 68 drops several hundred feet immediately after the interchange with 93. Looks like I-11 would have to be routed from the current 93, a couple miles north of 68, build a new interchange with 68 in the middle of Golden Valley, then route it along Prescription Rd. to the current exit with it and old 66 at I-40.
Given the demographics of Golden Valley, I can't see this happening without a court fight at best, and shots being fired at worst. From my few experiences with the area on my trips to Laughlin, this does not seem to be a particularly nice town, and their residents won't be messed with without a fight.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on May 12, 2019, 08:21:05 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 12, 2019, 01:53:29 PM
Quote from: rte66man on May 12, 2019, 12:49:23 PM
It's unfortunate that AZDOT's links for the US93/I40 interchange are no longer working. IIRC, Sparker is correct in that the Preferred Alternative was to swing US93 north just west of the existing interchange and have it rejoin the existing road just north of the commercial development area.
The terrain on US 93 on Beale Street poses a significant challenge in addition it would require massive eminent domain. To the west there is somewhat clear path in Golden Valley through a thinly inhabited area. Back when I-11 was first being proposed this was the preferred route and I'd imagine it still is due to the cost savings.
Well, you have the elevation issue, where AZ 68 drops several hundred feet immediately after the interchange with 93. Looks like I-11 would have to be routed from the current 93, a couple miles north of 68, build a new interchange with 68 in the middle of Golden Valley, then route it along Prescription Rd. to the current exit with it and old 66 at I-40.
Given the demographics of Golden Valley, I can't see this happening without a court fight at best, and shots being fired at worst. From my few experiences with the area on my trips to Laughlin, this does not seem to be a particularly nice town, and their residents won't be messed with without a fight.
ADOT just spent millions on the new inbound truck inspection facility at the US 93/AZ 68 interchange; it's almost a certainty that any of the Kingman bypass options would diverge from 93 south of that facility. Going back a way upthread (reply #780) there's a map of the considered alternatives; apparently they've discarded anything right down US 93 into town -- or east of there -- and have concentrated on options "A", "B", and "G", which skirt the east side of the Central Mountains west of downtown; the difference between the options is primarily just where the I-40 interchange will be located. My guess is that it'll come down to A or B.
Quote from: rte66man on May 12, 2019, 12:49:23 PM
It's unfortunate that AZDOT's links for the US93/I40 interchange are no longer working. IIRC, Sparker is correct in that the Preferred Alternative was to swing US93 north just west of the existing interchange and have it rejoin the existing road just north of the commercial development area.
The only report left to download that I can see is the Final Feasibility report. It pops up at:
https://www.azdot.gov/planning/transportation-studies/i-40-us-93-system-traffic-interchange-design-concept-and-environmental-studies
That study is dated October 2009.
From the 2013 meeting minutes it seems that option D3 is preferred and a sketch of the $86 million interchange can be found at http://www.epsgroupinc.com/projects/40us-93-west-kingman-ti-dcr-pel/
Quote from: splashflash on May 13, 2019, 12:26:27 AM
Quote from: rte66man on May 12, 2019, 12:49:23 PM
It's unfortunate that AZDOT's links for the US93/I40 interchange are no longer working. IIRC, Sparker is correct in that the Preferred Alternative was to swing US93 north just west of the existing interchange and have it rejoin the existing road just north of the commercial development area.
The only report left to download that I can see is the Final Feasibility report. It pops up at:
https://www.azdot.gov/planning/transportation-studies/i-40-us-93-system-traffic-interchange-design-concept-and-environmental-studies
That study is dated October 2009.
From the 2013 meeting minutes it seems that option D3 is preferred and a sketch of the $86 million interchange can be found at http://www.epsgroupinc.com/projects/40us-93-west-kingman-ti-dcr-pel/
The Alternative "D" route east of Beale St. was originally ADOT's preferred alignment per the 2009 feasibility study. However, that was 3 years prior to the 2012 I-11 designating legislation and may have been predicated on a more modest facility such as a simple trumpet. It was clear by the 2013 meeting that the "D" corridor was "fleshed out" to a more appropriate Interstate-to-Interstate configuration. But that alignment met with opposition from Beale businesses, who would have either been dislocated from their properties or their access points changed to a more convoluted form, at least in reference to I-40. Hence the reconsideration of the west corridors, with "A" and "B" vying for top spot there (with a final decision to apparently occur later this year). Once the selection is finalized, ADOT's commitment to this corridor might well be measured by the time lapse between that occurrence and actual groundbreaking.
Also: once the bypass construction is underway, projects to upgrade the rest of US 93 north to NV might follow in relatively short order; I-40 to Vegas is a functional SIU regardless of the progress on I-11 to the south.
Quote
Given the demographics of Golden Valley, I can't see this happening without a court fight at best, and shots being fired at worst. From my few experiences with the area on my trips to Laughlin, this does not seem to be a particularly nice town, and their residents won't be messed with without a fight.
Having lived there from 1989-2006 I can attest to that.
Good lord. If I-11 gets routed through Golden Valley, what a weird series of urban bypasses it'll have — a 4 mile detour around Boulder City, a 5ish mile detour around Kingman, and then however long the difference would be going down Sun Valley Parkway to I-10 vs following 60 in to 303...
^^^^^^^^
As I stated earlier, because of the new truck inspection facility at the 93/68 interchange, Golden Valley is likely out of the mix; the Kingman west bypass will curve around the hill west of Beale Street and intersect I-40 about a half-mile to a mile (depending upon the exact alignment selected) west of the Business 40 west exit.
Quote from: sparker on May 15, 2019, 04:38:05 PM
^^^^^^^^
As I stated earlier, because of the new truck inspection facility at the 93/68 interchange, Golden Valley is likely out of the mix; the Kingman west bypass will curve around the hill west of Beale Street and intersect I-40 about a half-mile to a mile (depending upon the exact alignment selected) west of the Business 40 west exit.
I thought the selected alternative was east of the current Beale Street interchange, since that's the one mapped out as "proposed" on OpenStreetMap.
Quote from: X99 on May 20, 2019, 07:31:08 PM
Quote from: sparker on May 15, 2019, 04:38:05 PM
^^^^^^^^
As I stated earlier, because of the new truck inspection facility at the 93/68 interchange, Golden Valley is likely out of the mix; the Kingman west bypass will curve around the hill west of Beale Street and intersect I-40 about a half-mile to a mile (depending upon the exact alignment selected) west of the Business 40 west exit.
I thought the selected alternative was east of the current Beale Street interchange, since that's the one mapped out as "proposed" on OpenStreetMap.
Someone at OSM needs to update their data; the east-of-Beale alignment was sunk by local opposition several years back even though it was ADOT's initial favored route.
Quote from: sparker on May 20, 2019, 10:01:12 PM
Quote from: X99 on May 20, 2019, 07:31:08 PM
Quote from: sparker on May 15, 2019, 04:38:05 PM
^^^^^^^^
As I stated earlier, because of the new truck inspection facility at the 93/68 interchange, Golden Valley is likely out of the mix; the Kingman west bypass will curve around the hill west of Beale Street and intersect I-40 about a half-mile to a mile (depending upon the exact alignment selected) west of the Business 40 west exit.
I thought the selected alternative was east of the current Beale Street interchange, since that's the one mapped out as "proposed" on OpenStreetMap.
Someone at OSM needs to update their data; the east-of-Beale alignment was sunk by local opposition several years back even though it was ADOT's initial favored route.
I don't understand the negativity about the Eastern bypass. It's mostly empty land that doesn't involve blasting out mountains. If the opposition is from the gas stations and fast food joints at the Beale interchange, they should have known decades ago that there would be upgrades in the area to create an Interstate connection. A Breezewood situation was never going to happen there.
Let's face it - this is the obvious path:
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190522/bd36efe19cd9c9cb20fdad22893b6ec3.jpg)
^^^^^^^^^^
It's not just the gas stations/convenience stores at the current I-40/Beale interchange; it's pretty much the commercial zone extending close to a mile north of there on US 93, including several large commercial-vehicle repair facilities that have persisted since long before I-40 came to town. They have outsized political clout within the city & region; they're the reason that I-40 took an in-town path rather than bypassing Kingman around the largely open south side back in the late '70's -- they wanted close access to the through route. The interchange pictured above would essentially delete the I-40/Beale diamond interchange; access to Beale businesses would have to be from the I-40/AZ 66 business loop at each end of town. As shown, Beale access re I-11 is only a half-diamond to and from the north -- the interchange flyovers are too long to accommodate ramps from the opposite direction -- and it would be an indirect "back door" form of access in any case -- a downgrade, convenience-wise, from what exists today. A western I-11 bypass route would maintain the current Beale arrangement plus add direct access from northward I-11, something Beale-based businesses want to happen -- and it looks as if they'll be getting their way if more recent info is accurate. Yeah, the configuration illustrated above is shorter and in all likelihood modestly cheaper -- but for better or worse, as per usual local politics and/or commercial interests tend to prevail in situations such as this.
It doesn't seem like that new interchange would eliminate the I-40/ Beale interchange though. In really having a hard time understanding why people are opposed to it's design.
Quote from: compdude787 on May 23, 2019, 12:26:56 PM
It doesn't seem like that new interchange would eliminate the I-40/ Beale interchange though. In really having a hard time understanding why people are opposed to it's design.
I'm guessing because it would cut off the eastern ramps at the Beale interchange. However, there are ways to incorporate the existing ramps into the new eastern bypass interchange, by combining them into one.
From the info I've seen regarding the proposed interchange pictured above -- and from having driven on I-40 and actually getting off and using the facilities around the Beale interchange over the years -- the problem is that I-40 is carved into a hillside above the center of town, and that there's a ridge that was "chopped off" by I-40 and visible just east of the proposed interchange ramps (in fact the ramps from WB I-40 to NB I-11 and SB I-11 to EB I-40 require considerably more excavation of that ridge) that would impede on any arrangement that attempted to weave replacement Beale St. ramps into the interchange configuration. ADOT would essentially have to level that ridge to accomplish both a high-speed I-11 interchange and anything maintaining Beale access from I-40. And the town doesn't want its topography significantly altered in that manner; constructing a western I-11 bypass that intersects I-40 about a mile and a quarter west of Beale would avoid much of that activity; the topology there is relatively flat compared with the area depicted above.
Also, the local traffic patterns wouldn't be disturbed during the construction period with an interchange constructed away from the developed area. It's the locals who objected to the in-town route to begin with; ADOT is simply incorporating their input into the decision. The age of steamrollering towns just to save a mile or so is long past -- even in a rapidly growing state like AZ!
Quote from: FightingIrish on May 23, 2019, 12:33:16 PM
Quote from: compdude787 on May 23, 2019, 12:26:56 PM
It doesn't seem like that new interchange would eliminate the I-40/ Beale interchange though. In really having a hard time understanding why people are opposed to it's design.
I'm guessing because it would cut off the eastern ramps at the Beale interchange. However, there are ways to incorporate the existing ramps into the new eastern bypass interchange, by combining them into one.
Why couldn't the ramps be braided? Meaning the Beale/40 ramps on the N side of the existing diamond, with the new 40 E to 11N and 11S to 40w? They do that all the time in Texas although many of the braided ramps there are indeed hideous.
The eastern route shown above also seems to make an effort to keep most of the 11 mainline out of Kingman city limits, even though there is nothing there. Reason?
Of course, irrelevant points, because this not the option continuing forward.
As pictured, it just couldn't be done without fucking up the hills surrounding downtown Kingman. Town didn't want that to happen and pressed for another option, which was one of two relatively close-in western arcs that allowed it to cut into US 93 south of the new truck inspection facility while staying on relatively flat land. And while there might be some topology "sculpting" needed to fit the interchange flyovers in, it won't be visible from downtown Kingman (out of sight, out of mind!). And the Beale businesses will chug along per usual. And the bypass isn't a 30-miles-away-from-direct "Hassayampa" type; at most it'll add about a mile and a half to the Phoenix-Vegas total; within ADOT it'll be considered a reasonable compromise.
The mini mesas 600 yards East of Beale Street (US-93) would not be razed by the proposed I-11 connection into I-40 pictured up thread. A little shaving might be done to the South edge that butts into I-40. That's about all that would happen. The rest of the land between those hills and Beale Street are just dirt mounds pock-marked by bushes.
As for what's visible from downtown Kingman you can barely see the mini mesas from there at all. At I-40 the hills are already chiseled by the existing I-40 freeway and altered by other development in the area. Kingman isn't exactly a picturesque town. If anything, I think some state of the art, cast-segmental flyover ramps with decorative features (like what has been built down in Phoenix) would be an attractive addition.
I think the real motive behind local opposition is they don't want traffic going to or coming from Las Vegas avoiding the little collection of gas stations, tire shops and motels just off I-40. I think they want a Breezewood situation no matter what kind of bypass and freeway to freeway connection is proposed.
^^^^^^^^^^^
Kingman is certainly not "City Beautiful" by any means, but it is home to about 20K folks. It's not just a junction town, but the commercial center for that part of AZ; not everyone is employed in the Beale St. auto-service "empire", but with what goes on in any Mountain States town of its size that happens to be a county seat. That being said -- clearly they don't want what has heretofore been a situation of convenience to them to significantly change. That's just survival instinct coming into play; regardless of how we outsiders perceive their town, they want to maintain as much of the status quo as is possible -- hence anything that even remotely looks like it's going to disturb that situation will draw opposition. But with a western bypass in the works, they're not going to get a Breezewood per se -- there will still be a free-flowing traffic interchange between I-40 and I-11, just a mile or so west of town. But traffic from both routes, by that time multiplexed onto present I-40, will retain the same Beale St. access as before -- it just won't be a major regional junction. And those folks traveling on I-40 who need auto service or tires will have the same functional access to that as today. The only difference is that traffic to and from Las Vegas won't be required to parade in front of that line of businesses.
It's likely that construction on the western bypass will commence within 5 years of an actual alignment being selected; it'll be open to traffic before extensive work regarding upgrading US 93 between Kingman and Nevada is undertaken. Kingman will never be a Breezewood -- but it will be business as usual.
Quote from: sparker on May 24, 2019, 03:41:47 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^
Kingman is certainly not "City Beautiful" by any means, but it is home to about 20K folks.
43,000. 30,000 in Kingman proper and 13,000 in the unincorporated area near the airport.
Throw in Golden Valley and you've got more than 50,000 people within 15 miles of that interchange. Which is to say: Kingman is going to be fine. Its economy is much, much larger than 4 gas stations and a few motels.
Saying Kingman is threatened by I-11 is like saying Barstow was decimated by I-15. Did it hurt some businesses and help others? Sure. But there are going to be plenty of people traveling between cities of 2 million and 4.5 million, respectively, who will not mind a slight detour at Beale Street to get gas and snacks.
^^^^^^^^^
Not to mention hundreds, if not thousands, of Route 66 enthusiasts.
^^^^^^^^^^^
Who will continue to buy food at the convenience stores and/or overnight at the motels on the Biz 40 loop (as I've done numerous times) -- and, if required, get their cars & trucks repaired (or re-tired!) on Beale just north of the I-40 interchange. A western bypass will probably mean mixed results for those businesses arrayed along Beale; they might lose some pass-through to competitors along that stretch of I-40 that'll be multiplexed with I-11 -- but they'll still retain the historic I-40 access they've always had, plus at least a directional connection from where it will intersect I-11. And if indeed there are 50K+ regional residents (I'm guessing there are a sizeable number of retirees among them looking for a lower-cost-of-living environment), over time they'll more than make up any marginal revenues lost by not having Las Vegas traffic schlep down Beale Street.
That last mile or so of Beale north of I-40 tends to have the worst gas prices in the Kingman area. Just a quick search now shows most stations are $3.15/gal around town, but the two Chevron stations along Beale are $3.59 and $3.99/gal.
I'm not exactly shedding a tear at their problem.
That Chevron right by the Carl's JR has always been the most expensive gas station in town. I never bought gas there.
Also Kingman used to have cheaper gas than Phoenix, but for the last decade it has been the other way around. Now Kingman's gas prices are MORE expensive than Phoenix. I wonder what happened.
Quote from: AZDude on May 24, 2019, 09:20:33 PM
That Chevron right by the Carl's JR has always been the most expensive gas station in town. I never bought gas there.
Chevron is usually at least 10 cents higher than the others, regardless of where they are in AZ.
QuoteAlso Kingman used to have cheaper gas than Phoenix, but for the last decade it has been the other way around. Now Kingman's gas prices are MORE expensive than Phoenix. I wonder what happened.
The place to get relatively cheaper gas is along I-40 about 20 miles east of Kingman, at one of the truck stops just west of the US 93 South exit. Their prices were about the same as metro Phoenix outside of Scottsdale.
Beale St. north of 40 is ridiculously high, but not anywhere near as high as the few gas stations along 93 between Kingman and the state line. I've seen them as high as $4.99 per gallon, but that was a few years ago. Same goes for Wickieup, where gas was $3.99 per gallon about a month ago. The souvenier shop on the northbound side of 93 was a bit cheaper, around $3.19 IIRC, but still much higher than Phoenix or the I-40 truck stops.
^^^^^^^^^^
Gas stations adjacent to interchanges or on "captive" stretches of surface street (such as Beale/US 93) are invariably much higher than less convenient stations; this is by any means not a local AZ phenomenon but one that is all but universal. Same thing here in San Jose -- stations within sight of US 101, I-280/680, I-880/CA 17, and CA 85 are generally 20-25 cents higher/gallon than stations farther into the neighborhoods; those also tend to be dominated by the "majors": Chevron, Union, Shell (although Shell has been discounting a bit more than usual as of late). Ironically, one of the cheapest adjacent pair of "discount" off-brand stations are a couple of blocks off US 101 at McKee Road -- but can't be seen (and aren't advertised) from the freeway -- but locals know they're there (one of them the famous/infamous "Moe's", often cited on KCBS news radio as the cheapest gas in the South Bay).
I'll wager if you traveled down the Biz 40 loop in Kingman that you'd find -- not necessarily at or near the I-40 end points -- cheaper gas than on Beale (which thrives on its convenience rather than any other aspect of its business model!) -- particularly if you can locate an "independent" station along the way.
Quote from: sparkerKingman is certainly not "City Beautiful" by any means, but it is home to about 20K folks.
And the proposal is talking about bypassing a small number of gas stations, tire shops and motels along a 1 mile stretch on the far NW fringe of Kingman. It doesn't make any difference whatsoever to the main population center of Kingman.
I-40 itself doesn't even go through downtown Kingman. And the most busy shopping areas off I-40 in Kingman are at Stockton Hills Road and East Andy Devine Avenue, not the US-93 cut-off going to Las Vegas. An I-40/I-11 multiplex would not bypass those commercial districts just to the East.
If the businesses on that 1 mile stretch of US-93 languish it will hardly affect greater Kingman in any kind of negative way. The net positive is having an I-11 high speed highway linking Phoenix and Las Vegas directly.
Building some way the f*** out of the way bypass way off to the West isn't going to help anybody. It certainly won't help that 1 mile worth of businesses along US-93 just NW of the I-40 exit. They're going to get bypassed regardless! So just build the SHORTEST, MOST DIRECT ROUTE! Enough with the Interstate highways as political spam pork barrel crap going way the hell off yonder rather than taking drivers from point A to point B directly! If the new highways have to go way out of the way to satisfy some real estate speculators then the Interstates in question just need to never ever be built. If the real estate speculators want the highway going through a certain area so badly let those leeches pay for the road themselves!
^^^^^^^^^^
Sounds like somebody need a chill pill, fast! As stated previously, the proposed I-11 west bypass of Kingman at most adds about a mile and a half of highway -- it isn't in the Hassayampa league by any means. And the route has nothing to do with real estate speculation -- it's the city and residents of Kingman itself that don't want the in-town connector for a litany of reasons. If ADOT was in cahoots with RE speculators, the route would have gone through Golden Valley along AZ 68, where most of the area's development is occurring. But that isn't the case; they just finished spending a few million on the new truck inspection area, which handles inbound traffic from both Las Vegas and Laughlin/Bullhead City -- and which empties out onto the outer reaches of Beale Street. This means that there were two corridors considered for the connection -- the direct one as shown on the diagrams, and the short western arc that intersects I-40 a mile to a mile and a half west of town. Obviously both options made the finals, but the city pushed for the western option (as is their prerogative) so as to keep the in-town status quo intact.
These days, with protracted litigation threatening projects right and left, sometimes an agency such as ADOT deems it prudent to take the path of least resistance and select a corridor that is locally acceptable -- so as to get it completed in relatively short order. This seems like one of those times; the inconvenience to through travelers is marginal at worst (1.5 miles within the 285-mile PHX-LV corridor), and the relationship with the locals -- government & residents -- remains cordial. This time it's a matter of not discarding the doable in favor of an option that's only optimal to I-11 travelers -- not the town in question.
The Arizona Republic reports today on some opposition to parts of the proposed I-11 routings:
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/southwest-valley/2019/07/06/goodyear-audubon-arizona-push-back-proposed-11-route-protect-habitat-homes/1659029001/
QuoteThe Goodyear City Council earlier this month voted to support the potential highway's route, with the exception of a one-mile stretch that comes close to 1,500 homes in southern Goodyear.
... I-11's current 2,000-foot corridor passes close to 1,500 homes in the CantaMia at Estrella community, off Rainbow Valley and Willis roads on the southwest side of the Estrella Mountains.
... Audubon Arizona is also asking officials to shift the highway's path, but much further to the west.
Audubon is asking people to fill out an online petition calling for officials to build I-11 on one of the proposed alternative routes, which planning documents refer to as the "Orange Route." The orange route swings far west to Gila Bend and Interstate 8 before shooting north up MC-85 to Buckeye and then Wickenburg.
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/presto/2019/06/06/PPHX/25a4d36e-4492-4034-a3b6-cb1955b86f83-Alternative_Routes.png)
Quote from: Kniwt on July 06, 2019, 05:54:28 PM
The Arizona Republic reports today on some opposition to parts of the proposed I-11 routings:
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/southwest-valley/2019/07/06/goodyear-audubon-arizona-push-back-proposed-11-route-protect-habitat-homes/1659029001/
QuoteThe Goodyear City Council earlier this month voted to support the potential highway's route, with the exception of a one-mile stretch that comes close to 1,500 homes in southern Goodyear.
... I-11's current 2,000-foot corridor passes close to 1,500 homes in the CantaMia at Estrella community, off Rainbow Valley and Willis roads on the southwest side of the Estrella Mountains.
... Audubon Arizona is also asking officials to shift the highway's path, but much further to the west.
Audubon is asking people to fill out an online petition calling for officials to build I-11 on one of the proposed alternative routes, which planning documents refer to as the "Orange Route." The orange route swings far west to Gila Bend and Interstate 8 before shooting north up MC-85 to Buckeye and then Wickenburg.
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/presto/2019/06/06/PPHX/25a4d36e-4492-4034-a3b6-cb1955b86f83-Alternative_Routes.png)
Looks like only the
"purple" option would potentially affect Goodyear -- but the local NIMBY's are obviously taking preemptive action against any option that has a chance of affecting them negatively. And that's the option that subsumes some of the AZ 30 west valley freeway corridor that was recently added to the alignment possibilities. But it's nice to see a cost-effective and reasonable (the "orange") alternative included in the group -- particularly since it utilizes most of AZ 85 down to Gila Bend. That, of course, would be the rational alternative rather than one that is indended as a sop to local developers. Since it utilizes much of I-19, I-10, and I-8 in the area, the optimal signage package would be to simply retain those numbers and -- at least signage-wise, terminate I-11 at I-8 near Gila Bend -- and simply utilize the corridor's funding for improvements on the other routes; no need to multiplex or replace existing numbers that have been in service for up to 60 years. Let's just hope common sense prevails!
Quote from: Kniwt on July 06, 2019, 05:54:28 PM
The Arizona Republic reports today on some opposition to parts of the proposed I-11 routings:
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/southwest-valley/2019/07/06/goodyear-audubon-arizona-push-back-proposed-11-route-protect-habitat-homes/1659029001/
QuoteThe Goodyear City Council earlier this month voted to support the potential highway's route, with the exception of a one-mile stretch that comes close to 1,500 homes in southern Goodyear.
... I-11's current 2,000-foot corridor passes close to 1,500 homes in the CantaMia at Estrella community, off Rainbow Valley and Willis roads on the southwest side of the Estrella Mountains.
... Audubon Arizona is also asking officials to shift the highway's path, but much further to the west.
Audubon is asking people to fill out an online petition calling for officials to build I-11 on one of the proposed alternative routes, which planning documents refer to as the "Orange Route." The orange route swings far west to Gila Bend and Interstate 8 before shooting north up MC-85 to Buckeye and then Wickenburg.
<snip>
IMO, I don't see too much issues with the existing corridors option. At least north of I-10. A bypass of Tucson may be warranted, however having not traveled that stretch of I-10, I wouldn't be able to make that judgement.
Most of these alternatives are duplicitous waste. Duplicating highways already in existence, and which have been for fifty years. Finish six laning I-10 instead. Would go back to the original 1985 idea. Run it down Grand, the original idea. Probably terminating at Loop 101, but retain the possibility to extend further SE, as improvements progress, and needed property is acquired.
Quote from: DJStephens on July 07, 2019, 10:26:14 AM
Most of these alternatives are duplicitous waste. Duplicating highways already in existence, and which have been for fifty years. Finish six laning I-10 instead. Would go back to the original 1985 idea. Run it down Grand, the original idea. Probably terminating at Loop 101, but retain the possibility to extend further SE, as improvements progress, and needed property is acquired.
Highly unlikely anything will occur inside Loop 303 regardless of alignment; there appears to be a rough consensus within the towns arrayed along Grand that adding a freeway there would be counterproductive. If considered strictly a metro Phoenix server, continuing I-11 SE along US 60 to Loop 303 and then letting it disperse there (with I-11 signage appended south to I-10, of course) would be optimal -- provided such a routing dovetailed into existing plans within the city of Surprise, through which the corridor travels. It seems that the cities along US 60/Grand have already internalized the current regional freeway plan, which projects both the Hassayampa corridor (as I-11) and one from that corridor south of Wickenburg extending east to I-17 at or near the Loop 303 interchange. The concept seems to be
dispersal of long-distance traffic rather than concentrating it near the existing facility -- it's possible -- even likely -- that Surprise, Sun City, etc. don't particularly
want intercity traffic traipsing through their midst -- and the days of ramming a freeway through a city regardless of local sentiment are long over, even in AZ! Those cities are probably only too willing to have the White Tank mountains separating them from I-11. But the saving grace of the Hassayampa corridor -- at least the portion north of Buckeye -- is that it may (if reason prevails) segue into AZ 85, using that route to complete an effective PHX outer bypass. And to the PHX MPO, as well as all the jurisdictions within, anything that holds to potential to divert traffic away from the seemingly perpetually congested central-city loop (10 & 17) is a desirable concept. Traffic intending to get to central Phoenix will get there in any case -- just not via a straight diagonal line. But since the entire area is widely dispersed into cities other than incorporated Phoenix, the chances are that much of that inbound traffic will either take the most efficient freeway routing that they can to their destination or simply get off onto surface streets, figuring they're close enough to do so; this would probably pertain to traffic to and from Vegas and other I-11 points to Surprise, Peoria, Sun City, and other towns NW of central Phoenix; traffic to east and SE suburbs (Tempe, Mesa, etc.) will simply take I-11 to I-10 and turn east;
that would be more efficient that slogging down Grand (except for inbound morning commute times, in which case everything would be a mess!).
The bottom line is that unless there's an expressed need emanating from sources in Phoenix itself or the northwest suburbs, I-11 will almost certainly be heading down Hassayampa as presently planned. And such a last-minute change is unlikely to occur at this juncture; those areas have planned around through traffic going elsewhere.
Even the northwestern routing of I-11 is being requested for revision, as homeowners discover the arcing design of all three options passes through Vista Royale. Wickenburg had requested that I-11 pass as close to town as possible but not running through it. I-11 going straight south from AZ-71 Option T in earlier reports, would be the shortest, most direct route. Option T was dropped likely because of requests from Wickenburg to align closely to the town, even through the Vulture Mountain Recreational Reserve. With complaints voiced by nearby residents, Wickenburg Council has bent, a bit, at least.
From the Wickenburg Sun:
Wickenburg's I-11 Task Force had initially endorsed ADOT's preferred alternative, but met on May 30 and amended its opinion, now recommending I-11 connect with US 93 at mile post 186, which would route the highway a few miles northwest of Vista Royale. The I-11 Task Force recommendation was approved by Council Monday evening in the form of a resolution. The resolution also recommended I-11 would connect to US 60 west of Wickenburg at milepost 103.5, just east of Black Mountain, but that item was adjusted to milepost 102 (further from town limits) before being approved.
http://www.wickenburgsun.com/around_town/article_182a97b8-92b8-11e9-964b-4fc6bf3f9ed7.html
Check out the maps of the modified routing evolving as discussions occur.
https://www.protectourwickenburglifestyle.com/
It just goes to show that local politics do matter, as this Vista Royale letter writer has had at least some of his wishes met with the recent Wickenburg Council about-face.
http://www.wickenburgsun.com/letters_to_editor/article_1a0d6110-9074-5580-8b18-85edc207997d.html
Residents organized and met with ADOT during recent public hearings. They recommend I-11 head directly south at AZ-71 and believe Wickenburg would have enough attraction to tourists seeking a western-style town to follow US-60 to Phoenix.
http://www.wickenburgsun.com/news/article_3c91a0b8-a0c2-5f42-a249-8105e17d68f3.html
Quote from: splashflash on July 07, 2019, 10:51:35 PM
Even the northwestern routing of I-11 is being requested for revision, as homeowners discover the arcing design of all three options passes through Vista Royale. Wickenburg had requested that I-11 pass as close to town as possible but not running through it. I-11 going straight south from AZ-71 Option T in earlier reports, would be the shortest, most direct route. Option T was dropped likely because of requests from Wickenburg to align closely to the town, even through the Vulture Mountain Recreational Reserve. With complaints voiced by nearby residents, Wickenburg Council has bent, a bit, at least.
From the Wickenburg Sun:
Wickenburg's I-11 Task Force had initially endorsed ADOT's preferred alternative, but met on May 30 and amended its opinion, now recommending I-11 connect with US 93 at mile post 186, which would route the highway a few miles northwest of Vista Royale. The I-11 Task Force recommendation was approved by Council Monday evening in the form of a resolution. The resolution also recommended I-11 would connect to US 60 west of Wickenburg at milepost 103.5, just east of Black Mountain, but that item was adjusted to milepost 102 (further from town limits) before being approved.
http://www.wickenburgsun.com/around_town/article_182a97b8-92b8-11e9-964b-4fc6bf3f9ed7.html
Check out the maps of the modified routing evolving as discussions occur.
https://www.protectourwickenburglifestyle.com/
It just goes to show that local politics do matter, as this Vista Royale letter writer has had at least some of his wishes met with the recent Wickenburg Council about-face.
http://www.wickenburgsun.com/letters_to_editor/article_1a0d6110-9074-5580-8b18-85edc207997d.html
Residents organized and met with ADOT during recent public hearings. They recommend I-11 head directly south at AZ-71 and believe Wickenburg would have enough attraction to tourists seeking a western-style town to follow US-60 to Phoenix.
http://www.wickenburgsun.com/news/article_3c91a0b8-a0c2-5f42-a249-8105e17d68f3.html
From a local-politics standpoint, the requested revision in the Wickenburg area makes sense; the direction of suburban development from that town's center is primarily due west more or less along or right north of US 60. Looking at GE/GSV, US 93 has a relatively recent divided segment south of the AZ 71 junction; it's likely ADOT would prefer to utilize as much of that facility as possible as an upgradable I-11 alignment. If a line is drawn due south from the southeastern end of that divided section, it intersects US 60 well west of the outer limits of development, which appear to be situated around the airfield west of town -- and it also doesn't encounter much in the way of problematic terrain along that line. It's probable that ADOT will "counter-suggest" such a line or something close to it; it's clear the powers that be in Wickenburg are heeding their residents who would rather not have an interregional corridor in their back yards. Anything passing significantly west of the airfield would likely satisfy the town -- and be not terribly far off the original Wickenburg bypass plans.
Quote from: sparker on July 07, 2019, 11:26:58 PM
US 93 has a relatively recent divided segment south of the AZ 71 junction; it's likely ADOT would prefer to utilize as much of that facility as possible as an upgradable I-11 alignment.
Indeed, it is already signed as such:
(https://i.imgur.com/33N6cBC.png)
Quote from: Kniwt on July 07, 2019, 11:37:27 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 07, 2019, 11:26:58 PM
US 93 has a relatively recent divided segment south of the AZ 71 junction; it's likely ADOT would prefer to utilize as much of that facility as possible as an upgradable I-11 alignment.
Indeed, it is already signed as such:
(https://i.imgur.com/33N6cBC.png)
As much as it's nice to see ADOT's public recognition of the I-11 concept, I wouldn't read too much into the placement of a "future" alignment sign; they're strewn along US 93 all the way into NV; that's become S.O.P. with pending Interstates that generally follow existing routes (I-49 South along US 90 in LA has plenty of these as well; the various Interstate corridors in NC also feature similar signage). They're just there as a "stopgap" measure to let the driving public know that the states' DOT is (at some point) intending to upgrade the route to full Interstate status -- regardless of the timeframe of such activity -- in short, a CYA indicator. In these days of uncertain funding, the "future I-xx corridor" signs are there as another sort of "reassurance" shield -- not for navigation but to make drivers aware that while the pace of improvement may be glacial, it's still going to occur sooner or later.
[/i
QuoteLooking at GE/GSV, US 93 has a relatively recent divided segment south of the AZ 71 junction; it's likely ADOT would prefer to utilize as much of that facility as possible as an upgradable I-11 alignment. If a line is drawn due south from the southeastern end of that divided section, it intersects US 60 well west of the outer limits of development, which appear to be situated around the airfield west of town -- and it also doesn't encounter much in the way of problematic terrain along that line.
The Vulture Mountain Recreational Area is due south of the divided section of US 93 and Vista Royale. That is why all three recommended alignments swing west completing arcs before running essentially due south. The one route bisecting the VMRA, I believe option V, was rejected as it ran through environmentally sensitive areas. The divided section ends at about MP 189.5 and begins at around MP 184.5. Wickenburg Council agreed on June 17th to request the US 93 / I-11 interchange to be at MP 186 instead of 188 or 189. They also requested the US 60 / I-11 interchange be moved from MP 103.5 to 102, again further west. Vista Royale is actually closer to US 93 than US 60, but yes, residential density is higher near US 60 than US 93.
ADOT has insisted that the recommended alignments were needing wishes of the former council resolution; with a new council eager to have better relations with neighbouring Vista Royale, the new June 17th resolution will surely have weight. If MP 186 were the termination point, only about 1 1/2 miles of freeway of US 93 would be made use of while 3 1/2 miles "lost". The SR 71 / US 93 interchange is currently single lane so would need to be twinned. Would not a five-way interchange at this location and I-11 heading due south from there be less costly than an additional interchange at MP 186, or 189? I think option T looks very attractive. See page 24 of 2017 ASR Corridor Alternatives report.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Forigin.i11study.com%2FArizona%2Fimages%2FI-11-corridor-study-area-map-small.jpg&hash=3dd41bdd937b43007fdc54b6cd23dc8c4c1250d7)
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/ceb790_78a3ccd48ec14edab6f90d437632dd78~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_625,h_621,al_c,lg_1,q_90/ceb790_78a3ccd48ec14edab6f90d437632dd78~mv2.webp)
Map showing recommended versus Vista Royale requested route. The US 60 interchange would be further west.
^^^^^^^^^
Absent any information to the contrary, it's likely any I-11/AZ 71 interchange will be a simple diamond type (unless ADOT gets roundabout fever like other DOT's we know!); putting a complex "5-point" interchange right atop this would substantially increase project cost -- whereas doing the interchange as a separate entity and treating any I-11 divergence from US 93, regardless of exactly where it's located, as an individual project -- likely a simple single-SB-flyover directional-Y -- or if more movements are desired, a trumpet -- would be more cost-effective. My previous mention of the fact that a straight line due south of the end of the US 93 divided stretch would in fact bypass the populated areas west of Wickenburg was simply as a point of reference; if the VMRA intervenes, it, of course, would have to be circumvented by whatever I-11 alignment is eventually selected. There are still numerous options for ADOT to consider -- but it is unlikely that they would overcomplicate matters with a major system interchange. Also, even if they don't utilize all of the recently completed 4-lane US 93 segment, they'll probably utilize as much as they can given their alignment options south of there.
Quote from: sparker on July 11, 2019, 06:04:06 PM
(unless ADOT gets roundabout fever like other DOT's we know!)
Or they'll pull an I-15 / US-93
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.3809521,-114.8939905,17z
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 11, 2019, 06:16:14 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 11, 2019, 06:04:06 PM
(unless ADOT gets roundabout fever like other DOT's we know!)
Or they'll pull an I-15 / US-93
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.3809521,-114.8939905,17z
Of course, you're referring to the
Diverging Clusterfuck! X-(
Quote from: sparker on July 11, 2019, 09:23:46 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 11, 2019, 06:16:14 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 11, 2019, 06:04:06 PM
(unless ADOT gets roundabout fever like other DOT's we know!)
Or they'll pull an I-15 / US-93
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.3809521,-114.8939905,17z
Of course, you're referring to the Diverging Clusterfuck! X-(
The standard diverging diamond (like going along the 202 and also I-17/Happy Valley doesn't seem all that bad, but this seems like an...interesting...interpretation of the DDI.
Quote from: Sonic99 on July 11, 2019, 10:01:00 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 11, 2019, 09:23:46 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 11, 2019, 06:16:14 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 11, 2019, 06:04:06 PM
(unless ADOT gets roundabout fever like other DOT's we know!)
Or they'll pull an I-15 / US-93
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.3809521,-114.8939905,17z
Of course, you're referring to the Diverging Clusterfuck! X-(
The standard diverging diamond (like going along the 202 and also I-17/Happy Valley doesn't seem all that bad, but this seems like an...interesting...interpretation of the DDI.
If you look on Street View on the I-15 overpasses, you can see the completed configuration. It's... strange.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 11, 2019, 10:10:58 PM
Quote from: Sonic99 on July 11, 2019, 10:01:00 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 11, 2019, 09:23:46 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 11, 2019, 06:16:14 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 11, 2019, 06:04:06 PM
(unless ADOT gets roundabout fever like other DOT's we know!)
Or they'll pull an I-15 / US-93
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.3809521,-114.8939905,17z
Of course, you're referring to the Diverging Clusterfuck! X-(
The standard diverging diamond (like going along the 202 and also I-17/Happy Valley doesn't seem all that bad, but this seems like an...interesting...interpretation of the DDI.
If you look on Street View on the I-15 overpasses, you can see the completed configuration. It's... strange.
Lotta hate for that project, I see... I haven't been through it yet, but It's actually a pretty decent design given the flow patterns.
Quote from: roadfro on July 12, 2019, 01:11:10 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 11, 2019, 10:10:58 PM
Quote from: Sonic99 on July 11, 2019, 10:01:00 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 11, 2019, 09:23:46 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 11, 2019, 06:16:14 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 11, 2019, 06:04:06 PM
(unless ADOT gets roundabout fever like other DOT's we know!)
Or they'll pull an I-15 / US-93
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.3809521,-114.8939905,17z
Of course, you're referring to the Diverging Clusterfuck! X-(
The standard diverging diamond (like going along the 202 and also I-17/Happy Valley doesn't seem all that bad, but this seems like an...interesting...interpretation of the DDI.
If you look on Street View on the I-15 overpasses, you can see the completed configuration. It's... strange.
Lotta hate for that project, I see... I haven't been through it yet, but It's actually a pretty decent design given the flow patterns.
Fair enough, but wouldn't a three-way free-flowing trumpet have worked?
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 01:39:12 AM
Quote from: roadfro on July 12, 2019, 01:11:10 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 11, 2019, 10:10:58 PM
Quote from: Sonic99 on July 11, 2019, 10:01:00 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 11, 2019, 09:23:46 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 11, 2019, 06:16:14 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 11, 2019, 06:04:06 PM
(unless ADOT gets roundabout fever like other DOT's we know!)
Or they'll pull an I-15 / US-93
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.3809521,-114.8939905,17z
Of course, you're referring to the Diverging Clusterfuck! X-(
The standard diverging diamond (like going along the 202 and also I-17/Happy Valley doesn't seem all that bad, but this seems like an...interesting...interpretation of the DDI.
If you look on Street View on the I-15 overpasses, you can see the completed configuration. It's... strange.
Lotta hate for that project, I see... I haven't been through it yet, but It's actually a pretty decent design given the flow patterns.
Fair enough, but wouldn't a three-way free-flowing trumpet have worked?
No, because there is a minor-looking road on the east side that actually serves the main entrance to the Las Vegas area's landfill, so it has to be a four quadrant interchange. The dominant movements (NB 15 to NB 93, and SB 93 to SB 15) are free-flow.
Quote from: roadfro on July 12, 2019, 02:22:10 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 01:39:12 AM
Quote from: roadfro on July 12, 2019, 01:11:10 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 11, 2019, 10:10:58 PM
Quote from: Sonic99 on July 11, 2019, 10:01:00 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 11, 2019, 09:23:46 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 11, 2019, 06:16:14 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 11, 2019, 06:04:06 PM
(unless ADOT gets roundabout fever like other DOT's we know!)
Or they'll pull an I-15 / US-93
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.3809521,-114.8939905,17z
Of course, you're referring to the Diverging Clusterfuck! X-(
The standard diverging diamond (like going along the 202 and also I-17/Happy Valley doesn't seem all that bad, but this seems like an...interesting...interpretation of the DDI.
If you look on Street View on the I-15 overpasses, you can see the completed configuration. It's... strange.
Lotta hate for that project, I see... I haven't been through it yet, but It's actually a pretty decent design given the flow patterns.
Fair enough, but wouldn't a three-way free-flowing trumpet have worked?
No, because there is a minor-looking road on the east side that actually serves the main entrance to the Las Vegas area's landfill, so it has to be a four quadrant interchange. The dominant movements (NB 15 to NB 93, and SB 93 to SB 15) are free-flow.
The schematic map shows the NB 15/93 to NB 93 connection crossing the SB 93 to NB 15 connection at grade. Is this set up as an alternating signal like a standard DDI or does the minor (SB 93>NB 15 + local) connection simply encounter a stop sign, waiting for a break in the opposite-direction traffic? That wouldn't seem to qualify as "free flow"
per se, but rather as a standard at-grade crossing with a dominant direction.
That being said -- we're sort of getting away from the main thread subject here; this might better belong in Traffic Control -- or at least shunted over to Southwest, where the interchange in question actually lies. Side question: is Tacos Colima any good -- worth braving this interchange over? :sombrero:
Quote from: sparker on July 12, 2019, 02:56:38 AM
Quote from: roadfro on July 12, 2019, 02:22:10 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 01:39:12 AM
Quote from: roadfro on July 12, 2019, 01:11:10 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 11, 2019, 10:10:58 PM
Quote from: Sonic99 on July 11, 2019, 10:01:00 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 11, 2019, 09:23:46 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 11, 2019, 06:16:14 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 11, 2019, 06:04:06 PM
(unless ADOT gets roundabout fever like other DOT's we know!)
Or they'll pull an I-15 / US-93
https://www.google.com/maps/@36.3809521,-114.8939905,17z
Of course, you're referring to the Diverging Clusterfuck! X-(
The standard diverging diamond (like going along the 202 and also I-17/Happy Valley doesn't seem all that bad, but this seems like an...interesting...interpretation of the DDI.
If you look on Street View on the I-15 overpasses, you can see the completed configuration. It's... strange.
Lotta hate for that project, I see... I haven't been through it yet, but It's actually a pretty decent design given the flow patterns.
Fair enough, but wouldn't a three-way free-flowing trumpet have worked?
No, because there is a minor-looking road on the east side that actually serves the main entrance to the Las Vegas area's landfill, so it has to be a four quadrant interchange. The dominant movements (NB 15 to NB 93, and SB 93 to SB 15) are free-flow.
The schematic map shows the NB 15/93 to NB 93 connection crossing the SB 93 to NB 15 connection at grade. Is this set up as an alternating signal like a standard DDI or does the minor (SB 93>NB 15 + local) connection simply encounter a stop sign, waiting for a break in the opposite-direction traffic? That wouldn't seem to qualify as "free flow" per se, but rather as a standard at-grade crossing with a dominant direction.
No signal. SB 93>NB 15/local encounters a stop sign.
Why don't they just go ahead and sign I-515 and US 95 as I-11 and get it over with? Is the US-95 freeway not interstate standards? I have only driven it once so I don't know. They could sign it north out of Las Vegas to the end of the freeway.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 12, 2019, 10:55:59 AM
Why don't they just go ahead and sign I-515 and US 95 as I-11 and get it over with? Is the US-95 freeway not interstate standards? I have only driven it once so I don't know. They could sign it north out of Las Vegas to the end of the freeway.
IIRC, it's because the don't know if they want to use I-515 or build a new alignment.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 11:20:07 AM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 12, 2019, 10:55:59 AM
Why don't they just go ahead and sign I-515 and US 95 as I-11 and get it over with? Is the US-95 freeway not interstate standards? I have only driven it once so I don't know. They could sign it north out of Las Vegas to the end of the freeway.
IIRC, it's because the don't know if they want to use I-515 or build a new alignment.
Yeah, I don't know why they are kidding themselves. We all know it's going on I-515.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 12, 2019, 11:43:39 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 12, 2019, 11:20:07 AM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 12, 2019, 10:55:59 AM
Why don't they just go ahead and sign I-515 and US 95 as I-11 and get it over with? Is the US-95 freeway not interstate standards? I have only driven it once so I don't know. They could sign it north out of Las Vegas to the end of the freeway.
IIRC, it's because the don't know if they want to use I-515 or build a new alignment.
And up past SR-157 where the new Kyle Creek interchange was completed late last month.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 12, 2019, 10:55:59 AM
Why don't they just go ahead and sign I-515 and US 95 as I-11 and get it over with? Is the US-95 freeway not interstate standards? I have only driven it once so I don't know. They could sign it north out of Las Vegas to the end of the freeway.
As stated significantly upthread, NDOT's contracts for interchanges on US 95 already have the I-11 shields built in and covered by green squares. It's coming.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on July 12, 2019, 01:27:02 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 12, 2019, 10:55:59 AM
Why don't they just go ahead and sign I-515 and US 95 as I-11 and get it over with? Is the US-95 freeway not interstate standards? I have only driven it once so I don't know. They could sign it north out of Las Vegas to the end of the freeway.
As stated significantly upthread, NDOT's contracts for interchanges on US 95 already have the I-11 shields built in and covered by green squares. It's coming.
I am happy to see the I-515 designation go. I never though it was necessary, since for its entire length it shared the roadway of US 95 and US 93.
From the looks of this article, the town of Sahuarita now supports using the "Orange Route" for Future I-11. Basically, the alignment that would use existing highways south of Casa Grande.
https://www.gvnews.com/news/sahuarita-no-longer-supports-recommended-i--corridor/article_658a7d0e-a4c2-11e9-aac3-c73ff7006b38.html
why does this need to exist south of i-10?
I could see down to I-8 along AZ 85 as a Phoenix bypass, but certainly not further south. The proposed extensions to I-19 and Mexico are ridiculous.
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 15, 2019, 07:03:24 PM
why does this need to exist south of i-10?
Options to add capacity on I-10 through Phoenix and Tucson are limited. Driving through the construction zone yesterday, I don't see much ROW left on I-10 between Loop 101 and I-17 to handle another widening. You have the Gila River Community fighting any additional capacity between SR 347 and SR 387.
I don't have any problem with them looping I-11 around the Western and Southern outskirts of Phoenix (but I still think US-60 needs to be Interstate quality from AZ-303 up to Wickenburg). I-11 ought to connect into I-10 or I-8 near Casa Grande and just end there. This business of extending I-11 down thru Tucson and to Nogales is overkill.
I-10 is getting a little squeezed in some parts of Tuscon, but it still looks like it's possible to add an additional lane in each direction, making it up to a 5-5 configuration.
The main problem with Tucson is no additional loop or spur freeways to work directly with I-10 and I-19. They need to improve AZ-210 as much as possible so it can be eventually turned into I-210. Then they need to build some other loop highways. Tucson is basically in the same position Phoenix was about 40 years ago: no loop highways. Pushing I-11 down there to try to accomplish that is going to cost way too much money. They need to simplify the approach.
all putting 11 in south of 10 would do is cause more urban sprawl in the area 11 would go.
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 17, 2019, 06:25:29 AM
all putting 11 in south of 10 would do is cause more urban sprawl in the area 11 would go.
I don't see how upgrading the existing AZ 85 to full freeway between I-10 and I-8 would change the development pattern there at all UNLESS municipalities make zoning choices that aren't conducive to that highway's current role as a connector/bypass.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 15, 2019, 10:35:09 PM
I don't have any problem with them looping I-11 around the Western and Southern outskirts of Phoenix (but I still think US-60 needs to be Interstate quality from AZ-303 up to Wickenburg). I-11 ought to connect into I-10 or I-8 near Casa Grande and just end there. This business of extending I-11 down thru Tucson and to Nogales is overkill.
I-10 is getting a little squeezed in some parts of Tuscon, but it still looks like it's possible to add an additional lane in each direction, making it up to a 5-5 configuration.
The main problem with Tucson is no additional loop or spur freeways to work directly with I-10 and I-19. They need to improve AZ-210 as much as possible so it can be eventually turned into I-210. Then they need to build some other loop highways. Tucson is basically in the same position Phoenix was about 40 years ago: no loop highways. Pushing I-11 down there to try to accomplish that is going to cost way too much money. They need to simplify the approach.
Tucson is quite proudly "anti-Phoenix" and has always fought any new highway projects. I doubt much will happen with the 210 more than the mile or so extension down to directly connect it to I-10.
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 17, 2019, 06:25:29 AM
all putting 11 in south of 10 would do is cause more urban sprawl in the area 11 would go.
Newsflash: The urban sprawl is already happening there.
^ I think he's talking about I-11 south of I-10 in Tucson, not Phoenix.
I-11 should follow the AZ-85 corridor and end at I-8. It doesn't need to go further.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 17, 2019, 11:00:15 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 17, 2019, 06:25:29 AM
all putting 11 in south of 10 would do is cause more urban sprawl in the area 11 would go.
I don't see how upgrading the existing AZ 85 to full freeway between I-10 and I-8 would change the development pattern there at all UNLESS municipalities make zoning choices that aren't conducive to that highway's current role as a connector/bypass.
That's guaranteed to happen.
Pixel 2 XL
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 17, 2019, 12:39:17 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on July 17, 2019, 11:00:15 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 17, 2019, 06:25:29 AM
all putting 11 in south of 10 would do is cause more urban sprawl in the area 11 would go.
I don't see how upgrading the existing AZ 85 to full freeway between I-10 and I-8 would change the development pattern there at all UNLESS municipalities make zoning choices that aren't conducive to that highway's current role as a connector/bypass.
That's guaranteed to happen.
Pixel 2 XL
As an example closer to where you are: Has there been increased sprawl in the areas around Keystone Parkway and the US 31 limited-access bypasses north of there?
Out where I am (the San Francisco bay area), I-280 did not lead to any development between Millbrae and Cupertino, though it is firmly in or near parkland that cannot be developed (i.e. the Crystal Springs Reservoir area).
Adding interchanges to the existing AZ 85 expressway does not by itself induce development at all, I wouldn't think, especially when that road has been an expressway for quite some time now.
(Now as for the portion between I-8 and past Tucson, I have no opinion on that really)
Quote from: TheStranger on July 17, 2019, 01:12:10 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 17, 2019, 12:39:17 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on July 17, 2019, 11:00:15 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 17, 2019, 06:25:29 AM
all putting 11 in south of 10 would do is cause more urban sprawl in the area 11 would go.
I don't see how upgrading the existing AZ 85 to full freeway between I-10 and I-8 would change the development pattern there at all UNLESS municipalities make zoning choices that aren't conducive to that highway's current role as a connector/bypass.
That's guaranteed to happen.
Pixel 2 XL
As an example closer to where you are: Has there been increased sprawl in the areas around Keystone Parkway and the US 31 limited-access bypasses north of there?
Out where I am (the San Francisco bay area), I-280 did not lead to any development between Millbrae and Cupertino, though it is firmly in or near parkland that cannot be developed (i.e. the Crystal Springs Reservoir area).
Adding interchanges to the existing AZ 85 expressway does not by itself induce development at all, I wouldn't think, especially when that road has been an expressway for quite some time now.
(Now as for the portion between I-8 and past Tucson, I have no opinion on that really)
Us 31 and keystone aren't good examples, those areas were already developed. And if you look in Westfield further north along 31, yes sprawl is being induced up there. Bad zoning laws allow for this.
Pixel 2 XL
I'm sure SR-85 will eventually be upgraded to freeway standards regardless of what happens to Interstate 11 in the area.
It's ironic that with all the freeway closures of I-10 in Phoenix due to the Loop 202 construction, ADOT is consistently advising drivers to use AZ 85 and I-8 to detour towards Tucson or California. Yet with a chance to use "a new interstate" to upgrade AZ 85, this isn't the top option. I wouldn't be surprised if the southern Arizona communities forced ADOT to keep any serious I-11 construction to the Phoenix area and north.
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 17, 2019, 01:46:31 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on July 17, 2019, 01:12:10 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 17, 2019, 12:39:17 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on July 17, 2019, 11:00:15 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 17, 2019, 06:25:29 AM
all putting 11 in south of 10 would do is cause more urban sprawl in the area 11 would go.
I don't see how upgrading the existing AZ 85 to full freeway between I-10 and I-8 would change the development pattern there at all UNLESS municipalities make zoning choices that aren't conducive to that highway's current role as a connector/bypass.
That's guaranteed to happen.
Pixel 2 XL
As an example closer to where you are: Has there been increased sprawl in the areas around Keystone Parkway and the US 31 limited-access bypasses north of there?
Out where I am (the San Francisco bay area), I-280 did not lead to any development between Millbrae and Cupertino, though it is firmly in or near parkland that cannot be developed (i.e. the Crystal Springs Reservoir area).
Adding interchanges to the existing AZ 85 expressway does not by itself induce development at all, I wouldn't think, especially when that road has been an expressway for quite some time now.
(Now as for the portion between I-8 and past Tucson, I have no opinion on that really)
Us 31 and keystone aren't good examples, those areas were already developed. And if you look in Westfield further north along 31, yes sprawl is being induced up there. Bad zoning laws allow for this.
Pixel 2 XL
There's a lot local jurisdictions -- particularly if local governments actively work with their MPO's -- to forestall undue sprawl -- zoning, control of egress (less interchanges) on any new freeways in the affected areas, and the like. And -- this is vital -- they have to resist the entreaties -- including money -- from developers who are in the game for a quick appreciation and turnover. In AZ, that seems to be a difficult proposition; money seems to not only talk but shout out loud -- hence the I-11-as-parallel-to-I-10-and-I-19 concept -- obviously designed to induce development between Maricopa County and Tucson -- and do an "end run" around Tucson's reluctance to increase developable areas by giving developers another corridor a bit out west around which to rally.
Ideally, those developers would have to deal with what's on the ground right now; they seem to be doing well enough in Maricopa, Chandler, and the other edge-of-area locations with only lines on a map (the nascent AZ 24 and the like) as access facilities. But they probably envision a situation similar to L.A. and San Diego -- with
two major corridors (I-5 and I-15) connecting the metro areas, with the potential of development between the two (save topology and Camp Pendleton as obstacles in CA) -- more along the lines of the sea of housing and commercial sites between 5 & 15 and south of CA 76. Grandiose plans -- likely only marginally transferrable to a desert rather than a coastal environment. Nevertheless, PHX and environs seem to be in that same "grow or die" mode that has characterized the last several decades -- still willing to accommodate a good deal of development -- likely one of the prime motives for even the I-11 extension to Casa Grande. From a strictly regional-transportation standpoint -- assuming there's not a sea change in local preference regarding shooting I-11 straight down US 60 to Loop 303 -- the I-11/Hassayampa corridor should simply turn east immediately south of I-10 and merge with AZ 85, subsequently following that facility south to I-8 at Gila Bend. Period. Anything south of there, while somewhat more efficient as a PHX bypass due to its diagonal line to Casa Grande, is gratuitous and simply a sop to sprawl. It would be much more cost-effective if ADOT would reach a deal with the Gila tribe; expand I-10 to 6 or 8 lanes (8 would be helpful if part of that deal would be additional casino/outlet store facilities on tribal land along the freeway).
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 17, 2019, 04:22:04 PM
I'm sure SR-85 will eventually be upgraded to freeway standards regardless of what happens to Interstate 11 in the area.
It's been planned for years, independent of what happens with I-11. Pre-I-11 the Loop 303 was already planned to loop down south of Goodyear along the now proposed I-11 routes, so both were always in the works.
That's why AZ 85 has the frontage roads already in on the north part, similar to when the Loop 101 was planned in Chandler in the late 90's- the frontage roads were used as the main road until the freeway went in between them. Also ADOT relocated parts of the existing AZ 85 a few years back at the intersection of Maricopa Road into the new current configuration to allow the freeway overpass to be built above it.
Water is arguably the biggest reason why city governments in the Phoenix and Tucson areas need to pump the brakes on development that adds to sprawl. The Phoenix area has a very finite water supply. Reservoirs like Lake Mead are draining down to crisis levels. These desert cities need more residents moving into dense developed areas.
Unfortunately efforts to promote densification (convincing more people to move from the suburbs into city centers) has failed to offset sprawl. Living spaces in urban/city center mixed use developments tend to be way too expensive for most people. And the folks who can afford those downtown properties often opt for much larger living spaces out in the 'burbs. The city center apartments are more attractive to younger professionals who are single and have no children. Only so many young adults have lots of money.
Regarding I-11 and how it might contribute to sprawl, it all depends on how the road is built. If it's a "free" freeway with frontage roads and lots of exits then, yeah, it will promote new development (and added sprawl). If you greatly limit the number of exits where each interchange is several miles or more apart and build only short stretches of frontage road that would cut down the highway's effect at inducing sprawl.
In the past I would have thought just building a superhighway as a toll road would be enough to cut down on sprawl next to the highway. The truly critical issue is the spacing/frequency of exits. If the road has exits spaced no more than .5 to 2.5 miles apart (typical for an urban or suburban area) then the highway will help promote development. If the road is more like a turnpike where you get an exit once every 7-10 miles (or farther) not much is going to get built up next to the road in those long spaces between exits, especially not anything commercial/retail oriented.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 22, 2019, 10:45:59 PM
Water is arguably the biggest reason why city governments in the Phoenix and Tucson areas need to pump the brakes on development that adds to sprawl. The Phoenix area has a very finite water supply. Reservoirs like Lake Mead are draining down to crisis levels. These desert cities need more residents moving into dense developed areas.
Unfortunately efforts to promote densification (convincing more people to move from the suburbs into city centers) has failed to offset sprawl. Living spaces in urban/city center mixed use developments tend to be way too expensive for most people. And the folks who can afford those downtown properties often opt for much larger living spaces out in the 'burbs. The city center apartments are more attractive to younger professionals who are single and have no children. Only so many young adults have lots of money.
Some context, though:
An acre of cotton is using about 3500 gallons of water a day. The average Arizonan uses about 100 gallons of water a day. So, at 10 units per acre — you're looking at housing using less water than cotton. Converting farmland to housing is a win for Arizona's water masters.
The fact is Arizona (or Nevada or California) are never going to run out of water. They'll just bond out the costs of desalination and charge the costs back to water customers. (You probably won't see any Gulf of California water getting pumped from Puerto Peñasco to Phoenix, but you might see desalinated water irrigating the Imperial Valley and offsetting increased Colorado River consumption by the CAP).
As for density — it winds up becoming a question of commute time more than anything. Eventually, a huge house on the edge of the city loses its appeal when it involves an hour commute each way. The edge then becomes home to service workers, particularly who are working in the strip malls along the freeway corridors, and the money moves inward.
^^^^^^^^^^
Greater Phoenix is looking more and more like SoCal's "Inland Empire" more and more, as warehousing and distribution facilities are starting to dominate both the southeastern and western exurban areas (Chandler, Gilbert, Goodyear, Avondale). But like the closer-in areas of the Inland Empire (i.e. Rancho Cucamonga, Fontana, Chino) which themselves provide lower-cost housing compared to the coastal areas of L.A. and Orange Counties -- thus drawing massive amounts of commuters from those high-priced regions, the fact is that the "coastal" commuters crowding CA 57 and CA 91 daily have, with their higher incomes, essentially priced out local housing for the working/middle-class employees who work at the warehouse/distribution centers. Much the same is happening with Gilbert, Chandler (Tempe, Mesa, and Scottsdale were the initial suburbs to witness this phenomenon -- at least until the latter started annexing land farther and farther north into the foothills). Warehouse management -- the top of the "food chain" in that field, still make considerably less than the employees of technical and financial companies in the city centers; the latter, in SoCal, dominate the homeowners on the south edge of the San Gabriels -- and in PHX and environs, the closer-in communities like Gilbert, Chandler, and Surprise. This drives the "middle/working" class, generally sub $100K/year, outward -- in SoCal, this means Moreno Valley, Perris, and even over the pass to Hesperia and Adelanto, where the family-oriented worker can get a house for $250-300K that would cost at least double that in Rancho Cucamonga. In AZ, the equivalent would be Maricopa, Apache Junction, Queen Creek -- all with a time-based commuter penalty.
Now granted the situation in AZ hasn't quite reached the "critical mass" point that characterizes SoCal -- but neither is the principal populated area quite as hemmed in as L.A./Inland Empire in regards to the surrounding mountains; in PHX there are multiple directions for new housing to crop up; the fact that most of it is either southeast along I-10 or US 60 (or arrayed between the two) or west/northwest between, again, I-10 and US 60. To the north flanking I-17 seem to be larger "ranch" developments geared toward the upscale buyer (including well-heeled retirees -- Phoenix's version of SoCal's Temecula, itself an outlier in the outward expansion process). But service workers -- making substantially less than warehouse employees -- generally find themselves looking inward to older housing stock within the urban areas; unlike in coastal California, that has yet to be priced out beyond all reason -- residents inbound from elsewhere are doing so in order to purchase a new/newer residence at a price all but unheard of in CA (where a lot of that inbound is coming from!).
The whole thing, regardless of venue, is simply circles moving outward in phases, pushing the outer ones even further out.
Quote from: sparker on July 23, 2019, 02:03:47 AM
The whole thing, regardless of venue, is simply circles moving outward in phases, pushing the outer ones even further out.
The relative lack of hard geographic boundaries — save for the sovereign lands of the indigenous people — is the saving grace for Phoenix. It's 17 miles from Southern Avenue to Bell Road — a 2 mile outward expansion across the entirety of Phoenix's western suburbs is 34 square miles. By comparison, the central Phoenix core (17-Northern-51-10) is 36 square miles.
So the sprawl eventually does have to start peter out of out necessity.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on July 23, 2019, 02:11:47 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 23, 2019, 02:03:47 AM
The whole thing, regardless of venue, is simply circles moving outward in phases, pushing the outer ones even further out.
The relative lack of hard geographic boundaries — save for the sovereign lands of the indigenous people — is the saving grace for Phoenix. It's 17 miles from Southern Avenue to Bell Road — a 2 mile outward expansion across the entirety of Phoenix's western suburbs is 34 square miles. By comparison, the central Phoenix core (17-Northern-51-10) is 36 square miles.
So the sprawl eventually does have to start peter out of out necessity.
Except for the "void" in development that is the Gila reservation, there are few if any physical obstacles for continuous development southwest east of I-10 all the way down to Casa Grande -- and since I-10 southeast of there simply follows the old RR line that took the flat-as-possible path of least resistance toward Tucson, there's little save economic variables (including periodic recessions) to stop a L.A.-to-San Diego continuous sort of development -- in fact, due to both Camp Pendleton on the coast and the rugged mountains just south of Temecula, the AZ situation is actually easier. West and northwest the valleys narrow somewhat (the I-10 and US 60/I-11 corridors), so developers have to get a little creative around the more hilly areas -- but south/SE is "tract-ready", for the most part (just look at Maricopa!). Chandler, Gilbert, and Queen Creek just have to instigate a south-moving "wave" (similar to what happened in the SoCal Inland Empire from Upland eastward along the southern flank of the San Gabriels, aided and abetted by the CA 210 freeway extension). These days, there's essentially one solid chunk of housing from the L.A. county line east to the Lytle Creek floodplain. But unless an AZ version of the subprime housing scandal of 2007-08 reoccurs -- and most financial institutions are a bit more wary these days -- there will be something of a naturally occurring slowdown of the outer "wave" of development simply because of the lack of qualified buyers (unless everyone in CA decides to retire all at once and also elects to move to AZ for the tax and cost-of-living savings!). Those 2-mile expansion rings -- with logarithmically increasing areas -- won't be developed by any builders with an ounce of common sense until they sense that most if not all of the housing units built will be occupied within a year of construction. That -- and the sheer level of capital expense involved -- will invariably slow things down considerably. Remember, while it's one of the fastest growing regions in the nation, it's still desert that gets up over 110 degrees during late summer! Some folks will check out the area in August and September, and simply say "fuck this; we're going to check out St. George" (if retirees) ....or maybe Austin or San Marcos (if looking for tech jobs).
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on July 23, 2019, 02:11:47 PM
It's 17 miles from Southern Avenue to Bell Road...
Am I misunderstanding you, or are you saying that Southern and Bell are the southern and northern city limits of Phoenix? They were... circa 1960. Now it's Pecos Rd. (soon to be the Loop 202) on the south, and New River Rd @ I-17 on the north, which is a span of about 40 miles.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on July 23, 2019, 06:56:43 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on July 23, 2019, 02:11:47 PM
It's 17 miles from Southern Avenue to Bell Road...
Am I misunderstanding you, or are you saying that Southern and Bell are the southern and northern city limits of Phoenix? They were... circa 1960. Now it's Pecos Rd. (soon to be the Loop 202) on the south, and New River Rd @ I-17 on the north, which is a span of about 40 miles.
I was just pointing to that as a linear representation of one edge of the city.
Do any of these agencies mention CANAMEX anymore? I know that the original CANAMEX route in Arizona was supposed to start at I-19 in Nogales, go to I-10 in Tucson, then I-10 to the Phoenix area, various roads to US 93 in Wickenburg, and US 93 all the way to the Nevada state line. I-11 is supposed to fill in the highway gap from the Phoenix area to Nevada.
With all the protectionist sentiment going on in the government now I think concepts like the CANAMEX corridor are not being discussed much. There's a decent amount of activity on I-69 in Texas, but I think the thought process on selling I-69 there has more to do with serving city to city or region to region connections within Texas rather than something to do with NAFTA.
I wouldn't be so confident in the "Arizona will never run out of water" comment. You can't predict the future, and desalination is INSANELY expensive. That alone will cause major economic problems in the area if what you're saying happens.
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 25, 2019, 04:48:45 AM
I wouldn't be so confident in the "Arizona will never run out of water" comment. You can't predict the future, and desalination is INSANELY expensive. That alone will cause major economic problems in the area if what you're saying happens.
To borrow from former Las Vegas water czar Pat Mulroy, there will always be water. It's just a question of how much people are willing to pay for it.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 24, 2019, 10:58:24 PM
With all the protectionist sentiment going on in the government now I think concepts like the CANAMEX corridor are not being discussed much. There's a decent amount of activity on I-69 in Texas, but I think the thought process on selling I-69 there has more to do with serving city to city or region to region connections within Texas rather than something to do with NAFTA.
The
Canamex aspect was simply a vehicle to prompt the funding for the initial I-11 projects -- and an existing corridor definition on which to append the I-11 designation back in 2012. The "parallel freeway" projects south of Casa Grande are simply a local developer artifice to drum up the concept of new housing southwest of I-10 in the Marana area -- and to circumvent the longstanding Tucson opposition to new-terrain freeways in their midst by providing a far western bypass. Since the
Canamex corridor's status (HPC #26) dates from 1995 -- and political sentiments regarding commerce with Mexico have fluctuated widely since then, the actual effect upon I-11 development, at least now that the basic corridor concept has been established, is likely to be negligible regardless of any particular administration's posturing -- it's now a matter of regional/local input on precise routings (or the need for the various extension plans) rather than something that will wax and wane with D.C. flack.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on July 25, 2019, 12:17:40 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 25, 2019, 04:48:45 AM
I wouldn't be so confident in the "Arizona will never run out of water" comment. You can't predict the future, and desalination is INSANELY expensive. That alone will cause major economic problems in the area if what you're saying happens.
To borrow from former Las Vegas water czar Pat Mulroy, there will always be water. It's just a question of how much people are willing to pay for it.
The same way we'll never run out of oil...it'll just become too expensive. But either way, the supply does effectively dry up. If water in Phoenix costs $20/gal (even for household taps), Phoenix will never run out of water, because there won't be anyone left in Phoenix that'll have the money to afford such ridiculous utility costs.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 25, 2019, 01:54:41 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on July 25, 2019, 12:17:40 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 25, 2019, 04:48:45 AM
I wouldn't be so confident in the "Arizona will never run out of water" comment. You can't predict the future, and desalination is INSANELY expensive. That alone will cause major economic problems in the area if what you're saying happens.
To borrow from former Las Vegas water czar Pat Mulroy, there will always be water. It's just a question of how much people are willing to pay for it.
The same way we'll never run out of oil...it'll just become too expensive. But either way, the supply does effectively dry up. If water in Phoenix costs $20/gal (even for household taps), Phoenix will never run out of water, because there won't be anyone left in Phoenix that'll have the money to afford such ridiculous utility costs.
I just don't think they'll get there. Consider that Las Vegas' net usage of Colorado River water annually is a meager 270,000 acre feet. Another 50,000-or-so acre feet comes from groundwater. That's in a city roughly half the size of Phoenix.
Phoenix' annual water use is 2.3 million acre feet.
The difference? About 40% of the water consumed in Las Vegas is treated and sent back to the Colorado River. So, long before they got to desal, Phoenix could pipe its grey water to the Imperial Valley for irrigation and take Colorado River water into the CAP upstream from the Imperial Valley farmers.
There will always be enough water. It's a question of how much people are willing to pay for it.
I don't know. Somebody is sucking Lake Mead dry, that much is certain. I visited the Hoover Dam and Lake Mead in April and was shocked to see how low the water has receded.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 26, 2019, 12:59:54 PM
I don't know. Somebody is sucking Lake Mead dry, that much is certain. I visited the Hoover Dam and Lake Mead in April and was shocked to see how low the water has receded.
Since 1985, the Colorado has sent down about 13 million gallons of water from Glen Canyon Dam since 1985.
3.1 million of that goes to irrigate the Imperial Valley. 1.2 million goes to urban Southern California. Both are "senior" river users that get water no matter what. So when the Colorado only sent down 6 million acre feet in 2003... down went the reservoirs. And since the river has roughly 17 million acre feet in annual commitments — again, mostly agriculture — guess what happened to Lake Mead...
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 26, 2019, 12:59:54 PM
I don't know. Somebody is sucking Lake Mead dry, that much is certain. I visited the Hoover Dam and Lake Mead in April and was shocked to see how low the water has receded.
Here in CA, the reservoirs are still being filled up by the late snow melt; that situation may well apply to Lake Mead as well, the level of which is dependent upon water coming from as far away as northwest Wyoming and the west slope of the Colorado Rockies -- as well as how much is being held back at Glen Canyon. It's a matter of both supply
and demand -- and this year, the rains in the West came a bit later than usual.
Quote from: sparker on July 26, 2019, 05:16:54 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 26, 2019, 12:59:54 PM
I don't know. Somebody is sucking Lake Mead dry, that much is certain. I visited the Hoover Dam and Lake Mead in April and was shocked to see how low the water has receded.
Here in CA, the reservoirs are still being filled up by the late snow melt; that situation may well apply to Lake Mead as well, the level of which is dependent upon water coming from as far away as northwest Wyoming and the west slope of the Colorado Rockies -- as well as how much is being held back at Glen Canyon. It's a matter of both supply and demand -- and this year, the rains in the West came a bit later than usual.
It doesn't matter for Lake Mead. The river would have to send down about 25 million acre feet — think "That time Glen Canyon Dam almost failed in 1983" level flows — for three years to get Mead to full. And that doesn't even get into filling Powell, which is probably a fourth year of that level of flow.
The thing about the Powell-Mead system is it’s based on the Colorado River Compact, which allocates water rights based on an average streamflow of 16.4 million acre-feet. Unfortunately, the early 1900s were a wetter than average period, and the actual average streamflow is somewhere closer to 13.5 million acre feet.
At any rate, the current low levels of those reservoirs are a multi-year issue. California’s reservoirs might all completely fill during a big winter, but Powell and Mead are huge. Even if a few big water years happen, Lake Powell would probably fill first. Glen Canyon is required to send 7.5 million acre-feet down to Lake Mead, and I’m not sure they would increase their output until Powell was nearly full.
What's the latest progress on the Vegas-Kingman section of I-11?
Quote from: X99 on July 28, 2019, 11:23:57 PM
What's the latest progress on the Vegas-Kingman section of I-11?
Bupkus so far. Still waiting for ADOT to finalize a decision about a Kingman connection to I-40; so far the front-runner is a close-in western bypass of the Beale St. commercial zone, with a I-40 interchange about a mile or so west of the current 40/93/Beale interchange. The only existing fully limited access portion of the corridor except for the approach to the Colorado River bridge is the interchange with AZ 68 a couple of miles NW of Kingman; that section was extended about 3/4 mile toward town when the state truck-inspection facility was built adjacent to the interchange a year or so ago.
Quote from: sparker on July 29, 2019, 03:33:18 AM
Quote from: X99 on July 28, 2019, 11:23:57 PM
What's the latest progress on the Vegas-Kingman section of I-11?
Bupkus so far. Still waiting for ADOT to finalize a decision about a Kingman connection to I-40; so far the front-runner is a close-in western bypass of the Beale St. commercial zone, with a I-40 interchange about a mile or so west of the current 40/93/Beale interchange. The only existing fully limited access portion of the corridor except for the approach to the Colorado River bridge is the interchange with AZ 68 a couple of miles NW of Kingman; that section was extended about 3/4 mile toward town when the state truck-inspection facility was built adjacent to the interchange a year or so ago.
UPDATE
The study is scheduled for completion in early 2020. The findings of this study will be incorporated into the preferred alignment, and ADOT will advance the project into the final design phase.
ADOT held community open house meetings during the summer of 2019, and will conduct similar meetings to update the public on the study in early 2020. ADOT and FHWA will present the results of the study -, including the investigated alternatives and the recommended alternative, during a public hearing in spring/summer 2020.
Phase 1 of this project, which will create a new TI on westbound I-40 to northbound US 93 and southbound US 93 to eastbound I-40, is currently scheduled for construction in ADOT's 2024 fiscal year.
https://azdot.gov/planning/transportation-studies/interstate-40-us-93-system-traffic-interchange-study
Quote from: splashflash on December 11, 2019, 07:41:48 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 29, 2019, 03:33:18 AM
Quote from: X99 on July 28, 2019, 11:23:57 PM
What's the latest progress on the Vegas-Kingman section of I-11?
Bupkus so far. Still waiting for ADOT to finalize a decision about a Kingman connection to I-40; so far the front-runner is a close-in western bypass of the Beale St. commercial zone, with a I-40 interchange about a mile or so west of the current 40/93/Beale interchange. The only existing fully limited access portion of the corridor except for the approach to the Colorado River bridge is the interchange with AZ 68 a couple of miles NW of Kingman; that section was extended about 3/4 mile toward town when the state truck-inspection facility was built adjacent to the interchange a year or so ago.
UPDATE
The study is scheduled for completion in early 2020. The findings of this study will be incorporated into the preferred alignment, and ADOT will advance the project into the final design phase.
ADOT held community open house meetings during the summer of 2019, and will conduct similar meetings to update the public on the study in early 2020. ADOT and FHWA will present the results of the study -, including the investigated alternatives and the recommended alternative, during a public hearing in spring/summer 2020.
Phase 1 of this project, which will create a new TI on westbound I-40 to northbound US 93 and southbound US 93 to eastbound I-40, is currently scheduled for construction in ADOT's 2024 fiscal year.
https://azdot.gov/planning/transportation-studies/interstate-40-us-93-system-traffic-interchange-study
That's quite a bit sooner than a lot of us anticipated for this project; looks like the I-40-to-Vegas virtual "SIU" is well up ADOT's priority list. Since most of the remainder will in all likelihood be an upgrade of the existing expressway, it'll be interesting to see the timeframe projected for the rest of that portion of US 93 -- and whether that'll be similar to that of the bypass itself.
IMO, completion of an I-40 direct connector & Kingman Bypass is far greater of a priority than upgrading the rural expressway to Nevada.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 11, 2019, 09:49:45 PM
IMO, completion of an I-40 direct connector & Kingman Bypass is far greater of a priority than upgrading the rural expressway to Nevada.
Actually, I agree -- the Kingman bypass
should precede the rest of 93 up to the NV line in terms of scheduling; it's the most vital (and expensive) segment here -- get it done before inflation kicks the cost up too far. But if a 5-year timeframe is applicable to the bypass, then it should be within 5 additional years until the more rural segment is well under way. Given delays, EIS's, etc. -- I'd "guesstimate" that completion of Interstate-standard upgrades north of I-40 would occur about 2031 or 2032. A snail's pace compared with the heydey of chargeable construction in the '60's and '70's -- but not terribly shabby by current standards.
Quote from: splashflash on December 12, 2019, 11:36:33 AM
Quote from: sparker on December 12, 2019, 02:59:01 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 11, 2019, 09:49:45 PM
IMO, completion of an I-40 direct connector & Kingman Bypass is far greater of a priority than upgrading the rural expressway to Nevada.
Actually, I agree -- the Kingman bypass should precede the rest of 93 up to the NV line in terms of scheduling; it's the most vital (and expensive) segment here -- get it done before inflation kicks the cost up too far.
It is interesting that the project is now described not as a full-directional interchange but as, "a new TI on westbound I-40 to northbound US 93 and southbound US 93 to eastbound I-40". Perhaps this means reverting to Alignment D the interchange but with its design simplified, dropping the lesser used as southbound 93 to westbound I-40 and easttbound I-40 to northbound US 93 flows. Perhaps the latter flows would continue using Beale, placating those fuel station owners' concerns about traffic and business losses. The cost savings would be significant while essentially eliminating the more visually apparent portion of the project, objected to in open houses. http://www.epsgroupinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/west-kingman.gif (http://www.epsgroupinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/west-kingman.gif)
Kingman was able to secure $20 million from ADOT to build an interchange for airport access, east of where Alignment D would be. "The project as a whole is budgeted at $46 million and some change," Foggin said. "The other $26 million, as Mr. Lenhart indicated, we are working with the private sector to do a public-private partnership where we come up with $13 million as a city and they will come up with $13 million."
http://www.mohavedailynews.com/news/kingman-sees-funding-for-interchange-as-boost-to-becoming-transport/article_0a5c9596-9bc3-11e9-9144-c77d72c66ceb.html
https://www.construction.com/projects/i-40-kingman-crossing-traffic-interchange/
Perhaps completion of that interchange would dovetail with the commencement of the US 93 / I-40 interchange.
Once the Kingman direct connects go in, I don't see an actual need (other than OCD) to upgrade Kingman to Nevada. No stoplights or stop signs, not very many intersections, and maybe 2 or 3 where traffic volume at times might get anywhere close to justifying an overpass. After the DC's, will any other upgrades save any actual trip time?
So many other places in AZ where road upgrades are needed.
You won't get the interstate number if there are still at-grades, though. Also, what's the speed limit through there? Many states won't post the same limit on a road with at-grades as one that doesn't, even if the traffic volumes at those intersections are very low.
Quote from: vdeane on December 12, 2019, 01:02:25 PM
Also, what's the speed limit through there?
65 mph (https://goo.gl/maps/dwcpAaJ9nTi5EsGC6), which is Arizona's maximum for a rural divided highway. Rural freeways there can be posted up to 75.
I think it's less of not needed, and more of it's a low priority. It'd be nice to see a completed I-11 between I-40 and Las Vegas, but it's a low priority and will likely be done in many minor spot improvements gradually upgrading it.
Quote from: US 89 on December 12, 2019, 01:50:16 PM
65 mph (https://goo.gl/maps/dwcpAaJ9nTi5EsGC6), which is Arizona's maximum for a rural divided highway. Rural freeways there can be posted up to 75.
This is completely unrelated, but that link allowed me to view an example of a divided highway in Arizona (never seen one before). The second crossings (for left or straight movements) are protected by an additional stop sign. I didn't think this was a thing anywhere?
^^^^^^^^^
Still think early 2030's for completion of I-11 north from Kingman to NV; it is an effective SIU -- and the main commercial trucking link from Vegas eastward (particularly in winter). Once the Kingman bypass is in progress, ADOT will get a bit of pressure from multiple parties to wring out the remainder of the route, which will likely commence after the bypass is in service. While PHX-area projects get more attention, I-11's backers won't let ADOT keep the corridor on the back burner indefinitely; the steady progress of 4-laning US 93 between Wickenburg and I-40 attests to that. Kingman-Vegas would be an accomplishment that ADOT could trumpet as something of value (and once the bypass is completed, a relatively easy set of projects) -- although the remainder down to I-10 will likely be more of a slow slog likely not fully completed until mid-century.
Quote from: jakeroot on December 12, 2019, 04:41:57 PM
Quote from: US 89 on December 12, 2019, 01:50:16 PM
65 mph (https://goo.gl/maps/dwcpAaJ9nTi5EsGC6), which is Arizona's maximum for a rural divided highway. Rural freeways there can be posted up to 75.
This is completely unrelated, but that link allowed me to view an example of a divided highway in Arizona (never seen one before). The second crossings (for left or straight movements) are protected by an additional stop sign. I didn't think this was a thing anywhere?
You should see Highway 1416 in Box Elder, South Dakota. They do this with at least two intersections out of the four along the divided portion.
Quote from: vdeane on December 12, 2019, 01:02:25 PM
You won't get the interstate number if there are still at-grades, though. Also, what's the speed limit through there? Many states won't post the same limit on a road with at-grades as one that doesn't, even if the traffic volumes at those intersections are very low.
I-40 has at-grade ranch turnoffs in Texas and (IIRC) New Mexico. There are over 30 ranch turnoffs on US 93 between Wickenburg and I-40, with no place to build ramps for them. Exceptions will have to be made for I-11.
Quote from: jakeroot on December 12, 2019, 04:41:57 PM
Quote from: US 89 on December 12, 2019, 01:50:16 PM
65 mph (https://goo.gl/maps/dwcpAaJ9nTi5EsGC6), which is Arizona's maximum for a rural divided highway. Rural freeways there can be posted up to 75.
This is completely unrelated, but that link allowed me to view an example of a divided highway in Arizona (never seen one before). The second crossings (for left or straight movements) are protected by an additional stop sign. I didn't think this was a thing anywhere?
If I'm understanding you correctly, do you mean something like this? It's not unusual in California.
https://goo.gl/maps/7fUgV8FiMrNu7MQr7
Quote from: ClassicHasClass on December 12, 2019, 10:20:35 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 12, 2019, 04:41:57 PM
Quote from: US 89 on December 12, 2019, 01:50:16 PM
65 mph (https://goo.gl/maps/dwcpAaJ9nTi5EsGC6), which is Arizona's maximum for a rural divided highway. Rural freeways there can be posted up to 75.
This is completely unrelated, but that link allowed me to view an example of a divided highway in Arizona (never seen one before). The second crossings (for left or straight movements) are protected by an additional stop sign. I didn't think this was a thing anywhere?
If I'm understanding you correctly, do you mean something like this? It's not unusual in California.
https://goo.gl/maps/7fUgV8FiMrNu7MQr7
Correct, yes. Those would have yield signs in WA.
Quote from: X99 on December 12, 2019, 06:09:18 PM
You should see Highway 1416 in Box Elder, South Dakota. They do this with at least two intersections out of the four along the divided portion.
I would find this very annoying if I was trying to merge onto a highway.
Quote from: jakeroot on December 12, 2019, 10:30:11 PM
Quote from: X99 on December 12, 2019, 06:09:18 PM
You should see Highway 1416 in Box Elder, South Dakota. They do this with at least two intersections out of the four along the divided portion.
I would find this very annoying if I was trying to merge onto a highway.
It is. The West Gate and Radar Hill intersections back up half a mile down 1416 during the evening rush hour. Luckily, my neighborhood is on Radar Hill, so I can get to most of Rapid City by heading straight south to SD 44. The problem changes from "long wait times at intersections" to "a road that wasn't built for the amount of traffic it now handles."
CA only does this with medians that are wide enough to accommodate a stopped vehicle. In this particular picture, it's along the CA 58 expressway section between Boron and Mojave -- discussed at some length in the Kramer Junction Bypass thread in SW (the EB lanes [the far ones in the photo] are on the alignment of the original 2-lane facility). For narrower medians Caltrans usually omits signage except for the initial stop sign adjacent to the first set of lanes (except for "ONE WAY" arrows and occasional "WRONG WAY" and/or "DO NOT ENTER" signs in the contraflow direction of the expressway). Exact signage tends to vary by district; what's seen here is common with D6 -- similar signage is posted on CA 198 in the vicinity of the CA 65 & 245 junctions.
But I doubt this sort of intersection would be utilized with any portion of I-11 in AZ; at worst, ranch roads would be handled by slow-speed ramps or even RIRO's.
I guess we may still have a few more years to wait until we can see what TX DOT does for ranch access along I-69E and I-69C. IIRC, they weren't going to allow any driveways making direct right-turn contact or cross-overs with the Interstate main lanes. The solution is supposed to be short length frontage roads, similar to the ramps for a rest area but perhaps in an even shorter footprint. They'll need to erect cable barriers to prevent cross-overs anyway.
Colorado has some goofy exits along I-25 that seem to clearly violate current Interstate standards. Exit 106 just North of Pueblo is a great example: https://bit.ly/34hHHLO (https://bit.ly/34hHHLO). When I passed by it during the recent Thanksgiving holiday I noticed CDOT had installed a tiny street name style sign for Exit 106. The previous normal size exit sign was gone, perhaps taken out by someone who couldn't slow to a near complete stop to make that hard right turn.
Farther South, near Raton Pass there are a few other near hard right turn exits, such as Exit 6: https://bit.ly/2YL3hqV (https://bit.ly/2YL3hqV), but those are a bit understandable given the mountainous territory.
I really dislike the 8 at-grade crossings on I-40 in the Texas Panhandle between Exit 0 and Exit 15. Intersections like this: https://bit.ly/2YSmx64 (https://bit.ly/2YSmx64) will make you do a double take. They could probably eliminate those at grade crossings by extending the frontage roads to the NM border.
I-10 in West Texas is even worse. There's stupid stuff like this thing near Sierra Blanca: https://bit.ly/2YJC8EQ (https://bit.ly/2YJC8EQ). That's an at grade crossing on I-10, even with it flanked by one paved frontage road and a dirt road. There's no reason for the at-grade cross-over. But it's there anyway! There are dozens upon dozens of dirt roads that enter the main lanes of I-10 from ranch land. Between El Paso and San Antonio the improvised dirt/gravel exits along I-10 don't disappear completely until around Exit 451 near Junction, TX. There might be others farther East that I overlooked.
At any rate, I'm hoping ADOT will build out I-11 in proper Interstate standards. I don't like turn lanes going into a hard RIRO. But short length frontage roads might be one acceptable solution to the ranch access issue.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 13, 2019, 12:52:46 PM
I guess we may still have a few more years to wait until we can see what TX DOT does for ranch access along I-69E and I-69C. IIRC, they weren't going to allow any driveways making direct right-turn contact or cross-overs with the Interstate main lanes. The solution is supposed to be short length frontage roads, similar to the ramps for a rest area but perhaps in an even shorter footprint. They'll need to erect cable barriers to prevent cross-overs anyway.
TxDOT has already completed the design for the 40 mile I-69C segment between Falfurrius and Edinburg, and it calls for continuous one way frontage roads each way with crossovers / interchanges every 2-3 miles. The mainline would be divided by a concrete barrier and each side would have 10 foot left shoulders.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 13, 2019, 12:52:46 PM
I-10 in West Texas is even worse. There's stupid stuff like this thing near Sierra Blanca: https://bit.ly/2YJC8EQ (https://bit.ly/2YJC8EQ). That's an at grade crossing on I-10, even with it flanked by one paved frontage road and a dirt road. There's no reason for the at-grade cross-over. But it's there anyway! There are dozens upon dozens of dirt roads that enter the main lanes of I-10 from ranch land. Between El Paso and San Antonio the improvised dirt/gravel exits along I-10 don't disappear completely until around Exit 451 near Junction, TX.
There are very good reasons for them, I've used some before. I'd be okay with replacing the crossovers with Michigan Lefts, but without them in this case it is 22 miles between overpasses where you can u-turn. Having to drive 15-30 minutes longer just to make a left turn (burning an extra 1-3 gallons of gas) is an unreasonable demand.
Quote from: armadillo speedbump on December 13, 2019, 04:24:56 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 13, 2019, 12:52:46 PM
I-10 in West Texas is even worse. There's stupid stuff like this thing near Sierra Blanca: https://bit.ly/2YJC8EQ (https://bit.ly/2YJC8EQ). That's an at grade crossing on I-10, even with it flanked by one paved frontage road and a dirt road. There's no reason for the at-grade cross-over. But it's there anyway! There are dozens upon dozens of dirt roads that enter the main lanes of I-10 from ranch land. Between El Paso and San Antonio the improvised dirt/gravel exits along I-10 don't disappear completely until around Exit 451 near Junction, TX.
There are very good reasons for them, I've used some before. I'd be okay with replacing the crossovers with Michigan Lefts, but without them in this case it is 22 miles between overpasses where you can u-turn. Having to drive 15-30 minutes longer just to make a left turn (burning an extra 1-3 gallons of gas) is an unreasonable demand.
standards exist for a reason and exceptions shouldn't be made with them for interstates.
Quote from: armadillo speedbump on December 13, 2019, 04:24:56 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 13, 2019, 12:52:46 PM
I-10 in West Texas is even worse. There's stupid stuff like this thing near Sierra Blanca: https://bit.ly/2YJC8EQ (https://bit.ly/2YJC8EQ). That's an at grade crossing on I-10, even with it flanked by one paved frontage road and a dirt road. There's no reason for the at-grade cross-over. But it's there anyway! There are dozens upon dozens of dirt roads that enter the main lanes of I-10 from ranch land. Between El Paso and San Antonio the improvised dirt/gravel exits along I-10 don't disappear completely until around Exit 451 near Junction, TX.
There are very good reasons for them, I've used some before. I'd be okay with replacing the crossovers with Michigan Lefts, but without them in this case it is 22 miles between overpasses where you can u-turn. Having to drive 15-30 minutes longer just to make a left turn (burning an extra 1-3 gallons of gas) is an unreasonable demand.
How about construct an overpass with ramps? Also known as a grade-separated interchange.
Quote from: sprjus4TxDOT has already completed the design for the 40 mile I-69C segment between Falfurrius and Edinburg, and it calls for continuous one way frontage roads each way with crossovers / interchanges every 2-3 miles. The mainline would be divided by a concrete barrier and each side would have 10 foot left shoulders.
We'll have to see what actually gets built. Given the funding situation I wouldn't be surprised to see the concrete Jersey barriers replaced with less expensive cable barriers.
Full running one-way frontage roads between Edinburg and Falfurrias might seem worthwhile. Basically the existing US-281 highway is already set in frontage road configuration with a wide center median from the end of I-69C at th FM-490 exit on North to Falfurrias. There might be a few spots where the existing US-281 main lanes squeeze in a bit too tight. But for much of that segment I-69C already has the ROW needed for expansion.
OTOH, I'm pretty sure I-69E and I-69W are going to have those short, limited frontage roads for ranch access -that is if they're not dumbed down worse as RIRO's off turn lanes
Colorado style as a cost cutting measure.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on December 12, 2019, 10:09:13 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 12, 2019, 01:02:25 PM
You won't get the interstate number if there are still at-grades, though. Also, what's the speed limit through there? Many states won't post the same limit on a road with at-grades as one that doesn't, even if the traffic volumes at those intersections are very low.
I-40 has at-grade ranch turnoffs in Texas and (IIRC) New Mexico. There are over 30 ranch turnoffs on US 93 between Wickenburg and I-40, with no place to build ramps for them. Exceptions will have to be made for I-11.
I'd hardly call this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.3969437,-114.2596438,3a,41.2y,58.39h,90.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siqQqvFAgGFoR6jn6E_-gbA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) a ranch turnoff. And I-40 doesn't have private businesses (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.3969437,-114.2596438,3a,66.5y,285.78h,79.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siqQqvFAgGFoR6jn6E_-gbA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) along the mainline, either.
Quote from: vdeane on December 14, 2019, 10:15:33 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on December 12, 2019, 10:09:13 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 12, 2019, 01:02:25 PM
You won't get the interstate number if there are still at-grades, though. Also, what's the speed limit through there? Many states won't post the same limit on a road with at-grades as one that doesn't, even if the traffic volumes at those intersections are very low.
I-40 has at-grade ranch turnoffs in Texas and (IIRC) New Mexico. There are over 30 ranch turnoffs on US 93 between Wickenburg and I-40, with no place to build ramps for them. Exceptions will have to be made for I-11.
I'd hardly call this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.3969437,-114.2596438,3a,41.2y,58.39h,90.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siqQqvFAgGFoR6jn6E_-gbA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) a ranch turnoff. And I-40 doesn't have private businesses (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.3969437,-114.2596438,3a,66.5y,285.78h,79.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siqQqvFAgGFoR6jn6E_-gbA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) along the mainline, either.
The segment between Kingman and the state line is not what I'm talking about. You're showing the intersection with CR 125, the road to Chloride and the former AZ 62. There's plenty of room for at least basic diamond interchanges at most of the turnoffs in that area.
I'm talking about the segment between Wickenburg and I-40, where the only state highway intersections are AZ 89, AZ 71, and AZ 97, plus a few county roads (mostly dirt) here and there. The rest are ranch turnoffs with gates that are about 50 feet maximum from the highway. I did a rough count on my last trip to Vegas, and counted 36, but I might be off by just a bit. The only businesses in that stretch are in Wickieup (which will by bypassed, probably killing the town), a campground at Burro Creek, and the cellphone tower at the area formerly known as Nothing. Beyond that, the businesses are in Wickenburg, but I believe most are south of where I-11 will veer off from what is now US 93.
Quote from: vdeane on December 14, 2019, 10:15:33 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on December 12, 2019, 10:09:13 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 12, 2019, 01:02:25 PM
You won't get the interstate number if there are still at-grades, though. Also, what's the speed limit through there? Many states won't post the same limit on a road with at-grades as one that doesn't, even if the traffic volumes at those intersections are very low.
I-40 has at-grade ranch turnoffs in Texas and (IIRC) New Mexico. There are over 30 ranch turnoffs on US 93 between Wickenburg and I-40, with no place to build ramps for them. Exceptions will have to be made for I-11.
I'd hardly call this (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.3969437,-114.2596438,3a,41.2y,58.39h,90.23t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siqQqvFAgGFoR6jn6E_-gbA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) a ranch turnoff. And I-40 doesn't have private businesses (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.3969437,-114.2596438,3a,66.5y,285.78h,79.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siqQqvFAgGFoR6jn6E_-gbA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) along the mainline, either.
I once made an "assumed routing" of I-11 (fictional of course) with every interchange marked out on Google My Maps. For that intersection, I moved the southbound mainline onto a bridge on top of the former northbound lanes, moved the northbound lanes and ramps further northeast, and made the southbound mainline into the southbound ramps. I also extended the CR 125 (I think that's a county road) designation into the parking lot in front of the businesses to eliminate the parking lot connection halfway down the exit ramp.
Are there any official plans for interchanges in areas like this, or just the general plan to turn the whole corridor into I-11?
Quote from: KeithE4PhxI'm talking about the segment between Wickenburg and I-40, where the only state highway intersections are AZ 89, AZ 71, and AZ 97, plus a few county roads (mostly dirt) here and there. The rest are ranch turnoffs with gates that are about 50 feet maximum from the highway. I did a rough count on my last trip to Vegas, and counted 36, but I might be off by just a bit. The only businesses in that stretch are in Wickieup (which will by bypassed, probably killing the town), a campground at Burro Creek, and the cellphone tower at the area formerly known as Nothing. Beyond that, the businesses are in Wickenburg, but I believe most are south of where I-11 will veer off from what is now US 93.
Regarding Wickieup, I don't know. It really comes down to what the residents there force ADOT to do with the I-11 routing. I agree, if I-11 bypasses around the town on a new terrain alignment it could ruin many of the roadside businesses there. OTOH, I think it might be possible squeeze I-11 thru Wickieup along the exiting US-93 alignment.
The upgrade would be similar to what TX DOT with Future I-69C going through the middle of Falfurrias, TX. That was a considerably more difficult and costly upgrade project since TX DOT had to buy and clear a couple dozen or more properties along the ROW in order to have room for both the frontage roads and freeway. I think TX DOT could have built the freeway on a more narrow ROW.
If ADOT built the 4-lane freeway portion of I-11 with only a concrete Jersey barrier separating the two carriageways that would cut down ROW requirements a bunch. Doing away with sloped hills between the frontage roads and freeway main lanes would save a bunch more ROW width. Most of the existing properties along US-93 in Wickieup are set back a decent distance from the road. It might be possible to reconfigure their parking lots and entrances while avoiding demolishing the businesses. A couple of the gas stations are a bit too close to the road unfortunately. It's not going to be a pain free upgrade. Nevertheless, I'm sure upgrading I-11 thru Wickieup is better for the town than making the freeway go around it.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 16, 2019, 12:07:08 AM
Quote from: KeithE4PhxI'm talking about the segment between Wickenburg and I-40, where the only state highway intersections are AZ 89, AZ 71, and AZ 97, plus a few county roads (mostly dirt) here and there. The rest are ranch turnoffs with gates that are about 50 feet maximum from the highway. I did a rough count on my last trip to Vegas, and counted 36, but I might be off by just a bit. The only businesses in that stretch are in Wickieup (which will by bypassed, probably killing the town), a campground at Burro Creek, and the cellphone tower at the area formerly known as Nothing. Beyond that, the businesses are in Wickenburg, but I believe most are south of where I-11 will veer off from what is now US 93.
Regarding Wickieup, I don't know. It really comes down to what the residents there force ADOT to do with the I-11 routing. I agree, if I-11 bypasses around the town on a new terrain alignment it could ruin many of the roadside businesses there. OTOH, I think it might be possible squeeze I-11 thru Wickieup along the exiting US-93 alignment.
The upgrade would be similar to what TX DOT with Future I-69C going through the middle of Falfurrias, TX. That was a considerably more difficult and costly upgrade project since TX DOT had to buy and clear a couple dozen or more properties along the ROW in order to have room for both the frontage roads and freeway. I think TX DOT could have built the freeway on a more narrow ROW.
If ADOT built the 4-lane freeway portion of I-11 with only a concrete Jersey barrier separating the two carriageways that would cut down ROW requirements a bunch. Doing away with sloped hills between the frontage roads and freeway main lanes would save a bunch more ROW width. Most of the existing properties along US-93 in Wickieup are set back a decent distance from the road. It might be possible to reconfigure their parking lots and entrances while avoiding demolishing the businesses. A couple of the gas stations are a bit too close to the road unfortunately. It's not going to be a pain free upgrade. Nevertheless, I'm sure upgrading I-11 thru Wickieup is better for the town than making the freeway go around it.
The above concept for Wikieup looks promising. The actual freeway lanes could be either on a berm bounded by concrete walls for minimal width -- or even trenched with similar wall structure; access would be at either end of the central town area via a couple of lanes of directional frontage road on either side. A central under- or overpass would enhance accessibility to businesses on the "wrong" side of the road. Away from the couple of blocks that constitute the town center, everything else could be accessed by simple frontage roads with a narrow diamond interchange at each end. It's not rocket science -- the key here is to take as few buildings as possible while making access a simple matter. Any compensatory construction (revised parking lots, moving the gas stations to a point near freeway access) would have to be included in the overall contract to be let; it would certainly behoove ADOT not to nitpick or otherwise engage in excessive bean-counting when dealing with the Wikieup residents -- just devise a plan that gets the job done in such a way that also benefits the local citizenry.
One question is whether ADOT is willing to design a new freeway along the US-93 alignment that economizes space yet upholds modern geometry standards. Most of their new freeway builds take up a pretty wide ROW. Ramp lengths are generously long and flare out well away from the main lanes. Google Earth imagery for the Phoenix area was recently updated to 8/12/2019, showing a great deal of progress on new freeway projects there. It's easy to see the land footprint those kinds of roads require. They can't really take that kind of approach building I-11 thru Wickieup over the existing US-93 alignment.
A solution thru Wickieup would require a creative approach to avoid bulldozing too much of the town's existing buildings. The US-93 intersection with County Road 131/Chicken Springs Road looks like the main intersection of the town. Somehow that would need an exit, but how do you fit modern geometry exit ramps into that? It would probably need an elevated freeway section over that spot with a surface street running underneath with slip ramps built a few hundred feet North and South of the intersection. It would probably cost a whole lot of money, probably more than buying and clearing buildings.
It will be interesting to see what ADOT chooses to build in that area.
Some of y'alls proposals sound more expensive than all the private property in Wikieup is worth.
Bypass it to the west and have one interchange. Anything else is overkill.
Judging by aerials, there are more junked cars than people there.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on December 17, 2019, 12:58:48 PM
Some of y'alls proposals sound more expensive than all the private property in Wikieup is worth.
Bypass it to the west and have one interchange. Anything else is overkill.
Judging by aerials, there are more junked cars than people there.
I mean, maybe it's worthwhile to experiment with our Interstate system a bit for places like Wikieup? Like, a tolled bypass that keeps traffic (and pollution and road noise) away from the local residents, but an untolled exit that provides a slight bit of market incentive to stop for snacks and gas if you're on the fence?
I think a short section of toll road around Wikieup would be a non-starter. I can't find any specific plans online regarding I-11 thru Wikieup, but anything mentioning the stretch between Wickenburg and I-40 implies I-11 will be built as a bypass around the town.
Hell no to tolls!
^^^^^^^^^
Still think an in-town bermed/trenched facility would be best for all involved. But the reality is that it would also be the most expensive alternative. What will likely happen is a bypass around the west side (the east side drops off into a gulch after about a block or two), a directional (on SB/off NB) interchange south of town, probably just north of the bridge where the divided highway gives way to the 5-lane arterial; a standard-issue diamond at the crossroad at the center of town, and another directional north of town after the end of the 5-lane section (on NB/off SB). If that ends up being the alignment selection, all the exits should very prominently state "GAS/FOOD/NEXT SERVICES XX MILES", essentially referring to, alternately, Wickenburg and the first services on the I-11/I-40 multiplex to the north -- making as sure as possible that the drivers realize that there's really nothing for dozens of miles in either direction. In short, do what is necessary to assist in maintaining the livelihood of at least some of Wikieup.
We have to think about new and innovative solutions.
People don't love the idea of garroting small towns with freeway bypasses. There's too much nostalgia and charm for the Amboys and Seligmans of the world, justified or not.
And we know, for sure, that vehicle exhaust is bad to breathe. It's indisputable. The further cars are from people, the better.
By giving people a simple market nudge — You can pay $2 and wait until Wickenburg to get gas, or you can drive through town now — you can get the best of both worlds. A revenue mechanism to pay for a larger bypass, and a market incentive to stay a while.
To be clear, if the people of Wikieup want a simple bypass hugging the edge of town, then sure, let's do it. I just think we're fooling ourselves on this board if we think the "old way" is still viable.
The more I look at the Wikieup situation the more everything appears to hinge on the intersection of US-93 and County Road 131/Chicken Springs Road. Just South of the intersection the Wikieup Trading Post sits on the East side of the highway and the Chevron station and Food Mart is on the other side. Is there enough space to squeeze a 4 lane freeway closely flanked by service roads through that spot? The first couple miles of I-88 in Binghamton, NC are on a ROW about as narrow as it gets. BTW, the idea of trenching might be far more disruptive than building one or more elevated sections of roadway.
Most of the town's buildings are on the West side of the highway. But there are enough buildings on the East side to create some issues. South of the Trading Post there is a package store on the East side of the road.
It might be possible for ADOT to work with the property owners there to help relocate the few buildings in the way on the East side of the road over to the West side or back a little farther East. This approach might even be less expensive than building a bypass around the town, even if the state is providing much of the cost for new buildings and trailer houses.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on December 18, 2019, 12:23:08 PM
We have to think about new and innovative solutions.
People don't love the idea of garroting small towns with freeway bypasses. There's too much nostalgia and charm for the Amboys and Seligmans of the world, justified or not.
And we know, for sure, that vehicle exhaust is bad to breathe. It's indisputable. The further cars are from people, the better.
By giving people a simple market nudge — You can pay $2 and wait until Wickenburg to get gas, or you can drive through town now — you can get the best of both worlds. A revenue mechanism to pay for a larger bypass, and a market incentive to stay a while.
To be clear, if the people of Wikieup want a simple bypass hugging the edge of town, then sure, let's do it. I just think we're fooling ourselves on this board if we think the "old way" is still viable.
Small-scale tolls are, simply -- politically (this
is AZ we're talking about!), logistically, and technically just not feasible -- a 3-mile tolled bypass of Wikieup is just not in the cards; ADOT is toll-averse (what would be at least considered in CA, OR, and WA would be a non-starter there). If all of I-11 between Wickenburg and I-40 were to be constructed against all odds as a toll facility, that would be another matter altogether. Another method of compensation for Wikieup will have to be devised that will maintain Interstate criteria for the through facility but also makes it easy for travelers to access in-town services. A well-designed in-town facility with the services alongside a frontage street would be optimal -- but likely require moving of some structures; a bypass would be less so, but less disruptive. The town has one advantage -- it's essentially the only place to get goods or services between Wickenburg and Kingman; while it'll never be the same isolated place after I-11 comes through, with a cleverly designed configuration it may pose the potential to be more prosperous. If the residents wish to maintain their isolation and understand that there's a trade-off regarding business, then a simple bypass with one or two interchanges would be appropriate. But a "slog through town or pay two bucks" option would cost more to implement and administer than any revenue apportionment to the town from such an installation.
I assume they still haven't decided how Interstate 11 will make its way through the Las Vegas area. Utilizing existing Interstate 515 and US 95 seems like a no-brainer (in my opinion). I hope they make that decision soon. We're not getting any younger.
Yeah, they could squeeze out a decision and get off the toilet seat already. Legs must be getting numb.
Common sense would dictate the I-11 route following US-95 and eating I-515. That would be the least painful solution to businesses in the Las Vegas area. The 215 loop has long been established as the 215 loop. It doesn't do anyone any good renaming half of it as I-11. Traditionally the main Interstate routes are thru-routes. They're not something that usually gets re-routed onto an outer beltway. In the end I'm hoping for I-215 to be signed as I-215 on that entire partial loop from I-11 on the SE side of the Vegas metro out up and over to I-15 on the North side of the Vegas metro. And then let I-11 cut through the middle of it, terminating first at I-215 on the NW side of Las Vegas and then, slowly, extending I-11 farther NW toward Reno.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 23, 2019, 04:13:06 PM
I assume they still haven't decided how Interstate 11 will make its way through the Las Vegas area. Utilizing existing Interstate 515 and US 95 seems like a no-brainer (in my opinion). I hope they make that decision soon. We're not getting any younger.
[/quote
See Pacific Southwest thread. Looks like three year study to decide alignment.
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #543 on: November 11, 2019, 08:24:43 PM
Quote from: splashflash on December 24, 2019, 01:12:28 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 23, 2019, 04:13:06 PM
I assume they still haven't decided how Interstate 11 will make its way through the Las Vegas area. Utilizing existing Interstate 515 and US 95 seems like a no-brainer (in my opinion). I hope they make that decision soon. We're not getting any younger.
See Pacific Southwest thread. Looks like three year study to decide alignment.
Re: Interstate 11 alignment, though Vegas and points north
« Reply #543 on: November 11, 2019, 08:24:43 PM
Which is the reason why the "Future I-11" signage is posted only along US 95 north of the 215 interchange; for all intents and purposes,
that portion will follow the present US 95 alignment at least as far as Mercury (with possible deviation at Indian Springs).
Unless I'm missing something it looks like US-95 could be ugpraded through Indian Springs on the existing alignment. The highway is flanked on both sides by frontage roads. The frontage roads would only need to be extended as the main lanes are re-built with bridges over the key intersections. It might be a tight squeeze working slip ramps in to the design, but there is a good amount of vacant space on the side opposite from Creech AFB.
Cactus Springs next door to the West looks like a tiny ghost town. But it has a similar arrangement. Overall upgrading I-11 to the Mercury Highway exit should be a relatively simple affair. The situation starts getting interesting when the highway gets into more mountainous territory at Beatty and farther North.
^^^^^^^^^^
US 95 from LV to Mercury is similar in terms of configuration to US 93 from AZ 68 north to the Colorado River bridge approach -- likely to be by and large upgradeable within the present ROW. But from what I've gathered, there's a bit of controversy regarding Indian Springs related to Creech AFB security (that base is "drone development central" for the USAF); some parties are pushing for either a trenched facility on the existing ROW or a bypass around the southwest side of town. But since full development is likely 7-10 years off, it appears we'll just have to see how it all shakes out. I wouldn't be surprised to see plans for this segment materialize about the time that the through-LV alignment is selected.
Digging a new trench on the exiting US-95 alignment would be more expensive and disruptive than just building a few new bridge crossings that allow I-11 to leap frog the important intersections. If the USAF is really worried about privacy why not build opaque sound walls on the military base side of the highway? They could copy the approach ADOT used on the South Mountain Freeway project; the first few miles of it have sound walls running along the North edge of the highway.
At any rate they shouldn't be displaying any classified "black" equipment near the highway anyway, even in the highway's current non-Interstate configuration. The thing is plenty of other military bases have freeways running on the edge of their installations or even running through them. Just look at Fort Bliss in El Paso.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 28, 2019, 04:01:55 PM
Digging a new trench on the exiting US-95 alignment would be more expensive and disruptive than just building a few new bridge crossings that allow I-11 to leap frog the important intersections. If the USAF is really worried about privacy why not build opaque sound walls on the military base side of the highway? They could copy the approach ADOT used on the South Mountain Freeway project; the first few miles of it have sound walls running along the North edge of the highway.
At any rate they shouldn't be displaying any classified "black" equipment near the highway anyway, even in the highway's current non-Interstate configuration. The thing is plenty of other military bases have freeways running on the edge of their installations or even running through them. Just look at Fort Bliss in El Paso.
I agree that this is all much ado about nothing; with frontage roads, there's no compelling reason to alter the I-11 alignment away from the present US 95 profile. But these days, it appears that virtually
anything can be cited for a reason to study something to death! :eyebrow:
Quote from: sparker on December 30, 2019, 12:24:10 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 28, 2019, 04:01:55 PM
Digging a new trench on the exiting US-95 alignment would be more expensive and disruptive than just building a few new bridge crossings that allow I-11 to leap frog the important intersections. If the USAF is really worried about privacy why not build opaque sound walls on the military base side of the highway? They could copy the approach ADOT used on the South Mountain Freeway project; the first few miles of it have sound walls running along the North edge of the highway.
At any rate they shouldn't be displaying any classified "black" equipment near the highway anyway, even in the highway's current non-Interstate configuration. The thing is plenty of other military bases have freeways running on the edge of their installations or even running through them. Just look at Fort Bliss in El Paso.
I agree that this is all much ado about nothing; with frontage roads, there's no compelling reason to alter the I-11 alignment away from the present US 95 profile. But these days, it appears that virtually anything can be cited for a reason to study something to death! :eyebrow:
This discussion is probably better for the thread in Pacific Southwest...
However, I will chime in to mention that I think the future I-11 alignment through Indian Springs could be a simple upgrade of US 95 through town. They could reduce existing median width to keep right of way issues minimal. Two tight diamonds would be plenty of access for the town (one at MacFarland Ave and another at the old Creech main gate), and another interchange for the current main gate access. They could slightly trench the mainline to reduce bridge heights, if that is a concern–but narrow bridges for the mainline would be easiest. And since the base has purchased and razed all adjacent properties on that side of the highway, the northern side frontage road could be eliminated.
I'd elevate US 95 on the existing alignment and make two half-diamond interchanges at either end of the frontage roads, making them into one interchange. It would look similar to I-86 in Horseheads (https://www.google.com/maps/@42.157183,-76.8196857,964m/data=!3m1!1e3).
Sorry for my shameless plug: I made a video about Interstate 11 for my YouTube channel.
I hope it's accurate!
Quote from: i-215 on January 12, 2020, 03:57:46 AM
Sorry for my shameless plug: I made a video about Interstate 11 for my YouTube channel.
I hope it's accurate!
I-82 was completed in 1988. The southern section from Tri-Cities to I-84 was the last section.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_82
Rick
The first segment of I-49 opened in 1983. It took until the late 1980's for the rural sections between Shreveport and Lafayette to open. The urban section thru Alexandria didn't open until 1996.
In the same early 1980's era I-44 was extended from Oklahoma City down to Wichita Falls. The first segments of I-39 in Illinois were signed in the late 1980's. The entire Illinois section wasn't finished until the early 1990's. The Northern extensions of I-39 into Wisconsin took place in the 1990's.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 12, 2020, 11:47:29 AM
The first segment of I-49 opened in 1983. It took until the late 1980's for the rural sections between Shreveport and Lafayette to open. The urban section thru Alexandria didn't open until 1996.
In the same early 1980's era I-44 was extended from Oklahoma City down to Wichita Falls. The first segments of I-39 in Illinois were signed in the late 1980's. The entire Illinois section wasn't finished until the early 1990's. The Northern extensions of I-39 into Wisconsin took place in the 1990's.
If you watch the first segment of the video, he specifically mentions in "western America".
I-49 in Missouri was completed around 2012.
I-49 between Shreveport and Texarkana was completed by 2016, being constructed over about 10 years prior to that in phases.
I-73 in North Carolina was approved in 1990, and segments have been under construction since. The newest segment opened northwest of Greensboro in 2017. A new segment east Rockingham in the southern part of the state is currently under construction scheduled to open around 2022. The same situation with I-74 in North Carolina, the newest segment being completed around 2012 southeast of Winston-Salem, with a 16 mile segment of the Winston-Salem Beltway I-74 portion currently being constructed east of the city.
I-26 in North Carolina and Tennessee was completed around 2002 north of Asheville.
I-40 in North Carolina between Raleigh and Wilmington was completed around 1990.
I-69 in Indiana was completed between Evansville and Bloomington in 2016, about 100 miles of new location freeway constructed in the 21st century within a 10 year span. SR-37 was upgraded to interstate standards between Bloomington and Martinsville completed in 2018, and is now currently under construction to Indianapolis.
I-69 in Texas is actively being completed piece-by-piece, though mainly as interchange improvements to existing arterial roadways. Large-scale construction projects such as upgrading long segments to interstate standards and construction of new location bypasses will be ramping up this decade, with at least 40 miles added to the I-69 system by 2030, if not more.
I-22 between Memphis and Birmingham was completed by 2016, after about a couple decades of piece-by-piece construction.
Quote from: i-215 on January 12, 2020, 03:57:46 AM
Sorry for my shameless plug: I made a video about Interstate 11 for my YouTube channel.
I hope it's accurate!
That was great. I liked the production values. Thanks for posting it.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on January 14, 2020, 01:15:56 AM
Quote from: i-215 on January 12, 2020, 03:57:46 AM
Sorry for my shameless plug: I made a video about Interstate 11 for my YouTube channel.
I hope it's accurate!
That was great. I liked the production values. Thanks for posting it.
I agree, really great video.
The rest of the channel is great too, Rob. Lots of good laughs! Thanks for sharing.
Awesome video I-215! Thanks for sharing! :clap:
Quote from: jakeroot on January 24, 2020, 09:20:31 PM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on January 14, 2020, 01:15:56 AM
Quote from: i-215 on January 12, 2020, 03:57:46 AM
Sorry for my shameless plug: I made a video about Interstate 11 for my YouTube channel.
I hope it's accurate!
That was great. I liked the production values. Thanks for posting it.
I agree, really great video.
The rest of the channel is great too, Rob. Lots of good laughs! Thanks for sharing.
Amazing video dude! Gained a subscriber! You have talent!
Same here. Great job Rob!
QuoteFirst New Interstate in 40 years!
I-49, 87, 99, 14, 2, and the 69s say hello.
Quote from: US 89 on January 29, 2020, 10:34:56 AM
QuoteFirst New Interstate in 40 years!
I-49, 87, 99, 14, 2, and the 69s say hello.
49 and 69 don't count, since those are just being extended.
Quote from: US 89 on January 29, 2020, 10:34:56 AM
QuoteFirst New Interstate in 40 years!
I-49, 87, 99, 14, 2, and the 69s say hello.
I-73 as well. Currently only exists in North Carolina, planned in Virginia and South Carolina.
Quote from: X99 on January 29, 2020, 11:02:17 AM
Quote from: US 89 on January 29, 2020, 10:34:56 AM
QuoteFirst New Interstate in 40 years!
I-49, 87, 99, 14, 2, and the 69s say hello.
49 and 69 don't count, since those are just being extended.
The video referenced segments completed, so they would count.
Though, the video is only talking about western interstates if you actually watch it.
it was referring to the western us
^^^^^^^^^^
Depends upon how one defines "West(ern)" -- the western half of the country, which would put I-14 in the mix, or the western states (NM, CO, WY, MT and everything west from there) -- in which case it would be true that the only new trunk interstate commissioned since 1980 would indeed be I-11. Otherwise, the I-580 extension over the San Rafael Bridge (completed, with the Knox Freeway in Richmond 1991), I-110 (1981), I-710 (1984), and I-880 (2nd iteration, 1985) -- not to mention I-238 the same year (sorry!). But those are simply local servers, so while technically additions, IMO they don't rise to the level of an interregional connector. And I discount I-105/CA and I-182; while constructed after '80, their commissioning dates from the 1968 group of Interstate additions.
by west i think he means west coast including nevada and az. and new being main 2 digit route.
Quote from: silverback1065 on January 30, 2020, 07:49:24 AM
by west i think he means west coast including nevada and az. and new being main 2 digit route.
It'll be interesting to see how CA responds if I-11 is ever planned within the NE quadrant of the state -- which would probably also be dependent upon OR response as well. And any new-terrain route not overlaying an existing freeway or expressway facility -- which something along CA's northern reaches of US 395 would definitely be -- would probably elicit howls and protestations from the RE/T crowd, which has had the ear of a sizeable number of CA & OR state officials for some time now -- so that would have to be overcome (or simply ignored, which is unlikely) prior to any concrete plans being formulated. New Interstates -- particularly when they don't supply a great deal of benefit to the state -- are just not high on Caltrans' priority list; even the likelihood of the preapproved-as-future-Interstate section of CA 99 won't likely see the light of day in most of our lifetimes.
I-11 from Vegas to Reno is a reasonable proposition. Going north to either Oregon or Idaho via US 95 and US 395 does not have enough traffic volume to justify an Interstate. 1/2 to 1 mile 4-lane passing sections placed 5 miles apart would be enough to handle RV's and trucks along with the passenger vehicles present during the summer for the next few decades.
Rick
Quote from: sparker on January 30, 2020, 06:40:39 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on January 30, 2020, 07:49:24 AM
by west i think he means west coast including nevada and az. and new being main 2 digit route.
It'll be interesting to see how CA responds if I-11 is ever planned within the NE quadrant of the state -- which would probably also be dependent upon OR response as well. And any new-terrain route not overlaying an existing freeway or expressway facility -- which something along CA's northern reaches of US 395 would definitely be -- would probably elicit howls and protestations from the RE/T crowd, which has had the ear of a sizeable number of CA & OR state officials for some time now -- so that would have to be overcome (or simply ignored, which is unlikely) prior to any concrete plans being formulated. New Interstates -- particularly when they don't supply a great deal of benefit to the state -- are just not high on Caltrans' priority list; even the likelihood of the preapproved-as-future-Interstate section of CA 99 won't likely see the light of day in most of our lifetimes.
California has a list as long as your arm of earthquake retrofits to do, and if they ever finish that list they've got a another list of freeways to upgrade where the residents actually want them and they have traffic to justify them. Upgrading US 395 is not going to make the list, unless somehow Uncle Sugar pays for it.
I don't see any need for 11 other than between LV and Phoenix. A small need up to Reno. I just don't understand why it's needed north of Reno.
Quote from: kkt on January 30, 2020, 09:25:39 PM
Quote from: sparker on January 30, 2020, 06:40:39 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on January 30, 2020, 07:49:24 AM
by west i think he means west coast including nevada and az. and new being main 2 digit route.
It'll be interesting to see how CA responds if I-11 is ever planned within the NE quadrant of the state -- which would probably also be dependent upon OR response as well. And any new-terrain route not overlaying an existing freeway or expressway facility -- which something along CA's northern reaches of US 395 would definitely be -- would probably elicit howls and protestations from the RE/T crowd, which has had the ear of a sizeable number of CA & OR state officials for some time now -- so that would have to be overcome (or simply ignored, which is unlikely) prior to any concrete plans being formulated. New Interstates -- particularly when they don't supply a great deal of benefit to the state -- are just not high on Caltrans' priority list; even the likelihood of the preapproved-as-future-Interstate section of CA 99 won't likely see the light of day in most of our lifetimes.
California has a list as long as your arm of earthquake retrofits to do, and if they ever finish that list they've got a another list of freeways to upgrade where the residents actually want them and they have traffic to justify them. Upgrading US 395 is not going to make the list, unless somehow Uncle Sugar pays for it.
If an Interstate (ostensibly I-11)
were to actually be planned to generally overlay US 395 up to Oregon, activity toward that end would have already happened -- it's already a designated high priority corridor (#19), which, with Congressional designation amended description, has been the main vehicle for new Interstates over existing corridors (e.g. the southern I-87 over HPC #13, which was originally legislated back with 1991's ISTEA). But nothing of the sort has been forthcoming; the area through which such a corridor would need to travel is, aside from parts of the Mojave Desert, the most sparsely populated section of CA -- and the folks that are up there don't seem to be in any hurry to entice large-scale development to their region. And since OR isn't in any hurry to build new-terrain freeways, there's simply no parties along any potential corridor iterations that would likely be able to ramp up support for such a project. There's only one significant metro area along any of those iterations -- Bend/Redmond, OR -- but even it is well short of the "tipping point" at which pressure can be brought to bear for such an extensive -- and
expensive --undertaking. It's just not going to happen in the near term; I-11 will simply terminate at I-80 near Reno (OK, Fernley!) sometime in the next decade or two.
The stretch of CA 99 in the San Joaquin Valley certainly meets the criteria of being on the Caltrans list of freeways that are actually wanted by the residents, since most of the cities along its stretch are seeing steady growth -- with some actually seeing
outsized growth patterns as a result of being
de facto exurban commute destinations. And the three Caltrans districts (3,6,10) through which that corridor passes
are steadily moving to fulfill the 2006 "master plan" for the corridor as fast as funding can be identified (see the CA 99 thread in SW for much more detail!). Now whether it'll ever get I-7 or I-9 designation has yet TBD; that may yet happen once the substandard features deployed in the '50's and early '60's are dealt with -- but all that will take at least 15-20 years to accomplish -- so unless there's some sort of renewed push from Fresno and/or other Valley communities for Interstate status for 99 that expands into the political realm, it'll simply stay CA 99. Caltrans won't internally instigate such a move itself; anything of the sort will have to come from outside the agency.
Quote from: nexus73 on January 30, 2020, 09:10:06 PM
I-11 from Vegas to Reno is a reasonable proposition. Going north to either Oregon or Idaho via US 95 and US 395 does not have enough traffic volume to justify an Interstate. 1/2 to 1 mile 4-lane passing sections placed 5 miles apart would be enough to handle RV's and trucks along with the passenger vehicles present during the summer for the next few decades.
Rick
Right now the Boise/Treasure Valley metro population is a bit over 850K. My guess is that when (and if) it hits about 1.25M there may be some pressure for an Interstate-level N-S connector to I-80 to expedite access to the commercial distribution centers in CA. If the area continues to grow at or slightly above its present rate -- likely in part from CA "refugees" -- that may occur by 2028-2030. At that point we'll see if the area becomes a "799-pound gorilla" in terms of political clout -- enough to get an Interstate either along US 95 or a NT route to the east off the ground.
If they would run I-11 up east of Reno (perhaps to Exit 83 of I-80) with a spur to the Carson City/Reno area, I-11 could then twin up I-80 to Winnemucca and go up the US-95 corridor into Oregon and to the west side of the Boise metro. that would keep California out of the mix, minimize the roadwork needed in Oregon, put a bit on Boise (but get them a SB interstate), and still not be too much out of the way for traffic to take I-84 to Portland or I-84/I-82/I-90 into Seattle/Vancouver.
Quote from: Life in Paradise on January 31, 2020, 12:56:37 PM
If they would run I-11 up east of Reno (perhaps to Exit 83 of I-80) with a spur to the Carson City/Reno area, I-11 could then twin up I-80 to Winnemucca and go up the US-95 corridor into Oregon and to the west side of the Boise metro. that would keep California out of the mix, minimize the roadwork needed in Oregon, put a bit on Boise (but get them a SB interstate), and still not be too much out of the way for traffic to take I-84 to Portland or I-84/I-82/I-90 into Seattle/Vancouver.
Chances are that I-11 will intersect with I-80 just NE of Fernley; in that way there's functionally equal access to both EB (toward Winnemucca) and WB (toward Reno, about 30+ miles distant) without having to put in two separate branches. From what I've seen of the plan options, most of them specify a wide arc around the southwest side of Fallon to effect the connection. Taking it right up US 95 to its I-80 west junction would leave Reno (metro about 320K) effectively out of the mix, which probably wouldn't sit too well with area interests and their political arms; Fernley is a reasonable compromise (topology figures into the equation as well).
The one drawback with a US 95-based routing from I-80 to the Treasure Valley in ID is its OR mileage; that state would amass only miniscule benefits from the deployment of an Interstate-grade facility -- and that drops to
negligible northeast of the OR 78 junction! Idaho would likely have to kick in most of the construction costs, since they're the ones that would reap any benefits accrued by the upgrade. Right now there doesn't seem to be any issue with the present corridor; while not optimal in efficiency, US 95 is still serviceable for the time being. As I stated in the previous post, at least another 400K folks would have to move into that part of ID before the supply chain would start seeing signs of strain. Except for "spot" fixes, it's unlikely that the corridor will be addressed prior to that occurrence.
Quote from: silverback1065I don't see any need for 11 other than between LV and Phoenix. A small need up to Reno. I just don't understand why it's needed north of Reno.
I think the stuff South of Phoenix, trying to duplicate the I-10 link to Tucson and I-19 link to Nogales is not needed at all. Just widen I-10 and I-19 instead! Duh! Tucson does need other super highways, but I-11 doesn't need to be pulled down there. I don't mind if I-11 wraps around the SW quadrant of the Phoenix metro. But it's going to be nothing short of very stupid if US-60 isn't converted to Interstate quality from the NW corner of Loop 303 to I-11.
As for I-11 from Vegas to Reno, that's a little harder to sell (particularly with the route proposed to go to 25+ miles East to Fernley instead of Reno). I-11 North of Reno is an even harder sell. However, I think I-11 could work as a major relief route to I-5 for long distance traffic and commerce headed from the Mexican border region up to the Pacific Northwest.
That traffic could avoid much of California. I-11 could work for I-5 very much in the same way I-81 works as a major relief route for I-95 on the Eastern Seaboard.
Right now there is not nearly enough traffic using US-95 between Reno and Las Vegas to upgrade that to Interstate standard just based on traffic counts alone. The same goes for US-95 from I-80 up North approaching the Boise metro area. But here's the thing: the existing highways are little rinky dink 2-lane highways that do not run on any sort of direct path at all. There's next to nothing in terms of services along those desolate highways. Who wants to risk running out of gas out in the middle of nowhere? So everyone from long haul truckers to families on road trips are going to go well out of their way to stay on Interstates. They might burn up a few more gallons of fuel, but at least they know there are plenty of stores along they way. And they know their chances are near nil they'll get in a head on collision when using an Interstate.
So if I-11 went up to the Reno region and then farther Northwest to hook into I-5
somewhere in Southern Oregon I think the route would attract a great deal of traffic and Interstate commerce from Seattle, Portland and even Vancouver, BC.
The Boise area is getting large enough that it could benefit from a 100% Interstate link down Southwest to the Pacific Coast. I don't know why US-95 makes that giant, extremely strange and very wasteful right angle bend in Malheur county, Oregon on the way to Boise. But it really sucks. If an Interstate route was ever built South out of the Boise area to I-80 I would hope they would lop off much of that very stupid angle. To be fair, the Owyhee River in SE Oregon cuts some pretty deep canyons. US-95 crosses the river near the tiny town of Rome, where the river canyon isn't nearly as deep or wide. But with a good bridge set in the right location, the path from Jordan Valley, OR (and other very sharp bend in US-95) down to toward the Nevada/Oregon border town of McDermitt could be set on a far more straight path.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 04, 2020, 10:32:49 PM
Quote from: silverback1065I don't see any need for 11 other than between LV and Phoenix. A small need up to Reno. I just don't understand why it's needed north of Reno.
I think the stuff South of Phoenix, trying to duplicate the I-10 link to Tucson and I-19 link to Nogales is not needed at all. Just widen I-10 and I-19 instead! Duh! Tucson does need other super highways, but I-11 doesn't need to be pulled down there. I don't mind if I-11 wraps around the SW quadrant of the Phoenix metro. But it's going to be nothing short of very stupid if US-60 isn't converted to Interstate quality from the NW corner of Loop 303 to I-11.
As for I-11 from Vegas to Reno, that's a little harder to sell (particularly with the route proposed to go to 25+ miles East to Fernley instead of Reno). I-11 North of Reno is an even harder sell. However, I think I-11 could work as a major relief route to I-5 for long distance traffic and commerce headed from the Mexican border region up to the Pacific Northwest. That traffic could avoid much of California. I-11 could work for I-5 very much in the same way I-81 works as a major relief route for I-95 on the Eastern Seaboard.
Right now there is not nearly enough traffic using US-95 between Reno and Las Vegas to upgrade that to Interstate standard just based on traffic counts alone. The same goes for US-95 from I-80 up North approaching the Boise metro area. But here's the thing: the existing highways are little rinky dink 2-lane highways that do not run on any sort of direct path at all. There's next to nothing in terms of services along those desolate highways. Who wants to risk running out of gas out in the middle of nowhere? So everyone from long haul truckers to families on road trips are going to go well out of their way to stay on Interstates. They might burn up a few more gallons of fuel, but at least they know there are plenty of stores along they way. And they know their chances are near nil they'll get in a head on collision when using an Interstate.
So if I-11 went up to the Reno region and then farther Northwest to hook into I-5 somewhere in Southern Oregon I think the route would attract a great deal of traffic and Interstate commerce from Seattle, Portland and even Vancouver, BC.
The Boise area is getting large enough that it could benefit from a 100% Interstate link down Southwest to the Pacific Coast. I don't know why US-95 makes that giant, extremely strange and very wasteful right angle bend in Malheur county, Oregon on the way to Boise. But it really sucks. If an Interstate route was ever built South out of the Boise area to I-80 I would hope they would lop off much of that very stupid angle. To be fair, the Owyhee River in SE Oregon cuts some pretty deep canyons. US-95 crosses the river near the tiny town of Rome, where the river canyon isn't nearly as deep or wide. But with a good bridge set in the right location, the path from Jordan Valley, OR (and other very sharp bend in US-95) down to toward the Nevada/Oregon border town of McDermitt could be set on a far more straight path.
The reason for that sharp angle of US 95 at the OR 78 junction is the topology of the area east of the highway. It's not just the Owyhee River canyon, which isn't all that deep, it's more the basalt "badlands" area that while decidedly
not acting as a high mountain range barrier, still makes for exceptionally difficult construction. It's quite similar to the terrain in the John Day area of north-central OR, which has perennially acted as a barrier for a direct route from the Bend/Redmond area to Hermiston/Umatilla (as was discovered during preliminary "scouting" for the 1990's proposal for a freeway SW from the east terminus of I-82). It's essentially attempting to lay four lanes over a big pile of sharp rocks. The similarities aren't surprising; both areas feature the rocky terrain as a result of the eruption of Mazama, the huge volcano that after blowing its top collapsed into what is now Crater Lake. The lava settled over a broad arc east and northeast because of the prevailing winds, and both areas are roughly the same distance from the old volcano. That being said --
part of the angle could be cut off more or less between Blue Mountain Pass and the Rome area, which would save about 15-20 miles. Remember, regardless of who ends up paying for such a project, this is Oregon we're talking about -- and "heroic" construction -- in terms of both effort and cost -- through previously undisturbed territory might result in sociopolitical problems that could jeopardize any proposed corridor -- and likely causing at least interminable delays. Best to shave off some miles through desert range rather than plow through the basalt formations. The town of Jordan Valley itself could be bypassed to the north without
too much difficulty; but for the remainder of the journey north to I-84, if it were my option, I'd keep close to US 95 until Marsing, where such a corridor could turn NE toward 84 along the path of least (physical and political) resistance.
I just want to reiterate: There is a less-than-zero chance that Interstate 11 is built in Malheur County. Constructing a new interstate highway is politically impossible in Oregon at this time.
Idaho could literally throw buckets of money at Oregon and there is no chance Oregon would accept it for a new Interstate.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on February 07, 2020, 01:19:17 PM
I just want to reiterate: There is a less-than-zero chance that Interstate 11 is built in Malheur County. Constructing a new interstate highway is politically impossible in Oregon at this time.
Idaho could literally throw buckets of money at Oregon and there is no chance Oregon would accept it for a new Interstate.
If it were within hailing distance from PDX, I'd wholeheartedly agree. But it wasn't terribly long ago that a N-S freeway from the east end of I-82 via Redmond and Bend and then down US 97 into CA was contemplated. Even though the RE/T crowd seems to have quite a bit of sway with ODOT and a number of state legislators, they seem to be consumed with matters right in the extended metro area in and south of Portland; there's little initiative aimed elsewhere. The fact that a freeway along/near the US 95 corridor
wouldn't have much effect on the rest of the state in virtually any category might actually be a saving grace here. And remember that while most of the PDX political "establishment" tends to veer toward the RE/T POV, there's always been some tension between legislators from the remainder of the state who tend to feel shortchanged when it comes to policy matters. If funding (almost certainly from elsewhere) could be identified, it would be an opportunity to show those legislators that projects "out there" providing at least some interim jobs wouldn't be jeopardized by contrary attitudes emanating from the metro area. Doing otherwise, if the opportunity were to be presented, would be seen as at least condescending and at worst dismissive of the wishes in the rural part of the state -- possibly fomenting some form of political backlash.
But the phrase used above "at this time" is key; the chances are that the Treasure Valley area won't hit the tipping point until 2028-2030; and there will be some lag-time before actual activity for a US 95-based corridor commences -- so the odds are that there won't be any activity on this for at least a dozen years. The matter can be revisited then -- and we'll see what if any attitudinal changes occur over that timeframe.
Quote from: sparker on February 07, 2020, 05:07:43 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on February 07, 2020, 01:19:17 PM
I just want to reiterate: There is a less-than-zero chance that Interstate 11 is built in Malheur County. Constructing a new interstate highway is politically impossible in Oregon at this time.
Idaho could literally throw buckets of money at Oregon and there is no chance Oregon would accept it for a new Interstate.
If it were within hailing distance from PDX, I'd wholeheartedly agree. But it wasn't terribly long ago that a N-S freeway from the east end of I-82 via Redmond and Bend and then down US 97 into CA was contemplated. Even though the RE/T crowd seems to have quite a bit of sway with ODOT and a number of state legislators, they seem to be consumed with matters right in the extended metro area in and south of Portland; there's little initiative aimed elsewhere. The fact that a freeway along/near the US 95 corridor wouldn't have much effect on the rest of the state in virtually any category might actually be a saving grace here. And remember that while most of the PDX political "establishment" tends to veer toward the RE/T POV, there's always been some tension between legislators from the remainder of the state who tend to feel shortchanged when it comes to policy matters. If funding (almost certainly from elsewhere) could be identified, it would be an opportunity to show those legislators that projects "out there" providing at least some interim jobs wouldn't be jeopardized by contrary attitudes emanating from the metro area. Doing otherwise, if the opportunity were to be presented, would be seen as at least condescending and at worst dismissive of the wishes in the rural part of the state -- possibly fomenting some form of political backlash.
But the phrase used above "at this time" is key; the chances are that the Treasure Valley area won't hit the tipping point until 2028-2030; and there will be some lag-time before actual activity for a US 95-based corridor commences -- so the odds are that there won't be any activity on this for at least a dozen years. The matter can be revisited then -- and we'll see what if any attitudinal changes occur over that timeframe.
It's not about funding right now in Oregon politics. It's all about climate and perceived climate action. Building an interstate highway in rural Oregon would have no political upside for an Oregon governor. I mean, they're not even funding the next round of US 97 freeway projects in the upcoming STIP.
Interstate 11 should run from Interstate 80 in Nevada to Interstate 10 or 8 in Arizona. No need for it to go any further.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on February 07, 2020, 05:36:39 PM
Quote from: sparker on February 07, 2020, 05:07:43 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on February 07, 2020, 01:19:17 PM
I just want to reiterate: There is a less-than-zero chance that Interstate 11 is built in Malheur County. Constructing a new interstate highway is politically impossible in Oregon at this time.
Idaho could literally throw buckets of money at Oregon and there is no chance Oregon would accept it for a new Interstate.
If it were within hailing distance from PDX, I'd wholeheartedly agree. But it wasn't terribly long ago that a N-S freeway from the east end of I-82 via Redmond and Bend and then down US 97 into CA was contemplated. Even though the RE/T crowd seems to have quite a bit of sway with ODOT and a number of state legislators, they seem to be consumed with matters right in the extended metro area in and south of Portland; there's little initiative aimed elsewhere. The fact that a freeway along/near the US 95 corridor wouldn't have much effect on the rest of the state in virtually any category might actually be a saving grace here. And remember that while most of the PDX political "establishment" tends to veer toward the RE/T POV, there's always been some tension between legislators from the remainder of the state who tend to feel shortchanged when it comes to policy matters. If funding (almost certainly from elsewhere) could be identified, it would be an opportunity to show those legislators that projects "out there" providing at least some interim jobs wouldn't be jeopardized by contrary attitudes emanating from the metro area. Doing otherwise, if the opportunity were to be presented, would be seen as at least condescending and at worst dismissive of the wishes in the rural part of the state -- possibly fomenting some form of political backlash.
But the phrase used above "at this time" is key; the chances are that the Treasure Valley area won't hit the tipping point until 2028-2030; and there will be some lag-time before actual activity for a US 95-based corridor commences -- so the odds are that there won't be any activity on this for at least a dozen years. The matter can be revisited then -- and we'll see what if any attitudinal changes occur over that timeframe.
It's not about funding right now in Oregon politics. It's all about climate and perceived climate action. Building an interstate highway in rural Oregon would have no political upside for an Oregon governor. I mean, they're not even funding the next round of US 97 freeway projects in the upcoming STIP.
Like I said, things could change over the next dozen years or so. If non-fossil-fuel vehicles are dominant -- or at least prevalent -- by 2032-33, some attitudes about mobility and transportation could relax somewhat. Outside radical urbanist/non-mobility activists, the viewpoints prevalent today are driven by the
aggregate transportation mode, which still depends upon fossil fuels (auto, RR, and air transport); the overwhelming reality of that has given pause (especially in OR, which likes to think of itself in the vanguard of progressive thought) to doing anything in the way of enhancing road travel -- local or long-distance -- hell, they can't seem to agree on bringing I-5 out to 3+3 through the Rose Garden! I did my doctoral work up there (public policy) and lived in PDX for a little over 4 years -- I've seen this play out firsthand in the early '90's. But if the environment shifts, the attention span of both activists and their public sector counterparts tends to considerably shorten. I'll concede that at this moment any freeway construction in the state is a non-starter -- but won't concede that this is a permanent condition.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on February 07, 2020, 05:44:56 PM
Interstate 11 should run from Interstate 80 in Nevada to Interstate 10 or 8 in Arizona. No need for it to go any further.
Still think that if & when I-11 is extended, it would likely go to Klamath Falls and then either to Eugene or Bend. A Boise connector might well be I-13 -- no major casino interests to get spooked! :sombrero:
Quote from: Sub-UrbaniteI just want to reiterate: There is a less-than-zero chance that Interstate 11 is built in Malheur County. Constructing a new interstate highway is politically impossible in Oregon at this time.
If I were "King of America" and could have my way, I wouldn't send I-11 up that direction anyway. I'd route it along US-395, over the existing freeway going North out of Reno to the California border. Ultimately the goal would be to connect I-11 with I-5. But where is the best place to do that?
Caltrans could try to "Bogart" the North End of I-11, sending the route to Susanville and then across to Redding. It wouldn't be an easy or cheap route to build, considering it would run in the vicinity of Lassen Peak. Another alternative is going to to Klamath Falls and then cutting West to meet I-5 in the Medford-Ashland area. That's way South of the Portland area. I imagine people in the rural areas on the other side of the mountains from Portland might like it if the US-97 corridor was upgraded to Interstate quality at least as far North as Bend. But the closer I-11 would get to the Portland area might translate into making it more difficult to cross the mountains to connect with I-5.
Quote from: Sub-UrbaniteIt's not about funding right now in Oregon politics. It's all about climate and perceived climate action. Building an interstate highway in rural Oregon would have no political upside for an Oregon governor. I mean, they're not even funding the next round of US 97 freeway projects in the upcoming STIP.
I would think building improvements to a highway to get vehicles from point A to point B faster would actually be a good thing, even in terms of fighting climate change. Vehicles idling on a busy highway at traffic signals for crossing surface streets are going to belch out more exhaust than they would if they could breeze over those intersections via freeway style exits.
Whether the new urbanists in the Portland area like it or not there is no realistic, feasible way to build rail lines and other forms of mass transit to reach every freaking American. Personal vehicles are here to stay. The densely populated areas where things like light rail can run
are becoming very unaffordable places to live. Don't these people see the freaking homelessness problem and the growing numbers of working homeless? This
urban utopia they're selling isn't financially sustainable.
While these people are munching on their avocado toast they're not noticing scores of anonymous shell companies putting money into properties in high population areas across the US. Lord only knows from where this money is coming. In New York City there's literally many thousands of housing units sitting vacant, yet owned like baseball cards, stocks or gold. There are growing concerns about money laundering. I'm pretty worried we're seeing a speculative run-up in real estate even worse than the big scam that happened in the 2000's.
Anyway, if a big market crash happens that will open the doors for the government to get involved with
big programs to spur job growth. Infrastructure projects can be a simple and visual way of showing voters "progress."
^^^^^^^^^^^^
It'd be a bit more expensive -- hauling equipment into largely roadless territory -- but an alternative -- actually promising a 30-40-mile shorter route -- to an Oregon alignment would be feasible by veering NE away from US 95 via Paradise Valley (more or less along NV 290) and over to the Owyhee Desert, and then north immediately east of the OR/ID state line, overtaking US 95 again after it crosses into ID north of Jordan Valley, OR. That would leave OR out of the equation altogether. It would be relatively low-altitude, only rising above 6000 feet twice -- once between Paradise Valley and the Owyhee Desert, and again a bit SE of Jordan Valley. At least there's a reasonably doable alternative if OR elects to balk when such a corridor is actually considered. :rolleyes:
Quote from: sparker on February 08, 2020, 02:21:37 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^
It'd be a bit more expensive -- hauling equipment into largely roadless territory -- but an alternative -- actually promising a 30-40-mile shorter route -- to an Oregon alignment would be feasible by veering NE away from US 95 via Paradise Valley (more or less along NV 290) and over to the Owyhee Desert, and then north immediately east of the OR/ID state line, overtaking US 95 again after it crosses into ID north of Jordan Valley, OR. That would leave OR out of the equation altogether. It would be relatively low-altitude, only rising above 6000 feet twice -- once between Paradise Valley and the Owyhee Desert, and again a bit SE of Jordan Valley. At least there's a reasonably doable alternative if OR elects to balk when such a corridor is actually considered. :rolleyes:
Perhaps an alignment from the Owyhee Desert east to Pocatello could be enumerated I-86, giving San Franciscans a straight shot to Yellowstone. And Idaho does not have qualms to multiplex their freeways, I-84/I-86. In fifty years?
Quote from: splashflash on February 08, 2020, 04:11:59 AM
Quote from: sparker on February 08, 2020, 02:21:37 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^
It'd be a bit more expensive -- hauling equipment into largely roadless territory -- but an alternative -- actually promising a 30-40-mile shorter route -- to an Oregon alignment would be feasible by veering NE away from US 95 via Paradise Valley (more or less along NV 290) and over to the Owyhee Desert, and then north immediately east of the OR/ID state line, overtaking US 95 again after it crosses into ID north of Jordan Valley, OR. That would leave OR out of the equation altogether. It would be relatively low-altitude, only rising above 6000 feet twice -- once between Paradise Valley and the Owyhee Desert, and again a bit SE of Jordan Valley. At least there's a reasonably doable alternative if OR elects to balk when such a corridor is actually considered. :rolleyes:
Perhaps an alignment from the Owyhee Desert east to Pocatello could be enumerated I-86, giving San Franciscans a straight shot to Yellowstone. And Idaho does not have qualms to multiplex their freeways, I-84/I-86. In fifty years?
An Interstate routing expediting commercial egress to Boise and the Treasure Valley would provide much more in the way of benefits than a "straight shot" from northern CA & NV to Yellowstone. That being said, if ID and NV could agree that this was a desirable corridor to expand, it would be much simpler to run a facility up US 93 from I-80 at Wells, NV to I-84 near Twin Falls, ID; call it I-13 or a western extension of I-86 or whatever floats the local boat. But that brings up another concept (pardon the excursion into the fictional -- although such an idea
was part of the collection of corridors originally considered for a northern extension of I-11 out of Las Vegas before a US-95-based route was selected by simply appending I-11 to the HPC #68 description): US 93/NV 318 from north of LV through Ely and Wells and right up to I-84. That would certainly provide a relatively straight shot for a "I-13" corridor from L.A. and its ports to Boise and vicinity -- although it does next to nothing for traffic originating in Northern California. Neverless, like I iterated earlier, any such decision won't become relevant for at least a dozen or so years and is dependent upon the projected Treasure Valley growth actually panning out. I think most of us on the forum have become accustomed to mixed results when it comes to prognostication -- in today's environment, predicting this sort of development is like opening Forrest Gump's box of chocolates -- one never knows what you'll eventually get! ;-)
Quote from: sparker on February 08, 2020, 02:21:37 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^
It'd be a bit more expensive -- hauling equipment into largely roadless territory -- but an alternative -- actually promising a 30-40-mile shorter route -- to an Oregon alignment would be feasible by veering NE away from US 95 via Paradise Valley (more or less along NV 290) and over to the Owyhee Desert, and then north immediately east of the OR/ID state line, overtaking US 95 again after it crosses into ID north of Jordan Valley, OR. That would leave OR out of the equation altogether. It would be relatively low-altitude, only rising above 6000 feet twice -- once between Paradise Valley and the Owyhee Desert, and again a bit SE of Jordan Valley. At least there's a reasonably doable alternative if OR elects to balk when such a corridor is actually considered. :rolleyes:
I-13 may be a year or two sooner. Lithium extraction west of Orovada, near Thacker Pass, may be occurring getting the go-ahead:
https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2019-09-25/lithium-americas-provides-update-on-the-thacker-pass-lithium-project
https://www.nnbw.com/news/1-3-billion-lithium-mining-project-takes-shape-in-rural-northern-nevada/
Quote from: splashflash on April 24, 2020, 11:01:42 AM
Quote from: sparker on February 08, 2020, 02:21:37 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^
It'd be a bit more expensive -- hauling equipment into largely roadless territory -- but an alternative -- actually promising a 30-40-mile shorter route -- to an Oregon alignment would be feasible by veering NE away from US 95 via Paradise Valley (more or less along NV 290) and over to the Owyhee Desert, and then north immediately east of the OR/ID state line, overtaking US 95 again after it crosses into ID north of Jordan Valley, OR. That would leave OR out of the equation altogether. It would be relatively low-altitude, only rising above 6000 feet twice -- once between Paradise Valley and the Owyhee Desert, and again a bit SE of Jordan Valley. At least there's a reasonably doable alternative if OR elects to balk when such a corridor is actually considered. :rolleyes:
I-13 may be a year or two sooner. Lithium extraction west of Orovada, near Thacker Pass, may be occurring getting the go-ahead:
https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2019-09-25/lithium-americas-provides-update-on-the-thacker-pass-lithium-project
https://www.nnbw.com/news/1-3-billion-lithium-mining-project-takes-shape-in-rural-northern-nevada/
The USA really needs that lithium. Right now China controls almost all of the world's production.
Rick
Quote from: splashflash on April 24, 2020, 11:01:42 AM
I-13 may be a year or two sooner. Lithium extraction west of Orovada, near Thacker Pass, may be occurring getting the go-ahead:
https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2019-09-25/lithium-americas-provides-update-on-the-thacker-pass-lithium-project
https://www.nnbw.com/news/1-3-billion-lithium-mining-project-takes-shape-in-rural-northern-nevada/
Interesting. I'm not sure this mining project will generate enough traffic that an interstate will be necessary, though.
Quote from: kkt on April 24, 2020, 12:35:06 PM
Quote from: splashflash on April 24, 2020, 11:01:42 AM
I-13 may be a year or two sooner. Lithium extraction west of Orovada, near Thacker Pass, may be occurring getting the go-ahead:
https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2019-09-25/lithium-americas-provides-update-on-the-thacker-pass-lithium-project
https://www.nnbw.com/news/1-3-billion-lithium-mining-project-takes-shape-in-rural-northern-nevada/
Interesting. I'm not sure this mining project will generate enough traffic that an interstate will be necessary, though.
No, certainly not, but may make an I-13 viable in forty-eight years instead of fifty.
Quote from: splashflash on April 24, 2020, 03:37:25 PM
Quote from: kkt on April 24, 2020, 12:35:06 PM
Quote from: splashflash on April 24, 2020, 11:01:42 AM
I-13 may be a year or two sooner. Lithium extraction west of Orovada, near Thacker Pass, may be occurring getting the go-ahead:
https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2019-09-25/lithium-americas-provides-update-on-the-thacker-pass-lithium-project
https://www.nnbw.com/news/1-3-billion-lithium-mining-project-takes-shape-in-rural-northern-nevada/
Interesting. I'm not sure this mining project will generate enough traffic that an interstate will be necessary, though.
No, certainly not, but may make an I-13 viable in forty-eight years instead of fifty.
If the lithium mine starts generating employment, it might prompt some spot improvements on US 95 north of Winnemucca -- longer passing lanes, maybe even some 4-laning -- but the driving factor on any Interstate-grade development of this corridor (or one parallel to it) will still be the growth factor in the Boise/Treasure Valley area of Idaho. A number of acquaintances here in the San Jose area have expressed intentions of making the move up that way (particularly as of late!!!); and one of my audio customers is building a substantial house in the foothills north of Eagle, since he's retiring in a couple of years anyway. Those may simply be anecdotal examples, but it's hard not to "sniff out" the local level of discontent that may well drive a "diaspora" of sorts to inland areas with lower cost structures; how extensive that'll be over the next 20-25 years remains to be seen.
Quote from: nexus73 on April 24, 2020, 12:01:08 PM
Quote from: splashflash on April 24, 2020, 11:01:42 AM
Quote from: sparker on February 08, 2020, 02:21:37 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^
It'd be a bit more expensive -- hauling equipment into largely roadless territory -- but an alternative -- actually promising a 30-40-mile shorter route -- to an Oregon alignment would be feasible by veering NE away from US 95 via Paradise Valley (more or less along NV 290) and over to the Owyhee Desert, and then north immediately east of the OR/ID state line, overtaking US 95 again after it crosses into ID north of Jordan Valley, OR. That would leave OR out of the equation altogether. It would be relatively low-altitude, only rising above 6000 feet twice -- once between Paradise Valley and the Owyhee Desert, and again a bit SE of Jordan Valley. At least there's a reasonably doable alternative if OR elects to balk when such a corridor is actually considered. :rolleyes:
I-13 may be a year or two sooner. Lithium extraction west of Orovada, near Thacker Pass, may be occurring getting the go-ahead:
https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2019-09-25/lithium-americas-provides-update-on-the-thacker-pass-lithium-project
https://www.nnbw.com/news/1-3-billion-lithium-mining-project-takes-shape-in-rural-northern-nevada/
The USA really needs that lithium. Right now China controls almost all of the world's production.
Rick
Since when? The biggest lithium mine in the world is/was in Chile. There are still sizable active lithium mines in Gaston County, NC. According to Wikipedia, Australia produced more than the rest of the world combined in 2018.
Quote from: rte66man on April 27, 2020, 02:11:48 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on April 24, 2020, 12:01:08 PM
Quote from: splashflash on April 24, 2020, 11:01:42 AM
Quote from: sparker on February 08, 2020, 02:21:37 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^
It'd be a bit more expensive -- hauling equipment into largely roadless territory -- but an alternative -- actually promising a 30-40-mile shorter route -- to an Oregon alignment would be feasible by veering NE away from US 95 via Paradise Valley (more or less along NV 290) and over to the Owyhee Desert, and then north immediately east of the OR/ID state line, overtaking US 95 again after it crosses into ID north of Jordan Valley, OR. That would leave OR out of the equation altogether. It would be relatively low-altitude, only rising above 6000 feet twice -- once between Paradise Valley and the Owyhee Desert, and again a bit SE of Jordan Valley. At least there's a reasonably doable alternative if OR elects to balk when such a corridor is actually considered. :rolleyes:
I-13 may be a year or two sooner. Lithium extraction west of Orovada, near Thacker Pass, may be occurring getting the go-ahead:
https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2019-09-25/lithium-americas-provides-update-on-the-thacker-pass-lithium-project
https://www.nnbw.com/news/1-3-billion-lithium-mining-project-takes-shape-in-rural-northern-nevada/
The USA really needs that lithium. Right now China controls almost all of the world's production.
Rick
Since when? The biggest lithium mine in the world is/was in Chile. There are still sizable active lithium mines in Gaston County, NC. According to Wikipedia, Australia produced more than the rest of the world combined in 2018.
Gee -- lithium deposits in northern Nevada. Elon Musk's nascent battery fab plant in northern Nevada. Wonder if there's any sort of connection here?
Historically, this isn't N. NV's first rodeo with relatively rare minerals used in electronics. Back in the early 60's, when incandescent light bulbs and vacuum-tube-based electronics were the default standards, there was a shortage of tungsten, used for lighting/heating filaments for both products; while there were smallish deposits near Lovelock, NV, we purchased most of our supply from Canada -- but the Diefenbaker government there was bristling at the fact that most of their production migrated south of the border, so they slapped export fees on the stuff. Well, wouldn't you know -- about '61 or so a major tungsten-ore field was found in the hills along the South Vietnam/Cambodia border. So we offered the Thieu government (regime) in SVN help with their military efforts to secure the area, which was the locale of much rebel activity, so that extraction facilities could be safely built. Of course, as history shows, that mission was eventually conflated into what is now termed the Vietnam War, with the "mission" restated as saving a country rather than gaining commercial advantage. And because of the expanded conflict, no substantial tungsten mines were built -- and by the end of the '60's, most commercial electronics had moved or were moving to solid state rather than tube-based (one could argue "chicken vs. egg" dynamics for that change!). And it was really funny (in a somewhat grotesque sense) that after major troop commitment in '65, the subject of the original tungsten-seeking foray into the area was noticeably absent from news from the region -- like it never happened. Eventually the US-Canada situation was resolved, and although tubes were on the wane (except for musical instrument amplification and high-end specialty audio), light bulbs hung around for another 40 years. Ironically, most of the current NV production of tungsten goes as export to South America and Japan for bulbs and, yes, some tubes (Matsushita/Panasonic maintains a modest tube production facility).
Quote from: rte66man on April 27, 2020, 02:11:48 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on April 24, 2020, 12:01:08 PM
Quote from: splashflash on April 24, 2020, 11:01:42 AM
Quote from: sparker on February 08, 2020, 02:21:37 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^
It'd be a bit more expensive -- hauling equipment into largely roadless territory -- but an alternative -- actually promising a 30-40-mile shorter route -- to an Oregon alignment would be feasible by veering NE away from US 95 via Paradise Valley (more or less along NV 290) and over to the Owyhee Desert, and then north immediately east of the OR/ID state line, overtaking US 95 again after it crosses into ID north of Jordan Valley, OR. That would leave OR out of the equation altogether. It would be relatively low-altitude, only rising above 6000 feet twice -- once between Paradise Valley and the Owyhee Desert, and again a bit SE of Jordan Valley. At least there's a reasonably doable alternative if OR elects to balk when such a corridor is actually considered. :rolleyes:
I-13 may be a year or two sooner. Lithium extraction west of Orovada, near Thacker Pass, may be occurring getting the go-ahead:
https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2019-09-25/lithium-americas-provides-update-on-the-thacker-pass-lithium-project
https://www.nnbw.com/news/1-3-billion-lithium-mining-project-takes-shape-in-rural-northern-nevada/
The USA really needs that lithium. Right now China controls almost all of the world's production.
Rick
Since when? The biggest lithium mine in the world is/was in Chile. There are still sizable active lithium mines in Gaston County, NC. According to Wikipedia, Australia produced more than the rest of the world combined in 2018.
I have read where China supplies over 90% of the lithium in the world. They put a chokehold on Japan, who needs the lithium for the battery packs they manufacture. I will chalk up the difference in what is perceived as fact to "dueling sources". Mine were reputable AFAIK, thus the statement I wrote. Sorry, no linky for you as I never did expect to argue what seemed like such an obvious point any more than I would save one for saying the sky is blue on a sunny day.
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on April 27, 2020, 06:36:07 PM
Quote from: rte66man on April 27, 2020, 02:11:48 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on April 24, 2020, 12:01:08 PM
Quote from: splashflash on April 24, 2020, 11:01:42 AM
Quote from: sparker on February 08, 2020, 02:21:37 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^
It'd be a bit more expensive -- hauling equipment into largely roadless territory -- but an alternative -- actually promising a 30-40-mile shorter route -- to an Oregon alignment would be feasible by veering NE away from US 95 via Paradise Valley (more or less along NV 290) and over to the Owyhee Desert, and then north immediately east of the OR/ID state line, overtaking US 95 again after it crosses into ID north of Jordan Valley, OR. That would leave OR out of the equation altogether. It would be relatively low-altitude, only rising above 6000 feet twice -- once between Paradise Valley and the Owyhee Desert, and again a bit SE of Jordan Valley. At least there's a reasonably doable alternative if OR elects to balk when such a corridor is actually considered. :rolleyes:
I-13 may be a year or two sooner. Lithium extraction west of Orovada, near Thacker Pass, may be occurring getting the go-ahead:
https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2019-09-25/lithium-americas-provides-update-on-the-thacker-pass-lithium-project
https://www.nnbw.com/news/1-3-billion-lithium-mining-project-takes-shape-in-rural-northern-nevada/
The USA really needs that lithium. Right now China controls almost all of the world's production.
Rick
Since when? The biggest lithium mine in the world is/was in Chile. There are still sizable active lithium mines in Gaston County, NC. According to Wikipedia, Australia produced more than the rest of the world combined in 2018.
I have read where China supplies over 90% of the lithium in the world. They put a chokehold on Japan, who needs the lithium for the battery packs they manufacture. I will chalk up the difference in what is perceived as fact to "dueling sources". Mine were reputable AFAIK, thus the statement I wrote. Sorry, no linky for you as I never did expect to argue what seemed like such an obvious point any more than I would save one for saying the sky is blue on a sunny day.
Rick
[citation needed]
Quote from: nexus73 on April 27, 2020, 06:36:07 PM
Quote from: rte66man on April 27, 2020, 02:11:48 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on April 24, 2020, 12:01:08 PM
Quote from: splashflash on April 24, 2020, 11:01:42 AM
Quote from: sparker on February 08, 2020, 02:21:37 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^
It'd be a bit more expensive -- hauling equipment into largely roadless territory -- but an alternative -- actually promising a 30-40-mile shorter route -- to an Oregon alignment would be feasible by veering NE away from US 95 via Paradise Valley (more or less along NV 290) and over to the Owyhee Desert, and then north immediately east of the OR/ID state line, overtaking US 95 again after it crosses into ID north of Jordan Valley, OR. That would leave OR out of the equation altogether. It would be relatively low-altitude, only rising above 6000 feet twice -- once between Paradise Valley and the Owyhee Desert, and again a bit SE of Jordan Valley. At least there's a reasonably doable alternative if OR elects to balk when such a corridor is actually considered. :rolleyes:
I-13 may be a year or two sooner. Lithium extraction west of Orovada, near Thacker Pass, may be occurring getting the go-ahead:
https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2019-09-25/lithium-americas-provides-update-on-the-thacker-pass-lithium-project
https://www.nnbw.com/news/1-3-billion-lithium-mining-project-takes-shape-in-rural-northern-nevada/
The USA really needs that lithium. Right now China controls almost all of the world's production.
Rick
Since when? The biggest lithium mine in the world is/was in Chile. There are still sizable active lithium mines in Gaston County, NC. According to Wikipedia, Australia produced more than the rest of the world combined in 2018.
I have read where China supplies over 90% of the lithium in the world. They put a chokehold on Japan, who needs the lithium for the battery packs they manufacture. I will chalk up the difference in what is perceived as fact to "dueling sources". Mine were reputable AFAIK, thus the statement I wrote. Sorry, no linky for you as I never did expect to argue what seemed like such an obvious point any more than I would save one for saying the sky is blue on a sunny day.
Rick
https://www.miningglobal.com/top10/top-10-lithium-producers (2017)
https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/12/24/2-lithium-stocks-for-2020.aspx (2020)
-references the 2 largest lithium companies in the world.
https://investingnews.com/daily/resource-investing/battery-metals-investing/lithium-investing/lithium-producing-countries/ (2019)
Good enough for you?
^^^^^^^^^^^
Lithium is also used in psychiatric treatment as a mood stabilizer (a broad hint to get this thread back on track!). And to reiterate what I stated earlier -- one lithium deposit isn't enough to get action going on an Interstate corridor up US 95 north of Winnemucca; it'll certainly take more regional growth than that -- so a micro-examination of lithium economics is pretty much a moot point for the purposes of this thread. :rolleyes:
For this upcoming weekend's Webinar presentation, we'll be taking a look at the freeway system in and around Phoenix, AZ, one of America's largest cities and a cultural crossroads of the nation. As part of this presentation, we'll be taking a look at the various plans/proposals for the future I-11 corridor across Arizona.
Coverage will begin on Saturday (5/9) at 6 PM ET and will feature live contributions from members of this forum; we hope to see you there!
Quote from: roadwaywiz95 on May 06, 2020, 08:03:11 AM
For this upcoming weekend's Webinar presentation, we'll be taking a look at the freeway system in and around Phoenix, AZ, one of America's largest cities and a cultural crossroads of the nation. As part of this presentation, we'll be taking a look at the various plans/proposals for the future I-11 corridor across Arizona.
Coverage will begin on Saturday (5/9) at 6 PM ET and will feature live contributions from members of this forum; we hope to see you there!
Not being familiar with Arizona signing practices, why is Loop 101 blue while Loop 202 is brown?
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on May 06, 2020, 09:39:08 PM
Quote from: roadwaywiz95 on May 06, 2020, 08:03:11 AM
For this upcoming weekend's Webinar presentation, we'll be taking a look at the freeway system in and around Phoenix, AZ, one of America's largest cities and a cultural crossroads of the nation. As part of this presentation, we'll be taking a look at the various plans/proposals for the future I-11 corridor across Arizona.
Coverage will begin on Saturday (5/9) at 6 PM ET and will feature live contributions from members of this forum; we hope to see you there!
Not being familiar with Arizona signing practices, why is Loop 101 blue while Loop 202 is brown?
Rick
They're not anymore, but when the first loop freeways were completed they were signed with different colored shields for each loop, as a distinguishing characteristic from each other and other AZ routes. ADOT abandoned this at some point.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on May 07, 2020, 02:18:58 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on May 06, 2020, 09:39:08 PM
Quote from: roadwaywiz95 on May 06, 2020, 08:03:11 AM
For this upcoming weekend's Webinar presentation, we'll be taking a look at the freeway system in and around Phoenix, AZ, one of America's largest cities and a cultural crossroads of the nation. As part of this presentation, we'll be taking a look at the various plans/proposals for the future I-11 corridor across Arizona.
Coverage will begin on Saturday (5/9) at 6 PM ET and will feature live contributions from members of this forum; we hope to see you there!
Not being familiar with Arizona signing practices, why is Loop 101 blue while Loop 202 is brown?
Rick
They're not anymore, but when the first loop freeways were completed they were signed with different colored shields for each loop, as a distinguishing characteristic from each other and other AZ routes. ADOT abandoned this at some point.
Which was a reiteration or "holdover" from the days in the '50's and '60's when US routes were signed with different colors for (a) each route and (b) each direction per route. I saw this on my first cross-country trip with my parents back in 1960; my dad didn't know what was going on, so I wrote ADOT (or whatever their predecessor was called) when I got back home and received the answer in a few weeks. Fun stuff for a 10-year-old! A few years later I actually called CA's DOH D7 after seeing my first green state highway shield -- wondering why they chose that color. My best guess was that they didn't want to change any more state shields on BGS's to black-on-white, and that the green would allow them to continue using the white outline on a green background on Interstate highways -- and was surprised to find out I was at least partially correct -- but they claimed the new signs were
also easier to see at night (when I started driving, this actually became evident!).
Quote from: sparker on May 07, 2020, 02:43:31 AM
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on May 07, 2020, 02:18:58 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on May 06, 2020, 09:39:08 PM
Quote from: roadwaywiz95 on May 06, 2020, 08:03:11 AM
For this upcoming weekend's Webinar presentation, we'll be taking a look at the freeway system in and around Phoenix, AZ, one of America's largest cities and a cultural crossroads of the nation. As part of this presentation, we'll be taking a look at the various plans/proposals for the future I-11 corridor across Arizona.
Coverage will begin on Saturday (5/9) at 6 PM ET and will feature live contributions from members of this forum; we hope to see you there!
Not being familiar with Arizona signing practices, why is Loop 101 blue while Loop 202 is brown?
Rick
They're not anymore, but when the first loop freeways were completed they were signed with different colored shields for each loop, as a distinguishing characteristic from each other and other AZ routes. ADOT abandoned this at some point.
Which was a reiteration or "holdover" from the days in the '50's and '60's when US routes were signed with different colors for (a) each route and (b) each direction per route. I saw this on my first cross-country trip with my parents back in 1960; my dad didn't know what was going on, so I wrote ADOT (or whatever their predecessor was called) when I got back home and received the answer in a few weeks. Fun stuff for a 10-year-old! A few years later I actually called CA's DOH D7 after seeing my first green state highway shield -- wondering why they chose that color. My best guess was that they didn't want to change any more state shields on BGS's to black-on-white, and that the green would allow them to continue using the white outline on a green background on Interstate highways -- and was surprised to find out I was at least partially correct -- but they claimed the new signs were also easier to see at night (when I started driving, this actually became evident!).
The change from colored Loop signs to standard black and white began about 20 years ago. The problem was that the colors would fade a few years after putting them up, resulting in many expensive sign replacements.
The Arizona color scheme was unique, AFAIK. The colors were orange (north), green (south), brown (east), and blue (west). Originally, in the '50s, the body of the sign was color and the numbers & the word "ARIZONA" were white. By 1961 (the first time I saw these signs), the body of the sign was in color, the lettering was in black, and the body of the state or US shield was white.
Diagonal highways used a combination of both north/south and east/west, depending on the highway. For example, Grand Ave. in the NW Valley between Phoenix and Wickenburg was signed East/West (brown/blue) US 60 & 70, while US 89 and AZ 93 were signed North/South (orange/green).
I forget the exact year that the color signs went away, but I believe it was sometime in the late 1960s. They were never used on any freeway exit signs that I remember.
Quote from: sparker on December 11, 2019, 09:47:52 PM
Quote from: splashflash on December 11, 2019, 07:41:48 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 29, 2019, 03:33:18 AM
Quote from: X99 on July 28, 2019, 11:23:57 PM
What's the latest progress on the Vegas-Kingman section of I-11?
Bupkus so far. Still waiting for ADOT to finalize a decision about a Kingman connection to I-40; so far the front-runner is a close-in western bypass of the Beale St. commercial zone, with a I-40 interchange about a mile or so west of the current 40/93/Beale interchange. The only existing fully limited access portion of the corridor except for the approach to the Colorado River bridge is the interchange with AZ 68 a couple of miles NW of Kingman; that section was extended about 3/4 mile toward town when the state truck-inspection facility was built adjacent to the interchange a year or so ago.
UPDATE
The study is scheduled for completion in early 2020. The findings of this study will be incorporated into the preferred alignment, and ADOT will advance the project into the final design phase.
ADOT held community open house meetings during the summer of 2019, and will conduct similar meetings to update the public on the study in early 2020. ADOT and FHWA will present the results of the study -, including the investigated alternatives and the recommended alternative, during a public hearing in spring/summer 2020.
Phase 1 of this project, which will create a new TI on westbound I-40 to northbound US 93 and southbound US 93 to eastbound I-40, is currently scheduled for construction in ADOT’s 2024 fiscal year.
https://azdot.gov/planning/transportation-studies/interstate-40-us-93-system-traffic-interchange-study
That's quite a bit sooner than a lot of us anticipated for this project; looks like the I-40-to-Vegas virtual "SIU" is well up ADOT's priority list. Since most of the remainder will in all likelihood be an upgrade of the existing expressway, it'll be interesting to see the timeframe projected for the rest of that portion of US 93 -- and whether that'll be similar to that of the bypass itself.
https://azdot.gov/projects/northwest-district-projects/us-93-i-40-west-kingman-traffic-interchange-project
https://azdot.gov/sites/default/files/media/2020/05/West-Kingman-TI-Newspaper-Ad.pdf
Public client is occuring for the next month on the US 93 Kingman interchange. Looks like the former option B, and now Option D3, with only south to east and west to north ramps. Beale will remain the east to north and south to west flows, keeping those fuelling stations quiet while reducing costs for ADOT.
^^^^^^^^^^^
Not at all surprised by the limitations to the project, supplying only the direction of primary traffic flow rather than all options at once. ADOT, like all agencies, will be facing funding shortages for years to come -- and since they want to start in 2023-24 on this, that won't in all likelihood be sufficient time to get the full funding stream back on line. At least they'll satisfy -- albiet minimally -- the basic requirements for I-11 continuity. But it looks like the routing options are down to two -- the ones closest (on either side) to the existing Beale interchange. At least the process is moving forward despite the current atmosphere -- always a positive sign!
IIRC, the "D" option has the shortest length and runs into I-40 just East of the existing US-93 interchange. IMHO, that would be the best choice. The "B" option would overshoot the existing US-93 interchange, forcing Vegas-Phoenix traffic to go even farther out of the way. I wouldn't be surprised if that's the option the businesses along Beale would prefer, other than no freeway connection being built at all.
Aside from the I-11 connection ADOT ultimately chooses to build hopefully they and the town of Kingman will at least take steps to keep ROW open for the other two freeway to freeway connection ramps to be built later.
The vast majority of the traffic will be using the South to East and West to North ramps regardless. The much smaller amount of E>N & S>W traffic will be able to use Beale as a temporary Breezewood connection between I-40 & I-11 until the E>N & S>W freeway to freeway connection ramps are built.
I hope they build direct connect flyovers for the Kingman I-11/I-40 connections.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 08, 2020, 01:29:58 PM
IIRC, the "D" option has the shortest length and runs into I-40 just East of the existing US-93 interchange. IMHO, that would be the most best choice. The "B" option would overshoot the existnig US-93 interchange, forcing Vegas-Phoenix traffic to go even farther out of the way. I wouldn't be surprised if that's the option the businesses along Beale would prefer, other than no freeway connection being built at all.
Aside from the I-11 connection ADOT ultimately chooses to build hopefully they and the town of Kingman will at least take steps to keep ROW open for the other two freeway to freeway connection ramps to be built later.
The vast majority of the traffic will be using the South to East and West to North ramps regardless. The much smaller amount of E>N & S>W traffic will be able to use Beale as a temporary Breezewood connection between I-40 & I-11 until the E>N & S>W freeway to freeway connection ramps are built.
ADOT will likely purchase any necessary ROW for all directional ramps so that they can be constructed at a later time. Both potential interchange locations have few intervening structures deployed in their respective affected areas (although the more direct east option will likely require some acquisition of such). Neither will be a "cakewalk" in terms of construction; the easterly option will have to scrape away part of a hillside above Beale, while the latter must traverse a choppy topography with gullies and cliffs with which to contend (but less in the way of buildings -- which is likely why it made the final selection "cut"). Also, the ramps (in both construction phases) of the eastern option will be much more visible from downtown than with its western counterpart; and maintaining the "Old 66" western motif as part of the tourism aspect of the town's economy may well be better served by keeping any sweeping overhead ramp structures out of sight and out of mind -- and the western option is tucked away while the eastern option sits right on the hillside above downtown. I guess the decision will have to come in short order in order for ADOT to realistically project a 2023 start date, so we'll soon see where the priorities stack up.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 08, 2020, 02:06:00 PM
I hope they build direct connect flyovers for the Kingman I-11/I-40 connections.
That was essentially the point of the article -- S>E and W>N direct connectors, the ones to be used with through I-11 traffic, will be constructed initially, with the remaining (E>N & S>W) coming later at a time yet TBD.
This timeline is too far out. Phase one won't start for another 3 1/2 years. It should be starting next year.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 08, 2020, 01:29:58 PM
IIRC, the "D" option has the shortest length and runs into I-40 just East of the existing US-93 interchange. IMHO, that would be the most best choice. The "B" option would overshoot the existnig US-93 interchange, forcing Vegas-Phoenix traffic to go even farther out of the way. I wouldn't be surprised if that's the option the businesses along Beale would prefer, other than no freeway connection being built at all.
Aside from the I-11 connection ADOT ultimately chooses to build hopefully they and the town of Kingman will at least take steps to keep ROW open for the other two freeway to freeway connection ramps to be built later.
The vast majority of the traffic will be using the South to East and West to North ramps regardless. The much smaller amount of E>N & S>W traffic will be able to use Beale as a temporary Breezewood connection between I-40 & I-11 until the E>N & S>W freeway to freeway connection ramps are built.
I am not sure if I am looking at it correctly, but the D3 alignment (formerly B as mentioned upthread) looks like it will be North of the Beale St interchange/further east on I-40. So it looks like people coming from west of Kingman on 40 will overshoot the current US93 interchange and not the traffic from Phoenix.
https://azdot.gov/sites/default/files/media/2020/05/H7993-West-KingmanTI-Draft-EA.pdf
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/12408_08_05_20_2_38_20.jpeg)
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 08, 2020, 02:29:24 PM
This timeline is too far out. Phase one won't start for another 3 1/2 years. It should be starting next year.
Projects such as this are pre-planned within state STIP's -- which distribute funding over a given timeframe (in CA it's 6 years) so projects can be undertaken all around the state. Even cut down by half, this is still a major -- and expensive -- project. Given the glacial pace of such things nationwide -- and the likely near-term funding shortfall as a result of the COVID problem -- the fact that it's starting in 2023-24 is in itself a minor miracle!
I'm expecting I-11, at least the portion south of I-10, to be put on ice for the time being due to the economic fallout. A friend down in Maricopa said their Mayor there recently took to Facebook to tell denizens that the widening of the only route into and out of town, SR 347, was most likely going to be put on ice as ADOT expects the budget to shrink and is already planning to cancel projects and give grant money back to the feds. He cited the rarity of an instance like that as proof for the severity of budget issues ADOT is expecting in the future.
Also calls in to question the SR 30 and SR 303 extension projects. Watch the poor 303 get canceled again.
Appears as if both D3, and J3 are being designed to be largely "out of city limits" while D1 is largely inside. Any reasoning for that? Future tax base preservation for "projected" development within city limits, perhaps?
Quote from: DJStephens on May 25, 2020, 04:42:38 PM
Appears as if both D3, and J3 are being designed to be largely "out of city limits" while D1 is largely inside. Any reasoning for that? Future tax base preservation for "projected" development within city limits, perhaps?
D1 is a different "bird" than the others, as it provides the shortest/most direct link between the rural part of northward US 93/I-11 and I-40. Since that one would have to be carved out of the hill behind Beale Street, it's probably not going to be the locale for many roadside businesses -- or be the site of residential development either. Regarding the others -- maybe someone can enlighten us regarding AZ policies/laws regarding an incorporated city's ability to annex adjoining unincorporated territory. If the terrain around any of the remaining route options is amenable to commercial development, it will be. But such development might well be delayed a bit, since the initial interchange plans are only partial movements, with the remainder relegated to the present Beale facility for the time being, ostensibly with signage designating that street as the connector from EB I-40 to NB I-11 and vice-versa. The Beale auto-service businesses next to the current interchange have been there for over 4 decades; they're not going to go away, especially since they're the most efficient "emergency" or "time-sensitive" facilities along the I-40 corridor between Barstow and Flagstaff; with US 93 from Vegas supplying some additional potential -- and I-11, when significantly completed at least to the NV line, should at least maintain the status quo if not adding a bit more (the marginal secondary-move traffic remaining on Beale should only provide an insignificant impact).
Aaaaaand -- D1 it is! ADOT just received the EIS approval for that interchange configuration; construction is scheduled to begin in late 2023 or early 2024. The ADOT announcement and documentation can be found at:
https://azdot.gov/projects/northwest-district-projects/us-93-i-40-west-kingman-traffic-interchange-project
Wonder if they'll start doing spot improvements on US 93 between Kingman and the NV state line in the interim. For the most part, it seems like a much easier and straightforward job than between Wickenburg and Kingman -- especially regarding how to address Wikieup without turning it into a ghost town!
^
According to their project map, US-93 will become I-40 :bigass:
Time for some I-11 business routes!
Quote from: qguy on July 29, 2020, 03:15:52 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 29, 2020, 03:43:40 AM
D1 it is!
Don't you mean D3?
Yeah, that's right; my error. Looks like they're going to avoid the "backyard" of those Beale businesses by arcing out further up the hill. Reasonable, seeing as how those auto-related businesses provide a significant portion of Kingman's revenue stream. It's also easy to see the logic -- albeit prompted by limited available funds -- behind completing the SB>EB and WB>NB connectors initially; there probably isn't substantial long-distance traffic heading east on I-40 that would have cause to turn north on US 93/I-11; the inverse is likely true -- both being obviated by the presence of US 95 as a much more efficient route. Better to allocate funds to getting more of I-11 built, including revamping the east I-40/US 93 interchange to a higher-capacity free-flowing configuration to accommodate I-11 traffic.
Quote from: sparker on July 29, 2020, 08:09:07 PM
Quote from: qguy on July 29, 2020, 03:15:52 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 29, 2020, 03:43:40 AM
D1 it is!
Don't you mean D3?
Yeah, that's right; my error. Looks like they're going to avoid the "backyard" of those Beale businesses by arcing out further up the hill. Reasonable, seeing as how those auto-related businesses provide a significant portion of Kingman's revenue stream. It's also easy to see the logic -- albeit prompted by limited available funds -- behind completing the SB>EB and WB>NB connectors initially; there probably isn't substantial long-distance traffic heading east on I-40 that would have cause to turn north on US 93/I-11; the inverse is likely true -- both being obviated by the presence of US 95 as a much more efficient route. Better to allocate funds to getting more of I-11 built, including revamping the east I-40/US 93 interchange to a higher-capacity free-flowing configuration to accommodate I-11 traffic.
I knew AZDOT was improving the US93 corridor but wasn't aware improvements to the east I40/US93 interchange were even on the radar.
Quote from: rte66man on July 30, 2020, 06:41:25 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 29, 2020, 08:09:07 PM
Quote from: qguy on July 29, 2020, 03:15:52 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 29, 2020, 03:43:40 AM
D1 it is!
Don't you mean D3?
Yeah, that's right; my error. Looks like they're going to avoid the "backyard" of those Beale businesses by arcing out further up the hill. Reasonable, seeing as how those auto-related businesses provide a significant portion of Kingman's revenue stream. It's also easy to see the logic -- albeit prompted by limited available funds -- behind completing the SB>EB and WB>NB connectors initially; there probably isn't substantial long-distance traffic heading east on I-40 that would have cause to turn north on US 93/I-11; the inverse is likely true -- both being obviated by the presence of US 95 as a much more efficient route. Better to allocate funds to getting more of I-11 built, including revamping the east I-40/US 93 interchange to a higher-capacity free-flowing configuration to accommodate I-11 traffic.
I knew AZDOT was improving the US93 corridor but wasn't aware improvements to the east I40/US93 interchange were even on the radar.
They probably aren't even programmed right now -- but if the I-11 project proceeds at a reasonable pace, it soon will be on the proverbial radar. Right now it's a conventional surface-road trumpet with a local access point right on the curve north of the overcrossing. A trumpet might still work for a permanent interchange, since there will be limited traffic in the "oblique" direction (NB>EB/WB>SB), but the "direct" ramps will need to be high-speed enough to qualify as a system interchange; I've used that interchange and it
will require replacement. Local access can be moved to somewhere on either direction of I-40 or a bit south on I-11. My preference would be for a standard semi-directional "T", but economics may dictate otherwise. And since the divided portion of US 93 south of there ends about a mile and a half south of the interchange, it's likely that the completion of that upgrade will be done concurrently with the I-40 interchange.
Glad to see this moving forward. I drive between Las Vegas and Phoenix about once per month and over the past 2 years the biggest bottleneck on the route now is the I-40/93 interchange.
Typically on weekends they will have a portable sign on WB I-40 warning of backups before the interchange due to high traffic volumes. The SB 93 approaching the stoplight can back up for over a mile often now, even with the improved timing of the stoplight due to the amount of truck traffic. Tour bus traffic (mainly between LV and the GC) was adding to conjestion and while that's down a bit now will come back eventually.
As for Kingman concerned about the business along 93 north of 40, they have been planning that for a while. The city has been focused on the new Kingman Crossing interchange and the planned development around it. Last update shows completion late spring of 2022. It's about 3 miles east of the Andy Devine interchange, and lines up with the hospital on the north side. There's a major retail project planned along with this, and should more than offset lost business on the old 93 route.
Quote from: sparker on July 30, 2020, 08:06:39 PM
They probably aren't even programmed right now -- but if the I-11 project proceeds at a reasonable pace, it soon will be on the proverbial radar. Right now it's a conventional surface-road trumpet with a local access point right on the curve north of the overcrossing. A trumpet might still work for a permanent interchange, since there will be limited traffic in the "oblique" direction (NB>EB/WB>SB), but the "direct" ramps will need to be high-speed enough to qualify as a system interchange; I've used that interchange and it will require replacement. Local access can be moved to somewhere on either direction of I-40 or a bit south on I-11. My preference would be for a standard semi-directional "T", but economics may dictate otherwise. And since the divided portion of US 93 south of there ends about a mile and a half south of the interchange, it's likely that the completion of that upgrade will be done concurrently with the I-40 interchange.
I think you could salvage the current interchange in expanding capacity to meet the needs of an interstate facility. I agree with you the local interchange needs to be moved. With reengineering of the northern part of the n/b to w/b movement to facilitate a more high speed merge into the w/b lanes, you could keep the existing bridge and make it solely a two-lane structure for the n/b to w/b movement. A new flyover to connect the w/b to s/b movement would be needed, and you'd also likely need to reengineer the n/b to e/b and e/b to s/b movements with larger radii curves to allow for higher speeds.
(https://i.imgur.com/f3hX4MU.jpg)
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on August 19, 2020, 01:19:07 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 30, 2020, 08:06:39 PM
They probably aren't even programmed right now -- but if the I-11 project proceeds at a reasonable pace, it soon will be on the proverbial radar. Right now it's a conventional surface-road trumpet with a local access point right on the curve north of the overcrossing. A trumpet might still work for a permanent interchange, since there will be limited traffic in the "oblique" direction (NB>EB/WB>SB), but the "direct" ramps will need to be high-speed enough to qualify as a system interchange; I've used that interchange and it will require replacement. Local access can be moved to somewhere on either direction of I-40 or a bit south on I-11. My preference would be for a standard semi-directional "T", but economics may dictate otherwise. And since the divided portion of US 93 south of there ends about a mile and a half south of the interchange, it's likely that the completion of that upgrade will be done concurrently with the I-40 interchange.
I think you could salvage the current interchange in expanding capacity to meet the needs of an interstate facility. I agree with you the local interchange needs to be moved. With reengineering of the northern part of the n/b to w/b movement to facilitate a more high speed merge into the w/b lanes, you could keep the existing bridge and make it solely a two-lane structure for the n/b to w/b movement. A new flyover to connect the w/b to s/b movement would be needed, and you'd also likely need to reengineer the n/b to e/b and e/b to s/b movements with larger radii curves to allow for higher speeds.
(https://i.imgur.com/f3hX4MU.jpg)
Looks doable; that N-S road that interchanges with I-40 (and 11) west of the system interchange will have to be extended north and east to serve that facility presently accessed by the road that intersects the top of the current trumpet. But don't put it past ADOT to retain the trumpet format in place of the semi-directional type in the illustration. For an example of how the through I-11 movement could be optimized within such a format, look at the I-90/I-82 interchange near Ellensburg, WA.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on August 19, 2020, 01:19:07 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 30, 2020, 08:06:39 PM
They probably aren't even programmed right now -- but if the I-11 project proceeds at a reasonable pace, it soon will be on the proverbial radar. Right now it's a conventional surface-road trumpet with a local access point right on the curve north of the overcrossing. A trumpet might still work for a permanent interchange, since there will be limited traffic in the "oblique" direction (NB>EB/WB>SB), but the "direct" ramps will need to be high-speed enough to qualify as a system interchange; I've used that interchange and it will require replacement. Local access can be moved to somewhere on either direction of I-40 or a bit south on I-11. My preference would be for a standard semi-directional "T", but economics may dictate otherwise. And since the divided portion of US 93 south of there ends about a mile and a half south of the interchange, it's likely that the completion of that upgrade will be done concurrently with the I-40 interchange.
I think you could salvage the current interchange in expanding capacity to meet the needs of an interstate facility. I agree with you the local interchange needs to be moved. With reengineering of the northern part of the n/b to w/b movement to facilitate a more high speed merge into the w/b lanes, you could keep the existing bridge and make it solely a two-lane structure for the n/b to w/b movement. A new flyover to connect the w/b to s/b movement would be needed, and you'd also likely need to reengineer the n/b to e/b and e/b to s/b movements with larger radii curves to allow for higher speeds.
(https://i.imgur.com/f3hX4MU.jpg)
I don't think you need anything that complex. The Hackberry Road junctions are about 3 miles out from the 40/11/93 interchange. Just use Hackberry as the surface access and build standard diamonds there on both routes, saving the need for new bridges or a new interchange west of 40/11/93.
Well, the last hurdle before the letting process for the West Kingman I-40/11 interchange is in the rear-view mirror; the EIS was done and finalized, according to the ADOT press release:
https://azdot.gov/projects/northwest-district-projects/us-93-i-40-west-kingman-traffic-interchange-project/final
Of course, as ADOT previously noted, only the SB11>EB40 and WB40>NB11 portion of the interchange will be initially constructed to effect the I-11 continuation; the missing movements will be ostensibly added later when additional funding is identified. The "auto repair row" section of Beale, current US 93, will serve as the connector for those movements in the meantime.
Hopefully ADOT will at least secure the ROW needed for the EB40>NB11 and SB11>WB40 ramps during the first I-11/I-40 interchange project. It would be crazy not to do so.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 26, 2020, 07:33:28 PM
Hopefully ADOT will at least secure the ROW needed for the EB40>NB11 and SB11>WB40 ramps during the first I-11/I-40 interchange project. It would be crazy not to do so.
From the illustrated map, it looks like the "missing movement" ramps will be woven around a revised I-40/Beale interchange. To do that, the ROW for those future ramps/flyovers would need to be reserved, since the Beale ramps to eastward I-40 will be passing under them. I would fully expect to see "ghost stubs" on both I-40 and I-11 as part of the initial construction phase.
Looks like the inital step toward upgrading US 93 between Kingman and the NV state line is out of the starting blocks. The intersection with Pierce Ferry Road, the major county road heading from 93 to Dolan Springs and extending to the lower reaches of the Grand Canyon, is under study for upgrades; the study is to determine whether interim "safety" upgrades should be deployed or whether a full grade separation/interchange should be built at the intersection. Of course, the latter would be the first limited-access facility between the AZ 68 interchange and the Colorado River bridge approaches -- and the first I-11-related upgrade along that stretch. The study can be found at:
https://azdot.gov/planning/transportation-studies/us-93-pierce-ferry-road-feasibility-study
Shoulder widening has been and will be occurring on US 93 near Pierce Ferry Road. US 93 from Windy Point Road to Mineral Park Road will receive $7,377,146 (contract H865901C) following up on $12,227,250 of US 93 shoulder widening from 12th St. to Windy Point Road, currently in construction (H865801C). This work could be seen as incremental work on converting US 93 into I-11.
Quote from: splashflash on October 03, 2020, 02:41:27 PM
Shoulder widening has been and will be occurring on US 93 near Pierce Ferry Road. US 93 from Windy Point Road to Mineral Park Road will receive $7,377,146 (contract H865901C) following up on $12,227,250 of US 93 shoulder widening from 12th St. to Windy Point Road, currently in construction (H865801C). This work could be seen as incremental work on converting US 93 into I-11.
Between the interchange study and the existing shoulder work -- as well as the EIS completion for the Kingman system interchange -- it looks like ADOT is serious about maintaining a reasonable level of progress on that section of US 93/I-11. Not surprising, as it is not only part of the longer Phoenix-Vegas corridor, but serves as the effective eastern approach to LV for commercial and "civilian" traffic via eastward I-40. As such, it's something of a "squeaky wheel" re the amount of traffic it hosts compared with US 93 south of I-40. It was always likely that Kingman-NV would be the segment to be addressed first; these projects seem to bolster that concept.
Quote from: sparker on October 03, 2020, 06:41:40 PM
Quote from: splashflash on October 03, 2020, 02:41:27 PM
Shoulder widening has been and will be occurring on US 93 near Pierce Ferry Road. US 93 from Windy Point Road to Mineral Park Road will receive $7,377,146 (contract H865901C) following up on $12,227,250 of US 93 shoulder widening from 12th St. to Windy Point Road, currently in construction (H865801C). This work could be seen as incremental work on converting US 93 into I-11.
Between the interchange study and the existing shoulder work -- as well as the EIS completion for the Kingman system interchange -- it looks like ADOT is serious about maintaining a reasonable level of progress on that section of US 93/I-11. Not surprising, as it is not only part of the longer Phoenix-Vegas corridor, but serves as the effective eastern approach to LV for commercial and "civilian" traffic via eastward I-40. As such, it's something of a "squeaky wheel" re the amount of traffic it hosts compared with US 93 south of I-40. It was always likely that Kingman-NV would be the segment to be addressed first; these projects seem to bolster that concept.
Yeah, I mean, the poor person's I-11 could be built with a mere 6 interchanges between Hoover Dam and AZ 68. That basic version would also require a fair amount of frontage roads, but the flat terrain of the Detrital Valley make that relatively feasible, at least in comparison to the I-40-to-Wickenburg stretch.
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but Arizona isn't a poor state.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on October 05, 2020, 05:45:28 PM
Quote from: sparker on October 03, 2020, 06:41:40 PM
Quote from: splashflash on October 03, 2020, 02:41:27 PM
Shoulder widening has been and will be occurring on US 93 near Pierce Ferry Road. US 93 from Windy Point Road to Mineral Park Road will receive $7,377,146 (contract H865901C) following up on $12,227,250 of US 93 shoulder widening from 12th St. to Windy Point Road, currently in construction (H865801C). This work could be seen as incremental work on converting US 93 into I-11.
Between the interchange study and the existing shoulder work -- as well as the EIS completion for the Kingman system interchange -- it looks like ADOT is serious about maintaining a reasonable level of progress on that section of US 93/I-11. Not surprising, as it is not only part of the longer Phoenix-Vegas corridor, but serves as the effective eastern approach to LV for commercial and "civilian" traffic via eastward I-40. As such, it's something of a "squeaky wheel" re the amount of traffic it hosts compared with US 93 south of I-40. It was always likely that Kingman-NV would be the segment to be addressed first; these projects seem to bolster that concept.
Yeah, I mean, the poor person's I-11 could be built with a mere 6 interchanges between Hoover Dam and AZ 68. That basic version would also require a fair amount of frontage roads, but the flat terrain of the Detrital Valley make that relatively feasible, at least in comparison to the I-40-to-Wickenburg stretch.
Does that include an exit and frontage facility to Santa Claus?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 05, 2020, 06:44:27 PM
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but Arizona isn't a poor state.
There are pockets of wealth in Arizona, mostly in the Phoenix and Tucson areas, as well as those who own large ranches. But in the context of US 93/the future I-11 north of I-40, that area is mostly poor with folks living in dumpy trailers. Same goes for Wickieup.
In reality, most of Arizona ranges from dirt-poor to middle-class, depending on the area. It's not at all like the rich folks in north Snobsdale, Paradise Valley, Carefree, NE Mesa, and the Ahwatukee Foothills.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on October 05, 2020, 05:45:28 PM
Quote from: sparker on October 03, 2020, 06:41:40 PM
Quote from: splashflash on October 03, 2020, 02:41:27 PM
Shoulder widening has been and will be occurring on US 93 near Pierce Ferry Road. US 93 from Windy Point Road to Mineral Park Road will receive $7,377,146 (contract H865901C) following up on $12,227,250 of US 93 shoulder widening from 12th St. to Windy Point Road, currently in construction (H865801C). This work could be seen as incremental work on converting US 93 into I-11.
Between the interchange study and the existing shoulder work -- as well as the EIS completion for the Kingman system interchange -- it looks like ADOT is serious about maintaining a reasonable level of progress on that section of US 93/I-11. Not surprising, as it is not only part of the longer Phoenix-Vegas corridor, but serves as the effective eastern approach to LV for commercial and "civilian" traffic via eastward I-40. As such, it's something of a "squeaky wheel" re the amount of traffic it hosts compared with US 93 south of I-40. It was always likely that Kingman-NV would be the segment to be addressed first; these projects seem to bolster that concept.
Yeah, I mean, the poor person's I-11 could be built with a mere 6 interchanges between Hoover Dam and AZ 68. That basic version would also require a fair amount of frontage roads, but the flat terrain of the Detrital Valley make that relatively feasible, at least in comparison to the I-40-to-Wickenburg stretch.
Chances are that a combination of frontage roads, sporadic interchanges (the 6 speculation might be a little low; my guess is 8-9), and overpasses would do the trick. Because of all the washes and gullies to bridge, TX-style full-length frontage roads might not be in the cards -- but there's enough roadside facilities, particularly at the junctions with paved county roads, where lengthy sections of frontage road (and possibly overpasses connecting the two sides of the freeway) would be the most reasonable approach.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 05, 2020, 08:50:55 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on October 05, 2020, 05:45:28 PM
Quote from: sparker on October 03, 2020, 06:41:40 PM
Quote from: splashflash on October 03, 2020, 02:41:27 PM
Shoulder widening has been and will be occurring on US 93 near Pierce Ferry Road. US 93 from Windy Point Road to Mineral Park Road will receive $7,377,146 (contract H865901C) following up on $12,227,250 of US 93 shoulder widening from 12th St. to Windy Point Road, currently in construction (H865801C). This work could be seen as incremental work on converting US 93 into I-11.
Between the interchange study and the existing shoulder work -- as well as the EIS completion for the Kingman system interchange -- it looks like ADOT is serious about maintaining a reasonable level of progress on that section of US 93/I-11. Not surprising, as it is not only part of the longer Phoenix-Vegas corridor, but serves as the effective eastern approach to LV for commercial and "civilian" traffic via eastward I-40. As such, it's something of a "squeaky wheel" re the amount of traffic it hosts compared with US 93 south of I-40. It was always likely that Kingman-NV would be the segment to be addressed first; these projects seem to bolster that concept.
Yeah, I mean, the poor person's I-11 could be built with a mere 6 interchanges between Hoover Dam and AZ 68. That basic version would also require a fair amount of frontage roads, but the flat terrain of the Detrital Valley make that relatively feasible, at least in comparison to the I-40-to-Wickenburg stretch.
Does that include an exit and frontage facility to Santa Claus?
My mental-notes 6 exits:
- Willow Beach
- Temple Bar
- White Hills
- Dolan Springs
- Chloride
- Santa Claus
Sparker is probably right - a second White Hills exit and a Agua Fria Road exit would probably be useful.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
One of the intersections that would undoubtedly need upgrading to a full interchange would be the northern access road from Golden Valley -- which looks like it was the subject of a relatively recent repave job -- wouldn't be at all surprised if ADOT adopted it into the state system (AZ 168?) at some point, considering the growth of that community.
As you all know, Interstate 11's southern terminus at present is at the Arizona/Nevada border on the Mike O'Callaghan—Pat Tillman Memorial Bridge. I would have terminated Interstate 11 at Exit 2: Kingman Wash Access Road, and included an End Interstate 11 sign to boot. I am aware there is a Future Interstate 11 Corridor sign just past that interchange, though I think the sign should have been bigger; I doubt one would notice it when driving by.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 07, 2020, 06:57:42 PM
As you all know, Interstate 11's southern terminus at present is at the Arizona/Nevada border on the Mike O'Callaghan—Pat Tillman Memorial Bridge. I would have terminated Interstate 11 at Exit 2: Kingman Wash Access Road, and included an End Interstate 11 sign to boot. I am aware there is a Future Interstate 11 Corridor sign just past that interchange, though I think the sign should have been bigger; I doubt one would notice it when driving by.
What would be even better is a medium-size BGS with "END I-11" on one side, a line down the middle, and "FUTURE I-11 CORRIDOR" on the other; exit #2 would be just fine as the location. IMO, would not only serve its technical purpose as to delineating the end of the "proper" I-11 but convey the message of "stay tuned for further development" to the driving public. Every email, tweet, etc. from travelers inquiring "when are you going to build this thing" serves, in the collective, as a kick in the ass to ADOT or any other involved entity to keep the project alive (and hopefully not get bogged down in minutiae!).
Has there been any progress or any decision made on I-11's route through Las Vegas? It seems like the only reasonable options are following US 95 through, following 215 on the south and west side, or following the incomplete route on the east and north side, with the first one of those making the most sense to me.
Quote from: Finrod on January 03, 2021, 11:07:24 AM
Has there been any progress or any decision made on I-11's route through Las Vegas? It seems like the only reasonable options are following US 95 through, following 215 on the south and west side, or following the incomplete route on the east and north side, with the first one of those making the most sense to me.
https://i11nv.com/study-area/
One of the alternatives would route I-11 up 515 to its junction with I-15, then follow the current routing of the US 95 freeway corridor out to the northwest end of town.
Aside from renumbering considerations, are there any concerns with following this route? I only took a cursory look at the page and could not find an alternatives study.
Quote from: JKRhodes on January 03, 2021, 04:06:50 PM
Quote from: Finrod on January 03, 2021, 11:07:24 AM
Has there been any progress or any decision made on I-11's route through Las Vegas? It seems like the only reasonable options are following US 95 through, following 215 on the south and west side, or following the incomplete route on the east and north side, with the first one of those making the most sense to me.
https://i11nv.com/study-area/
One of the alternatives would route I-11 up 515 to its junction with I-15, then follow the current routing of the US 95 freeway corridor out to the northwest end of town.
Aside from renumbering considerations, are there any concerns with following this route? I only took a cursory look at the page and could not find an alternatives study.
There's a thread about the I-11 Nevada/Vegas routing on the Pacific Southwest board.
But to quickly answer the question, I have not heard that NDOT has made a final decision on the Vegas routing.
Although other indications seem to suggest that NDOT will likely favor the US 95 route. There aren't any major issues along US 95 north of I-15 that would prevent application of the I shield.
Quote from: JKRhodes on January 03, 2021, 04:06:50 PM
Quote from: Finrod on January 03, 2021, 11:07:24 AM
Has there been any progress or any decision made on I-11's route through Las Vegas? It seems like the only reasonable options are following US 95 through, following 215 on the south and west side, or following the incomplete route on the east and north side, with the first one of those making the most sense to me.
https://i11nv.com/study-area/
One of the alternatives would route I-11 up 515 to its junction with I-15, then follow the current routing of the US 95 freeway corridor out to the northwest end of town.
Aside from renumbering considerations, are there any concerns with following this route? I only took a cursory look at the page and could not find an alternatives study.
According to the provided map, the two alternatives to a direct I-515/US 95 routing are using the south/west portion of the 215 loop, with an optional connector from the NW corner of that loop to US 95 north of town, and an eastern corridor with actual alignment TBD (several options for this have been shown upthread) connecting with the north leg of that same 215 corridor. Apparently there's some concern with simply heading through town regarding the section directly north of the town center -- although a couple of the still-vague eastern options impinge upon the Lake Mead recreational area and a nature preserve. Educated guess -- NDOT would prefer the "straight shot" downtown, but they're entertaining the alternatives to placate both urban concerns as well as those of Strip interests, who would likely find the south/west 215 route optimal for the purpose of funneling I-11 traffic to the revenue-generating newer section of the Strip. IMO, they'll eventually decide on the direct route or the SW 215 w/connector. I'd sure like to see if gaming interests have a pool going on the choice -- I'd put 515/95 at 3 to 2, SW 215 at 4 to 1, and the eastern corridor at at least 8 to 1!
Quote from: sparker on January 03, 2021, 09:38:53 PM
Quote from: JKRhodes on January 03, 2021, 04:06:50 PM
Quote from: Finrod on January 03, 2021, 11:07:24 AM
Has there been any progress or any decision made on I-11's route through Las Vegas? It seems like the only reasonable options are following US 95 through, following 215 on the south and west side, or following the incomplete route on the east and north side, with the first one of those making the most sense to me.
https://i11nv.com/study-area/
One of the alternatives would route I-11 up 515 to its junction with I-15, then follow the current routing of the US 95 freeway corridor out to the northwest end of town.
Aside from renumbering considerations, are there any concerns with following this route? I only took a cursory look at the page and could not find an alternatives study.
According to the provided map, the two alternatives to a direct I-515/US 95 routing are using the south/west portion of the 215 loop, with an optional connector from the NW corner of that loop to US 95 north of town, and an eastern corridor with actual alignment TBD (several options for this have been shown upthread) connecting with the north leg of that same 215 corridor. Apparently there's some concern with simply heading through town regarding the section directly north of the town center -- although a couple of the still-vague eastern options impinge upon the Lake Mead recreational area and a nature preserve. Educated guess -- NDOT would prefer the "straight shot" downtown, but they're entertaining the alternatives to placate both urban concerns as well as those of Strip interests, who would likely find the south/west 215 route optimal for the purpose of funneling I-11 traffic to the revenue-generating newer section of the Strip. IMO, they'll eventually decide on the direct route or the SW 215 w/connector. I'd sure like to see if gaming interests have a pool going on the choice -- I'd put 515/95 at 3 to 2, SW 215 at 4 to 1, and the eastern corridor at at least 8 to 1!
Eastern connector, if it ever cleared the many hurdles in its path, would make a nice bypass for Utah bound traffic from Arizona and vice versa, though it would create a significant jog in the overall routing of I-11.
The direct route along US 95 makes the most sense: In addition to requiring no new construction, it would address the confusion of traveling four numbered routes (US 93, I-11, I-515, US 95) along the same road in a relatively short stretch. I-515 could be eliminated and the US routes could be re-signed to run concurrent/secondary to I-11.
^^^^^^^^^^^
That's the current signage arrangement for both I-515 and the existing portion of I-11: the Interstate + the two US highways (93/95) until the Spaghetti Bowl, where US 93 shifts to I-15 NB. If I-11 is eventually designated over the downtown corridor, it'll simply replace I-515 and will be added to US 95 northwest of the I-15 interchange. If by chance the south/west portions of I-215 are selected, chances are that it'll replace rather than coincide with I-215 (and CC 215, for that matter) until the northwest connector. I-215 will probably remain for the northern leg of the beltway. If that happens, expect I-515 to remain through downtown.
Quote from: sparker on January 04, 2021, 05:56:10 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^
That's the current signage arrangement for both I-515 and the existing portion of I-11: the Interstate + the two US highways (93/95) until the Spaghetti Bowl, where US 93 shifts to I-15 NB. If I-11 is eventually designated over the downtown corridor, it'll simply replace I-515 and will be added to US 95 northwest of the I-15 interchange. If by chance the south/west portions of I-215 are selected, chances are that it'll replace rather than coincide with I-215 (and CC 215, for that matter) until the northwest connector. I-215 will probably remain for the northern leg of the beltway. If that happens, expect I-515 to remain through downtown.
Indeed. Some other considerations:
In an urban environment there tends to be a perception that properties along the through route are dated and rotted, while properties along the belt route are newer and more desirable. So I'm frankly surprised that the casinos on the new part of the strip are actually lobbying to have I-11 pass by them, when the I-215 beltway should serve their marketing purposes just fine.
Routing I-11 along I-215 would also completely muck up the continuity of 215 as a ring route.
It makes the most sense to route I-11 along I-515 and US 95. Leave the 215 as is. If the eastern "lake mead" bypass is ever completed, tie the ends into the current ends of I-215, and complete the circle of that route.
Quote from: JKRhodes on January 04, 2021, 06:22:22 AM
It makes the most sense to route I-11 along I-515 and US 95. Leave the 215 as is. If the eastern "lake mead" bypass is ever completed, tie the ends into the current ends of I-215, and complete the circle of that route.
I believe the proposals for the eastern bypass would have a tie-in near Boulder City rather than going through Henderson.
Quote from: vdeane on January 04, 2021, 01:08:03 PM
Quote from: JKRhodes on January 04, 2021, 06:22:22 AM
It makes the most sense to route I-11 along I-515 and US 95. Leave the 215 as is. If the eastern "lake mead" bypass is ever completed, tie the ends into the current ends of I-215, and complete the circle of that route.
I believe the proposals for the eastern bypass would have a tie-in near Boulder City rather than going through Henderson.
Despite the offset, I-215 could still remain a complete beltway, as with I-435 around metro KC, with a multiplex on I-29, and I-410 around San Antonio, partially mpx'd with I-35.
Has Clark County always planned to give up control of the 215 to NDOT? Regardless of whether it becomes I-11 or I-215.
Quote from: jakeroot on January 05, 2021, 01:50:55 PM
Has Clark County always planned to give up control of the 215 to NDOT? Regardless of whether it becomes I-11 or I-215.
I believe the plan is for NDOT and Clark County to do a big mileage swap in which the state takes the rest of 215 in exchange for a bunch of urban arterial state highway mileage.
Quote from: US 89 on January 05, 2021, 04:02:19 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 05, 2021, 01:50:55 PM
Has Clark County always planned to give up control of the 215 to NDOT? Regardless of whether it becomes I-11 or I-215.
I believe the plan is for NDOT and Clark County to do a big mileage swap in which the state takes the rest of 215 in exchange for a bunch of urban arterial state highway mileage.
Doesn't Clark County maintain about 1/2 of the road currently signed as I-215 as well as all of CC 215? Couldn't they simply continue that arrangement.
Quote from: ztonyg on January 05, 2021, 04:14:45 PM
Quote from: US 89 on January 05, 2021, 04:02:19 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on January 05, 2021, 01:50:55 PM
Has Clark County always planned to give up control of the 215 to NDOT? Regardless of whether it becomes I-11 or I-215.
I believe the plan is for NDOT and Clark County to do a big mileage swap in which the state takes the rest of 215 in exchange for a bunch of urban arterial state highway mileage.
Doesn't Clark County maintain about 1/2 of the road currently signed as I-215 as well as all of CC 215? Couldn't they simply continue that arrangement.
It's doubtful that Clark County
wants to retain the current arrangement once the full 3/4 loop has been completed; that arrangement was originally for fiscal reasons centered around initial fund identification and disbursement. Besides, NDOT has the means and skill set to fully maintain the facility once it is brought out to a full freeway. Regardless of designation, they're the ones who will own the facility once completed.
Hi everyone,
Further discussion of Interstate 11 in Nevada should continue in the Pacific Southwest thread located below. Thanks!
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7881.0
Kicking this dormant thread because ADOT has released the EIS and preferred corridor for Nogales-Wickenburg.
The Wickenburg Sun reports:
https://wickenburgsun.com/news/37963/interstate-11-study-route-available-for-public-view/
QuoteThe Arizona Department of Transportation's preferred alternative route of Interstate 11 ties in with U.S. 93 northwest of State Route 89 and crosses U.S. 60 west of Wickenburg.
It would include interchanges near U.S. 60, State Route 89 and State Route 71.
... In June of 2019, the task force recommended to council and council agreed that the preferred alternative is the alternative that connects at U.S. 60 at mile post 103.5 just east of Black Mountain and would connect near mile post 186 on U.S. 93, the mayor said.
"The Town supports pushing the roadway towards the west to avoid sound/sight concerns with our residents and surrounding community members," Pereira said. "Much work still needs to be done and the final location of the highway has not been set."
ADOT and the Federal Highway Administration shifted the connection with U.S. 93 one mile away from the homes in the Vista Royale neighborhood to reduce impacts to those residents while following natural terrain, and reducing impacts to floodplains, wildlife linkages, and Sonoran Desert tortoise habitat, according to the study.
ADOT release: https://azdot.gov/adot-news/interstate-11-final-tier-1-environmental-impact-statement-available-public-review
(https://azdot.gov/sites/default/files/I-11-preferred-corridor-stickmap.jpg)
^^^^^^^^^^^
2 things right off the bat: (1) Looks like it'll still intersect I-10 west of Buckeye, but will multiplex east on that route to AZ 85, using the latter for several miles before striking out southeast toward Maricopa, as opposed to the completely new alignment shown previously. And (2) it also appears that the southern developer-friendly extension is still in play (although I'm guessing in reality it'll never get farther south than Casa Grande). Any option heading down US 60 directly toward Phoenix seems to be out the door, possibly because as with the rationale described for Wickenburg, AZDOT has no intention of placing this (or any) freeway anywhere near an existing housing area, thus putting the onus for any future noise complaints in the laps of developers who would place tracts next to the freeway corridor. Given the massive amount of retirees arrayed along Grand Ave. (and as a group we old farts tend to lodge formal complaints more than other demographics), running a freeway through Surprise and/or the Sun City tracts may well have been a non-starter -- hence the Hassayampa alignment. At least the EIS is a first step toward getting something started re I-11, although it may not align with what a lot of us thought optimal -- but again, aiming directly at Phoenix, even only as far as Loop 303, may not have been considered politically feasible.
Yikes. If they want it to come out that far west, they should send it down AZ 85 and end it at I-8 near Gila Bend. And even if they still persist in having it parallel to I-10, having it south of I-8 is still not necessary - and what's REALLY not necessary is sending it down I-19. Why are they so desperate to get rid of I-19, anyways? Are they hoping that this will be the chance to get rid of the km-based distance markers and exit numbers like they've been wanting to do for years?
Quote from: vdeane on July 25, 2021, 12:17:08 PM
Yikes. If they want it to come out that far west, they should send it down AZ 85 and end it at I-8 near Gila Bend.
Exactly. There is zero need whatsoever for I-11 to continue south of I-8, regardless of whether the end point is at Gila Bend or Casa Grande.
But before they do anything else, they absolutely need to finish 4-laning US 93 between Wickenburg and I-40. There are still 3 short segments (the I-40 ramps, one just north of Wickieup, and through or around Wickieup itself), plus one long segment (Joshua Forest Hwy) that are still two lanes. These segments are becoming more deadly. On July 10, that entire stretch of 93 was closed due to two fatal accidents, one just south of the I-40 ramps, and one just north of AZ 71. Both accidents occurred on the two-lane segments. The road was closed all day.
Fix 93 first, then upgrade to I-11. Too bad ADOT has no plans as of now to do either.
^^^^ surely ADOT will upgrade the corridor between Phoenix and Vegas to interstate standards before they build I-11 south of I-8.
Quote from: vdeane on July 25, 2021, 12:17:08 PM
Yikes. If they want it to come out that far west, they should send it down AZ 85 and end it at I-8 near Gila Bend. And even if they still persist in having it parallel to I-10, having it south of I-8 is still not necessary - and what's REALLY not necessary is sending it down I-19. Why are they so desperate to get rid of I-19, anyways? Are they hoping that this will be the chance to get rid of the km-based distance markers and exit numbers like they've been wanting to do for years?
Whether the Buckeye-Casa Grande I-11 segment actually gets past the initial planning stage will, in all likelihood, depend upon two things: first, whether the population influx into the area continues unabated, prompting new housing in areas such as Buckeye and Maricopa, and, second, whether regional traffic reaches a tipping point where such a segment would be viewed more as a south Phoenix bypass rather than just an I-11 extension. If both those conditions are met, then the diagonal connector would be more likely to see actual development. If not, then the suggestion to simply continue I-11 down AZ 85 to I-8 at Gila Bend would be the most probable outcome, if for no other reason that it is largely developed (partially utilizing the TX frontage-road-first methodology) as is, with a full interchange at I-10, with the sole new-terrain section being the connector to I-8. And if the area's growth slows down, AZDOT will likely be looking at more cost-effective alternatives, with AZ 85 an obvious candidate. And Phoenix would still have its bypass, albeit a bit longer and less direct.
And I-19 will likely be safe for at least another 2 or 3 decades; by that time, the parallel corridor concept will have encountered fiscal reality and be discarded or at least severely truncated.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 25, 2021, 01:35:27 PM
^^^^ surely ADOT will upgrade the corridor between Phoenix and Vegas to interstate standards before they build I-11 south of I-8.
One would surely hope it'll work out that way. The original brief was to upgrade the non-Interstate portion of the Canamex (HPC #26) corridor from Phoenix to Vegas to Interstate standards and slap I-11 shields on the finished project. The fact that the most difficult (and spectacular!) singular section, the Colorado River bridge, was finished the year before the corridor designation push was undoubtedly one of the catalysts for the full project. South of Phoenix the brief was to use any available corridor-related funds to upgrade the present (I-19 and I-10) facilities -- but the concept was "hijacked" by in-state parties who wanted to use that segment for commercial and housing development purposes -- particularly in terms of providing a western loop around Tucson and its slow-growth program, giving the developers a venue at which to ply their trade. Nevertheless, AZDOT keeps plugging away at US 93, filling in the 2-lane gaps as funds allow with Interstate-geometry divided expressway (minus, of course, grade separations planned for later phases), which will enhance the safety of the corridor while "prepping" it for eventual full upgrade. That, and the longstanding expressway section north of Kingman are the "farthest along" sections of I-11, to be joined by the Kingman I-40 interchange in the next few years. This approach seems eminently reasonable -- take care of the immediate safety needs of the corridor first and do the final upgrades later. While the EIS for the southern segment is now in process, it'll still be quite a while before any dirt is turned for anything south of Wickenburg, so actual construction along the northern reaches, limited in scope as it is, is a welcome occurrence from any standpoint.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 25, 2021, 01:35:27 PM
^^^^ surely ADOT will upgrade the corridor between Phoenix and Vegas to interstate standards before they build I-11 south of I-8.
I believe they're going to work from north to south for the most part. It looks like work on what will be the I-11/40 bypass ramps on the north side of Kingman is going to start soon (the linked article says 2023, but I've heard that it might start early next year). That will eliminate the Beale Street bottleneck at I-40. When I drove to Vegas a couple weeks ago, 93 southbound was backed up past AZ 68 due to an accident, and it took hours to reopen. Fortunately, I was going north.
https://azdot.gov/projects/northwest-district-projects/us-93-i-40-west-kingman-traffic-interchange-project
I saw that and isn't there a project to widen I-40 to eight lanes in Kingman?
Quote from: sparker on July 25, 2021, 03:09:34 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 25, 2021, 12:17:08 PM
Yikes. If they want it to come out that far west, they should send it down AZ 85 and end it at I-8 near Gila Bend. And even if they still persist in having it parallel to I-10, having it south of I-8 is still not necessary - and what's REALLY not necessary is sending it down I-19. Why are they so desperate to get rid of I-19, anyways? Are they hoping that this will be the chance to get rid of the km-based distance markers and exit numbers like they've been wanting to do for years?
Whether the Buckeye-Casa Grande I-11 segment actually gets past the initial planning stage will, in all likelihood, depend upon two things: first, whether the population influx into the area continues unabated, prompting new housing in areas such as Buckeye and Maricopa, and, second, whether regional traffic reaches a tipping point where such a segment would be viewed more as a south Phoenix bypass rather than just an I-11 extension. If both those conditions are met, then the diagonal connector would be more likely to see actual development. If not, then the suggestion to simply continue I-11 down AZ 85 to I-8 at Gila Bend would be the most probable outcome, if for no other reason that it is largely developed (partially utilizing the TX frontage-road-first methodology) as is, with a full interchange at I-10, with the sole new-terrain section being the connector to I-8. And if the area's growth slows down, AZDOT will likely be looking at more cost-effective alternatives, with AZ 85 an obvious candidate. And Phoenix would still have its bypass, albeit a bit longer and less direct.
And I-19 will likely be safe for at least another 2 or 3 decades; by that time, the parallel corridor concept will have encountered fiscal reality and be discarded or at least severely truncated.
The Gila Bend routing would also be advantageous from the perspective of providing an all-interstate route between Phoenix and San Diego. I suppose they could make a 3di of the remaining piece if they went with the diagonal route, though AZ has been 3di-phobic in the past.
I always thought the Gila Bend route made the most sense. If Arizona wants a route primarily to facilitate real estate development outside Tucson's low-growth zone, that's up to them, but it doesn't need an Interstate shield.
Quote from: kkt on July 25, 2021, 10:06:50 PM
I always thought the Gila Bend route made the most sense. If Arizona wants a route primarily to facilitate real estate development outside Tucson's low-growth zone, that's up to them, but it doesn't need an Interstate shield.
It does make the most sense. Besides, Tucson and Pima County are so pathologically anti-freeway, that I think we'll see the Detroit Lions defeat the Cleveland Browns in the Super Bowl before they ever agree to this proposal.
Quote from: sparkerAny option heading down US 60 directly toward Phoenix seems to be out the door, possibly because as with the rationale described for Wickenburg, AZDOT has no intention of placing this (or any) freeway anywhere near an existing housing area, thus putting the onus for any future noise complaints in the laps of developers who would place tracts next to the freeway corridor. Given the massive amount of retirees arrayed along Grand Ave. (and as a group we old farts tend to lodge formal complaints more than other demographics), running a freeway through Surprise and/or the Sun City tracts may well have been a non-starter -- hence the Hassayampa alignment.
The thing that generates noise is
traffic. A busy 6-lane surface street with traffic signals can generate just as much noise as a super highway,
and maybe even MORE noise in certain circumstances. Horns honk when a driver fails to notice a light turned green. Fender benders and serious accidents at intersections generate plenty of racket.
US-60 is pretty much a lost cause inside the 303 loop (going thru Surprise and Sun City). I think it would be ridiculous for AZDOT to not bring US-60 up to Interstate standards from the 303 loop going Northwest up to Wickenburg. The main purpose of building I-11 is a direct super highway link between Las Vegas and Phoenix. Not Vegas to freaking Gila Bend.
I think it's easy to guarantee if I-11 is built as proposed (in that Final Tier EIS preferred corridor alternative map) traffic counts will be a LOT different on I-11 North of Wickenburg versus South of Wickenburg. There will be far fewer vehicles on I-11 South of Wickenburg. Most will leave I-11 for US-60 because they're driving TO Phoenix. Not around it.
I-11 won't even be on the inset for Phoenix in the Rand Mac. So much for connecting Phoenix and Vegas, as advertised. Apparently it's a Las Vegas to Nogales interstate first and foremost. :sombrero:
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 26, 2021, 04:37:48 PM
I think it's easy to guarantee if I-11 is built as proposed (in that Final Tier EIS preferred corridor alternative map) traffic counts will be a LOT different on I-11 North of Wickenburg versus South of Wickenburg. There will be far fewer vehicles on I-11 South of Wickenburg. Most will leave I-11 for US-60 because they're driving TO Phoenix. Not around it.
I would estimate most traffic would follow I-11 to I-10, then head east. It's less direct, but it'd be significantly faster than slogging up city streets.
Look at the US-95 freeway in Las Vegas. Is traffic following Business US-95 because it's more "direct" despite being much slower?
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 26, 2021, 04:44:53 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 26, 2021, 04:37:48 PM
I think it's easy to guarantee if I-11 is built as proposed (in that Final Tier EIS preferred corridor alternative map) traffic counts will be a LOT different on I-11 North of Wickenburg versus South of Wickenburg. There will be far fewer vehicles on I-11 South of Wickenburg. Most will leave I-11 for US-60 because they're driving TO Phoenix. Not around it.
I would estimate most traffic would follow I-11 to I-10, then head east. It's less direct, but it'd be significantly faster than slogging up city streets.
Look at the US-95 freeway in Las Vegas. Is traffic following Business US-95 because it's more "direct" despite being much slower?
People will go how Waze tells them to go. I mean, there's a diminishing return situation from Wickenburg to Phoenix:
54 miles direct down Grand
61 miles via 60 / 101
66 miles via 60 / 303
67 miles via 60 / 74 / 17
80ish miles via the preferred alternative
So what's your tolerance for surface streets? Knowing how slow Grand is, I'd probably (if I wasn't looking at Waze) do the 60/303 option.
All that being said, it's also easy to imagine that your average speed going 54 miles down Grand is going to be close to 40 mph, but your average speed on I-11 to I-10 will be 75ish.
^^^^^^^^^^^
The thing is -- while incorporated Phoenix itself is about 1.45M population, it's the whole metro area that is the traffic generator/destination. In that respect, it's a smaller-scale L.A. -- inbound visitor traffic generally isn't heading downtown (OK, maybe to Staples Center for a game) but to the areas generally within a 55-60-mile radius (Disneyland, the beaches, yada yada). Unless there is a push from urban quarters within Phoenix (if such exist and have any significant clout) to point I-11 at the city center, it'll probably go more or less where the EIS shows. BTW, the last census showed Buckeye at a hair under 60K population by itself! The whole area, for better or worse, is the poster child for suburban sprawl -- reflecting the pull that developers have with the various levels of governance at local and state levels (need more revenue?.....plant more houses). Placing a freeway -- even one purported to be an interregional server like I-11 -- out at the present periphery of development is hardly a new and radical concept -- hell, this area's mirroring that at its other end with AZ 24! Metro Phoenix is still in its "boomtown" phase -- and there's no apparent push to rein that in. Of course, like any bubble, it will eventually burst -- but that bubble, in a similar fashion to SoCal, will leave behind residential areas that are at least a 90-minute commute from job centers; those areas won't be reverting to pure desert anytime soon.
Another way of looking at it requires a bit of defocusing on the way the area has been laid out, facility-wise. The arterial "spines" at the west/northwest end are Loops 101 & 303; US 60/Grand Ave. cuts across them, providing a place to put things. Defocus a bit more, and one will see that the I-11 alignment and AZ 74 functionally make up another outside loop; I wouldn't be one bit surprised to see the latter built out to the same standards as the existing loops as a way to dissipate/distribute traffic in that corner of the metro area -- and as the "other" way to get over to the east side without having to screw around with I-10, Loop 202, or the more urbanized portion of I-17. East of Wickenburg it's easy to see AZ 74 replaced by "Loop 404"! Metro PHX has developed a quasi-"grid" pattern; running a freeway down Grand Ave. doesn't fit that pattern, even outside Loop 303. It doesn't matter whether or not we outside observes approve of that pattern; it's what they've elected to do.
Quote from: sparker on July 26, 2021, 08:24:54 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^
The thing is -- while incorporated Phoenix itself is about 1.45M population, it's the whole metro area that is the traffic generator/destination. In that respect, it's a smaller-scale L.A. -- inbound visitor traffic generally isn't heading downtown (OK, maybe to Staples Center for a game) but to the areas generally within a 55-60-mile radius (Disneyland, the beaches, yada yada). Unless there is a push from urban quarters within Phoenix (if such exist and have any significant clout) to point I-11 at the city center, it'll probably go more or less where the EIS shows. BTW, the last census showed Buckeye at a hair under 60K population by itself! The whole area, for better or worse, is the poster child for suburban sprawl -- reflecting the pull that developers have with the various levels of governance at local and state levels (need more revenue?.....plant more houses). Placing a freeway -- even one purported to be an interregional server like I-11 -- out at the present periphery of development is hardly a new and radical concept -- hell, this area's mirroring that at its other end with AZ 24! Metro Phoenix is still in its "boomtown" phase -- and there's no apparent push to rein that in. Of course, like any bubble, it will eventually burst -- but that bubble, in a similar fashion to SoCal, will leave behind residential areas that are at least a 90-minute commute from job centers; those areas won't be reverting to pure desert anytime soon.
However the "preferred" alternative has I-11 west of Wickenberg. So for most people the fastest route to Kingman / Las Vegas will still involve a trek on AZ 74 / US 60 to Wickenberg. Unless the AZ 74 / US 60 connection to I-11 is built to freeway standards I-11 really doesn't serve a lot of purpose to most Phoenix area travelers.
My preferred alternative would be to route I-11 east of Wickenberg and down US 60 to the Loop 303 corridor and then head south potentially turning east down the AZ 30 corridor and ending at the Durango curve.
Another way of looking at it requires a bit of defocusing on the way the area has been laid out, facility-wise. The arterial "spines" at the west/northwest end are Loops 101 & 303; US 60/Grand Ave. cuts across them, providing a place to put things. Defocus a bit more, and one will see that the I-11 alignment and AZ 74 functionally make up another outside loop; I wouldn't be one bit surprised to see the latter built out to the same standards as the existing loops as a way to dissipate/distribute traffic in that corner of the metro area -- and as the "other" way to get over to the east side without having to screw around with I-10, Loop 202, or the more urbanized portion of I-17. East of Wickenburg it's easy to see AZ 74 replaced by "Loop 404"! Metro PHX has developed a quasi-"grid" pattern; running a freeway down Grand Ave. doesn't fit that pattern, even outside Loop 303. It doesn't matter whether or not we outside observes approve of that pattern; it's what they've elected to do.
Honestly what I don't like about the proposal above is that I-11 splits off the US 60 / US 93 route west of Wickenberg so it isn't really even a good conduit of Phoenix - Wickenberg traffic. The I-11 alignment from west of Wickenberg to I-10 seems like a waste. I do like the fact that the preferred alternative seems to utilize the AZ 85 corridor between I-10 and I-8. Honestly if Arizona was to ever get a 3di I-208 makes perfect sense for this corridor and a 4 - 6 lane freeway really is needed in this corridor.
I really think that US 93 / 60 east of Wickenberg to Loop 303 south is the best routing for I-11. If the AZ 85 corridor is upgraded to a freeway there really isn't much value for I-11 south of I-8.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What I was trying to get at earlier is that the I-11 concept has been interpreted, both by AZDOT and the Feds, as connecting metro Phoenix with Vegas -- and metro Phoenix sprawls in all directions. If the EIS is accepted, then that's pretty much the end of any possibility that the I-11 trunk will simply follow US 60 SE toward central Phoenix. At this point downtown/central Phoenix just isn't the project focus -- likely the opposite. The use of eminent domain within an incorporated city has always been problematic; since the city of Surprise has pretty much annexed everything along US 60 between AZ 74 and Sun City, including any junction point with Loop 303, they would have to accede to any taking of property within the city as well as street closures. Something tells me AZDOT would rather not have to deal with the ramifications of suburban freeway alignments, so they're choosing to simply avoid it by planning a route where there is currently little in the way of improvement -- property acquisition will cost less, and the noses tweaked in the process will be minimized. DOT's in general are "adversity-adverse"; they'd rather endure criticism than litigation. If development hadn't extended along US 60, and the city of Surprise was simply a few small tracts, AZDOT would have likely marched I-11 straight down to and along Loop 303; any extension south toward Maricopa would have just been an extension of that loop. But as it happened, that wasn't the case -- and the Hassayampa valley was selected as the most reasonable alternative; now that the corridor is intended to utilize more in the way of existing routes in the Buckeye area, it indicates that AZDOT at least recognizes some semblance of fiscal reality.
A separate I-11 corridor south of I-8 is simply gratuitous; just another place to put more housing. But then, expecting different behavior from developers is an exercise in futility; if they can't get what they want through the front door, they simply carve out plans for a new back door!
Quote from: sprjus4I would estimate most traffic would follow I-11 to I-10, then head east. It's less direct, but it'd be significantly faster than slogging up city streets.
The fastest route from Wickenburg to Phoenix is taking US-60 from Wickenburg down to Loop 303. There is a lot of driveways and at-grade intersections along the way, but not what I would call "slogging" in the style of Grand Avenue within Phoenix. There are two traffic signals along US-60 between Wickenburg and Loop 303, and one of those signals is the first intersection NW of the Loop 303/US-60 interchange.
If I-11 is built way the hell out West past Barry Goldwater Peak and damned near to Tonopah it will give Vegas-to-Phoenix travelers every incentive to get off I-11 at Wickenburg and take US-60 the rest of the way into the metro area. Once they reach Loop 303 the drivers can disperse in whatever direction they like on the freeway system.
Quote from: sparkerA separate I-11 corridor south of I-8 is simply gratuitous; just another place to put more housing. But then, expecting different behavior from developers is an exercise in futility; if they can't get what they want through the front door, they simply carve out plans for a new back door!
I guess these developers pushing for this out of the way (and porky) extension of I-11 think there aren't any practical limits to growth out there. Suburbs may be popular, but people are going to move only so far a distance away from the urban center. The cost of fuel can turn into a big problem for people living way out in the exhurbs. These developers are trying to divert I-11 so far around the Phoenix metro that there won't be anything in terms of infrastructure for their projects. Water and sewage service, trash removal, police/fire depts and public schools are essential ingredients. So is high speed Internet access. Good Internet quality is a big freaking problem out in the sticks. Let's also not forget water is in critically short supply out there. I-11 going West and South around Phoenix could end up being a road to nowhere.
A completed I-11 to I-10 from Wickenburg to Downtown Phoenix would take around 55 minutes, given a 75 mph speed limit on the new I-11 alignment. The existing travel time estimate on US-60 to Loop 303 is around 60 minutes.
Most people will likely follow the faster, and more reliable interstate route as opposed to US-60.
I personally think it's foolish to assume Phoenix will physically be able to sprawl out as far as I-11 is proposed to go. What the hell are those people going to drink? They have no new places to get water in that part of the world, so what are they going to do? They ain't getting ours!
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 27, 2021, 01:53:48 PM
Quote from: sprjus4I would estimate most traffic would follow I-11 to I-10, then head east. It's less direct, but it'd be significantly faster than slogging up city streets.
The fastest route from Wickenburg to Phoenix is taking US-60 from Wickenburg down to Loop 303. There is a lot of driveways and at-grade intersections along the way, but not what I would call "slogging" in the style of Grand Avenue within Phoenix. There are two traffic signals along US-60 between Wickenburg and Loop 303, and one of those signals is the first intersection NW of the Loop 303/US-60 interchange.
If I-11 is built way the hell out West past Barry Goldwater Peak and damned near to Tonopah it will give Vegas-to-Phoenix travelers every incentive to get off I-11 at Wickenburg and take US-60 the rest of the way into the metro area. Once they reach Loop 303 the drivers can disperse in whatever direction they like on the freeway system.
Quote from: sparkerA separate I-11 corridor south of I-8 is simply gratuitous; just another place to put more housing. But then, expecting different behavior from developers is an exercise in futility; if they can't get what they want through the front door, they simply carve out plans for a new back door!
I guess these developers pushing for this out of the way (and porky) extension of I-11 think there aren't any practical limits to growth out there. Suburbs may be popular, but people are going to move only so far a distance away from the urban center. The cost of fuel can turn into a big problem for people living way out in the exhurbs. These developers are trying to divert I-11 so far around the Phoenix metro that there won't be anything in terms of infrastructure for their projects. Water and sewage service, trash removal, police/fire depts and public schools are essential ingredients. So is high speed Internet access. Good Internet quality is a big freaking problem out in the sticks. Let's also not forget water is in critically short supply out there. I-11 going West and South around Phoenix could end up being a road to nowhere.
I think what the developers have in mind for any corridor paralleling I-10/I-19 to the west is a
completely new city functioning as an alternate to Tucson itself. It's not as if there hasn't been precedence for this right in AZ; heading east, the domino chain of Tempe, Mesa, Chandler, Gilbert, and even Apache Junction all developed as exurbs with their own independent spheres of influence and functionality; there just isn't a sense of dependence or even connection to central Phoenix except for governmental issues. It's likely that if the word "community" is uttered in the regional exurbs the response will be likely eyes glazing over or at best quizzical looks! Unlike urban regions that primarily developed in the 19th or early 20th centuries, much of the population consists of folks with roots elsewhere; they came to AZ for (a) the warm weather, (b) a lower overall tax base than they previously experienced, or (c) to get away from the vagaries of "traditional" urban life. Since we try not to do politics in this forum, I'll only casually mention that some move to S. AZ. because the political climate is more to their suiting -- period. About the only thing that will get a real collective rise here is something that arouses the NIMBY within the residential populace (more likely than not one of the factors prompting AZDOT to route I-11 around the western perimeter than march it down US 60). But that type of attitude also produces "blind spots"; once established in a particular location, these folks tend to think little or nothing about development elsewhere that doesn't directly or immediately affect them (the region seems to attract those with a definitive "libertarian" streak). So a Sun City resident wouldn't be likely to get up in arms about some developer plopping down a new town somewhere west of Tucson. Regardless of talk about AZ becoming more "blue" than in the past, the sensibilities that would cause blood boiling on the coasts dissipate somewhere along the journey to south Arizona.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 27, 2021, 04:26:44 PM
I personally think it's foolish to assume Phoenix will physically be able to sprawl out as far as I-11 is proposed to go. What the hell are those people going to drink? They have no new places to get water in that part of the world, so what are they going to do? They ain't getting ours!
They're waiting for one of their periodic monsoons to refill Lakes Powell and Mead! Seriously, that's one of the factors that would precipitate (ironic word here!) a regional growth slowdown, particularly if the local water agencies are forced to either directly ration water or, more likely, just kick water prices skyward to try to accomplish the same task. Whether that has the effect of altering road plans depends upon the "lag time" of the aggregate effects of an acute water shortage. Chances are that the I-11 path north of I-10 is now officially set; where it goes south of there would probably be one of the first effects of such a shortfall -- chances are that it would just ride AZ 85 south to Gila Bend in that case.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 27, 2021, 04:26:44 PM
I personally think it's foolish to assume Phoenix will physically be able to sprawl out as far as I-11 is proposed to go. What the hell are those people going to drink? They have no new places to get water in that part of the world, so what are they going to do? They ain't getting ours!
There will always be water. It's a question of how much people are willing to pay for it.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on July 27, 2021, 05:23:50 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 27, 2021, 04:26:44 PM
I personally think it's foolish to assume Phoenix will physically be able to sprawl out as far as I-11 is proposed to go. What the hell are those people going to drink? They have no new places to get water in that part of the world, so what are they going to do? They ain't getting ours!
There will always be water. It's a question of how much people are willing to pay for it.
Desalination
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 27, 2021, 05:25:38 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on July 27, 2021, 05:23:50 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 27, 2021, 04:26:44 PM
I personally think it's foolish to assume Phoenix will physically be able to sprawl out as far as I-11 is proposed to go. What the hell are those people going to drink? They have no new places to get water in that part of the world, so what are they going to do? They ain't getting ours!
There will always be water. It's a question of how much people are willing to pay for it.
Desalination
I can see it now -- a plant on the shores of the Gulf of California with a pipeline to Roosevelt Lake. At that point there might not be enough money left to build the more gratuitous southern reaches of I-11. I for one would call that a "win-win" (not that something like that would occur without tons of controversy from both environmental and fiscal quarters!).
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 27, 2021, 01:53:48 PM
Quote from: sprjus4I would estimate most traffic would follow I-11 to I-10, then head east. It's less direct, but it'd be significantly faster than slogging up city streets.
The fastest route from Wickenburg to Phoenix is taking US-60 from Wickenburg down to Loop 303. There is a lot of driveways and at-grade intersections along the way, but not what I would call "slogging" in the style of Grand Avenue within Phoenix.
There is no place to shoehorn an interstate-grade, freeway-to-freeway interchange in that small space where the 303/60 ramps are. The current interchange is surrounded on three sides by residential areas, which would have to be condemned and destroyed. Not gonna happen.
QuoteThere are two traffic signals along US-60 between Wickenburg and Loop 303, and one of those signals is the first intersection NW of the Loop 303/US-60 interchange.
Those lights are at 163rd Ave in Surprise, less than 1/2 mile from the 303, and at Center St. in Wittman. I'm willing to bet that a 3rd light will be added at AZ 74 in Morristown in the not-too-distant future.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 27, 2021, 05:25:38 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on July 27, 2021, 05:23:50 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 27, 2021, 04:26:44 PM
I personally think it's foolish to assume Phoenix will physically be able to sprawl out as far as I-11 is proposed to go. What the hell are those people going to drink? They have no new places to get water in that part of the world, so what are they going to do? They ain't getting ours!
There will always be water. It's a question of how much people are willing to pay for it.
Desalination
There's not a whole lot of salt water around Arizona either.
Also a severely energy-intensive process.
Quote from: kkt on July 27, 2021, 07:52:08 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 27, 2021, 05:25:38 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on July 27, 2021, 05:23:50 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 27, 2021, 04:26:44 PM
I personally think it's foolish to assume Phoenix will physically be able to sprawl out as far as I-11 is proposed to go. What the hell are those people going to drink? They have no new places to get water in that part of the world, so what are they going to do? They ain't getting ours!
There will always be water. It's a question of how much people are willing to pay for it.
Desalination
There's not a whole lot of salt water around Arizona either.
Also a severely energy-intensive process.
Hence the Gulf of California, the nearest seawater body to AZ. Buy the juice to operate the plant from Mexican sources; probably be somewhat cheaper than in the US. Again, not that it's likely to happen in the immediate future -- but if the drought persists for more than a few years, drastic -- and likely expensive -- measures may be necessary.
It's also not good for the environment. The salt doesn't just magically vanish, after all.
Quote from: kkt on July 27, 2021, 07:52:08 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 27, 2021, 05:25:38 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on July 27, 2021, 05:23:50 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 27, 2021, 04:26:44 PM
I personally think it's foolish to assume Phoenix will physically be able to sprawl out as far as I-11 is proposed to go. What the hell are those people going to drink? They have no new places to get water in that part of the world, so what are they going to do? They ain't getting ours!
There will always be water. It's a question of how much people are willing to pay for it.
Desalination
There's not a whole lot of salt water around Arizona either.
Also a severely energy-intensive process.
Pipelines and nuclear energy.
As for the environmental impacts, I've read that an increasing issue with the oceans is increasing salinity levels. Not sure how much desalination plants would help but they can't make it worse.
The only issue is the brine that is produced but I'm confident with the proper amount of R&D we can come up with a solution.
Quote from: sparker on July 27, 2021, 05:41:02 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 27, 2021, 05:25:38 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on July 27, 2021, 05:23:50 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 27, 2021, 04:26:44 PM
I personally think it's foolish to assume Phoenix will physically be able to sprawl out as far as I-11 is proposed to go. What the hell are those people going to drink? They have no new places to get water in that part of the world, so what are they going to do? They ain't getting ours!
There will always be water. It's a question of how much people are willing to pay for it.
Desalination
I can see it now -- a plant on the shores of the Gulf of California with a pipeline to Roosevelt Lake. At that point there might not be enough money left to build the more gratuitous southern reaches of I-11. I for one would call that a "win-win" (not that something like that would occur without tons of controversy from both environmental and fiscal quarters!).
Lol I'd rather see money go to a water pipeline than a southern extension if I-8 beyond I-10.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 27, 2021, 08:46:19 PM
Quote from: kkt on July 27, 2021, 07:52:08 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 27, 2021, 05:25:38 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on July 27, 2021, 05:23:50 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 27, 2021, 04:26:44 PM
I personally think it's foolish to assume Phoenix will physically be able to sprawl out as far as I-11 is proposed to go. What the hell are those people going to drink? They have no new places to get water in that part of the world, so what are they going to do? They ain't getting ours!
There will always be water. It's a question of how much people are willing to pay for it.
Desalination
There's not a whole lot of salt water around Arizona either.
Also a severely energy-intensive process.
Pipelines and nuclear energy.
As for the environmental impacts, I've read that an increasing issue with the oceans is increasing salinity levels. Not sure how much desalination plants would help but they can't make it worse.
The only issue is the brine that is produced but I'm confident with the proper amount of R&D we can come up with a solution.
Widespread drought + high overall temperatures = less freshwater runoff into the ocean + more rapid oceanic evaporation = higher salt content in the ocean. Removal of a bit of extra-saline water for desalinization purposes will leave piles of salt somewhere. Of course it's "sea salt" rather than manufactured sodium chloride, so it might have a bit of salability. Now -- maybe if we all developed a taste for oil & brine-cured Greek olives! (I grew up eating these, courtesy of my Greek-born grandfather). But desalinization efforts would likely be a last resort when and if other water acquisition methods had been exhausted.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 27, 2021, 08:47:14 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 27, 2021, 05:41:02 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 27, 2021, 05:25:38 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on July 27, 2021, 05:23:50 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 27, 2021, 04:26:44 PM
I personally think it's foolish to assume Phoenix will physically be able to sprawl out as far as I-11 is proposed to go. What the hell are those people going to drink? They have no new places to get water in that part of the world, so what are they going to do? They ain't getting ours!
There will always be water. It's a question of how much people are willing to pay for it.
Desalination
I can see it now -- a plant on the shores of the Gulf of California with a pipeline to Roosevelt Lake. At that point there might not be enough money left to build the more gratuitous southern reaches of I-11. I for one would call that a "win-win" (not that something like that would occur without tons of controversy from both environmental and fiscal quarters!).
Lol I'd rather see money go to a water pipeline than a southern extension if I-8 beyond I-10.
Well, there is a straight-faced proposal to divert water from the Mississippi River to Lake Mead: https://www.azfamily.com/news/arizona-legislature-proposes-pumping-mississippi-river-water-to-help-with-drought/article_3cbf8858-b832-11eb-a76f-0f6bfebd2301.html
Quote from: sparker on July 28, 2021, 03:46:40 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 27, 2021, 08:46:19 PM
Quote from: kkt on July 27, 2021, 07:52:08 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 27, 2021, 05:25:38 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on July 27, 2021, 05:23:50 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 27, 2021, 04:26:44 PM
I personally think it's foolish to assume Phoenix will physically be able to sprawl out as far as I-11 is proposed to go. What the hell are those people going to drink? They have no new places to get water in that part of the world, so what are they going to do? They ain't getting ours!
There will always be water. It's a question of how much people are willing to pay for it.
Desalination
There's not a whole lot of salt water around Arizona either.
Also a severely energy-intensive process.
Pipelines and nuclear energy.
As for the environmental impacts, I've read that an increasing issue with the oceans is increasing salinity levels. Not sure how much desalination plants would help but they can't make it worse.
The only issue is the brine that is produced but I'm confident with the proper amount of R&D we can come up with a solution.
Widespread drought + high overall temperatures = less freshwater runoff into the ocean + more rapid oceanic evaporation = higher salt content in the ocean. Removal of a bit of extra-saline water for desalinization purposes will leave piles of salt somewhere. Of course it's "sea salt" rather than manufactured sodium chloride, so it might have a bit of salability. Now -- maybe if we all developed a taste for oil & brine-cured Greek olives! (I grew up eating these, courtesy of my Greek-born grandfather). But desalinization efforts would likely be a last resort when and if other water acquisition methods had been exhausted.
True but if we can rely more on desalinated water rather than rivers and lake more of that freshwater might actually make it to the ocean. The Colorado can flow to Mexico once again!
Quote from: DRMan on July 28, 2021, 10:32:22 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 27, 2021, 08:47:14 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 27, 2021, 05:41:02 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 27, 2021, 05:25:38 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on July 27, 2021, 05:23:50 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 27, 2021, 04:26:44 PM
I personally think it's foolish to assume Phoenix will physically be able to sprawl out as far as I-11 is proposed to go. What the hell are those people going to drink? They have no new places to get water in that part of the world, so what are they going to do? They ain't getting ours!
There will always be water. It's a question of how much people are willing to pay for it.
Desalination
I can see it now -- a plant on the shores of the Gulf of California with a pipeline to Roosevelt Lake. At that point there might not be enough money left to build the more gratuitous southern reaches of I-11. I for one would call that a "win-win" (not that something like that would occur without tons of controversy from both environmental and fiscal quarters!).
Lol I'd rather see money go to a water pipeline than a southern extension if I-8 beyond I-10.
Well, there is a straight-faced proposal to divert water from the Mississippi River to Lake Mead: https://www.azfamily.com/news/arizona-legislature-proposes-pumping-mississippi-river-water-to-help-with-drought/article_3cbf8858-b832-11eb-a76f-0f6bfebd2301.html
I mean we build continental oil pipelines. I know oil is obviously different from water so I don't know exactly how it would work but surely we can make it happen. I suppose groups calling for removal of dams could get behind it as cities along the pipeline route in the west wouldn't need to rely on traditional water sources like lakes much. Sucks for tourism/recreation though and ironically enough my main concern is in fact keeping Lake Powell and Mead full as frequent those lakes.
Something has to be done. You can't just stop building new living units or restricting sprawl. That will only drive up the price of homes and price the lower income groups out. That isn't right. I wonder if Arizona's water issues will eat their way into projects like I-11. It's easy for people to balk at such proposals until they turn on their faucet and water doesn't come out. I bet then people will place water projects above those like I-11 or the Broadway curve even though how badly those projects are needed.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 28, 2021, 10:47:50 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 28, 2021, 03:46:40 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 27, 2021, 08:46:19 PM
Quote from: kkt on July 27, 2021, 07:52:08 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 27, 2021, 05:25:38 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on July 27, 2021, 05:23:50 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 27, 2021, 04:26:44 PM
I personally think it's foolish to assume Phoenix will physically be able to sprawl out as far as I-11 is proposed to go. What the hell are those people going to drink? They have no new places to get water in that part of the world, so what are they going to do? They ain't getting ours!
There will always be water. It's a question of how much people are willing to pay for it.
Desalination
There's not a whole lot of salt water around Arizona either.
Also a severely energy-intensive process.
Pipelines and nuclear energy.
As for the environmental impacts, I've read that an increasing issue with the oceans is increasing salinity levels. Not sure how much desalination plants would help but they can't make it worse.
The only issue is the brine that is produced but I'm confident with the proper amount of R&D we can come up with a solution.
Widespread drought + high overall temperatures = less freshwater runoff into the ocean + more rapid oceanic evaporation = higher salt content in the ocean. Removal of a bit of extra-saline water for desalinization purposes will leave piles of salt somewhere. Of course it's "sea salt" rather than manufactured sodium chloride, so it might have a bit of salability. Now -- maybe if we all developed a taste for oil & brine-cured Greek olives! (I grew up eating these, courtesy of my Greek-born grandfather). But desalinization efforts would likely be a last resort when and if other water acquisition methods had been exhausted.
True but if we can rely more on desalinated water rather than rivers and lake more of that freshwater might actually make it to the ocean. The Colorado can flow to Mexico once again!
There are also proposals to utilize treated sewage to develop new sources of water as well as store water underground. An example of this is the San Diego Pure Water Program:
https://www.sandiego.gov/public-utilities/sustainability/pure-water-sd. Many other water providers are considering similar measures along with desalination.
But as this is getting a bit off topic, let's return to the discussion of Interstate 11.
Quote from: andy3175 on July 28, 2021, 11:31:37 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 28, 2021, 10:47:50 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 28, 2021, 03:46:40 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 27, 2021, 08:46:19 PM
Quote from: kkt on July 27, 2021, 07:52:08 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 27, 2021, 05:25:38 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on July 27, 2021, 05:23:50 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 27, 2021, 04:26:44 PM
I personally think it's foolish to assume Phoenix will physically be able to sprawl out as far as I-11 is proposed to go. What the hell are those people going to drink? They have no new places to get water in that part of the world, so what are they going to do? They ain't getting ours!
There will always be water. It's a question of how much people are willing to pay for it.
Desalination
There's not a whole lot of salt water around Arizona either.
Also a severely energy-intensive process.
Pipelines and nuclear energy.
As for the environmental impacts, I've read that an increasing issue with the oceans is increasing salinity levels. Not sure how much desalination plants would help but they can't make it worse.
The only issue is the brine that is produced but I'm confident with the proper amount of R&D we can come up with a solution.
Widespread drought + high overall temperatures = less freshwater runoff into the ocean + more rapid oceanic evaporation = higher salt content in the ocean. Removal of a bit of extra-saline water for desalinization purposes will leave piles of salt somewhere. Of course it's "sea salt" rather than manufactured sodium chloride, so it might have a bit of salability. Now -- maybe if we all developed a taste for oil & brine-cured Greek olives! (I grew up eating these, courtesy of my Greek-born grandfather). But desalinization efforts would likely be a last resort when and if other water acquisition methods had been exhausted.
True but if we can rely more on desalinated water rather than rivers and lake more of that freshwater might actually make it to the ocean. The Colorado can flow to Mexico once again!
There are also proposals to utilize treated sewage to develop new sources of water as well as store water underground. An example of this is the San Diego Pure Water Program:
https://www.sandiego.gov/public-utilities/sustainability/pure-water-sd. Many other water providers are considering similar measures along with desalination.
But as this is getting a bit off topic, let's return to the discussion of Interstate 11.
Yum!!
Quote from: DRMan on July 28, 2021, 10:32:22 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 27, 2021, 08:47:14 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 27, 2021, 05:41:02 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 27, 2021, 05:25:38 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on July 27, 2021, 05:23:50 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 27, 2021, 04:26:44 PM
I personally think it's foolish to assume Phoenix will physically be able to sprawl out as far as I-11 is proposed to go. What the hell are those people going to drink? They have no new places to get water in that part of the world, so what are they going to do? They ain't getting ours!
There will always be water. It's a question of how much people are willing to pay for it.
Desalination
I can see it now -- a plant on the shores of the Gulf of California with a pipeline to Roosevelt Lake. At that point there might not be enough money left to build the more gratuitous southern reaches of I-11. I for one would call that a "win-win" (not that something like that would occur without tons of controversy from both environmental and fiscal quarters!).
Lol I'd rather see money go to a water pipeline than a southern extension if I-8 beyond I-10.
Well, there is a straight-faced proposal to divert water from the Mississippi River to Lake Mead: https://www.azfamily.com/news/arizona-legislature-proposes-pumping-mississippi-river-water-to-help-with-drought/article_3cbf8858-b832-11eb-a76f-0f6bfebd2301.html
The Arizona legislator who proposed it may have kept a straight face, but it wasn't a proposal to build it or even spend the money for a thorough study. This would be from the Mississippi near Davenport, Iowa, to the Green River of Utah and Wyoming, a tributary of the Colorado. Good thing there's no mountains or anything in between!
Quote from: kkt on July 28, 2021, 11:50:29 AM
Quote from: DRMan on July 28, 2021, 10:32:22 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 27, 2021, 08:47:14 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 27, 2021, 05:41:02 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 27, 2021, 05:25:38 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on July 27, 2021, 05:23:50 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 27, 2021, 04:26:44 PM
I personally think it's foolish to assume Phoenix will physically be able to sprawl out as far as I-11 is proposed to go. What the hell are those people going to drink? They have no new places to get water in that part of the world, so what are they going to do? They ain't getting ours!
There will always be water. It's a question of how much people are willing to pay for it.
Desalination
I can see it now -- a plant on the shores of the Gulf of California with a pipeline to Roosevelt Lake. At that point there might not be enough money left to build the more gratuitous southern reaches of I-11. I for one would call that a "win-win" (not that something like that would occur without tons of controversy from both environmental and fiscal quarters!).
Lol I'd rather see money go to a water pipeline than a southern extension if I-8 beyond I-10.
Well, there is a straight-faced proposal to divert water from the Mississippi River to Lake Mead: https://www.azfamily.com/news/arizona-legislature-proposes-pumping-mississippi-river-water-to-help-with-drought/article_3cbf8858-b832-11eb-a76f-0f6bfebd2301.html
The Arizona legislator who proposed it may have kept a straight face, but it wasn't a proposal to build it or even spend the money for a thorough study. This would be from the Mississippi near Davenport, Iowa, to the Green River of Utah and Wyoming, a tributary of the Colorado. Good thing there's no mountains or anything in between!
Can't we just ship water into Phoenix by truck? :-D
Quote from: andy3175 on July 28, 2021, 11:31:37 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 28, 2021, 10:47:50 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 28, 2021, 03:46:40 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 27, 2021, 08:46:19 PM
Quote from: kkt on July 27, 2021, 07:52:08 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 27, 2021, 05:25:38 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on July 27, 2021, 05:23:50 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 27, 2021, 04:26:44 PM
I personally think it's foolish to assume Phoenix will physically be able to sprawl out as far as I-11 is proposed to go. What the hell are those people going to drink? They have no new places to get water in that part of the world, so what are they going to do? They ain't getting ours!
There will always be water. It's a question of how much people are willing to pay for it.
Desalination
There's not a whole lot of salt water around Arizona either.
Also a severely energy-intensive process.
Pipelines and nuclear energy.
As for the environmental impacts, I've read that an increasing issue with the oceans is increasing salinity levels. Not sure how much desalination plants would help but they can't make it worse.
The only issue is the brine that is produced but I'm confident with the proper amount of R&D we can come up with a solution.
Widespread drought + high overall temperatures = less freshwater runoff into the ocean + more rapid oceanic evaporation = higher salt content in the ocean. Removal of a bit of extra-saline water for desalinization purposes will leave piles of salt somewhere. Of course it's "sea salt" rather than manufactured sodium chloride, so it might have a bit of salability. Now -- maybe if we all developed a taste for oil & brine-cured Greek olives! (I grew up eating these, courtesy of my Greek-born grandfather). But desalinization efforts would likely be a last resort when and if other water acquisition methods had been exhausted.
True but if we can rely more on desalinated water rather than rivers and lake more of that freshwater might actually make it to the ocean. The Colorado can flow to Mexico once again!
There are also proposals to utilize treated sewage to develop new sources of water as well as store water underground. An example of this is the San Diego Pure Water Program:
https://www.sandiego.gov/public-utilities/sustainability/pure-water-sd. Many other water providers are considering similar measures along with desalination.
But as this is getting a bit off topic, let's return to the discussion of Interstate 11.
Is it off topic?
Where Interstate 11 goes will dictate development patterns. We can't extract highway construction from planning...
As for treated sewage, it's of course important to note that roughly 2% of the water coming through Hoover Dam is Las Vegas' treated sewage. So LA, Phoenix and San Diego have already had a "taste" of this method of conservation...
The brine issue with desalinization is only a concern if one is discharging it in a stupid place. Sent far enough out to the open ocean, the potential impacts are very minimal.
Or in some far, distant future where we are desalinating on a scale millions of times larger than what we currently need, then we're gonna have issues.
I wonder how well it will sit with Arizonians for a foreign country to essentially have control over their water supply if one goes the Gulf of California route.
Speaking on behalf of the Midwest; they're not getting our fucking water. All y'all desert critters can put on your damn jacket and move on back here if you want some water. Why on Earth would we want to further subsidize the continued migration of people to these large, southwestern states and thus increase their political clout? What's in it for us? Nothing.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 28, 2021, 12:52:20 PM
The brine issue with desalinization is only a concern if one is discharging it in a stupid place. Sent far enough out to the open ocean, the potential impacts are very minimal.
Or in some far, distant future where we are desalinating on a scale millions of times larger than what we currently need, then we're gonna have issues.
I wonder how well it will sit with Arizonians for a foreign country to essentially have control over their water supply if one goes the Gulf of California route.
Speaking on behalf of the Midwest; they're not getting our fucking water. All y'all desert critters can put on your damn jacket and move on back here if you want some water. Why on Earth would we want to further subsidize the continued migration of people to these large, southwestern states and thus increase their political clout? What's in it for us? Nothing.
Don't know about Arizona-based rants, but no one out here in CA has seriously suggested a 1200-1500-mile pipeline from anywhere east of the Rockies, which would be what such a project would entail. Now -- if the drought persists for a few years, and the Midwest is plagued with floods, the waters of which would otherwise run off into the Gulf, calls for such a remedy might occur. I know the thought of this would rankle the residents of several Midwest and Gulf states, but such a project would likely be federally-initiated so as to dampen the direct objections such as expressed above. Newsom won't come to Austin or Baton Rouge looking for a handout simply because he hates to have a "fail" on his resume', but our new Sen. Padilla would have no such compunctions; he'd have the legislation written and in committee in record time. Then the constitutional questions about who actually owns the rights to the water would commence -- but some accommodation would be settled upon prior to a court decision because few parties want to disturb the status quo of water distribution, which could be jeopardized if the courts came down on one side or the other. Then the questions about using eminent domain for any pipeline would be raised -- by which time the weather patterns may have shifted again, with the San Joaquin Valley getting flooding that would make 1997 look like a broken pipe! Bottom line -- even if the water transfer is requested or even mandated, the process for manifesting that would take years if not decades. So it won't be Midwest objections to the West stealing their water that would derail any action of the sort, but all the physical and legal obstacles that would occur even with universal concurrence.
It was always my impression that Phoenix would die not because it would become impossible to live there (no fresh water, too friggin' hot, etc), but because it would become too expensive to live there. Fresh water supply based entirely on desalination would almost certainly make every aspect of life more expensive and wipe out whatever financial incentive Phoenix otherwise provided prior to such a point.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on July 28, 2021, 12:52:20 PM
The brine issue with desalinization is only a concern if one is discharging it in a stupid place. Sent far enough out to the open ocean, the potential impacts are very minimal.
Or in some far, distant future where we are desalinating on a scale millions of times larger than what we currently need, then we're gonna have issues.
I wonder how well it will sit with Arizonians for a foreign country to essentially have control over their water supply if one goes the Gulf of California route.
Speaking on behalf of the Midwest; they're not getting our fucking water. All y'all desert critters can put on your damn jacket and move on back here if you want some water. Why on Earth would we want to further subsidize the continued migration of people to these large, southwestern states and thus increase their political clout? What's in it for us? Nothing.
One wouldn't go to the Gulf of California for desal. One would, instead, do desal in California and buy some of California's Colorado River allotment. If you can pull 100k acre-feet out of the Pacific and divert that to the CAP, that's a lot cheaper than pumping it up 1000 feet from Rocky Point. The next most likely would be to desal Gulf of California water for the Imperial Irrigation District and put their share into the CAP. Arizona could additionally pipe the treated sewage from Phoenix all the way to the Colorado, giving Arizona a credit for any treated sewage returned to the Colorado the same way Nevada gets credit for its treated water.
There's a host of other capital options as well, including buying / banning lawns, buying golf courses, sealing in the CAP to prevent evaporation and leakage, etc.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 28, 2021, 05:10:10 PM
It was always my impression that Phoenix would die not because it would become impossible to live there (no fresh water, too friggin' hot, etc), but because it would become too expensive to live there. Fresh water supply based entirely on desalination would almost certainly make every aspect of life more expensive and wipe out whatever financial incentive Phoenix otherwise provided prior to such a point.
It probably won't get too expensive to live there. You'll end up with an affordable water rate for "internal-only" users, like apartment dwellers, where every drop they use ultimately winds up in a sewer for re-use down the line (see: connecting the sewage system directly to the Colorado so that the treated effluent is then used to irrigate the Imperial Valley). And then people who use water for landscaping will progressively pay more based on how much they're irrigating. The fact is, the CAP can probably provide most of the water *needs* of the population of Phoenix for now and a long time to come... assuming people can turn off their irrigation.
Here are some thoughts from a Wyoming- based webpage about the Colorado River Basin and its ability to support additional growth in a variety of Western cities.
https://www.wyofile.com/wyo-looks-to-store-divert-more-water-as-lake-powell-dries-up/amp/
While water is key to growth, it's arguable that the portion of Interstate 11 at least northwest of Phoenix is needed today to accommodate existing development in both Phoenix and Las Vegas. But future growth and economic development are often cited when plotting new freeways.
Water is a factor in developing communities along Interstate 11. My reason for suggesting that the water discussion may take us off topic is because the water story gets us into regional politics, differences in water allocations, and the debate of whether growth is sustainable given limited water resources.
We could spend quite a bit of time debating water policy in the US West.... and that portion of the conversation strays off topic from Interstate 11 itself ... other than the recognition that growth requires water, and that growth is cited when plotting portions of the Interstate 11 corridor.
I think the timing would be off too. The Mississippi is in flood in the spring (if I remember Huck Finn correctly). More water in the Southwest would be needed midsummer to late summer. I suppose as long as they're building 1000 mile pipelines they could build a bunch of dams to hold the water, maybe, but it would add to the cost and complexity of the overall project.
Quote from: KeithE4PhxThere is no place to shoehorn an interstate-grade, freeway-to-freeway interchange in that small space where the 303/60 ramps are. The current interchange is surrounded on three sides by residential areas, which would have to be condemned and destroyed. Not gonna happen.
There is enough room to build a standard "Y" interchange with ramps on the NW and NE sides of the Loop 303/US-60 interchange. It doesn't have to be a 5 level directional stack.
Quote from: KeithE4PhxThose lights are at 163rd Ave in Surprise, less than 1/2 mile from the 303, and at Center St. in Wittman. I'm willing to bet that a 3rd light will be added at AZ 74 in Morristown in the not-too-distant future.
So 3 traffic signals instead of two. Not all that big a deal. I think it beats having to drive way out past Barry Goldwater peak before starting to cut back East toward the city.
Quote from: sparkerDon't know about Arizona-based rants, but no one out here in CA has seriously suggested a 1200-1500-mile pipeline from anywhere east of the Rockies, which would be what such a project would entail. Now -- if the drought persists for a few years, and the Midwest is plagued with floods, the waters of which would otherwise run off into the Gulf, calls for such a remedy might occur. I know the thought of this would rankle the residents of several Midwest and Gulf states, but such a project would likely be federally-initiated so as to dampen the direct objections such as expressed above.
Any attempts to try to pump water into California (or Arizona) from Midwestern and Southern states would very likely be met with very intense legal action. There is already a great deal of conflict over water rights between neighbors inside this region of the nation, never mind interests in Arizona or California trying to budge into the mix.
For example interests in Oklahoma, Texas and various native tribe groups have all been in court with each other over the years with water rights lawsuits. People in the Dallas Fort Worth area are trying to claim ownership of lakes well inside of Oklahoma because they have outlets that feed into the Red River. Lawton gets its water mainly from Lake Lawtonka and Lake Ellsworth, but also has to pump water up from Waurika Lake. Interests in DFW have tried staking a claim for all 3 lakes. My attitude is screw them; they can build some more reservoirs down there and leave us alone.
We need a National Water Network to move the H2O where it is needed.
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on July 30, 2021, 10:25:09 AM
We need a National Water Network to move the H2O where it is needed.
Rick
And who decides that the Mississippi doesn't need its water? Arizona?
Quote from: nexus73 on July 30, 2021, 10:25:09 AM
We need a National Water Network to move the H2O where it is needed.
Rick
Pretty sure they're called rivers. :sombrero:
Chris
I would not support pumping out water from the Great Lakes to keep desert areas going, at least not in general. Such would be detrimental to the environment, recreational interests on the lakes (and the St. Lawrence River), as well as international shipping. Let them move somewhere that actually has water. However, I could see taking water from there on the high years like 2017 and 2019, where there was extensive flooding and erosion due to heavy precipitation in winter/spring. For situations like that, sure, move the water to where it would actually do some good, but don't start siphoning it off on the regular and lower the water level.
Hi everyone, let's please discuss national water policies in the Off Topic group, not here. Thanks.
When Interstate 11 is ultimately constructed between Interstate 10 and Interstate 40, maybe a 3di spur could be constructed to connect future Interstate 11 with Loop 303 (just northeast of the existing 303 interchange with US 60). That way a Las Vegas-to-Phoenix Interstate corridor could exist.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 30, 2021, 02:35:24 PM
When Interstate 11 is ultimately constructed between Interstate 10 and Interstate 40, maybe a 3di spur could be constructed to connect future Interstate 11 with Loop 303 (just northeast of the existing 303 interchange with US 60). That way a Las Vegas-to-Phoenix Interstate corridor could exist.
It would be more likely that a E-W connector between I-11 just south of Wickenburg and I-17 would be built more or less along AZ 74 -- but with the east end likely dipping down to Loop 303 a few miles west of 17 (just to avoid redundancy and save a few bucks) -- but knowing AZ, it would be "Loop 404" rather than the dreaded 3di!
Quote from: sparker on July 30, 2021, 05:11:19 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 30, 2021, 02:35:24 PM
When Interstate 11 is ultimately constructed between Interstate 10 and Interstate 40, maybe a 3di spur could be constructed to connect future Interstate 11 with Loop 303 (just northeast of the existing 303 interchange with US 60). That way a Las Vegas-to-Phoenix Interstate corridor could exist.
It would be more likely that a E-W connector between I-11 just south of Wickenburg and I-17 would be built more or less along AZ 74 -- but with the east end likely dipping down to Loop 303 a few miles west of 17 (just to avoid redundancy and save a few bucks) -- but knowing AZ, it would be "Loop 404" rather than the dreaded 3di!
There is a proposal for an upgrade to SR 74. If not a full freeway, then as a limited access expressway. It's not currently funded, however. But it wouldn't be called Loop 404 unless the proposed Hassayampa Freeway becomes part of I-11. It has the 404 number as of now. Loop 505 maybe? Or maybe just keep it 74. Either way, it won't be a 3di because ADOT is dead set against using them.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on July 30, 2021, 06:21:06 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 30, 2021, 05:11:19 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 30, 2021, 02:35:24 PM
When Interstate 11 is ultimately constructed between Interstate 10 and Interstate 40, maybe a 3di spur could be constructed to connect future Interstate 11 with Loop 303 (just northeast of the existing 303 interchange with US 60). That way a Las Vegas-to-Phoenix Interstate corridor could exist.
It would be more likely that a E-W connector between I-11 just south of Wickenburg and I-17 would be built more or less along AZ 74 -- but with the east end likely dipping down to Loop 303 a few miles west of 17 (just to avoid redundancy and save a few bucks) -- but knowing AZ, it would be "Loop 404" rather than the dreaded 3di!
There is a proposal for an upgrade to SR 74. If not a full freeway, then as a limited access expressway. It's not currently funded, however. But it wouldn't be called Loop 404 unless the proposed Hassayampa Freeway becomes part of I-11. It has the 404 number as of now. Loop 505 maybe? Or maybe just keep it 74. Either way, it won't be a 3di because ADOT is dead set against using them.
I remember seeing maps back in the '60's and early '70's showing I-510 where the N-S section of the I-10 inner PHX loop is today -- and ostensibly continuing north on the current AZ 51 alignment (cute, just drop the zero!) as well as a I-710 spur utilizing some of the present AZ 210 corridor. If anyone knows, just when and
why did AZDOT (or their political handlers) develop an aversion to 3di's?
I have no idea why Arizona has an aversion to 3dis, since previously proposed 410, 510, and 710 were all canceled (the first two utilized the 1/2-mile present-day Interstate 10 segment between the southern junction of Interstate 17 and Buckeye Rd. before becoming part of 10). I believe Arizona and New Mexico are the only states in the lower 48 that do not have any 3dis.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 31, 2021, 12:17:38 PM
I have no idea why Arizona has an aversion to 3dis, since previously proposed 410, 510, and 710 were all canceled (the first two utilized the 1/2-mile present-day Interstate 10 segment between the southern junction of Interstate 17 and Buckeye Rd. before becoming part of 10). I believe Arizona and New Mexico are the only states in the lower 48 that do not have any 3dis.
For the same reason why they don't allow a highway to begin and end at the same numbered road. That's why AZ 88 between Roosevelt Lake and Globe was changed to AZ 188 a few years back: AZ 88 began and ended at US 60 from the day it was assigned in 1927. It's also the reason why Historic US 66 is not signed as AZ 66 east of Peach Springs. It would also have both ends at I-40 if it were signed that way statewide.
There's no logical reason for it; it's just their policy, just like not assigning 3dis.
Of course, the Loop 202 violates that rule, and always has. Not only does it begin and end at I-10, but it crosses I-10 at the Phoenix/Chandler city limits (its former end point prior to the South Mountain Freeway being built). To enforce their policy, either the Red Mountain Freeway or the Santan & South Mountain Freeways would have to be renumbered so that one endpoint is US 60.
I thought the reason for a lack of three digit interstates was due to most freeway funding being sourced locally rather than federally?
Seattle's two 3di's (405 & 705) received a good portion of their funding from the federal government, so they received interstate designation. But the rest of our freeways were funded mostly locally, so they were not overlaid with interstate branding.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 31, 2021, 01:47:57 PM
I thought the reason for a lack of three digit interstates was due to most freeway funding being sourced locally rather than federally?
Seattle's two 3di's (405 & 705) received a good portion of their funding from the federal government, so they received interstate designation. But the rest of our freeways were funded mostly locally, so they were not overlaid with interstate branding.
Seattle's I-405 was one of the "OG" Interstates specified in the "Yellow Book", which delineated the various authorized loops and spurs (many of which were the subject of freeway protests a decade or two later). But 405 was built more or less according to the original plan. I-705, OTOH, was added later by congressional action; slipped in to a yearly outlay back in the early '80's, IIRC. Both received substantial federal funding; 405 was on the original 90% roster, while 705 got about 80% federal funding.
Quote from: sparker on July 31, 2021, 03:52:04 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 31, 2021, 01:47:57 PM
I thought the reason for a lack of three digit interstates was due to most freeway funding being sourced locally rather than federally?
Seattle's two 3di's (405 & 705) received a good portion of their funding from the federal government, so they received interstate designation. But the rest of our freeways were funded mostly locally, so they were not overlaid with interstate branding.
Seattle's I-405 was one of the "OG" Interstates specified in the "Yellow Book", which delineated the various authorized loops and spurs (many of which were the subject of freeway protests a decade or two later). But 405 was built more or less according to the original plan. I-705, OTOH, was added later by congressional action; slipped in to a yearly outlay back in the early '80's, IIRC. Both received substantial federal funding; 405 was on the original 90% roster, while 705 got about 80% federal funding.
Sounds about right, I know the local representative around here became quite the celebrity when the "Tacoma Spur" received funding; being completed in the late 80s, it makes sense for the funding to have come in during the early 80s. But compare the I-405 and I-705 freeways to 'state' routes like 509 or 167, where very little or no federal funding is involved: should be no surprise that they are taking forever to be built and will not be receiving an interstate designation when they are built to completion. I have to assume Phoenix operates in much the same way. As all but the 10 and 17 freeways were funded locally, there are no
interstates 3di's.
Quote from: jakeroot on July 31, 2021, 04:50:23 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 31, 2021, 03:52:04 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on July 31, 2021, 01:47:57 PM
I thought the reason for a lack of three digit interstates was due to most freeway funding being sourced locally rather than federally?
Seattle's two 3di's (405 & 705) received a good portion of their funding from the federal government, so they received interstate designation. But the rest of our freeways were funded mostly locally, so they were not overlaid with interstate branding.
Seattle's I-405 was one of the "OG" Interstates specified in the "Yellow Book", which delineated the various authorized loops and spurs (many of which were the subject of freeway protests a decade or two later). But 405 was built more or less according to the original plan. I-705, OTOH, was added later by congressional action; slipped in to a yearly outlay back in the early '80's, IIRC. Both received substantial federal funding; 405 was on the original 90% roster, while 705 got about 80% federal funding.
Sounds about right, I know the local representative around here became quite the celebrity when the "Tacoma Spur" received funding; being completed in the late 80s, it makes sense for the funding to have come in during the early 80s. But compare the I-405 and I-705 freeways to 'state' routes like 509 or 167, where very little or no federal funding is involved: should be no surprise that they are taking forever to be built and will not be receiving an interstate designation when they are built to completion. I have to assume Phoenix operates in much the same way. As all but the 10 and 17 freeways were funded locally, there are no interstates.
Highways, including Interstates, that are on the NHS are
supposed to be eligible for, at present, 80% Federal funding, as are designated high priority corridors. Obviously, that doesn't always work out that way, depending upon the clout demonstrated by the congressperson and/or delegation requesting such funds. Apparently the average federal input -- unless it's a well-publicized project (like the I-11 Colorado River bridge, built prior to Interstate designation but on a NHS since 1995), in which case the federal input can and does approach that 80% "cap". "Squeaky wheels" and all that! I'd venture a guess that the federal input for a project such as the initial expansion of US 93 to a 4-lane expressway gets federal funding at a rate in the mid-to-high 60's (similar to what Caltrans got for the CA 58 freeway across the desert). Of course the problem is not the precise rate of that funding coming from D.C., it's identifying the remainder which, in the case of a full freeway, is often prohibitive even to relatively flush states -- which is more likely than not the choice of "phased" development -- get the ROW squared away, lay down I-geometry carriageways, install grade crossings and access points as needed, and wait to do any "freewayization" until later -- and often one small segment at a time. In the case of US 93, it's a matter of prioritizing the safety of vehicles traveling between Wickenburg and I-40 while at the same time configuring the projects that do just that so as to expedite the expansion to a full freeway when that's possible.
It's worth noting that standard NHS funding comes from the NHPP block grant. Funds used for one project are funds not available for another. And if the project is in a MPO area (every census-designated urban area with at least 50k is required by law to have one, and the boundaries of the MPO area are often extended beyond the urban area to encompass entire municipalities and sometimes even counties), then it's the MPO that decides if federal funds can be used.
Quote from: vdeane on July 31, 2021, 10:53:24 PM
It's worth noting that standard NHS funding comes from the NHPP block grant. Funds used for one project are funds not available for another. And if the project is in a MPO area (every census-designated urban area with at least 50k is required by law to have one, and the boundaries of the MPO area are often extended beyond the urban area to encompass entire municipalities and sometimes even counties), then it's the MPO that decides if federal funds can be used.
In this case, that would be applicable to the I-11 corridor portion south of Wickenburg; but the portion along US 93 north to I-40 would lie outside such MPO bounds and thus the parvenu of AZDOT. But in any case, I'll reiterate that IMO that agency is pursuing an appropriate and realistic strategy by reconstructing US 93 as an upgradeable divided expressway -- essentially killing the proverbial two birds with one stone -- making the road safe for the volumes of commercial and recreational traffic it presently sees while taking that initial step toward a full Interstate freeway. How the Phoenix/Maricopa MPO is dealing with the section between Wickenburg and I-10 is part and parcel of the just-released EIS; they've selected their preferred corridor and, depending upon future circumstances, will likely develop at least part of that corridor.
Quote from: nexus73 on July 30, 2021, 10:25:09 AM
We need a National Water Network to move the H2O where it is needed.
Rick
There is an international treaty in place that prevents water that is in the Great Lakes basin from being diverted out of that basin. This is an issue in the Milwaukee, WI metro area because about half of the metro area is outside of that basin (drains to Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico) and those western suburbs need 'city' water.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on August 02, 2021, 10:44:27 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on July 30, 2021, 10:25:09 AM
We need a National Water Network to move the H2O where it is needed.
Rick
There is an international treaty in place that prevents water that is in the Great Lakes basin from being diverted out of that basin. This is an issue in the Milwaukee, WI metro area because about half of the metro area is outside of that basin (drains to Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico) and those western suburbs need 'city' water.
Mike
How does Chicago get around that issue? I know their water comes from Lake Michigan, yet most of the city drains to the Des Plaines River (and then to the Illinois and Mississippi).
I supplied a thread for National Water Policies in the Off-Topic Regional Board: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29861.0. I suggest the other posters utilize it (I don't understand why it hasn't been utilized), and leave this thread for comments on Interstate 11.
Quote from: US 89 on August 02, 2021, 11:10:19 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 02, 2021, 10:44:27 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on July 30, 2021, 10:25:09 AM
We need a National Water Network to move the H2O where it is needed.
Rick
There is an international treaty in place that prevents water that is in the Great Lakes basin from being diverted out of that basin. This is an issue in the Milwaukee, WI metro area because about half of the metro area is outside of that basin (drains to Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico) and those western suburbs need 'city' water.
Mike
How does Chicago get around that issue? I know their water comes from Lake Michigan, yet most of the city drains to the Des Plaines River (and then to the Illinois and Mississippi).
Before the Chicago River was reversed long ago, it was in the Great Lakes basin.
Also, I believe that the western Chicago and suburban services were grandfathered in under that treaty.
Much more recently, Milwaukee was able to sell its city water to suburban Waukesha, WI with a stipulation that Waukesha's treated wastewater be pumped back over the divide (it crosses I-94 at about Sunnyslope Rd) into Lake Michigan.
Mike
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 02, 2021, 06:34:53 PM
I supplied a thread for National Water Policies in the Off-Topic Regional Board: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29861.0. I suggest the other posters utilize it (I don't understand why it hasn't been utilized), and leave this thread for comments on Interstate 11.
Maybe a moderator should move all the off topic posts to that thread. I can't rkeener if I started and to be frank if a tad tipsy so I don't want to go back and look but if I did my bad. I agree this is off topic t1 I-11
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 02, 2021, 10:26:32 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 02, 2021, 06:34:53 PM
I supplied a thread for National Water Policies in the Off-Topic Regional Board: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29861.0. I suggest the other posters utilize it (I don't understand why it hasn't been utilized), and leave this thread for comments on Interstate 11.
Maybe a moderator should move all the off topic posts to that thread. I can't rkeener if I started and to be frank if a tad tipsy so I don't want to go back and look but if I did my bad. I agree this is off topic t1 I-11
If it's directly relevant to the progress of I-11 or to the environment where corridor routings, developmental schedules, and rationales are discussed, then there should be no problem mentioning water-related issues within that context. However, this thread isn't the place for general water discussions (like the Chicagoland particulars); that needs to be parsed out into the dedicated thread.
Quote from: sparker on August 03, 2021, 04:33:17 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 02, 2021, 10:26:32 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 02, 2021, 06:34:53 PM
I supplied a thread for National Water Policies in the Off-Topic Regional Board: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29861.0. I suggest the other posters utilize it (I don't understand why it hasn't been utilized), and leave this thread for comments on Interstate 11.
Maybe a moderator should move all the off topic posts to that thread. I can't rkeener if I started and to be frank if a tad tipsy so I don't want to go back and look but if I did my bad. I agree this is off topic t1 I-11
If it's directly relevant to the progress of I-11 or to the environment where corridor routings, developmental schedules, and rationales are discussed, then there should be no problem mentioning water-related issues within that context. However, this thread isn't the place for general water discussions (like the Chicagoland particulars); that needs to be parsed out into the dedicated thread.
I wonder if Arizona would go for a water pipeline or the like bundled with an I-11 project from Vegas to Phoenix.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 03, 2021, 05:29:08 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 03, 2021, 04:33:17 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 02, 2021, 10:26:32 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 02, 2021, 06:34:53 PM
I supplied a thread for National Water Policies in the Off-Topic Regional Board: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29861.0. I suggest the other posters utilize it (I don't understand why it hasn't been utilized), and leave this thread for comments on Interstate 11.
Maybe a moderator should move all the off topic posts to that thread. I can't rkeener if I started and to be frank if a tad tipsy so I don't want to go back and look but if I did my bad. I agree this is off topic t1 I-11
If it's directly relevant to the progress of I-11 or to the environment where corridor routings, developmental schedules, and rationales are discussed, then there should be no problem mentioning water-related issues within that context. However, this thread isn't the place for general water discussions (like the Chicagoland particulars); that needs to be parsed out into the dedicated thread.
I wonder if Arizona would go for a water pipeline or the like bundled with an I-11 project from Vegas to Phoenix.
Seeing as how the Colorado River watershed is experiencing drought effects like most others in the region, that idea might, at least for the time being, be a non-starter. Besides, the I-11 trajectory is hardly a flat profile; a southward water transfer would require multiple pumping stations. If water from that river were to be drawn out for use in greater Phoenix, one of the downstream dams would likely provide a more efficient extraction point -- perhaps along the lower reaches of the Bill Williams River branch of Lake Havasu, which would necessitate about 100 miles less pipeline. Nevertheless, no project of this type would even be considered in the present climate environment, much less one that would require a considerable amount of I-11 facility reconfiguration to accommodate a pipeline and its associated works.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 03, 2021, 05:29:08 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 03, 2021, 04:33:17 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 02, 2021, 10:26:32 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 02, 2021, 06:34:53 PM
I supplied a thread for National Water Policies in the Off-Topic Regional Board: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29861.0. I suggest the other posters utilize it (I don't understand why it hasn't been utilized), and leave this thread for comments on Interstate 11.
Maybe a moderator should move all the off topic posts to that thread. I can't rkeener if I started and to be frank if a tad tipsy so I don't want to go back and look but if I did my bad. I agree this is off topic t1 I-11
If it's directly relevant to the progress of I-11 or to the environment where corridor routings, developmental schedules, and rationales are discussed, then there should be no problem mentioning water-related issues within that context. However, this thread isn't the place for general water discussions (like the Chicagoland particulars); that needs to be parsed out into the dedicated thread.
I wonder if Arizona would go for a water pipeline or the like bundled with an I-11 project from Vegas to Phoenix.
Arizona seems to be getting its water needs met from the Colorado River by the Central Arizona Project. Any further capacity via a second route would likely outstrip the state's entitlement to water from the river under the Colorado River Compact
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 29, 2021, 11:24:59 PM
Quote from: KeithE4PhxThere is no place to shoehorn an interstate-grade, freeway-to-freeway interchange in that small space where the 303/60 ramps are. The current interchange is surrounded on three sides by residential areas, which would have to be condemned and destroyed. Not gonna happen.
There is enough room to build a standard "Y" interchange with ramps on the NW and NE sides of the Loop 303/US-60 interchange. It doesn't have to be a 5 level directional stack.
Quote from: KeithE4PhxThose lights are at 163rd Ave in Surprise, less than 1/2 mile from the 303, and at Center St. in Wittman. I'm willing to bet that a 3rd light will be added at AZ 74 in Morristown in the not-too-distant future.
So 3 traffic signals instead of two. Not all that big a deal. I think it beats having to drive way out past Barry Goldwater peak before starting to cut back East toward the city.
I drive between Phoenix and Las Vegas and points north often, just did last week.
The US 60/Grand interchange has become an increasing bottleneck over the past few years. It's gotten to the point that ADOT has added slow traffic signs and changed some lane striping on NB 303 as traffic exiting to US 60 has backed up quite a bit of a way onto NB 303, and it's worse every time.
I think as the corridor between the 303/60 interchange and Wickenburg continues to grow it will become less and less traveled if an alternative happens, I have already seen the speed limits get lowered over the past couple of years. Combine that with still having to travel through most of actual Wickenburg at slow speeds and a full freeway even further west looks more attractive.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on August 03, 2021, 02:16:17 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 03, 2021, 05:29:08 AM
Quote from: sparker on August 03, 2021, 04:33:17 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 02, 2021, 10:26:32 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 02, 2021, 06:34:53 PM
I supplied a thread for National Water Policies in the Off-Topic Regional Board: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29861.0. I suggest the other posters utilize it (I don't understand why it hasn't been utilized), and leave this thread for comments on Interstate 11.
Maybe a moderator should move all the off topic posts to that thread. I can't rkeener if I started and to be frank if a tad tipsy so I don't want to go back and look but if I did my bad. I agree this is off topic t1 I-11
If it's directly relevant to the progress of I-11 or to the environment where corridor routings, developmental schedules, and rationales are discussed, then there should be no problem mentioning water-related issues within that context. However, this thread isn't the place for general water discussions (like the Chicagoland particulars); that needs to be parsed out into the dedicated thread.
I wonder if Arizona would go for a water pipeline or the like bundled with an I-11 project from Vegas to Phoenix.
Arizona seems to be getting its water needs met from the Colorado River by the Central Arizona Project. Any further capacity via a second route would likely outstrip the state's entitlement to water from the river under the Colorado River Compact
Thanks all... please use the new link provided by Ghostbuster for any more water discussion. From here, we'll continue with Interstate 11.
SM-G975U
Quote from: kdk on August 03, 2021, 06:46:26 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 29, 2021, 11:24:59 PM
Quote from: KeithE4PhxThere is no place to shoehorn an interstate-grade, freeway-to-freeway interchange in that small space where the 303/60 ramps are. The current interchange is surrounded on three sides by residential areas, which would have to be condemned and destroyed. Not gonna happen.
There is enough room to build a standard "Y" interchange with ramps on the NW and NE sides of the Loop 303/US-60 interchange. It doesn't have to be a 5 level directional stack.
Quote from: KeithE4PhxThose lights are at 163rd Ave in Surprise, less than 1/2 mile from the 303, and at Center St. in Wittman. I'm willing to bet that a 3rd light will be added at AZ 74 in Morristown in the not-too-distant future.
So 3 traffic signals instead of two. Not all that big a deal. I think it beats having to drive way out past Barry Goldwater peak before starting to cut back East toward the city.
I drive between Phoenix and Las Vegas and points north often, just did last week.
The US 60/Grand interchange has become an increasing bottleneck over the past few years. It's gotten to the point that ADOT has added slow traffic signs and changed some lane striping on NB 303 as traffic exiting to US 60 has backed up quite a bit of a way onto NB 303, and it's worse every time.
I think as the corridor between the 303/60 interchange and Wickenburg continues to grow it will become less and less traveled if an alternative happens, I have already seen the speed limits get lowered over the past couple of years. Combine that with still having to travel through most of actual Wickenburg at slow speeds and a full freeway even further west looks more attractive.
I believe that to be true. A quick look at GSV shows practically all of the traffic on 303 in the right lane waiting to exit onto 60. Incredible. I think they need to widen the offramp to allow for two highway lanes to exit onto 60.
I wonder about the possibliity of upgrading Sun Valley Pkwy or extending Northern Pkwy as other ways of bettter connecting I-11 to Metro Phoenix.
Northern Parkway can't really go anywhere though unless they plow right through the White Tanks, which would never in a million years happen.
Quote from: Sonic99 on August 15, 2021, 09:10:09 PM
Northern Parkway can't really go anywhere though unless they plow right through the White Tanks, which would never in a million years happen.
The tribal governments would be apoplectic if that were to be seriously proposed. At this time, given all the info provided in the last series of posts, the likely scenario for I-11 would be as follows:
1: The Wickenburg bypass will be built first, with an initial connector over to US 60 near the AZ 74 junction.
2: I-11 itself will be built south via the Hassayampa alignment to I-10; an interchange will be built there, a few miles west of the present AZ 85 junction.
3: That configuration will sit there for several years or even past a decade. The next step, funding willing, will be conditional:
4(a): Phoenix in general continues its outsized growth pattern; the area including Maricopa down to Casa Grande increasingly becomes filled with housing and related facilities, making a Phoenix bypass a desired feature. I-11 extends, per the most recent routing map, east on I-10 and south on AZ 85 before veering off SE to head through Maricopa and terminate at I-8 between Stanfield and Casa Grande, or --
4(b): The growth shrinks substantially; the open tracts south of Phoenix remain largely vacant. After much hemming and hawing, and soul-searching (if a DOT can have one!) over the course of a few years, it's decided to simply continue I-11 down AZ 85 to Gila Bend* and I-8 as a "virtual" Phoenix bypass and an Interstate connector Phoenix>San Diego.
*Been looking at the flooding in that town the last day or so. Never would have though it (but I also wouldn't have thought the Dixie fire would still be burning after a month -- it'll likely continue to do so until it runs out of fuel!)
Quote from: sparker on August 15, 2021, 09:46:15 PM
Quote from: Sonic99 on August 15, 2021, 09:10:09 PM
Northern Parkway can't really go anywhere though unless they plow right through the White Tanks, which would never in a million years happen.
The tribal governments would be apoplectic if that were to be seriously proposed.
Not gonna happen. I don't have any idea how it could even be possible. A tunnel through South Mountain in Phoenix was proposed to extend 32nd St. years ago, and that never got past the proposal stage. Not only did the Gila River tribal government protest, but with a couple dozen FM/TV towers sitting on top, there's no way it can be done. Blasting could destroy the towers, even 1500 feet above ground level.
QuoteAt this time, given all the info provided in the last series of posts, the likely scenario for I-11 would be as follows:
1: The Wickenburg bypass will be built first, with an initial connector over to US 60 near the AZ 74 junction.
2: I-11 itself will be built south via the Hassayampa alignment to I-10; an interchange will be built there, a few miles west of the present AZ 85 junction.
3: That configuration will sit there for several years or even past a decade. The next step, funding willing, will be conditional:
4(a): Phoenix in general continues its outsized growth pattern; the area including Maricopa down to Casa Grande increasingly becomes filled with housing and related facilities, making a Phoenix bypass a desired feature. I-11 extends, per the most recent routing map, east on I-10 and south on AZ 85 before veering off SE to head through Maricopa and terminate at I-8 between Stanfield and Casa Grande, or --
4(b): The growth shrinks substantially; the open tracts south of Phoenix remain largely vacant. After much hemming and hawing, and soul-searching (if a DOT can have one!) over the course of a few years, it's decided to simply continue I-11 down AZ 85 to Gila Bend* and I-8 as a "virtual" Phoenix bypass and an Interstate connector Phoenix>San Diego.
AFAIK, there is funding to upgrade the last two remaining 2-lane sections of US 93 north of Wickieup, including the I-40 ramps, but through/around Wickieup and (more importantly), the Joshua Forest Hwy section north of Wickenburg are not on anyone's radar. Those have to be completed before any conversion to I-11 happens south of I-40. The latter should be fast-tracked, and I have no idea why it isn't, given the number of wrecks there.
Beyond that, your proposals #1, 2, 3, and 4b are the more likely result. I can't see I-11 ever being built south of I-8 because pathologically anti-freeway Pima County will never allow it.
^^^^^^
4b is definitely the path of least resistance for further extensions of I-11. To cement its role as both a Phoenix bypass and a San Diego- Phoenix connector, I-11 needs to have the following control cities signed:
SB towards I-10: Phoenix
At the western I-10 interchange:
WB 10 Los Angeles
EB 10 SB 11 Phoenix
NB 11 Las Vegas
At the eastern I-10 interchange:
EB 10 Phoenix
EB 10 to SB 11 Gila Bend / Tucson
WB 10 to SB 11 Gila Bend / San Diego
WB 10 NB 11 Los Angeles / Las Vegas
At the I-8/I-11 interchange:
WB 8 San Diego
EB 8 Tucson
WB 8 to NB 11 Los Angeles / Las Vegas
EB 8 to NB 11 Phoenix / Las Vegas
At the I-8/I-10 interchange, the control city for I-8 is appropriately San Diego. Supplemental signage should direct both Las Vegas and Los Angeles traffic to I-8 as part of the Phoenix bypass.
Under the 4b approach, I-11 can simply terminate at I-8. No need to extend the designation any further than the Gila Bend area.
Quote from: mrsman on August 17, 2021, 08:59:44 AM
^^^^^^
4b is definitely the path of least resistance for further extensions of I-11. To cement its role as both a Phoenix bypass and a San Diego- Phoenix connector, I-11 needs to have the following control cities signed:
SB towards I-10: Phoenix
At the western I-10 interchange:
WB 10 Los Angeles
EB 10 SB 11 Phoenix
NB 11 Las Vegas
At the eastern I-10 interchange:
EB 10 Phoenix
EB 10 to SB 11 Gila Bend / Tucson
WB 10 to SB 11 Gila Bend / San Diego
WB 10 NB 11 Los Angeles / Las Vegas
At the I-8/I-11 interchange:
WB 8 San Diego
EB 8 Tucson
WB 8 to NB 11 Los Angeles / Las Vegas
EB 8 to NB 11 Phoenix / Las Vegas
At the I-8/I-10 interchange, the control city for I-8 is appropriately San Diego. Supplemental signage should direct both Las Vegas and Los Angeles traffic to I-8 as part of the Phoenix bypass.
Under the 4b approach, I-11 can simply terminate at I-8. No need to extend the designation any further than the Gila Bend area.
That signage plan really looks good. Unless someone at AZDOT goes completely bonkers and plans an extension down AZ 85 to the border (given the Nogales extension, I wouldn't put it past anyone in that state), there's no rational reason for I-11 to continue past Gila Bend. And, down the line, if new roads through the Maricopa area are required, they can be state highways, as per historic AZ preference anyway.
Quote from: nexus73 on July 30, 2021, 10:25:09 AM
We need a National Water Network to move the H2O where it is needed.
Rick
God no, we went through this in the 60s with NAWAPA. It was a dumb idea then and a dumber one now.
Quote from: kernals12 on August 24, 2021, 04:31:30 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on July 30, 2021, 10:25:09 AM
We need a National Water Network to move the H2O where it is needed.
Rick
God no, we went through this in the 60s with NAWAPA. It was a dumb idea then and a dumber one now.
There's a whole thread on this now with multiple mods telling people to lay off the subject and take the conversation to the appropriate thread.
Quote from: mrsman on August 15, 2021, 05:36:44 PM
Quote from: kdk on August 03, 2021, 06:46:26 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 29, 2021, 11:24:59 PM
Quote from: KeithE4PhxThere is no place to shoehorn an interstate-grade, freeway-to-freeway interchange in that small space where the 303/60 ramps are. The current interchange is surrounded on three sides by residential areas, which would have to be condemned and destroyed. Not gonna happen.
There is enough room to build a standard "Y" interchange with ramps on the NW and NE sides of the Loop 303/US-60 interchange. It doesn't have to be a 5 level directional stack.
Quote from: KeithE4PhxThose lights are at 163rd Ave in Surprise, less than 1/2 mile from the 303, and at Center St. in Wittman. I'm willing to bet that a 3rd light will be added at AZ 74 in Morristown in the not-too-distant future.
So 3 traffic signals instead of two. Not all that big a deal. I think it beats having to drive way out past Barry Goldwater peak before starting to cut back East toward the city.
I drive between Phoenix and Las Vegas and points north often, just did last week.
The US 60/Grand interchange has become an increasing bottleneck over the past few years. It's gotten to the point that ADOT has added slow traffic signs and changed some lane striping on NB 303 as traffic exiting to US 60 has backed up quite a bit of a way onto NB 303, and it's worse every time.
I think as the corridor between the 303/60 interchange and Wickenburg continues to grow it will become less and less traveled if an alternative happens, I have already seen the speed limits get lowered over the past couple of years. Combine that with still having to travel through most of actual Wickenburg at slow speeds and a full freeway even further west looks more attractive.
I believe that to be true. A quick look at GSV shows practically all of the traffic on 303 in the right lane waiting to exit onto 60. Incredible. I think they need to widen the offramp to allow for two highway lanes to exit onto 60.
I wonder about the possibliity of upgrading Sun Valley Pkwy or extending Northern Pkwy as other ways of bettter connecting I-11 to Metro Phoenix.
I don't know if that would help enough. There's already two left turn lanes, another lane would help but there's so much truck traffic and with a stoplight that the semis slow acceleration rates prevent a lot of traffic from getting through each green cycle. It felt like recently they lengthened the amount of time the light is green from the exit ramp, but unless they figure out a free flowing ramp that doesn't have a stoplight this is going to get worse. With the tracks adjacent to the 60 on the northeast side that's not an easy one to figure.
It's like the Kingman 93/I-40 interchange, when you force interstate type traffic onto surface streets you can't easily build your way out of them.
Extending Sun Valley north would run it to about the 60/74 intersection and could help, but Sun Valley has a lot of new development along it now just north of I-10 in Buckeye and will end up eventually like a Bell Road with lots of stoplights and local traffic.
Probably the best plan was on the old Loop 404 plan. There was a freeway that started at the 303/60 interchange and paralleled US 60 northwest then turned due west south of Morristown, eventually ending at I-11 (although on this plan the 11 corridor was also the Loop 404 at the time). Not sure if the corridor is still feasible, but most of the land still seems open.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shereth/PhoenixFreewayConcepts#mediaviewer/File:Phoenix_Metro_Area_Future_Freeway_System.svg
FWIW I found this map of ADOT planned improvements to the US 93 corridor from Wickenburg to Kingman (updated Summer 2021):
https://azdot.gov/sites/default/files/media/2021/06/us-93-corridor-map-Update2.pdf
Quote from: kdk on September 10, 2021, 06:06:02 PM
Quote from: mrsman on August 15, 2021, 05:36:44 PM
Quote from: kdk on August 03, 2021, 06:46:26 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 29, 2021, 11:24:59 PM
Quote from: KeithE4PhxThere is no place to shoehorn an interstate-grade, freeway-to-freeway interchange in that small space where the 303/60 ramps are. The current interchange is surrounded on three sides by residential areas, which would have to be condemned and destroyed. Not gonna happen.
There is enough room to build a standard "Y" interchange with ramps on the NW and NE sides of the Loop 303/US-60 interchange. It doesn't have to be a 5 level directional stack.
Quote from: KeithE4PhxThose lights are at 163rd Ave in Surprise, less than 1/2 mile from the 303, and at Center St. in Wittman. I'm willing to bet that a 3rd light will be added at AZ 74 in Morristown in the not-too-distant future.
So 3 traffic signals instead of two. Not all that big a deal. I think it beats having to drive way out past Barry Goldwater peak before starting to cut back East toward the city.
I drive between Phoenix and Las Vegas and points north often, just did last week.
The US 60/Grand interchange has become an increasing bottleneck over the past few years. It's gotten to the point that ADOT has added slow traffic signs and changed some lane striping on NB 303 as traffic exiting to US 60 has backed up quite a bit of a way onto NB 303, and it's worse every time.
I think as the corridor between the 303/60 interchange and Wickenburg continues to grow it will become less and less traveled if an alternative happens, I have already seen the speed limits get lowered over the past couple of years. Combine that with still having to travel through most of actual Wickenburg at slow speeds and a full freeway even further west looks more attractive.
I believe that to be true. A quick look at GSV shows practically all of the traffic on 303 in the right lane waiting to exit onto 60. Incredible. I think they need to widen the offramp to allow for two highway lanes to exit onto 60.
I wonder about the possibliity of upgrading Sun Valley Pkwy or extending Northern Pkwy as other ways of bettter connecting I-11 to Metro Phoenix.
I don't know if that would help enough. There's already two left turn lanes, another lane would help but there's so much truck traffic and with a stoplight that the semis slow acceleration rates prevent a lot of traffic from getting through each green cycle. It felt like recently they lengthened the amount of time the light is green from the exit ramp, but unless they figure out a free flowing ramp that doesn't have a stoplight this is going to get worse. With the tracks adjacent to the 60 on the northeast side that's not an easy one to figure.
It's like the Kingman 93/I-40 interchange, when you force interstate type traffic onto surface streets you can't easily build your way out of them.
Extending Sun Valley north would run it to about the 60/74 intersection and could help, but Sun Valley has a lot of new development along it now just north of I-10 in Buckeye and will end up eventually like a Bell Road with lots of stoplights and local traffic.
Probably the best plan was on the old Loop 404 plan. There was a freeway that started at the 303/60 interchange and paralleled US 60 northwest then turned due west south of Morristown, eventually ending at I-11 (although on this plan the 11 corridor was also the Loop 404 at the time). Not sure if the corridor is still feasible, but most of the land still seems open.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shereth/PhoenixFreewayConcepts#mediaviewer/File:Phoenix_Metro_Area_Future_Freeway_System.svg
But think of all the sign thefts and jokes.
Quote from: Roadwarriors79 on September 25, 2021, 08:12:50 PM
FWIW I found this map of ADOT planned improvements to the US 93 corridor from Wickenburg to Kingman (updated Summer 2021):
https://azdot.gov/sites/default/files/media/2021/06/us-93-corridor-map-Update2.pdf
Which begs the question, how much of US 93 and other parts of the I-11 corridor are up to Interstate standards?
Quote
Which begs the question, how much of US 93 and other parts of the I-11 corridor are up to Interstate standards?
The short answer is almost none of it. Most, if not all, of US 93 does not have access control, which would need to be established for the whole corridor.
For a geometric perspective, the 4 lane sections were designed at 65mph or 70mph. The horizontal and vertical geometry, typical section and such, would be sufficient for an interstate freeway standard.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on July 25, 2021, 03:11:30 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on July 25, 2021, 01:35:27 PM
^^^^ surely ADOT will upgrade the corridor between Phoenix and Vegas to interstate standards before they build I-11 south of I-8.
I believe they're going to work from north to south for the most part. It looks like work on what will be the I-11/40 bypass ramps on the north side of Kingman is going to start soon (the linked article says 2023, but I've heard that it might start early next year). That will eliminate the Beale Street bottleneck at I-40. When I drove to Vegas a couple weeks ago, 93 southbound was backed up past AZ 68 due to an accident, and it took hours to reopen. Fortunately, I was going north.
https://azdot.gov/projects/northwest-district-projects/us-93-i-40-west-kingman-traffic-interchange-project
I hope this gets done sooner rather than later. I just went through there a couple of weeks ago (went from Monument Valley to Vegas by way of the Grand Canyon) and that WB 40 offramp to NB 93 was backed up a good mile on I-40.
Quote from: rower155 on October 29, 2021, 03:49:58 PM
Quote
Which begs the question, how much of US 93 and other parts of the I-11 corridor are up to Interstate standards?
The short answer is almost none of it. Most, if not all, of US 93 does not have access control, which would need to be established for the whole corridor.
Full interchanges will be needed at AZ 71, 89, 97, and maybe a few county roads closer to I-40.
The current US 93 segment that goes into Wickenburg and ends at US 60 will have to be accommodated as well. I-11 will likely veer due south at that point, with the current road going southeast (it will eventually have to be renumbered as something other than US 93 if ADOT keeps control of it). Where that point is (Vulture Mine Rd? Right at AZ 89?) is yet to be determined.
The interchange at I-40 will have to be improved, and something will have to be done about Wickieup, since the highway goes straight through town.
Then, there are about 3 dozen ranch turnoffs along the route that will need to be accommodated. Probably will have to remain at-grade since most of the property gates are only a few feet off the highway on either side.
Quote from: kdk on September 10, 2021, 06:06:02 PM
Probably the best plan was on the old Loop 404 plan. There was a freeway that started at the 303/60 interchange and paralleled US 60 northwest then turned due west south of Morristown, eventually ending at I-11 (although on this plan the 11 corridor was also the Loop 404 at the time). Not sure if the corridor is still feasible, but most of the land still seems open.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shereth/PhoenixFreewayConcepts#mediaviewer/File:Phoenix_Metro_Area_Future_Freeway_System.svg
That is a very old map. What was proposed as the Loop 404 and AZ 174 is now a possible route for I-11. I believe the northern segment of the 404, from AZ 174 to 303, has been dropped.
AZ 801 is now AZ 30, and AZ 802 is now AZ 24. I've never seen any real proposals for either AZ 274 or AZ 803.
The Pinal North-South Fwy (shown as AZ 88) has been approved, but on a slightly different route completely separate from AZ 87 south of Coolidge, and connecting to a bypass of Gold Canyon that would be a new segment of US 60.
It would have been interesting to number that freeway as 88 (unlikely now, with the new routing). I can't think of any numbered road in the country that is a freeway at one end and a dirt road at the other.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on October 29, 2021, 06:12:41 PM
Quote from: kdk on September 10, 2021, 06:06:02 PM
Probably the best plan was on the old Loop 404 plan. There was a freeway that started at the 303/60 interchange and paralleled US 60 northwest then turned due west south of Morristown, eventually ending at I-11 (although on this plan the 11 corridor was also the Loop 404 at the time). Not sure if the corridor is still feasible, but most of the land still seems open.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shereth/PhoenixFreewayConcepts#mediaviewer/File:Phoenix_Metro_Area_Future_Freeway_System.svg
That is a very old map. What was proposed as the Loop 404 and AZ 174 is now a possible route for I-11. I believe the northern segment of the 404, from AZ 174 to 303, has been dropped.
AZ 801 is now AZ 30, and AZ 802 is now AZ 24. I've never seen any real proposals for either AZ 274 or AZ 803.
The Pinal North-South Fwy (shown as AZ 88) has been approved, but on a slightly different route completely separate from AZ 87 south of Coolidge, and connecting to a bypass of Gold Canyon that would be a new segment of US 60.
It would have been interesting to number that freeway as 88 (unlikely now, with the new routing). I can't think of any numbered road in the country that is a freeway at one end and a dirt road at the other.
The north end of I-229 used to be, but I believe it's now paved.
Record of Decision baby!
https://azdot.gov/adot-news/adot-and-fhwa-publish-interstate-11-record-decision
And with Arizona getting showered with billions in federal infrastructure funds, money should not be an issue.
I'm not against an eventual I-11 extension south to the border but why the hell is this being studied at all when the most important segment which is Phoenix to Vegas doesn't even have a single project under construction right now?
I also think that the route is a horrible choice. They should follow US-60 as much as possible into central Phoenix until ROW and design starts getting really high. Eventually take it all the way to I-17 but for now settle at the loop 101. Focus on building I-11 from the loop 101 to I-40 and into Nevada. That's the most important part IMO.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 16, 2021, 08:08:05 PM
I'm not against an eventual I-11 extension south to the border but why the hell is this being studied at all when the most important segment which is Phoenix to Vegas doesn't even have a single project under construction right now?
I also think that the route is a horrible choice. They should follow US-60 as much as possible into central Phoenix until ROW and design starts getting really high. Eventually take it all the way to I-17 but for now settle at the loop 101. Focus on building I-11 from the loop 101 to I-40 and into Nevada. That's the most important part IMO.
Buckeye has just 90,000 people right now, but it's zoned for 1.5 million. Those people need a freeway.
Also, I'm having trouble visualizing your proposed route, could you sketch it for me?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 16, 2021, 08:08:05 PM
I'm not against an eventual I-11 extension south to the border but why the hell is this being studied at all when the most important segment which is Phoenix to Vegas doesn't even have a single project under construction right now?
I also think that the route is a horrible choice. They should follow US-60 as much as possible into central Phoenix until ROW and design starts getting really high. Eventually take it all the way to I-17 but for now settle at the loop 101. Focus on building I-11 from the loop 101 to I-40 and into Nevada. That's the most important part IMO.
Exactly. The purpose of a limited access US 93 (and maybe someday I-11) should be to provide, as direct a route as possible, to connect Phoenix, and Las Vegas. Not to satisfy a fat cat developer. By winding all over the place, on the far west side of the Phoenix metro. Loop 303 is already there, anyways.
Quote from: kernals12 on November 16, 2021, 08:11:56 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 16, 2021, 08:08:05 PM
I'm not against an eventual I-11 extension south to the border but why the hell is this being studied at all when the most important segment which is Phoenix to Vegas doesn't even have a single project under construction right now?
I also think that the route is a horrible choice. They should follow US-60 as much as possible into central Phoenix until ROW and design starts getting really high. Eventually take it all the way to I-17 but for now settle at the loop 101. Focus on building I-11 from the loop 101 to I-40 and into Nevada. That's the most important part IMO.
Buckeye has just 90,000 people right now, but it's zoned for 1.5 million. Those people need a freeway.
Also, I'm having trouble visualizing your proposed route, could you sketch it for me?
Buckeye can still get a freeway either x-11 or local number.
So my route follows US-60 from Wickenburg going over Loop 303 and temporarily terminating at Loop 101. Here is a graphic I threw together isn't great but shows the concept.
(https://awesomescreenshot.s3.amazonaws.com/image/142351/16870409-631b208fb1ada3a2b54640a5f11de7c9.png?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAJSCJQ2NM3XLFPVKA%2F20211117%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20211117T012242Z&X-Amz-Expires=28800&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=1273ab649bc9eee8e8f54e142dd8790075bb306f2202e09c846f935d91ab9d05)
You can see ADOTs route to left and my route which is red and blue. The blue portion is built much later after the red portion is constructed to Wickenburg and eventually extended to connect to Nevada's I-11. The blue portion is one of the last segments and then the part following existing freeways is either signed as I-11, cosigned with I-17, or I-11 terminates at I-17 for the foreseeable future. I really couldn't care less what happens with this road after it hits I-17.
Correct me I am wrong, but the purpose of I-11 is to connect Phoenix to Las Vegas, no? At least that is what is talked about how Phoenix and Vegas are the two largest cities not directly connected with an interstate.
Quote from: DJStephens on November 16, 2021, 08:17:54 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 16, 2021, 08:08:05 PM
I'm not against an eventual I-11 extension south to the border but why the hell is this being studied at all when the most important segment which is Phoenix to Vegas doesn't even have a single project under construction right now?
I also think that the route is a horrible choice. They should follow US-60 as much as possible into central Phoenix until ROW and design starts getting really high. Eventually take it all the way to I-17 but for now settle at the loop 101. Focus on building I-11 from the loop 101 to I-40 and into Nevada. That's the most important part IMO.
Exactly. The purpose of a limited access US 93 (and maybe someday I-11) should be to provide, as direct a route as possible, to connect Phoenix, and Las Vegas. Not to satisfy a fat cat developer. By winding all over the place, on the far west side of the Phoenix metro. Loop 303 is already there, anyways.
Yeah I really don't see the appeal of driving far out west along I-10 to travel north on US-93 to get to Las Vegas. The portion from Route 101 to 303 seems relatively easy to upgrade. The portion from Loop 303 to Wickenburg seems like a slam dunk.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 16, 2021, 08:08:05 PM
I'm not against an eventual I-11 extension south to the border but why the hell is this being studied at all when the most important segment which is Phoenix to Vegas doesn't even have a single project under construction right now?
Construction on the new US 93/I-11 ramps to/from I-40 in Kingman that will eliminate the Beale Street Backup is supposed to start next year. Most of 93 south of I-40 is four lanes now, with a few short segments including new ramps at I-40, a final decision on Wickieup, and the dangerous Joshua Tree Highway segment NW of Wickenburg (25 miles) yet to begin. The latter should be a top priority due to the numerous accidents in that area.
No exit ramps at AZ 89, 71, and 97 have been constructed or even planned, since I believe they're going to upgrade the segment of 93 between Kingman and the state line first.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 16, 2021, 08:28:04 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 16, 2021, 08:11:56 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 16, 2021, 08:08:05 PM
I'm not against an eventual I-11 extension south to the border but why the hell is this being studied at all when the most important segment which is Phoenix to Vegas doesn't even have a single project under construction right now?
I also think that the route is a horrible choice. They should follow US-60 as much as possible into central Phoenix until ROW and design starts getting really high. Eventually take it all the way to I-17 but for now settle at the loop 101. Focus on building I-11 from the loop 101 to I-40 and into Nevada. That's the most important part IMO.
Buckeye has just 90,000 people right now, but it's zoned for 1.5 million. Those people need a freeway.
Also, I'm having trouble visualizing your proposed route, could you sketch it for me?
Buckeye can still get a freeway either x-11 or local number.
So my route follows US-60 from Wickenburg going over Loop 303 and temporarily terminating at Loop 101. Here is a graphic I threw together isn't great but shows the concept.
(https://awesomescreenshot.s3.amazonaws.com/image/142351/16870409-631b208fb1ada3a2b54640a5f11de7c9.png?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAJSCJQ2NM3XLFPVKA%2F20211117%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20211117T012242Z&X-Amz-Expires=28800&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=1273ab649bc9eee8e8f54e142dd8790075bb306f2202e09c846f935d91ab9d05)
You can see ADOTs route to left and my route which is red and blue. The blue portion is built much later after the red portion is constructed to Wickenburg and eventually extended to connect to Nevada's I-11. The blue portion is one of the last segments and then the part following existing freeways is either signed as I-11, cosigned with I-17, or I-11 terminates at I-17 for the foreseeable future. I really couldn't care less what happens with this road after it hits I-17.
Correct me I am wrong, but the purpose of I-11 is to connect Phoenix to Las Vegas, no? At least that is what is talked about how Phoenix and Vegas are the two largest cities not directly connected with an interstate.
Your proposed route would require the demolition of thousands of homes and businesses and look at how little space there is on I-17 between your I-11 interchange and the I-10 interchange.
Whereas ADOT's I-11 relieves traffic on I-10, yours makes it worse.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 16, 2021, 08:28:04 PM
Correct me I am wrong, but the purpose of I-11 is to connect Phoenix to Las Vegas, no? At least that is what is talked about how Phoenix and Vegas are the two largest cities not directly connected with an interstate.
You're wrong. The purpose of I-11 is to get trucks from Nogales to Las Vegas, while bypassing Phoenix. I have no idea why they decided to route it so far west, but they did, and that's that. A major upgrade to US 60 between the Loop 303 and Wickenburg is in order, including a bypass around that city, but it will never be upgraded to a full freeway into Phoenix. That proposal was dropped years ago.
I still think it will never see the light of day south of I-8. I-10 and I-19 already cover the Nogales-to-Casa Grande leg, and I-8 can take over from there. Besides, Pima County is so violently anti-freeway, that they will never approve it.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on November 16, 2021, 08:49:11 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 16, 2021, 08:28:04 PM
Correct me I am wrong, but the purpose of I-11 is to connect Phoenix to Las Vegas, no? At least that is what is talked about how Phoenix and Vegas are the two largest cities not directly connected with an interstate.
You're wrong. The purpose of I-11 is to get trucks from Nogales to Las Vegas, while bypassing Phoenix. I have no idea why they decided to route it so far west, but they did, and that's that. A major upgrade to US 60 between the Loop 303 and Wickenburg is in order, including a bypass around that city, but it will never be upgraded to a full freeway into Phoenix. That proposal was dropped years ago.
I still think it will never see the light of day south of I-8. I-10 and I-19 already cover the Nogales-to-Casa Grande leg, and I-8 can take over from there. Besides, Pima County is so violently anti-freeway, that they will never approve it.
So by your own admission you say the real plan won't ever be realized but yet we should still build it as intended? I am certain I've seen it mentioned several times how Phoenix and Las Vegas will be connected when mentioning this. So I assume then we'll see more truck traffic using it than Phoenicians traveling to and from Las Vegas?
Quote from: kernals12 on November 16, 2021, 08:38:22 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 16, 2021, 08:28:04 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 16, 2021, 08:11:56 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 16, 2021, 08:08:05 PM
I'm not against an eventual I-11 extension south to the border but why the hell is this being studied at all when the most important segment which is Phoenix to Vegas doesn't even have a single project under construction right now?
I also think that the route is a horrible choice. They should follow US-60 as much as possible into central Phoenix until ROW and design starts getting really high. Eventually take it all the way to I-17 but for now settle at the loop 101. Focus on building I-11 from the loop 101 to I-40 and into Nevada. That's the most important part IMO.
Buckeye has just 90,000 people right now, but it's zoned for 1.5 million. Those people need a freeway.
Also, I'm having trouble visualizing your proposed route, could you sketch it for me?
Buckeye can still get a freeway either x-11 or local number.
So my route follows US-60 from Wickenburg going over Loop 303 and temporarily terminating at Loop 101. Here is a graphic I threw together isn't great but shows the concept.
(https://awesomescreenshot.s3.amazonaws.com/image/142351/16870409-631b208fb1ada3a2b54640a5f11de7c9.png?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAJSCJQ2NM3XLFPVKA%2F20211117%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20211117T012242Z&X-Amz-Expires=28800&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=1273ab649bc9eee8e8f54e142dd8790075bb306f2202e09c846f935d91ab9d05)
You can see ADOTs route to left and my route which is red and blue. The blue portion is built much later after the red portion is constructed to Wickenburg and eventually extended to connect to Nevada's I-11. The blue portion is one of the last segments and then the part following existing freeways is either signed as I-11, cosigned with I-17, or I-11 terminates at I-17 for the foreseeable future. I really couldn't care less what happens with this road after it hits I-17.
Correct me I am wrong, but the purpose of I-11 is to connect Phoenix to Las Vegas, no? At least that is what is talked about how Phoenix and Vegas are the two largest cities not directly connected with an interstate.
Your proposed route would require the demolition of thousands of homes and businesses and look at how little space there is on I-17 between your I-11 interchange and the I-10 interchange.
Whereas ADOT's I-11 relieves traffic on I-10, yours makes it worse.
How does my proposal make I-10 traffic worse when I propose the Phoenix bypass as an X-11 and giving Phoenix residents a more direct route to Vegas instead of using I-10 to west Phoenix?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 16, 2021, 09:04:43 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on November 16, 2021, 08:49:11 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 16, 2021, 08:28:04 PM
Correct me I am wrong, but the purpose of I-11 is to connect Phoenix to Las Vegas, no? At least that is what is talked about how Phoenix and Vegas are the two largest cities not directly connected with an interstate.
You're wrong. The purpose of I-11 is to get trucks from Nogales to Las Vegas, while bypassing Phoenix. I have no idea why they decided to route it so far west, but they did, and that's that. A major upgrade to US 60 between the Loop 303 and Wickenburg is in order, including a bypass around that city, but it will never be upgraded to a full freeway into Phoenix. That proposal was dropped years ago.
I still think it will never see the light of day south of I-8. I-10 and I-19 already cover the Nogales-to-Casa Grande leg, and I-8 can take over from there. Besides, Pima County is so violently anti-freeway, that they will never approve it.
So by your own admission you say the real plan won't ever be realized but yet we should still build it as intended? I am certain I've seen it mentioned several times how Phoenix and Las Vegas will be connected when mentioning this.
Where did I say that? It will be built between I-8 (or I-10) and Vegas. Eventually. Construction will be from north to south, so the segment between the state line and I-40 will be completed first.
QuoteSo I assume then we'll see more truck traffic using it than Phoenicians traveling to and from Las Vegas?
Have you ever driven between Phoenix and Las Vegas? I do, average twice a year. Given the size of the metro, there isn't that much car traffic between the two cities. Most people from here fly. It's the truck traffic that is the problem. Whether or not I-11 comes to be south of I-40, it is imperative that the segment between I-40 and Wickenburg be 4-laned, and as soon as humanly possible. They don't have much more to do, but those last 30 miles or so don't have any funding yet, AFAIK.
^^^^ we've had two different experiences then. While I don't drive it as nearly often as you do I've driven it about 4 times and it was pretty heavy car traffic each time. Lots of trucks too.
Now I do semi-regularly take the stretch of US-93 from Kingman to I-11 in Nevada and it's always much more car traffic than trucks and almost all of the tags are Arizona. I'd imagine there are more people from Phoenix than Kingman.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 16, 2021, 09:30:47 PM
^^^^ we've had two different experiences then. While I don't drive it as nearly often as you do I've driven it about 4 times and it was pretty heavy car traffic each time. Lots of trucks too.
Now I do semi-regularly take the stretch of US-93 from Kingman to I-11 in Nevada and it's always much more car traffic than trucks and almost all of the tags are Arizona. I'd imagine there are more people from Phoenix than Kingman.
On the weekends, you're probably right. I generally do that trip in the middle of the week (rooms on the Strip are much cheaper then. :) ). Almost always, I see heavy truck traffic. I'm not saying that there's
no or even
little car traffic, but trucks are preeminent on those days, with more of it going north than south, and most of the trucks that are going south getting off on I-40.
Yeesh. Everything south of I-10 is just a developer pork project rather than one designed to further the transportation needs of regional travelers. Why not just send it down AZ 85 to I-8 and terminate there? That would fill in a genuine gap in the interstate system and not put in pointless extra mileage. And why does it need to overlap or replace I-19? If I-19 were to be replaced by something, I'd rather it be I-17 so that I-17's numbers would at least (appear to - they'd still be off by ~20 miles) make sense. Is this some back-door way to force I-19 away from metric?
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on November 16, 2021, 08:49:11 PM
The purpose of I-11 is to get trucks from Nogales to Las Vegas, while bypassing Phoenix.
That's not what we were told back when I-11 proponents were trying to get traction to get the project started.
Quote from: vdeane on November 16, 2021, 09:57:30 PM
Yeesh. Everything south of I-10 is just a developer pork project rather than one designed to further the transportation needs of regional travelers. Why not just send it down AZ 85 to I-8 and terminate there? That would fill in a genuine gap in the interstate system and not put in pointless extra mileage. And why does it need to overlap or replace I-19? If I-19 were to be replaced by something, I'd rather it be I-17 so that I-17's numbers would at least (appear to - they'd still be off by ~20 miles) make sense. Is this some back-door way to force I-19 away from metric?
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on November 16, 2021, 08:49:11 PM
The purpose of I-11 is to get trucks from Nogales to Las Vegas, while bypassing Phoenix.
That's not what we were told back when I-11 proponents were trying to get traction to get the project started.
I don't think you realize just how much Arizona is projected to grow in the future. If that growth happens in existing cities, it will mean more congestion and less livability. Sprawl means that existing communities aren't faced with the burdens of more people.
Quote from: kernals12 on November 16, 2021, 10:14:01 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 16, 2021, 09:57:30 PM
Yeesh. Everything south of I-10 is just a developer pork project rather than one designed to further the transportation needs of regional travelers. Why not just send it down AZ 85 to I-8 and terminate there? That would fill in a genuine gap in the interstate system and not put in pointless extra mileage. And why does it need to overlap or replace I-19? If I-19 were to be replaced by something, I'd rather it be I-17 so that I-17's numbers would at least (appear to - they'd still be off by ~20 miles) make sense. Is this some back-door way to force I-19 away from metric?
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on November 16, 2021, 08:49:11 PM
The purpose of I-11 is to get trucks from Nogales to Las Vegas, while bypassing Phoenix.
That's not what we were told back when I-11 proponents were trying to get traction to get the project started.
I don't think you realize just how much Arizona is projected to grow in the future. If that growth happens in existing cities, it will mean more congestion and less livability. Sprawl means that existing communities aren't faced with the burdens of more people.
But west of the White Tank Mountains? Who is going to live all the way the hell out there when there is no direct access over that range over than slogging all the way down to I-10? The most practical path I-11 could have took was down US 60 and AZ 303 to reach I-10. At least if I-11 went down to I-8 via AZ 85 it would serve as a long haul bypass of Phoenix from the Tucson and border areas around Nogales.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 16, 2021, 10:27:00 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 16, 2021, 10:14:01 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 16, 2021, 09:57:30 PM
Yeesh. Everything south of I-10 is just a developer pork project rather than one designed to further the transportation needs of regional travelers. Why not just send it down AZ 85 to I-8 and terminate there? That would fill in a genuine gap in the interstate system and not put in pointless extra mileage. And why does it need to overlap or replace I-19? If I-19 were to be replaced by something, I'd rather it be I-17 so that I-17's numbers would at least (appear to - they'd still be off by ~20 miles) make sense. Is this some back-door way to force I-19 away from metric?
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on November 16, 2021, 08:49:11 PM
The purpose of I-11 is to get trucks from Nogales to Las Vegas, while bypassing Phoenix.
That's not what we were told back when I-11 proponents were trying to get traction to get the project started.
I don't think you realize just how much Arizona is projected to grow in the future. If that growth happens in existing cities, it will mean more congestion and less livability. Sprawl means that existing communities aren't faced with the burdens of more people.
But west of the White Tank Mountains? Who is going to live all the way the hell out there when there is no direct access over that range over than slogging all the way down to I-10? The most practical path I-11 could have took was down US 60 and AZ 303 to reach I-10. At least if I-11 went down to I-8 via AZ 85 it would serve as a long haul bypass of Phoenix from the Tucson and border areas around Nogales.
As a matter of fact, they're planning two freeways in that area
(https://i.imgur.com/orasjOP.jpg)
^^^^ where is that plan? I'd like to see it. So far I've seen only spotty updates along US-60 here and there with no real overall plan. The entire thing needs to be a freeway all the way to downtown.
Quote from: vdeane on November 16, 2021, 09:57:30 PM
Yeesh. Everything south of I-10 is just a developer pork project rather than one designed to further the transportation needs of regional travelers. Why not just send it down AZ 85 to I-8 and terminate there? That would fill in a genuine gap in the interstate system and not put in pointless extra mileage. And why does it need to overlap or replace I-19? If I-19 were to be replaced by something, I'd rather it be I-17 so that I-17's numbers would at least (appear to - they'd still be off by ~20 miles) make sense. Is this some back-door way to force I-19 away from metric?
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on November 16, 2021, 08:49:11 PM
The purpose of I-11 is to get trucks from Nogales to Las Vegas, while bypassing Phoenix.
That's not what we were told back when I-11 proponents were trying to get traction to get the project started.
That's very interesting. I-17 extended south would make more sense especially if(and that's a big if I can't stress that enough) it's ever extended north to I-70.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 16, 2021, 11:09:31 PM
^^^^ where is that plan? I'd like to see it. So far I've seen only spotty updates along US-60 here and there with no real overall plan. The entire thing needs to be a freeway all the way to downtown.
This plan is from 2007, right before the housing meltdown caused Phoenix's growth to grind to a halt.
https://media.lasvegassun.com/media/pdfs/2009/07/10/hassayampa071009.pdf
Quote from: kernals12 on November 16, 2021, 11:17:11 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 16, 2021, 11:09:31 PM
^^^^ where is that plan? I'd like to see it. So far I've seen only spotty updates along US-60 here and there with no real overall plan. The entire thing needs to be a freeway all the way to downtown.
This plan is from 2007, right before the housing meltdown caused Phoenix's growth to grind to a halt.
https://media.lasvegassun.com/media/pdfs/2009/07/10/hassayampa071009.pdf
Any update since? Hopefully that is still in ADOTs book.
I know since September of this year, the east alternative through Vegas is been eliminated leaving either I-215/CC 215 or I-515 for the Future I-11 in Las Vegas.
Which one is going to be most likely out of the other two left?
Quote from: roadman65 on November 16, 2021, 11:25:14 PM
I know since September of this year, the east alternative through Vegas is been eliminated leaving either I-215/CC 215 or I-515 for the Future I-11 in Las Vegas.
Which one is going to be most likely out of the other two left?
If I had to guess it'd be I-515 and they're about to expand and rebuild it below grade.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 16, 2021, 11:20:27 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 16, 2021, 11:17:11 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 16, 2021, 11:09:31 PM
^^^^ where is that plan? I'd like to see it. So far I've seen only spotty updates along US-60 here and there with no real overall plan. The entire thing needs to be a freeway all the way to downtown.
This plan is from 2007, right before the housing meltdown caused Phoenix's growth to grind to a halt.
https://media.lasvegassun.com/media/pdfs/2009/07/10/hassayampa071009.pdf
Any update since? Hopefully that is still in ADOTs book.
No updates, but there's no way that can't include that. You'd wind up with massive congestion on arterials.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 16, 2021, 11:09:31 PM
^^^^ where is that plan? I'd like to see it. So far I've seen only spotty updates along US-60 here and there with no real overall plan. The entire thing needs to be a freeway all the way to downtown.
No it does not. The cost of ROW acquisition and utility relocations would make it very expensive and given the bottlenecks it would create on the Papago and Black Canyon Freeways, whether it would improve traffic is questionable.
Quote from: kernals12 on November 16, 2021, 10:48:09 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 16, 2021, 10:27:00 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 16, 2021, 10:14:01 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 16, 2021, 09:57:30 PM
Yeesh. Everything south of I-10 is just a developer pork project rather than one designed to further the transportation needs of regional travelers. Why not just send it down AZ 85 to I-8 and terminate there? That would fill in a genuine gap in the interstate system and not put in pointless extra mileage. And why does it need to overlap or replace I-19? If I-19 were to be replaced by something, I'd rather it be I-17 so that I-17's numbers would at least (appear to - they'd still be off by ~20 miles) make sense. Is this some back-door way to force I-19 away from metric?
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on November 16, 2021, 08:49:11 PM
The purpose of I-11 is to get trucks from Nogales to Las Vegas, while bypassing Phoenix.
That's not what we were told back when I-11 proponents were trying to get traction to get the project started.
I don't think you realize just how much Arizona is projected to grow in the future. If that growth happens in existing cities, it will mean more congestion and less livability. Sprawl means that existing communities aren't faced with the burdens of more people.
But west of the White Tank Mountains? Who is going to live all the way the hell out there when there is no direct access over that range over than slogging all the way down to I-10? The most practical path I-11 could have took was down US 60 and AZ 303 to reach I-10. At least if I-11 went down to I-8 via AZ 85 it would serve as a long haul bypass of Phoenix from the Tucson and border areas around Nogales.
As a matter of fact, they're planning two freeways in that area.
That map is close to 15 years old -- ancient and obsolete. It's so old that it calls the Gateway Fwy AZ 802 (it's AZ 24), and the Tres Rios Fwy AZ 801 (it will be AZ 30), With the route of I-11 going so far west, I don't know when or if they'll ever build the Loop 404, which was supposed to be taken over by I-11.
The Gateway Fwy is currently being expanded, but only the ramps and the ground-level pavement, similar to the original construction of AZ 51, 40 years ago. There's no funding yet to upgrade it to a full freeway.
The Tres Rios is being fast-tracked, from what I've heard, because of the extreme overload on I-10 in the West Valley. It's still many years away from completion.
The Pinal North/South Fwy has just been approved, but it also is not funded. There is also funding to complete the Loop 303 as a full freeway in Peoria, including full ramps at I-17. AZ 85 will also be upgraded to a full freeway between I-10 and I-8, but when it happens is anybody's guess.
Those are the only freeways that are guaranteed to get built in the next decade. I-11 will eventually get done, but it will remain US 93 for the unforeseeable future, even after 4-laning is complete.
You can throw away every other freeway proposal. Not gonna happen in my lifetime (and I'm 66).
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 16, 2021, 11:13:12 PM
That's very interesting. I-17 extended south would make more sense especially if(and that's a big if I can't stress that enough) it's ever extended north to I-70.
That is entirely up to the Navajo Nation. Don't hold your breath. It's their land and they have the final say.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on November 16, 2021, 11:53:10 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 16, 2021, 11:13:12 PM
That’s very interesting. I-17 extended south would make more sense especially if(and that’s a big if I can’t stress that enough) it’s ever extended north to I-70.
That is entirely up to the Navajo Nation. Don't hold your breath. It's their land and they have the final say.
I-17 is never getting extended north. Ever.
The only way I could even see it justified is as some sort of Mexico-Phoenix-SLC truck route, which may have been a decent idea at one time but that idea has pretty much been replaced by US 93/I-11. Especially once the 4-lane on 93 is finished in the somewhat near future. Sure, US 89 is a straighter line on a map between Phoenix and SLC, but it is way less truck-friendly than 93. With 89 you're getting well over 7000 feet and you're crossing mountains in Utah and northern Arizona where it actually snows in winter. US 93 and I-15 avoid those problems.
Maybe some upgrades/4-lanes might be in order on some parts between Flagstaff and Page, but nothing is ever going to happen beyond that aside from maybe some more passing lanes. In addition to the minefields of protected land designations/national monuments/etc and Indian reservations in that area, your single biggest obstacle to a longer I-17 is that you'd need to build a brand new interstate-grade Colorado River bridge - a tremendous and entirely unnecessary expense given the fairly light traffic counts out there. Utah and Arizona both have far more pressing needs to spend their road money on.
If I had to guess a theoretical I-17 north extension would follow US-89 to US-160 and move east through Tuba City moving through Kayenta where it'd eventually more or less follow US-191 to I-70. It'd get very interesting crossing the San Juan river but really IMO the biggest obstacle would be getting it through Moab.
I would think that the Navajo Nation would be more willing to support it then the residents of Moab. I have been spending a lot of time in Moab lately and found residents there, especially long time residents, are pretty anti growth/development. My guess is any highway through would likely have to be tunneled to have any remote possibility of happening.
There does seem to be a small faction of Navajo Tribal Members that are pro growth so I don't think you wouldn't see any support for it but for the meantime I'd say it isn't very likely.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on November 16, 2021, 11:44:51 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 16, 2021, 10:48:09 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 16, 2021, 10:27:00 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 16, 2021, 10:14:01 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 16, 2021, 09:57:30 PM
Yeesh. Everything south of I-10 is just a developer pork project rather than one designed to further the transportation needs of regional travelers. Why not just send it down AZ 85 to I-8 and terminate there? That would fill in a genuine gap in the interstate system and not put in pointless extra mileage. And why does it need to overlap or replace I-19? If I-19 were to be replaced by something, I'd rather it be I-17 so that I-17's numbers would at least (appear to - they'd still be off by ~20 miles) make sense. Is this some back-door way to force I-19 away from metric?
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on November 16, 2021, 08:49:11 PM
The purpose of I-11 is to get trucks from Nogales to Las Vegas, while bypassing Phoenix.
That's not what we were told back when I-11 proponents were trying to get traction to get the project started.
I don't think you realize just how much Arizona is projected to grow in the future. If that growth happens in existing cities, it will mean more congestion and less livability. Sprawl means that existing communities aren't faced with the burdens of more people.
But west of the White Tank Mountains? Who is going to live all the way the hell out there when there is no direct access over that range over than slogging all the way down to I-10? The most practical path I-11 could have took was down US 60 and AZ 303 to reach I-10. At least if I-11 went down to I-8 via AZ 85 it would serve as a long haul bypass of Phoenix from the Tucson and border areas around Nogales.
As a matter of fact, they're planning two freeways in that area.
That map is close to 15 years old -- ancient and obsolete. It's so old that it calls the Gateway Fwy AZ 802 (it's AZ 24), and the Tres Rios Fwy AZ 801 (it will be AZ 30), With the route of I-11 going so far west, I don't know when or if they'll ever build the Loop 404, which was supposed to be taken over by I-11.
The Gateway Fwy is currently being expanded, but only the ramps and the ground-level pavement, similar to the original construction of AZ 51, 40 years ago. There's no funding yet to upgrade it to a full freeway.
The Tres Rios is being fast-tracked, from what I've heard, because of the extreme overload on I-10 in the West Valley. It's still many years away from completion.
The Pinal North/South Fwy has just been approved, but it also is not funded. There is also funding to complete the Loop 303 as a full freeway in Peoria, including full ramps at I-17. AZ 85 will also be upgraded to a full freeway between I-10 and I-8, but when it happens is anybody's guess.
Those are the only freeways that are guaranteed to get built in the next decade. I-11 will eventually get done, but it will remain US 93 for the unforeseeable future, even after 4-laning is complete.
You can throw away every other freeway proposal. Not gonna happen in my lifetime (and I'm 66).
There's enough planned development up there to justify a freeway connecting I-11 to Loop 303.
And ADOT has issued an EIS for the Pinal North South Freeway
The Great Recession delayed a lot of growth for the Phoenix area, but now it's back on track and they need to prepare for an extra 2-3 million people by the middle of the century. Most of these extra people will be living in the West Valley and Pinal County.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on November 17, 2021, 03:05:05 AM
If I had to guess a theoretical I-17 north extension would follow US-89 to US-160 and move east through Tuba City moving through Kayenta where it'd eventually more or less follow US-191 to I-70. It'd get very interesting crossing the San Juan river but really IMO the biggest obstacle would be getting it through Moab.
I would think that the Navajo Nation would be more willing to support it then the residents of Moab. I have been spending a lot of time in Moab lately and found residents there, especially long time residents, are pretty anti growth/development. My guess is any highway through would likely have to be tunneled to have any remote possibility of happening.
There does seem to be a small faction of Navajo Tribal Members that are pro growth so I don't think you wouldn't see any support for it but for the meantime I'd say it isn't very likely.
I imagine that environmentalists would have a bone to pick with building an interstate highway over the Colorado River upstream of Lakes Powell and Mead
why the hell would you extend 17 north of flagstaff?
Quote from: silverback1065 on November 17, 2021, 08:16:29 AM
why the hell would you extend 17 north of flagstaff?
To provide better access to Alanland
Quote from: kernals12 on November 16, 2021, 10:14:01 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 16, 2021, 09:57:30 PM
Yeesh. Everything south of I-10 is just a developer pork project rather than one designed to further the transportation needs of regional travelers. Why not just send it down AZ 85 to I-8 and terminate there? That would fill in a genuine gap in the interstate system and not put in pointless extra mileage. And why does it need to overlap or replace I-19? If I-19 were to be replaced by something, I'd rather it be I-17 so that I-17's numbers would at least (appear to - they'd still be off by ~20 miles) make sense. Is this some back-door way to force I-19 away from metric?
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on November 16, 2021, 08:49:11 PM
The purpose of I-11 is to get trucks from Nogales to Las Vegas, while bypassing Phoenix.
That's not what we were told back when I-11 proponents were trying to get traction to get the project started.
I don't think you realize just how much Arizona is projected to grow in the future. If that growth happens in existing cities, it will mean more congestion and less livability. Sprawl means that existing communities aren't faced with the burdens of more people.
I don't care so much if they build a freeway there, I don't think it should be I-11 regardless. Running it down AZ 85 would make for an outer bypass of Phoenix and provide a missing like in the interstate system by providing an all-interstate link between San Diego and Phoenix. The route actually proposed predominantly helps local traffic and really isn't a good use of a 2di.
Quote from: kernals12 on November 17, 2021, 09:36:39 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on November 17, 2021, 08:16:29 AM
why the hell would you extend 17 north of flagstaff?
To provide better access to Alanland
How? Alanland is somewhere in the vicinity of Eureka, California. That's why Eureka PD is tied to lore via being the enforcement quad for TheAlan360.
Anything south of I-10 for I-11 is just ROW preservation at this point.
35 years ago people thought the Loop 303 "planned way out in the middle of farm fields" would never be necessary with the Loop 101 being planned west of Phoenix, it's just the way AZ grows.
But I do see a need for both an upgraded 85 and I-11 in the future unless AZ just stops growing. There is a lot of developable residential areas, and the 85 corridor is going to be mostly industrial similarly to what you are seeing along the 303 north of I-10. The upgraded 85 actually is somewhat needed now, and will suffice for 20-30 years but again a second corridor will be needed once that area fills in.
Quote from: kdk on November 18, 2021, 06:22:03 PM
Anything south of I-10 for I-11 is just ROW preservation at this point.
35 years ago people thought the Loop 303 "planned way out in the middle of farm fields" would never be necessary with the Loop 101 being planned west of Phoenix, it's just the way AZ grows.
But I do see a need for both an upgraded 85 and I-11 in the future unless AZ just stops growing. There is a lot of developable residential areas, and the 85 corridor is going to be mostly industrial similarly to what you are seeing along the 303 north of I-10. The upgraded 85 actually is somewhat needed now, and will suffice for 20-30 years but again a second corridor will be needed once that area fills in.
So why not send I-11 down AZ 85 and build the local development freeway as a state route with a different number? That's what would make sense for the interstate system.
Quote from: vdeane on November 18, 2021, 08:29:26 PM
Quote from: kdk on November 18, 2021, 06:22:03 PM
Anything south of I-10 for I-11 is just ROW preservation at this point.
35 years ago people thought the Loop 303 "planned way out in the middle of farm fields" would never be necessary with the Loop 101 being planned west of Phoenix, it's just the way AZ grows.
But I do see a need for both an upgraded 85 and I-11 in the future unless AZ just stops growing. There is a lot of developable residential areas, and the 85 corridor is going to be mostly industrial similarly to what you are seeing along the 303 north of I-10. The upgraded 85 actually is somewhat needed now, and will suffice for 20-30 years but again a second corridor will be needed once that area fills in.
So why not send I-11 down AZ 85 and build the local development freeway as a state route with a different number? That's what would make sense for the interstate system.
The proposed I-11 is more efficient, being it angles southeast south of I-10. It would also be a more efficient route towards Tucson as well being that it would be shorter than taking 85 south to I-8 over to I-10.
85 angles slightly to the southwest adding a few miles. 85 will always be the route for drivers in metro Phoenix heading to Yuma or San Diego. I-11 would finally be a more efficient bypass of Phoenix along I-10.
Quote from: kdk on November 22, 2021, 04:18:49 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 18, 2021, 08:29:26 PM
Quote from: kdk on November 18, 2021, 06:22:03 PM
Anything south of I-10 for I-11 is just ROW preservation at this point.
35 years ago people thought the Loop 303 "planned way out in the middle of farm fields" would never be necessary with the Loop 101 being planned west of Phoenix, it's just the way AZ grows.
But I do see a need for both an upgraded 85 and I-11 in the future unless AZ just stops growing. There is a lot of developable residential areas, and the 85 corridor is going to be mostly industrial similarly to what you are seeing along the 303 north of I-10. The upgraded 85 actually is somewhat needed now, and will suffice for 20-30 years but again a second corridor will be needed once that area fills in.
So why not send I-11 down AZ 85 and build the local development freeway as a state route with a different number? That's what would make sense for the interstate system.
The proposed I-11 is more efficient, being it angles southeast south of I-10. It would also be a more efficient route towards Tucson as well being that it would be shorter than taking 85 south to I-8 over to I-10.
85 angles slightly to the southwest adding a few miles. 85 will always be the route for drivers in metro Phoenix heading to Yuma or San Diego. I-11 would finally be a more efficient bypass of Phoenix along I-10.
That feels like corridor-level thinking. Sure, it may be shorter for that one movement, but how does that fit in with the interstate system as a whole? The interstates are supposed to function as a harmonious system, not a random collection of corridors. I-11 as proposed does not feel anything like what we would have gotten if it was planned in 1956 or 1968.
I'm also not a fan of the concept of taking I-11 down to Nogales and overlapping or superseding I-19.
Quote from: kdk on November 22, 2021, 04:18:49 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 18, 2021, 08:29:26 PM
Quote from: kdk on November 18, 2021, 06:22:03 PM
Anything south of I-10 for I-11 is just ROW preservation at this point.
35 years ago people thought the Loop 303 "planned way out in the middle of farm fields" would never be necessary with the Loop 101 being planned west of Phoenix, it's just the way AZ grows.
But I do see a need for both an upgraded 85 and I-11 in the future unless AZ just stops growing. There is a lot of developable residential areas, and the 85 corridor is going to be mostly industrial similarly to what you are seeing along the 303 north of I-10. The upgraded 85 actually is somewhat needed now, and will suffice for 20-30 years but again a second corridor will be needed once that area fills in.
So why not send I-11 down AZ 85 and build the local development freeway as a state route with a different number? That's what would make sense for the interstate system.
The proposed I-11 is more efficient, being it angles southeast south of I-10. It would also be a more efficient route towards Tucson as well being that it would be shorter than taking 85 south to I-8 over to I-10.
85 angles slightly to the southwest adding a few miles. 85 will always be the route for drivers in metro Phoenix heading to Yuma or San Diego. I-11 would finally be a more efficient bypass of Phoenix along I-10.
If you could only spend money on one, upgrading 85 to interstate standards would garner significantly better ROI than the proposed I-11 bypass.
I-10 to an 85 freeway to I-8 would work perfectly well as a Phoenix bypass and it would also work well for Phoenix to Yuma / San Diego traffic. No need to develop a freeway on an alignment that is useless for Phoenix to Yuma / San Diego traffic.
With the recent I-10 widening (and ROW to widen I-10 further) nothing new needs to be built south of I-8.
Quote from: ztonyg on November 23, 2021, 11:09:55 AM
Quote from: kdk on November 22, 2021, 04:18:49 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 18, 2021, 08:29:26 PM
Quote from: kdk on November 18, 2021, 06:22:03 PM
Anything south of I-10 for I-11 is just ROW preservation at this point.
35 years ago people thought the Loop 303 "planned way out in the middle of farm fields" would never be necessary with the Loop 101 being planned west of Phoenix, it's just the way AZ grows.
But I do see a need for both an upgraded 85 and I-11 in the future unless AZ just stops growing. There is a lot of developable residential areas, and the 85 corridor is going to be mostly industrial similarly to what you are seeing along the 303 north of I-10. The upgraded 85 actually is somewhat needed now, and will suffice for 20-30 years but again a second corridor will be needed once that area fills in.
So why not send I-11 down AZ 85 and build the local development freeway as a state route with a different number? That's what would make sense for the interstate system.
The proposed I-11 is more efficient, being it angles southeast south of I-10. It would also be a more efficient route towards Tucson as well being that it would be shorter than taking 85 south to I-8 over to I-10.
85 angles slightly to the southwest adding a few miles. 85 will always be the route for drivers in metro Phoenix heading to Yuma or San Diego. I-11 would finally be a more efficient bypass of Phoenix along I-10.
If you could only spend money on one, upgrading 85 to interstate standards would garner significantly better ROI than the proposed I-11 bypass.
I-10 to an 85 freeway to I-8 would work perfectly well as a Phoenix bypass and it would also work well for Phoenix to Yuma / San Diego traffic. No need to develop a freeway on an alignment that is useless for Phoenix to Yuma / San Diego traffic.
With the recent I-10 widening (and ROW to widen I-10 further) nothing new needs to be built south of I-8.
Citation needed.
The Interstate system has been designed for local and through-traffic since it was first built. Why is it suddenly a problem here? Developers are putting up new homes in the Phoenix area by the thousand. Just a month ago, the city of Maricopa approved a subdivision with over 6,000 homes.
Welcome to AA Roads. A place where if you spell a word wrong you get reprimanded by a moderator and a a certain user. A place, too, where if you make a proposal on fictional highways, a good portion of the users think it's not fictional and have massive rage bursts.
In addition a place where the same two users bicker back and forth over the same issues in certain threads. A place also where people break the rules and get their threads locked constantly.
Why should this thread be any different?
Quote from: kernals12 on November 23, 2021, 12:47:37 PM
The Interstate system has been designed for local and through-traffic since it was first built. Why is it suddenly a problem here? Developers are putting up new homes in the Phoenix area by the thousand. Just a month ago, the city of Maricopa approved a subdivision with over 6,000 homes.
The original interstate system wouldn't have had two interstates run parallel like I-10 and I-11 will. 2dis served distance purposes to connect the major areas of the country. A mere bypass/suburban freeway would be a 3di, but of course Arizona hates those. If I-11 were being planned back then, it would follow US 60 to I-10 or I-17 and terminate there.
Now, sending new construction interstates straight to downtown isn't how we do things these days, so given how far away I-11 would meet I-10, the most logical thing after that would seem to be to improve connectivity between Phoenix and San Diego and Yuma. South of I-8, I-11 really isn't necessary and I don't understand why Arizona keeps insisting on sending it down to Nogales. I-19 is already there.
IMO modern interstates tend to lack the elegance of the original 1956/1968 system. There was definitely more than funding lost when Nixon block-granted federal highway funding.
I-11 from I-8 to north of Buckeye sure looks reasonable and needed long term to me, based on where future growth can, and more importantly, can't happen around Phoenix.
As a bypass it seems to make sense. I haven't looked at data, but would be willing to bet that Phoenix-San Diego traffic is or will soon be less than the cumulative traffic of:
From Buckeye/Surprise and future west growth to Maricopa/future south, growing Casa Grande industrial base and future support housing, Tucson, Mexico, and east to Texas
Maricopa, Casa Grande, Tucson, Mexico, and Texas to LA and NorCal (and Vegas once extended to 60)
Upgrading 85 to Gila Bend and then using I-8 would add 15 minutes versus the I-11 preferred alternative. Reduces the significant amount of traffic that would bypass Phoenix. Less relief for the choke points of I-10 from I-8 to 202, and I-10 west of 202. And of course doesn't serve the future growth south of Estrella, Mobile, Maricopa and south, and most of Casa Grande.
Quote from: armadillo speedbump on November 28, 2021, 04:21:01 PM
I-11 from I-8 to north of Buckeye sure looks reasonable and needed long term to me, based on where future growth can, and more importantly, can't happen around Phoenix.
As a bypass it seems to make sense. I haven't looked at data, but would be willing to bet that Phoenix-San Diego traffic is or will soon be less than the cumulative traffic of:
From Buckeye/Surprise and future west growth to Maricopa/future south, growing Casa Grande industrial base and future support housing, Tucson, Mexico, and east to Texas
Maricopa, Casa Grande, Tucson, Mexico, and Texas to LA and NorCal (and Vegas once extended to 60)
Upgrading 85 to Gila Bend and then using I-8 would add 15 minutes versus the I-11 preferred alternative. Reduces the significant amount of traffic that would bypass Phoenix. Less relief for the choke points of I-10 from I-8 to 202, and I-10 west of 202. And of course doesn't serve the future growth south of Estrella, Mobile, Maricopa and south, and most of Casa Grande.
I'm not convinced that the explosive growth will continue indefinitely, especially as more and more of the baby boomer generation passes away.
The plans to upgrade 85 have existed for over 30 years. It's very much needed and has been needed for a while. That 15 minutes will still save significant amount of time over traveling through central Phoenix and will adequately serve everyone.
I-11 doesn't need to go south of I-8 ever. I-10 (and maybe I-8) can be widened to Gila Bend and that's it.
Quote from: ztonyg on November 30, 2021, 05:10:38 PM
I'm not convinced that the explosive growth will continue indefinitely, especially as more and more of the baby boomer generation passes away.
I tend to agree with this. Given the Colorado River water shortages, nature may put a limit on growth in this coming decade. And as such, I'm of the opinion I-11 should satisfy its goal of connecting LV and PHX and stick to that mandate.
Quote from: kwellada on December 04, 2021, 09:33:25 AM
Quote from: ztonyg on November 30, 2021, 05:10:38 PM
I'm not convinced that the explosive growth will continue indefinitely, especially as more and more of the baby boomer generation passes away.
I tend to agree with this. Given the Colorado River water shortages, nature may put a limit on growth in this coming decade. And as such, I'm of the opinion I-11 should satisfy its goal of connecting LV and PHX and stick to that mandate.
You have no idea how annoyed I am by this myth. Arizona uses less water now than it did in 1957. As more water guzzling farms make way for urban sprawl, water use goes down.
Quote from: kwellada on December 04, 2021, 09:33:25 AM
Quote from: ztonyg on November 30, 2021, 05:10:38 PM
I'm not convinced that the explosive growth will continue indefinitely, especially as more and more of the baby boomer generation passes away.
I tend to agree with this. Given the Colorado River water shortages, nature may put a limit on growth in this coming decade. And as such, I'm of the opinion I-11 should satisfy its goal of connecting LV and PHX and stick to that mandate.
I think Nevada has at least moderate interest in extending I-11 to Reno.
Quote from: kernals12 on December 04, 2021, 10:43:46 AM
You have no idea how annoyed I am by this myth. Arizona uses less water now than it did in 1957. As more water guzzling farms make way for urban sprawl, water use goes down.
I grant you that the cities in Arizona are pretty solid with water conservation techniques. But my point that the changes in the Colorado River allocations and shortages from that source have a good chance of limiting growth in the coming decades. Arizona is the first to lose out on the allocations, after all.
Quote from: kwellada on December 05, 2021, 03:26:11 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 04, 2021, 10:43:46 AM
You have no idea how annoyed I am by this myth. Arizona uses less water now than it did in 1957. As more water guzzling farms make way for urban sprawl, water use goes down.
I grant you that the cities in Arizona are pretty solid with water conservation techniques. But my point that the changes in the Colorado River allocations and shortages from that source have a good chance of limiting growth in the coming decades. Arizona is the first to lose out on the allocations, after all.
Almost every drop of water that Arizona uses, excluding that for agriculture, finds its way back into the Colorado River as treated sewage.
Quote from: kernals12 on December 05, 2021, 03:43:34 PM
Almost every drop of water that Arizona uses, excluding that for agriculture, finds its way back into the Colorado River as treated sewage.
Can't return what doesn't get allocated or provided in the first place. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Anyhow, I hope they don't extend I-11 past Phoenix.
Quote from: kernals12 on November 17, 2021, 07:40:14 AM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on November 16, 2021, 11:44:51 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 16, 2021, 10:48:09 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 16, 2021, 10:27:00 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 16, 2021, 10:14:01 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 16, 2021, 09:57:30 PM
Yeesh. Everything south of I-10 is just a developer pork project rather than one designed to further the transportation needs of regional travelers. Why not just send it down AZ 85 to I-8 and terminate there? That would fill in a genuine gap in the interstate system and not put in pointless extra mileage. And why does it need to overlap or replace I-19? If I-19 were to be replaced by something, I'd rather it be I-17 so that I-17's numbers would at least (appear to - they'd still be off by ~20 miles) make sense. Is this some back-door way to force I-19 away from metric?
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on November 16, 2021, 08:49:11 PM
The purpose of I-11 is to get trucks from Nogales to Las Vegas, while bypassing Phoenix.
That's not what we were told back when I-11 proponents were trying to get traction to get the project started.
I don't think you realize just how much Arizona is projected to grow in the future. If that growth happens in existing cities, it will mean more congestion and less livability. Sprawl means that existing communities aren't faced with the burdens of more people.
But west of the White Tank Mountains? Who is going to live all the way the hell out there when there is no direct access over that range over than slogging all the way down to I-10? The most practical path I-11 could have took was down US 60 and AZ 303 to reach I-10. At least if I-11 went down to I-8 via AZ 85 it would serve as a long haul bypass of Phoenix from the Tucson and border areas around Nogales.
As a matter of fact, they're planning two freeways in that area.
That map is close to 15 years old -- ancient and obsolete. It's so old that it calls the Gateway Fwy AZ 802 (it's AZ 24), and the Tres Rios Fwy AZ 801 (it will be AZ 30), With the route of I-11 going so far west, I don't know when or if they'll ever build the Loop 404, which was supposed to be taken over by I-11.
The Gateway Fwy is currently being expanded, but only the ramps and the ground-level pavement, similar to the original construction of AZ 51, 40 years ago. There's no funding yet to upgrade it to a full freeway.
The Tres Rios is being fast-tracked, from what I've heard, because of the extreme overload on I-10 in the West Valley. It's still many years away from completion.
The Pinal North/South Fwy has just been approved, but it also is not funded. There is also funding to complete the Loop 303 as a full freeway in Peoria, including full ramps at I-17. AZ 85 will also be upgraded to a full freeway between I-10 and I-8, but when it happens is anybody's guess.
Those are the only freeways that are guaranteed to get built in the next decade. I-11 will eventually get done, but it will remain US 93 for the unforeseeable future, even after 4-laning is complete.
You can throw away every other freeway proposal. Not gonna happen in my lifetime (and I'm 66).
There's enough planned development up there to justify a freeway connecting I-11 to Loop 303.
And ADOT has issued an EIS for the Pinal North South Freeway
The Great Recession delayed a lot of growth for the Phoenix area, but now it's back on track and they need to prepare for an extra 2-3 million people by the middle of the century. Most of these extra people will be living in the West Valley and Pinal County.
There's not enough water for that many more people.
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 06, 2021, 08:58:31 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 17, 2021, 07:40:14 AM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on November 16, 2021, 11:44:51 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 16, 2021, 10:48:09 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 16, 2021, 10:27:00 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 16, 2021, 10:14:01 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 16, 2021, 09:57:30 PM
Yeesh. Everything south of I-10 is just a developer pork project rather than one designed to further the transportation needs of regional travelers. Why not just send it down AZ 85 to I-8 and terminate there? That would fill in a genuine gap in the interstate system and not put in pointless extra mileage. And why does it need to overlap or replace I-19? If I-19 were to be replaced by something, I'd rather it be I-17 so that I-17's numbers would at least (appear to - they'd still be off by ~20 miles) make sense. Is this some back-door way to force I-19 away from metric?
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on November 16, 2021, 08:49:11 PM
The purpose of I-11 is to get trucks from Nogales to Las Vegas, while bypassing Phoenix.
That's not what we were told back when I-11 proponents were trying to get traction to get the project started.
I don't think you realize just how much Arizona is projected to grow in the future. If that growth happens in existing cities, it will mean more congestion and less livability. Sprawl means that existing communities aren't faced with the burdens of more people.
But west of the White Tank Mountains? Who is going to live all the way the hell out there when there is no direct access over that range over than slogging all the way down to I-10? The most practical path I-11 could have took was down US 60 and AZ 303 to reach I-10. At least if I-11 went down to I-8 via AZ 85 it would serve as a long haul bypass of Phoenix from the Tucson and border areas around Nogales.
As a matter of fact, they're planning two freeways in that area.
That map is close to 15 years old -- ancient and obsolete. It's so old that it calls the Gateway Fwy AZ 802 (it's AZ 24), and the Tres Rios Fwy AZ 801 (it will be AZ 30), With the route of I-11 going so far west, I don't know when or if they'll ever build the Loop 404, which was supposed to be taken over by I-11.
The Gateway Fwy is currently being expanded, but only the ramps and the ground-level pavement, similar to the original construction of AZ 51, 40 years ago. There's no funding yet to upgrade it to a full freeway.
The Tres Rios is being fast-tracked, from what I've heard, because of the extreme overload on I-10 in the West Valley. It's still many years away from completion.
The Pinal North/South Fwy has just been approved, but it also is not funded. There is also funding to complete the Loop 303 as a full freeway in Peoria, including full ramps at I-17. AZ 85 will also be upgraded to a full freeway between I-10 and I-8, but when it happens is anybody's guess.
Those are the only freeways that are guaranteed to get built in the next decade. I-11 will eventually get done, but it will remain US 93 for the unforeseeable future, even after 4-laning is complete.
You can throw away every other freeway proposal. Not gonna happen in my lifetime (and I'm 66).
There's enough planned development up there to justify a freeway connecting I-11 to Loop 303.
And ADOT has issued an EIS for the Pinal North South Freeway
The Great Recession delayed a lot of growth for the Phoenix area, but now it's back on track and they need to prepare for an extra 2-3 million people by the middle of the century. Most of these extra people will be living in the West Valley and Pinal County.
There's not enough water for that many more people.
Yeah there is. Arizona has enough water to sustain a large cotton industry, it has enough water for millions and millions of new residents
Quote from: kernals12 on December 06, 2021, 09:36:33 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 06, 2021, 08:58:31 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 17, 2021, 07:40:14 AM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on November 16, 2021, 11:44:51 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 16, 2021, 10:48:09 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 16, 2021, 10:27:00 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 16, 2021, 10:14:01 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 16, 2021, 09:57:30 PM
Yeesh. Everything south of I-10 is just a developer pork project rather than one designed to further the transportation needs of regional travelers. Why not just send it down AZ 85 to I-8 and terminate there? That would fill in a genuine gap in the interstate system and not put in pointless extra mileage. And why does it need to overlap or replace I-19? If I-19 were to be replaced by something, I'd rather it be I-17 so that I-17's numbers would at least (appear to - they'd still be off by ~20 miles) make sense. Is this some back-door way to force I-19 away from metric?
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on November 16, 2021, 08:49:11 PM
The purpose of I-11 is to get trucks from Nogales to Las Vegas, while bypassing Phoenix.
That's not what we were told back when I-11 proponents were trying to get traction to get the project started.
I don't think you realize just how much Arizona is projected to grow in the future. If that growth happens in existing cities, it will mean more congestion and less livability. Sprawl means that existing communities aren't faced with the burdens of more people.
But west of the White Tank Mountains? Who is going to live all the way the hell out there when there is no direct access over that range over than slogging all the way down to I-10? The most practical path I-11 could have took was down US 60 and AZ 303 to reach I-10. At least if I-11 went down to I-8 via AZ 85 it would serve as a long haul bypass of Phoenix from the Tucson and border areas around Nogales.
As a matter of fact, they're planning two freeways in that area.
That map is close to 15 years old -- ancient and obsolete. It's so old that it calls the Gateway Fwy AZ 802 (it's AZ 24), and the Tres Rios Fwy AZ 801 (it will be AZ 30), With the route of I-11 going so far west, I don't know when or if they'll ever build the Loop 404, which was supposed to be taken over by I-11.
The Gateway Fwy is currently being expanded, but only the ramps and the ground-level pavement, similar to the original construction of AZ 51, 40 years ago. There's no funding yet to upgrade it to a full freeway.
The Tres Rios is being fast-tracked, from what I've heard, because of the extreme overload on I-10 in the West Valley. It's still many years away from completion.
The Pinal North/South Fwy has just been approved, but it also is not funded. There is also funding to complete the Loop 303 as a full freeway in Peoria, including full ramps at I-17. AZ 85 will also be upgraded to a full freeway between I-10 and I-8, but when it happens is anybody's guess.
Those are the only freeways that are guaranteed to get built in the next decade. I-11 will eventually get done, but it will remain US 93 for the unforeseeable future, even after 4-laning is complete.
You can throw away every other freeway proposal. Not gonna happen in my lifetime (and I'm 66).
There's enough planned development up there to justify a freeway connecting I-11 to Loop 303.
And ADOT has issued an EIS for the Pinal North South Freeway
The Great Recession delayed a lot of growth for the Phoenix area, but now it's back on track and they need to prepare for an extra 2-3 million people by the middle of the century. Most of these extra people will be living in the West Valley and Pinal County.
There's not enough water for that many more people.
Yeah there is. Arizona has enough water to sustain a large cotton industry, it has enough water for millions and millions of new residents
i sincerely doubt this, water levels continue to decrease and the drought isn't subsiding. now they are instituting cuts. unless i see evidence otherwise.
AZ will only run out of water for political or cheapness reasons. The Colorado River is not the only option. They have a near limitless source in the nearby Gulf of California. When needed, AZ can always chose to strike a deal with Mexico to build desalination plants and a pipeline.
It is simply a matter of cost and will (and potential political foolishness.) Right now the state has done a good job of water planning and has no immediate need for a gulf source, but I bet they've studied it at least informally in case circumstances ever warrant additional sources.
This is why climate change hysteria and other woke nonsense is taught as a political religion, to make it a crisis excuse so that logic and actual facts are ignored.
Back on topic, Estrella will continue to grow southward. Maricopa will continue to rapidly grow. Casa Grande is experiencing an industrial boom that will inevitably lead to an increased housing and related support economy boom. Except for the far south side of Casa Grande, I-8 to an upgraded 85 won't serve that very well or at all.
We have yet to see evidence that the greater Phoenix area's growth is going to slow anytime soon. The ChiCom Flu disruption didn't last long, and in fact there's a new inrush tied in part to rising costs/crimes/and political policies in other states, enhanced with the rise (at least for now) in home based work. A geographic 'Great Resorting' if you will (although this, like so many other Richard Florida type terms, will be soon vastly overexaggerated.)
Despite the media/political narrative, the data shows that we're still seeing a majority in the younger generations mostly wanting their own home with a yard once they actually have kids (if they can afford such housing.) The percentage of DINKs may still be increasing, but the empty nesters to urban trend may have reversed in the last year. Too soon to tell, and there will always be those that prefer urban and the increasing growth of such inner city housing stock, but the crime rise and unrest (and what created that) does seem to cause a rethinking for some of that potential market, based on polling data. Greater Phoenix still provides much cheaper single family housing than in the many high cost states. So there's really no data to suggest some great growth slowdown is ahead for the region. Woke media/academia/Democrat wishcasting notwithstanding. In fact the rapid rise in illegal immigration will almost surely fuel further growth in border states.
So bottom line, growth along and on the inside of the I-11 corridor (south of I-10) will almost surely happen over the next couple of decades. I-11 would make an effective outer loop for the southwest and south side (especially considering how much native lands and mountains will push most future growth in those directions fairly close to the route.) I-8 to an upgraded 85 might, over time, capture more bypassing traffic than now, but that extra 15-minutes versus I-11 would have a big impacton the volume. 15-minutes more congestion required before such a long bypass would make skipping I-10 worth it for many drivers/truckers. Thus pushing more traffic through Phoenix for longer periods during the day, creating more congestion outside the normal rush hours.
Quote from: armadillo speedbump on December 06, 2021, 02:47:57 PM
This is why climate change hysteria and other woke nonsense is taught as a political religion, to make it a crisis excuse so that logic and actual facts are ignored.
.
Can't take you seriously, dude. Sorry.
Quote from: kwellada on December 06, 2021, 03:13:24 PM
Quote from: armadillo speedbump on December 06, 2021, 02:47:57 PM
This is why climate change hysteria and other woke nonsense is taught as a political religion, to make it a crisis excuse so that logic and actual facts are ignored.
.
Can't take you seriously, dude. Sorry.
^This.
Quote from: kwellada on December 06, 2021, 03:13:24 PM
Quote from: armadillo speedbump on December 06, 2021, 02:47:57 PM
This is why climate change hysteria and other woke nonsense is taught as a political religion, to make it a crisis excuse so that logic and actual facts are ignored.
.
Can't take you seriously, dude. Sorry.
I don't think a single fuck is given about your opinion so there you go.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 06, 2021, 05:48:54 PM
Quote from: kwellada on December 06, 2021, 03:13:24 PM
Quote from: armadillo speedbump on December 06, 2021, 02:47:57 PM
This is why climate change hysteria and other woke nonsense is taught as a political religion, to make it a crisis excuse so that logic and actual facts are ignored.
.
Can't take you seriously, dude. Sorry.
I don’t think a single fuck is given about your opinion so there you go.
The fun thing is, no one knows which poster you're talking to!
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 06, 2021, 05:48:54 PM
Quote from: kwellada on December 06, 2021, 03:13:24 PM
Quote from: armadillo speedbump on December 06, 2021, 02:47:57 PM
This is why climate change hysteria and other woke nonsense is taught as a political religion, to make it a crisis excuse so that logic and actual facts are ignored.
.
Can't take you seriously, dude. Sorry.
I don't think a single fuck is given about your opinion so there you go.
Well, evidently enough of one for you to chime in.
It is hard to take someone seriously that thinks man-made climat change can be ignored because of logic and facts.
Quote from: Rothman on December 06, 2021, 05:51:47 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 06, 2021, 05:48:54 PM
Quote from: kwellada on December 06, 2021, 03:13:24 PM
Quote from: armadillo speedbump on December 06, 2021, 02:47:57 PM
This is why climate change hysteria and other woke nonsense is taught as a political religion, to make it a crisis excuse so that logic and actual facts are ignored.
.
Can't take you seriously, dude. Sorry.
I don't think a single fuck is given about your opinion so there you go.
Well, evidently enough of one for you to chime in.
It is hard to take someone seriously that thinks man-made climat change can be ignored because of logic and facts.
Ah yes, the tired trope of "you must care because you spent 3 seconds out of your day to comment on something you claim not to care about." *on a discussion board*
Whelp, continue to support turning freeways into boulevards and claiming man made climate change is a fact. One of those I agree with and the other not so much. I'm sure you are smart enough to figure out which is which.
And I'll repeat this, no one gives a fuck about your opinions. Cry about it or don't I don't care. Make sure to I said I don't care. ;)
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2021, 12:10:51 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 06, 2021, 05:51:47 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 06, 2021, 05:48:54 PM
Quote from: kwellada on December 06, 2021, 03:13:24 PM
Quote from: armadillo speedbump on December 06, 2021, 02:47:57 PM
This is why climate change hysteria and other woke nonsense is taught as a political religion, to make it a crisis excuse so that logic and actual facts are ignored.
.
Can't take you seriously, dude. Sorry.
I don't think a single fuck is given about your opinion so there you go.
Well, evidently enough of one for you to chime in.
It is hard to take someone seriously that thinks man-made climat change can be ignored because of logic and facts.
Ah yes, the tired trope of "you must care because you spent 3 seconds out of your day to comment on something you claim not to care about." *on a discussion board*
Whelp, continue to support turning freeways into boulevards and claiming man made climate change is a fact. One of those I agree with and the other not so much. I'm sure you are smart enough to figure out which is which.
And I'll repeat this, no one gives a fuck about your opinions. Cry about it or don't I don't care. Make sure to I said I don't care. ;)
This forum is filled with opinions. If you don't care about them, one wonders why you spend your time on here.
Quote from: Rothman on December 07, 2021, 12:13:20 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2021, 12:10:51 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 06, 2021, 05:51:47 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 06, 2021, 05:48:54 PM
Quote from: kwellada on December 06, 2021, 03:13:24 PM
Quote from: armadillo speedbump on December 06, 2021, 02:47:57 PM
This is why climate change hysteria and other woke nonsense is taught as a political religion, to make it a crisis excuse so that logic and actual facts are ignored.
.
Can't take you seriously, dude. Sorry.
I don't think a single fuck is given about your opinion so there you go.
Well, evidently enough of one for you to chime in.
It is hard to take someone seriously that thinks man-made climat change can be ignored because of logic and facts.
Ah yes, the tired trope of "you must care because you spent 3 seconds out of your day to comment on something you claim not to care about." *on a discussion board*
Whelp, continue to support turning freeways into boulevards and claiming man made climate change is a fact. One of those I agree with and the other not so much. I'm sure you are smart enough to figure out which is which.
And I'll repeat this, no one gives a fuck about your opinions. Cry about it or don't I don't care. Make sure to I said I don't care. ;)
This forum is filled with opinions. If you don't care about them, one wonders why you spend your time on here.
Blah blah blah
All opinions aside, a corridor was approved last month including the extension to Tucson and Nogales:
https://www.pinalcentral.com/maricopa_monitor/news/final-route-for-the-proposed-i-11-selected/article_fc8bca2a-4811-56ad-bb03-3b1a0afcd390.html (https://www.pinalcentral.com/maricopa_monitor/news/final-route-for-the-proposed-i-11-selected/article_fc8bca2a-4811-56ad-bb03-3b1a0afcd390.html)
(https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/pinalcentral.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/3/88/3883c094-b2ee-5f4d-bd08-de9870046846/619430ad7012c.image.png?resize=484%2C623)
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 07, 2021, 04:12:55 AM
All opinions aside, a corridor was approved last month including the extension to Tucson and Nogales:
https://www.pinalcentral.com/maricopa_monitor/news/final-route-for-the-proposed-i-11-selected/article_fc8bca2a-4811-56ad-bb03-3b1a0afcd390.html (https://www.pinalcentral.com/maricopa_monitor/news/final-route-for-the-proposed-i-11-selected/article_fc8bca2a-4811-56ad-bb03-3b1a0afcd390.html)
Just because ADOT approved a routing for a new freeway doesn't mean it's going to be built anytime soon. AFAIK, it's still unfunded, which is up to the State Legislature, and has to be approved by three county governments. Maricopa and Pinal Counties will sign on, if they haven't done so already, but don't hold your breath waiting for Pima County.
In any case, it's years away from being built south of Wickenburg. It will be built north of I-40, and the four-laning of US 93 will be completed in the next few years, but that's all that's guaranteed as of now.
That's a rather creative version of a corridor map. Phoenix is North of Goodyear? That label needs to be scooted a good bit East. They also show the corridor only rather the corridor placed in scale on an Arizona map. That way the route looks more straight and direct than it actually is. The finished product will be a Las Vegas to Buckeye route, or rather several miles West of Buckeye. It ain't Vegas to Phoenix at all.
Which is why "Not to Scale" is right there on the map.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 07, 2021, 02:10:23 PM
That's a rather creative version of a corridor map. Phoenix is North of Goodyear? That label needs to be scooted a good bit East.
The city limits of Phoenix extend from the South Mountain Fwy (Loop 202)/Pecos Rd. on the south to about 6 miles north of Carefree Hwy on the north. Goodyear extends from Camelback Rd. on the north to about 5 miles south of what would be the Pecos Rd. alignment if one existed. So, yes, Phoenix does go way north of Goodyear.
QuoteThey also show the corridor only rather the corridor placed in scale on an Arizona map. That way the route looks more straight and direct than it actually is. The finished product will be a Las Vegas to Buckeye route, or rather several miles West of Buckeye. It ain't Vegas to Phoenix at all.
And that is exactly what is needed. The main purpose of I-11 is to get truck traffic between Las Vegas (and eventually Reno) and the Mexican border, while bypassing Phoenix (and Tucson, if the west option is built).
There is no need whatsoever for a direct Phoenix-to-LV interstate. US 93 will work perfectly for that, once four-laning north of Wickenburg is complete, and the new ramps at I-40 in Kingman are built and opened 3 years from now. No interstate is required for car traffic considering that (1) most people in the Phoenix metro area fly to Vegas, and (2), trucks are the bottleneck on 93, as well as US 60 between Loop 303 and Wickenburg, on most days, not cars. US 60 certainly needs some upgrades in that stretch, but plans to make it a full freeway were scrapped several years ago.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 07, 2021, 02:10:23 PM
That's a rather creative version of a corridor map. Phoenix is North of Goodyear? That label needs to be scooted a good bit East. They also show the corridor only rather the corridor placed in scale on an Arizona map. That way the route looks more straight and direct than it actually is. The finished product will be a Las Vegas to Buckeye route, or rather several miles West of Buckeye. It ain't Vegas to Phoenix at all.
Looks like they barely drew the corridor map if Buckeye is situated south of Phoenix when they are both along I-10.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on December 07, 2021, 12:23:12 PM
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 07, 2021, 04:12:55 AM
All opinions aside, a corridor was approved last month including the extension to Tucson and Nogales:
https://www.pinalcentral.com/maricopa_monitor/news/final-route-for-the-proposed-i-11-selected/article_fc8bca2a-4811-56ad-bb03-3b1a0afcd390.html (https://www.pinalcentral.com/maricopa_monitor/news/final-route-for-the-proposed-i-11-selected/article_fc8bca2a-4811-56ad-bb03-3b1a0afcd390.html)
Just because ADOT approved a routing for a new freeway doesn't mean it's going to be built anytime soon. AFAIK, it's still unfunded, which is up to the State Legislature, and has to be approved by three county governments. Maricopa and Pinal Counties will sign on, if they haven't done so already, but don't hold your breath waiting for Pima County.
In any case, it's years away from being built south of Wickenburg. It will be built north of I-40, and the four-laning of US 93 will be completed in the next few years, but that's all that's guaranteed as of now.
This is true that it may not be built for another few years to decades, I have only stated that a corridor was approved, which is one small step for the freeway. At least I-11 from Las Vegas to Buckeye (Phoenix area) will be done.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on December 07, 2021, 04:58:20 PM
And that is exactly what is needed. The main purpose of I-11 is to get truck traffic between Las Vegas (and eventually Reno) and the Mexican border, while bypassing Phoenix (and Tucson, if the west option is built).
That's not what we were told. We were told Phoenix to Vegas.
Quote from: vdeane on December 07, 2021, 08:45:47 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on December 07, 2021, 04:58:20 PM
And that is exactly what is needed. The main purpose of I-11 is to get truck traffic between Las Vegas (and eventually Reno) and the Mexican border, while bypassing Phoenix (and Tucson, if the west option is built).
That's not what we were told. We were told Phoenix to Vegas.
I first heard of Interstate 11 as a corridor between Phoenix and Las Vegas, with a potential northward extension to Reno-Carson City area.
Quote from: vdeane on December 07, 2021, 08:45:47 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on December 07, 2021, 04:58:20 PM
And that is exactly what is needed. The main purpose of I-11 is to get truck traffic between Las Vegas (and eventually Reno) and the Mexican border, while bypassing Phoenix (and Tucson, if the west option is built).
That's not what we were told. We were told Phoenix to Vegas.
We? You're in New York. Did you live in Arizona at one time? I do, and have for close to 30 years. I don't remember any guarantee of a direct Phoenix-to-Vegas interstate. We were told that it would be a metro Phoenix-to-Vegas route (and this barely qualifies). We were also told that truck traffic to and from I-8, 10, 40, and the Mexican border was priority.
There is no physical way to build I-11 inside the city limits of Phoenix without a whole slew of Eminent Domain and the destruction of a major thoroughfare (Grand Avenue/US 60) that also runs through the downtowns of Glendale, Peoria, Sun City, El Mirage, and Surprise. That proposal was shot down years ago as impractical and politically impossible.
There is no need whatsoever for another freeway in Phoenix, other than the Tres Rios Fwy/AZ 30, which is funded. Existing freeways' maintenance needs (upgrades to the I-10/Broadway Curve and the Loop 303 at I-17, for example) must take precedence.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on December 07, 2021, 09:00:22 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 07, 2021, 08:45:47 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on December 07, 2021, 04:58:20 PM
And that is exactly what is needed. The main purpose of I-11 is to get truck traffic between Las Vegas (and eventually Reno) and the Mexican border, while bypassing Phoenix (and Tucson, if the west option is built).
That's not what we were told. We were told Phoenix to Vegas.
We? You're in New York. Did you live in Arizona at one time? I do, and have for close to 30 years. I don't remember any guarantee of a direct Phoenix-to-Vegas interstate. We were told that it would be a metro Phoenix-to-Vegas route (and this barely qualifies). We were also told that truck traffic to and from I-8, 10, 40, and the Mexican border was priority.
There is no physical way to build I-11 inside the city limits of Phoenix without a whole slew of Eminent Domain and the destruction of a major thoroughfare (Grand Avenue/US 60) that also runs through the downtowns of Glendale, Peoria, Sun City, El Mirage, and Surprise. That proposal was shot down years ago as impractical and politically impossible.
There is no need whatsoever for another freeway in Phoenix, other than the Tres Rios Fwy/AZ 30, which is funded. Existing freeways' maintenance needs (upgrades to the I-10/Broadway Curve and the Loop 303 at I-17, for example) must take precedence.
This is perhaps why Interstate 11 is being built west of Phoenix in Buckeye instead in addition to bypassing Wickenburg to the west as indicated from the approved corridor. However, it will still be within the Phoenix MSA with it running in Buckeye.
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 07, 2021, 09:29:04 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on December 07, 2021, 09:00:22 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 07, 2021, 08:45:47 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on December 07, 2021, 04:58:20 PM
And that is exactly what is needed. The main purpose of I-11 is to get truck traffic between Las Vegas (and eventually Reno) and the Mexican border, while bypassing Phoenix (and Tucson, if the west option is built).
That's not what we were told. We were told Phoenix to Vegas.
We? You're in New York. Did you live in Arizona at one time? I do, and have for close to 30 years. I don't remember any guarantee of a direct Phoenix-to-Vegas interstate. We were told that it would be a metro Phoenix-to-Vegas route (and this barely qualifies). We were also told that truck traffic to and from I-8, 10, 40, and the Mexican border was priority.
There is no physical way to build I-11 inside the city limits of Phoenix without a whole slew of Eminent Domain and the destruction of a major thoroughfare (Grand Avenue/US 60) that also runs through the downtowns of Glendale, Peoria, Sun City, El Mirage, and Surprise. That proposal was shot down years ago as impractical and politically impossible.
There is no need whatsoever for another freeway in Phoenix, other than the Tres Rios Fwy/AZ 30, which is funded. Existing freeways' maintenance needs (upgrades to the I-10/Broadway Curve and the Loop 303 at I-17, for example) must take precedence.
This is perhaps why Interstate 11 is being built west of Phoenix in Buckeye instead in addition to bypassing Wickenburg to the west as indicated from the approved corridor. However, it will still be within the Phoenix MSA with it running in Buckeye.
I'm still surprised it's being built so far west. I would have thought that it would have been routed over AZ 85 between I-8 and I-10, then concurrent with I-10 to Sun Valley Pkwy. Then north on Sun Valley to where it turns east (which could be a connector between I-11 and Loop 303, to what was proposed as Loop 404, around Wickenburg to US 93. But that was not to be.
Quote from: KeithE4PhxThere is no physical way to build I-11 inside the city limits of Phoenix without a whole slew of Eminent Domain and the destruction of a major thoroughfare (Grand Avenue/US 60) that also runs through the downtowns of Glendale, Peoria, Sun City, El Mirage, and Surprise. That proposal was shot down years ago as impractical and politically impossible.
Who has been saying any of that nonsense? Just about all the people wanting a proper Vegas to Phoenix route simply want US-60 to be 100% Interstate quality between Wickenburg and Loop 303. That isn't too much to ask. This I-11 thing doesn't manage that at all. South of Wickenburg I-11 turns into a North-South route clear on the other side of the mountains away from Phoenix. Anyone driving Vegas to Phoenix is just going to stay on US-60.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on December 07, 2021, 09:38:49 PM
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 07, 2021, 09:29:04 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on December 07, 2021, 09:00:22 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 07, 2021, 08:45:47 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on December 07, 2021, 04:58:20 PM
And that is exactly what is needed. The main purpose of I-11 is to get truck traffic between Las Vegas (and eventually Reno) and the Mexican border, while bypassing Phoenix (and Tucson, if the west option is built).
That's not what we were told. We were told Phoenix to Vegas.
We? You're in New York. Did you live in Arizona at one time? I do, and have for close to 30 years. I don't remember any guarantee of a direct Phoenix-to-Vegas interstate. We were told that it would be a metro Phoenix-to-Vegas route (and this barely qualifies). We were also told that truck traffic to and from I-8, 10, 40, and the Mexican border was priority.
There is no physical way to build I-11 inside the city limits of Phoenix without a whole slew of Eminent Domain and the destruction of a major thoroughfare (Grand Avenue/US 60) that also runs through the downtowns of Glendale, Peoria, Sun City, El Mirage, and Surprise. That proposal was shot down years ago as impractical and politically impossible.
There is no need whatsoever for another freeway in Phoenix, other than the Tres Rios Fwy/AZ 30, which is funded. Existing freeways' maintenance needs (upgrades to the I-10/Broadway Curve and the Loop 303 at I-17, for example) must take precedence.
This is perhaps why Interstate 11 is being built west of Phoenix in Buckeye instead in addition to bypassing Wickenburg to the west as indicated from the approved corridor. However, it will still be within the Phoenix MSA with it running in Buckeye.
I'm still surprised it's being built so far west. I would have thought that it would have been routed over AZ 85 between I-8 and I-10, then concurrent with I-10 to Sun Valley Pkwy. Then north on Sun Valley to where it turns east (which could be a connector between I-11 and Loop 303, to what was proposed as Loop 404, around Wickenburg to US 93. But that was not to be.
I thought it would go west and south of Wickenburg to AZ 85 from US 60 and AZ 303 myself.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 07, 2021, 09:44:49 PM
Quote from: KeithE4PhxThere is no physical way to build I-11 inside the city limits of Phoenix without a whole slew of Eminent Domain and the destruction of a major thoroughfare (Grand Avenue/US 60) that also runs through the downtowns of Glendale, Peoria, Sun City, El Mirage, and Surprise. That proposal was shot down years ago as impractical and politically impossible.
Who has been saying any of that nonsense? Just about all the people wanting a proper Vegas to Phoenix route simply want US-60 to be 100% Interstate quality between Wickenburg and Loop 303. That isn't too much to ask. This I-11 thing doesn't manage that at all. South of Wickenburg I-11 turns into a North-South route clear on the other side of the mountains away from Phoenix. Anyone driving Vegas to Phoenix is just going to stay on US-60.
US 60 would have to be upgraded regardless whether or not it goes to Wickenburg or Loop 303.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on December 07, 2021, 09:00:22 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 07, 2021, 08:45:47 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on December 07, 2021, 04:58:20 PM
And that is exactly what is needed. The main purpose of I-11 is to get truck traffic between Las Vegas (and eventually Reno) and the Mexican border, while bypassing Phoenix (and Tucson, if the west option is built).
That's not what we were told. We were told Phoenix to Vegas.
We? You're in New York. Did you live in Arizona at one time? I do, and have for close to 30 years. I don't remember any guarantee of a direct Phoenix-to-Vegas interstate. We were told that it would be a metro Phoenix-to-Vegas route (and this barely qualifies). We were also told that truck traffic to and from I-8, 10, 40, and the Mexican border was priority.
There is no physical way to build I-11 inside the city limits of Phoenix without a whole slew of Eminent Domain and the destruction of a major thoroughfare (Grand Avenue/US 60) that also runs through the downtowns of Glendale, Peoria, Sun City, El Mirage, and Surprise. That proposal was shot down years ago as impractical and politically impossible.
There is no need whatsoever for another freeway in Phoenix, other than the Tres Rios Fwy/AZ 30, which is funded. Existing freeways' maintenance needs (upgrades to the I-10/Broadway Curve and the Loop 303 at I-17, for example) must take precedence.
"We" as in the people of the US when this corridor was first proposed. Everything said was Phoenix-Vegas. Vegas-Reno was only discussed as a possibility, and I don't remember much of anything on Mexico-Phoenix.
IMO metro Phoenix qualifies, but as you said, this route barely qualifies. And I was responding to the assertion that the main purpose was Vegas-Mexico truck traffic, with the Phoenix-Vegas connection in and of itself being unimportant, which is quite odd, given how the interstate system is used to connect metro areas, and how the Phoenix-Vegas connection being what was used to sell the rest of the nation on I-11. I guess Arizona and Nevada must have been more honest with the people in their own states than they were everyone else - similar to how NCDOT sold the feds on this idea of connecting Raleigh and Hampton Roads, while in reality the plan was always to build an interstate serving Elizabeth City.
It turns out a portion of US 93 is a super two with an interchange at AZ 71.
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.124746,-112.9487358,2719m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en&authuser=0 (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.124746,-112.9487358,2719m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en&authuser=0)
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 07, 2021, 09:44:49 PM
Quote from: KeithE4PhxThere is no physical way to build I-11 inside the city limits of Phoenix without a whole slew of Eminent Domain and the destruction of a major thoroughfare (Grand Avenue/US 60) that also runs through the downtowns of Glendale, Peoria, Sun City, El Mirage, and Surprise. That proposal was shot down years ago as impractical and politically impossible.
Who has been saying any of that nonsense? Just about all the people wanting a proper Vegas to Phoenix route simply want US-60 to be 100% Interstate quality between Wickenburg and Loop 303. That isn't too much to ask. This I-11 thing doesn't manage that at all. South of Wickenburg I-11 turns into a North-South route clear on the other side of the mountains away from Phoenix. Anyone driving Vegas to Phoenix is just going to stay on US-60.
As I and others who actually live here have said numerous times: US 60 is not going to be upgraded to a freeway. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever. The 1980s proposal to do that has been shot down. It is an urban highway and will remain so.
I drive that route a couple times a year. I-11 will get the trucks off of US 60, other than local business, leaving 60 for car traffic. It would be very nice to upgrade the 60/303 bottleneck... er, I mean... interchange, but it's too built-up in that area now. Lots of homes would have to be demolished, and that just isn't going to happen.
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 07, 2021, 10:06:26 PM
It turns out a portion of US 93 is a super two with an interchange at AZ 71.
That's going to be rebuilt, once funding is approved for the Joshua Tree Parkway segment of 93. Same goes for the semi-interchange at AZ 89. That section, at about 25 miles, is the longest two-lane section that still exists. There are a very few remaining north of there, but they should be finished in the next couple years, hopefully including new ramps at I-40. They still don't know what they're going to do with the part through Wickieup, though.
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 06, 2021, 09:42:31 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 06, 2021, 09:36:33 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 06, 2021, 08:58:31 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 17, 2021, 07:40:14 AM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on November 16, 2021, 11:44:51 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 16, 2021, 10:48:09 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 16, 2021, 10:27:00 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 16, 2021, 10:14:01 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 16, 2021, 09:57:30 PM
Yeesh. Everything south of I-10 is just a developer pork project rather than one designed to further the transportation needs of regional travelers. Why not just send it down AZ 85 to I-8 and terminate there? That would fill in a genuine gap in the interstate system and not put in pointless extra mileage. And why does it need to overlap or replace I-19? If I-19 were to be replaced by something, I'd rather it be I-17 so that I-17's numbers would at least (appear to - they'd still be off by ~20 miles) make sense. Is this some back-door way to force I-19 away from metric?
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on November 16, 2021, 08:49:11 PM
The purpose of I-11 is to get trucks from Nogales to Las Vegas, while bypassing Phoenix.
That's not what we were told back when I-11 proponents were trying to get traction to get the project started.
I don't think you realize just how much Arizona is projected to grow in the future. If that growth happens in existing cities, it will mean more congestion and less livability. Sprawl means that existing communities aren't faced with the burdens of more people.
But west of the White Tank Mountains? Who is going to live all the way the hell out there when there is no direct access over that range over than slogging all the way down to I-10? The most practical path I-11 could have took was down US 60 and AZ 303 to reach I-10. At least if I-11 went down to I-8 via AZ 85 it would serve as a long haul bypass of Phoenix from the Tucson and border areas around Nogales.
As a matter of fact, they're planning two freeways in that area.
That map is close to 15 years old -- ancient and obsolete. It's so old that it calls the Gateway Fwy AZ 802 (it's AZ 24), and the Tres Rios Fwy AZ 801 (it will be AZ 30), With the route of I-11 going so far west, I don't know when or if they'll ever build the Loop 404, which was supposed to be taken over by I-11.
The Gateway Fwy is currently being expanded, but only the ramps and the ground-level pavement, similar to the original construction of AZ 51, 40 years ago. There's no funding yet to upgrade it to a full freeway.
The Tres Rios is being fast-tracked, from what I've heard, because of the extreme overload on I-10 in the West Valley. It's still many years away from completion.
The Pinal North/South Fwy has just been approved, but it also is not funded. There is also funding to complete the Loop 303 as a full freeway in Peoria, including full ramps at I-17. AZ 85 will also be upgraded to a full freeway between I-10 and I-8, but when it happens is anybody's guess.
Those are the only freeways that are guaranteed to get built in the next decade. I-11 will eventually get done, but it will remain US 93 for the unforeseeable future, even after 4-laning is complete.
You can throw away every other freeway proposal. Not gonna happen in my lifetime (and I'm 66).
There's enough planned development up there to justify a freeway connecting I-11 to Loop 303.
And ADOT has issued an EIS for the Pinal North South Freeway
The Great Recession delayed a lot of growth for the Phoenix area, but now it's back on track and they need to prepare for an extra 2-3 million people by the middle of the century. Most of these extra people will be living in the West Valley and Pinal County.
There's not enough water for that many more people.
Yeah there is. Arizona has enough water to sustain a large cotton industry, it has enough water for millions and millions of new residents
i sincerely doubt this, water levels continue to decrease and the drought isn't subsiding. now they are instituting cuts. unless i see evidence otherwise.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-environment/2019/02/12/arizona-water-usage-state-uses-less-now-than-1957/2806899002/
Arizona uses less water now than it did in 1957 and 74% of their water use is for agriculture and irrigation. When a cotton field is replaced by a subdivision, particularly one with desert landscaping, water use goes down.
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 07, 2021, 10:06:26 PM
It turns out a portion of US 93 is a super two with an interchange at AZ 71.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Las+Vegas+Indian+Colony,+NV+89124/@36.1859286,-115.1444253,570m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x80c8927e3ae79d83:0xedc83622358772fd!8m2!3d36.3554674!4d-115.3370959?hl=en&authuser=0 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Las+Vegas+Indian+Colony,+NV+89124/@36.1859286,-115.1444253,570m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x80c8927e3ae79d83:0xedc83622358772fd!8m2!3d36.3554674!4d-115.3370959?hl=en&authuser=0)
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 07, 2021, 10:06:26 PM
It turns out a portion of US 93 is a super two with an interchange at AZ 71.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Las+Vegas+Indian+Colony,+NV+89124/@36.1859286,-115.1444253,570m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x80c8927e3ae79d83:0xedc83622358772fd!8m2!3d36.3554674!4d-115.3370959?hl=en&authuser=0 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Las+Vegas+Indian+Colony,+NV+89124/@36.1859286,-115.1444253,570m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x80c8927e3ae79d83:0xedc83622358772fd!8m2!3d36.3554674!4d-115.3370959?hl=en&authuser=0)
That actually points to midtown Las Vegas.
Quote from: DenverBrian on December 07, 2021, 10:23:51 PM
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 07, 2021, 10:06:26 PM
It turns out a portion of US 93 is a super two with an interchange at AZ 71.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Las+Vegas+Indian+Colony,+NV+89124/@36.1859286,-115.1444253,570m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x80c8927e3ae79d83:0xedc83622358772fd!8m2!3d36.3554674!4d-115.3370959?hl=en&authuser=0 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Las+Vegas+Indian+Colony,+NV+89124/@36.1859286,-115.1444253,570m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x80c8927e3ae79d83:0xedc83622358772fd!8m2!3d36.3554674!4d-115.3370959?hl=en&authuser=0)
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 07, 2021, 10:06:26 PM
It turns out a portion of US 93 is a super two with an interchange at AZ 71.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Las+Vegas+Indian+Colony,+NV+89124/@36.1859286,-115.1444253,570m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x80c8927e3ae79d83:0xedc83622358772fd!8m2!3d36.3554674!4d-115.3370959?hl=en&authuser=0 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Las+Vegas+Indian+Colony,+NV+89124/@36.1859286,-115.1444253,570m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x80c8927e3ae79d83:0xedc83622358772fd!8m2!3d36.3554674!4d-115.3370959?hl=en&authuser=0)
That actually points to midtown Las Vegas.
Thanks for pointing it out. Fixed it
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.124746,-112.9487358,2719m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en&authuser=0
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2021, 12:13:55 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 07, 2021, 12:13:20 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2021, 12:10:51 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 06, 2021, 05:51:47 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 06, 2021, 05:48:54 PM
Quote from: kwellada on December 06, 2021, 03:13:24 PM
Quote from: armadillo speedbump on December 06, 2021, 02:47:57 PM
This is why climate change hysteria and other woke nonsense is taught as a political religion, to make it a crisis excuse so that logic and actual facts are ignored.
.
Can't take you seriously, dude. Sorry.
I don't think a single fuck is given about your opinion so there you go.
Well, evidently enough of one for you to chime in.
It is hard to take someone seriously that thinks man-made climat change can be ignored because of logic and facts.
Ah yes, the tired trope of "you must care because you spent 3 seconds out of your day to comment on something you claim not to care about." *on a discussion board*
Whelp, continue to support turning freeways into boulevards and claiming man made climate change is a fact. One of those I agree with and the other not so much. I'm sure you are smart enough to figure out which is which.
And I'll repeat this, no one gives a fuck about your opinions. Cry about it or don't I don't care. Make sure to I said I don't care. ;)
This forum is filled with opinions. If you don't care about them, one wonders why you spend your time on here.
Blah blah blah
I know I come here for the high quality conversation, the reasoned opinions...
Quote from: kkt on December 07, 2021, 11:48:41 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2021, 12:13:55 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 07, 2021, 12:13:20 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 07, 2021, 12:10:51 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 06, 2021, 05:51:47 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 06, 2021, 05:48:54 PM
Quote from: kwellada on December 06, 2021, 03:13:24 PM
Quote from: armadillo speedbump on December 06, 2021, 02:47:57 PM
This is why climate change hysteria and other woke nonsense is taught as a political religion, to make it a crisis excuse so that logic and actual facts are ignored.
.
Can't take you seriously, dude. Sorry.
I don't think a single fuck is given about your opinion so there you go.
Well, evidently enough of one for you to chime in.
It is hard to take someone seriously that thinks man-made climat change can be ignored because of logic and facts.
Ah yes, the tired trope of "you must care because you spent 3 seconds out of your day to comment on something you claim not to care about." *on a discussion board*
Whelp, continue to support turning freeways into boulevards and claiming man made climate change is a fact. One of those I agree with and the other not so much. I'm sure you are smart enough to figure out which is which.
And I'll repeat this, no one gives a fuck about your opinions. Cry about it or don't I don't care. Make sure to I said I don't care. ;)
This forum is filled with opinions. If you don't care about them, one wonders why you spend your time on here.
Blah blah blah
I know I come here for the high quality conversation, the reasoned opinions...
No, you don't.
Quote from: KeithE4PhxAs I and others who actually live here have said numerous times: US 60 is not going to be upgraded to a freeway. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever. The 1980s proposal to do that has been shot down. It is an urban highway and will remain so.
I've lived in Arizona before, so don't use that trump card on me. Again, US-60 is not an urban surface street at Loop 303. It's a rural highway on the edge of the Phoenix metro. From Loop 303 going Northwest US-60 would be fairly easy to convert into a freeway. It's not like I'm asking for something insane like converting US-60 to a freeway inside the 101 loop.
Quote from: KeithE4PhxI drive that route a couple times a year. I-11 will get the trucks off of US 60, other than local business, leaving 60 for car traffic. It would be very nice to upgrade the 60/303 bottleneck... er, I mean... interchange, but it's too built-up in that area now. Lots of homes would have to be demolished, and that just isn't going to happen.
Not all trucks using US-60 are headed to/from Mexico. Phoenix is a big enough magnet on its own for commercial truck traffic. Commercial and personal vehicles driving between Phoenix and Vegas are going to take the most direct route to get from point A to point B. And that's US-60. This weird concept of I-11 might shave off some long distance truck traffic, but it's not going to do much to ease overall existing traffic levels on US-60/Grand Ave. Those traffic levels are just going to keep getting worse despite what ever convenience I-11 provides to other people driving clear on the other side of the White Tank Mountains.
As for the interchange with Loop 303 and US-60, there is enough room to build an off-center directional stack interchange without taking any existing properties. The existing half cloverleaf interchange takes a pretty big footprint on its own. The SE corner is the only problem. Some creative ramp design and utilization of the open area on the NE side can solve that problem.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 08, 2021, 03:20:42 PM
Quote from: KeithE4PhxAs I and others who actually live here have said numerous times: US 60 is not going to be upgraded to a freeway. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever. The 1980s proposal to do that has been shot down. It is an urban highway and will remain so.
I've lived in Arizona before, so don't use that trump card on me. Again, US-60 is not an urban surface street at Loop 303. It's a rural highway on the edge of the Phoenix metro. From Loop 303 going Northwest US-60 would be fairly easy to convert into a freeway. It's not like I'm asking for something insane like converting US-60 to a freeway inside the 101 loop.
Quote from: KeithE4PhxI drive that route a couple times a year. I-11 will get the trucks off of US 60, other than local business, leaving 60 for car traffic. It would be very nice to upgrade the 60/303 bottleneck... er, I mean... interchange, but it's too built-up in that area now. Lots of homes would have to be demolished, and that just isn't going to happen.
Not all trucks using US-60 are headed to/from Mexico. Phoenix is a big enough magnet on its own for commercial truck traffic. Commercial and personal vehicles driving between Phoenix and Vegas are going to take the most direct route to get from point A to point B. And that's US-60. This weird concept of I-11 might shave off some long distance truck traffic, but it's not going to do much to ease overall existing traffic levels on US-60/Grand Ave. Those traffic levels are just going to keep getting worse despite what ever convenience I-11 provides to other people driving clear on the other side of the White Tank Mountains.
As for the interchange with Loop 303 and US-60, there is enough room to build an off-center directional stack interchange without taking any existing properties. The existing half cloverleaf interchange takes a pretty big footprint on its own. The SE corner is the only problem. Some creative ramp design and utilization of the open area on the NE side can solve that problem.
I do think they should have split the difference and routed it on 60-303. But anything inside of 303 on 60 is preposterous in terms of expense, political capital and pollution impacts on neighborhoods.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on December 08, 2021, 05:22:19 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 08, 2021, 03:20:42 PM
Quote from: KeithE4PhxAs I and others who actually live here have said numerous times: US 60 is not going to be upgraded to a freeway. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever. The 1980s proposal to do that has been shot down. It is an urban highway and will remain so.
I've lived in Arizona before, so don't use that trump card on me. Again, US-60 is not an urban surface street at Loop 303. It's a rural highway on the edge of the Phoenix metro. From Loop 303 going Northwest US-60 would be fairly easy to convert into a freeway. It's not like I'm asking for something insane like converting US-60 to a freeway inside the 101 loop.
Quote from: KeithE4PhxI drive that route a couple times a year. I-11 will get the trucks off of US 60, other than local business, leaving 60 for car traffic. It would be very nice to upgrade the 60/303 bottleneck... er, I mean... interchange, but it's too built-up in that area now. Lots of homes would have to be demolished, and that just isn't going to happen.
Not all trucks using US-60 are headed to/from Mexico. Phoenix is a big enough magnet on its own for commercial truck traffic. Commercial and personal vehicles driving between Phoenix and Vegas are going to take the most direct route to get from point A to point B. And that's US-60. This weird concept of I-11 might shave off some long distance truck traffic, but it's not going to do much to ease overall existing traffic levels on US-60/Grand Ave. Those traffic levels are just going to keep getting worse despite what ever convenience I-11 provides to other people driving clear on the other side of the White Tank Mountains.
As for the interchange with Loop 303 and US-60, there is enough room to build an off-center directional stack interchange without taking any existing properties. The existing half cloverleaf interchange takes a pretty big footprint on its own. The SE corner is the only problem. Some creative ramp design and utilization of the open area on the NE side can solve that problem.
I do think they should have split the difference and routed it on 60-303. But anything inside of 303 on 60 is preposterous in terms of expense, political capital and pollution impacts on neighborhoods.
Also, it would add new bottlenecks to Interstates 10 and 17.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 08, 2021, 03:20:42 PM
Quote from: KeithE4PhxAs I and others who actually live here have said numerous times: US 60 is not going to be upgraded to a freeway. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever. The 1980s proposal to do that has been shot down. It is an urban highway and will remain so.
Quote from: KeithE4PhxI drive that route a couple times a year. I-11 will get the trucks off of US 60, other than local business, leaving 60 for car traffic. It would be very nice to upgrade the 60/303 bottleneck... er, I mean... interchange, but it's too built-up in that area now. Lots of homes would have to be demolished, and that just isn't going to happen.
Not all trucks using US-60 are headed to/from Mexico. Phoenix is a big enough magnet on its own for commercial truck traffic. Commercial and personal vehicles driving between Phoenix and Vegas are going to take the most direct route to get from point A to point B. And that's US-60. This weird concept of I-11 might shave off some long distance truck traffic, but it's not going to do much to ease overall existing traffic levels on US-60/Grand Ave. Those traffic levels are just going to keep getting worse despite what ever convenience I-11 provides to other people driving clear on the other side of the White Tank Mountains.
As for the interchange with Loop 303 and US-60, there is enough room to build an off-center directional stack interchange without taking any existing properties. The existing half cloverleaf interchange takes a pretty big footprint on its own. The SE corner is the only problem. Some creative ramp design and utilization of the open area on the NE side can solve that problem.
Don't forget the future improvements of AZ-74 (Carefree Hwy) as an alternative that will eventually be a freeway into the northern side of Phoenix from I-11 to I-17. That will also take a lot of truck traffic off that is heading to the more central/eastern portion of the metro area.
Where I live which is near the Phoenix/Scottsdale border, it's almost the same distance for me to take I-10 west to 303 to 60 versus I-17 up to AZ 74 to 60. I prefer still the 303 and 60 route but only because most of AZ 74 is only two lanes and the traffic volumes make it difficult to pass slow truck and boat traffic (because of the lake). An AZ-74 freeway is a game changer for this.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on December 08, 2021, 05:22:19 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 08, 2021, 03:20:42 PM
Quote from: KeithE4PhxAs I and others who actually live here have said numerous times: US 60 is not going to be upgraded to a freeway. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever. The 1980s proposal to do that has been shot down. It is an urban highway and will remain so.
I've lived in Arizona before, so don't use that trump card on me. Again, US-60 is not an urban surface street at Loop 303. It's a rural highway on the edge of the Phoenix metro. From Loop 303 going Northwest US-60 would be fairly easy to convert into a freeway. It's not like I'm asking for something insane like converting US-60 to a freeway inside the 101 loop.
Quote from: KeithE4PhxI drive that route a couple times a year. I-11 will get the trucks off of US 60, other than local business, leaving 60 for car traffic. It would be very nice to upgrade the 60/303 bottleneck... er, I mean... interchange, but it's too built-up in that area now. Lots of homes would have to be demolished, and that just isn't going to happen.
Not all trucks using US-60 are headed to/from Mexico. Phoenix is a big enough magnet on its own for commercial truck traffic. Commercial and personal vehicles driving between Phoenix and Vegas are going to take the most direct route to get from point A to point B. And that's US-60. This weird concept of I-11 might shave off some long distance truck traffic, but it's not going to do much to ease overall existing traffic levels on US-60/Grand Ave. Those traffic levels are just going to keep getting worse despite what ever convenience I-11 provides to other people driving clear on the other side of the White Tank Mountains.
As for the interchange with Loop 303 and US-60, there is enough room to build an off-center directional stack interchange without taking any existing properties. The existing half cloverleaf interchange takes a pretty big footprint on its own. The SE corner is the only problem. Some creative ramp design and utilization of the open area on the NE side can solve that problem.
I do think they should have split the difference and routed it on 60-303. But anything inside of 303 on 60 is preposterous in terms of expense, political capital and pollution impacts on neighborhoods.
ADOT could end at least a portion of that future freeway threat by relinquishing the inner portion between 101 and I-17 to Peoria, Glendale, and Phoenix. All three cities could afford to take their respective portion of US60/Grand Ave, and ADOT could terminate US60 at a more sensible place like the I-10/Superstition Freeway interchange.
Quote from: brad2971 on December 08, 2021, 07:53:12 PM
ADOT could end at least a portion of that future freeway threat by relinquishing the inner portion between 101 and I-17 to Peoria, Glendale, and Phoenix. All three cities could afford to take their respective portion of US60/Grand Ave, and ADOT could terminate US60 at a more sensible place like the I-10/Superstition Freeway interchange.
We're getting perilously close to Fictional Highways, but the portion of US 60 between the 303 and I-10 (near the Colorado River) is still a viable state highway. If US 60 were to end at I-10 in Tempe, a new number would have to be assigned (AZ 60?).
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 07, 2021, 04:12:55 AM
All opinions aside, a corridor was approved last month including the extension to Tucson and Nogales:
https://www.pinalcentral.com/maricopa_monitor/news/final-route-for-the-proposed-i-11-selected/article_fc8bca2a-4811-56ad-bb03-3b1a0afcd390.html (https://www.pinalcentral.com/maricopa_monitor/news/final-route-for-the-proposed-i-11-selected/article_fc8bca2a-4811-56ad-bb03-3b1a0afcd390.html)
(https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/pinalcentral.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/3/88/3883c094-b2ee-5f4d-bd08-de9870046846/619430ad7012c.image.png?resize=484%2C623)
So if I read the approved routing correctly, somewhere south of Casa Grande on I-10, you'll be at a junction where you have the option of taking I-10 west or I-11 north. If you choose I-10 west, you'll travel the northern route away from the junction and if you choose I-11 north, you'll take the western route away from the junction. Am I missing something?
If this goes through, wouldn't 1-19 be re-signed to I-11? Absolutely no need to duplex such an interstate.
There is zero need to have two Interstate highways going down to Nogales. Out of all the pork barrel proposals for highways being floated nationwide, that's one of the most needless. Existing I-19 is 2 lanes in each direction nearly its entire length. It could be widened from a 2x2 to a 4x4 or even 5x5 configuration within the existing ROW.
I could maybe see I-11 being extended down to the Tucson area in part as a relief route for I-10 and bypass around Tucson to I-19. But since there is generally so much anti-roads opposition in the Tucson area why even bother with any of that. Let Tucson suffocate in stoplight hell as their city continues to sprawl. Divert the highway funding to more worthwhile efforts.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 16, 2021, 09:17:32 PM
There is zero need to have two Interstate highways going down to Nogales. Out of all the pork barrel proposals for highways being floated nationwide, that's one of the most needless. Existing I-19 is 2 lanes in each direction nearly its entire length. It could be widened from a 2x2 to a 4x4 or even 5x5 configuration within the existing ROW.
I could maybe see I-11 being extended down to the Tucson area in part as a relief route for I-10 and bypass around Tucson to I-19. But since there is generally so much anti-roads opposition in the Tucson area why even bother with any of that. Let Tucson suffocate in stoplight hell as their city continues to sprawl. Divert the highway funding to more worthwhile efforts.
Perhaps Arizona saw the New Jersey Turnpike, decided it wanted its own, and plans to make I-19 2x2x2x2 with one set of lanes as I-19 and the other as I-11?
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 16, 2021, 09:17:32 PM
There is zero need to have two Interstate highways going down to Nogales. Out of all the pork barrel proposals for highways being floated nationwide, that's one of the most needless. Existing I-19 is 2 lanes in each direction nearly its entire length. It could be widened from a 2x2 to a 4x4 or even 5x5 configuration within the existing ROW.
I could maybe see I-11 being extended down to the Tucson area in part as a relief route for I-10 and bypass around Tucson to I-19. But since there is generally so much anti-roads opposition in the Tucson area why even bother with any of that. Let Tucson suffocate in stoplight hell as their city continues to sprawl. Divert the highway funding to more worthwhile efforts.
As a Tucson resident, it doesn't really feel like stoplight hell here. Things move fairly well in my experience. That being said, a relief route would be nice to have.
Quote from: vdeanePerhaps Arizona saw the New Jersey Turnpike, decided it wanted its own, and plans to make I-19 2x2x2x2 with one set of lanes as I-19 and the other as I-11?
The difference with the New Jersey Turnpike is it dodges around a highly populous complex of cities (Philadelphia, Trenton, Camden, etc) from Wilmington on the way to the NYC area. The last time I checked there isn't any giant metro between Tucson and Nogales to bypass.
Additionally, the New Jersey Turnpike served as a surrogate "thru" version of I-95 because the signed version of I-95 going into Philadelphia came to a dead end in Trenton. Now there is a halfway decent connection to make I-95 a technically "thru" route. Yet the New Jersey Turnpike is a much more straight shot.
If people in AZ are planning on making I-19 and I-11 twinned into some 2x2x2x2 thing they must be smoking some special kind of "rope." A couple of the massive road improvement projects in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex ended up in 2x2x2x2 configurations
and those SUCK.
The I-11 proposal/plan in Arizona is nothing about a Phoenix or Tucson bypass for the local/regional population like AZDOT or other public officials are trying to sell it. For everyone saying "we were told only Phoenix to Vegas", you need to Google "Canamex Corridor". Look for the maps and research when the corridor was first PUBLICLY proposed. I-11 from Phoenix to Vegas was the bait and switch for a new superhighway/interstate to further facilitate the overall NAFTA agenda. McCain and other politicians have been planning since the 90s to have an interstate run from Nogales to Vegas to connect to I-15 and ultimately to the Canadian border for corporate interests.
When you see the overall picture, the Record of Decision makes perfect sense: I-11 is not about being a new part of the interstate system connecting two close large metropolitan areas, but a NAFTA superhighway connecting Mexico and Canada. The NAFTA name has since gone by the wayside but the intent is still the same by globalist aligned politicians in BOTH parties who play us like fiddles. We can only trust politicians to lie to us and serve the interests that make them money, and we need to understand that this extends to transportation planning along with nearly every facet of our lives. If you think this is opinion, then you are not paying attention and need to wake up.
I-11 running from Vegas to Reno is merely a tangent by NVDOT and not necessarily a part of the overall globalist agenda. At the time of the Canamex Corridor proposal the plan by the globalists was the integration of the North American countries to form the North American Union, and connecting superhighways were a major part of this serving future business interests via paid off politicians pushing things like this in the interim. We can debate whether this is still a plan that is no longer publicly talked about, but when we see governments across the world working in lockstep to overblow COVID in order to take away our rights for assumed ends, we should be able to see the real enemy and put our political differences aside to figure out what the hell is really going on.
Back on track, it is logical that if the full proposal comes to fruition in Pima County then the I-19 designation would be dropped and we will likely see the only 3DI in Arizona for the remainder of I-19 running from I-11 to I-10. If this happens the metric system signage would likely be dropped with the resigning to I-11. In doing so, I-11 would connect to the most access-controlled / superhighway route to Mexico City from the western US, and THAT is the whole point of the ROD routing.
^ There's still little need south of Phoenix / I-10 west of the city. I-10 and I-19 already exist, and will be / can be expanded to 6-8 lanes to accommodate growing volumes. There's no need to have two parallel highways.
Despite what you say, the main utility of I-11 will still be Vegas to Phoenix traffic.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 16, 2021, 09:17:32 PM
There is zero need to have two Interstate highways going down to Nogales. Out of all the pork barrel proposals for highways being floated nationwide, that's one of the most needless. Existing I-19 is 2 lanes in each direction nearly its entire length. It could be widened from a 2x2 to a 4x4 or even 5x5 configuration within the existing ROW.
I could maybe see I-11 being extended down to the Tucson area in part as a relief route for I-10 and bypass around Tucson to I-19. But since there is generally so much anti-roads opposition in the Tucson area why even bother with any of that. Let Tucson suffocate in stoplight hell as their city continues to sprawl. Divert the highway funding to more worthwhile efforts.
I am not sure why Interstate 11 is going to Nogales though despite it being a part of the CANAMEX corridor. In fact I'd rather prefer one to Lukeville, although there is no need for such.
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 17, 2021, 12:50:48 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 16, 2021, 09:17:32 PM
There is zero need to have two Interstate highways going down to Nogales. Out of all the pork barrel proposals for highways being floated nationwide, that's one of the most needless. Existing I-19 is 2 lanes in each direction nearly its entire length. It could be widened from a 2x2 to a 4x4 or even 5x5 configuration within the existing ROW.
I could maybe see I-11 being extended down to the Tucson area in part as a relief route for I-10 and bypass around Tucson to I-19. But since there is generally so much anti-roads opposition in the Tucson area why even bother with any of that. Let Tucson suffocate in stoplight hell as their city continues to sprawl. Divert the highway funding to more worthwhile efforts.
I am not sure why Interstate 11 is going to Nogales though despite it being a part of the CANAMEX corridor. In fact I'd rather prefer one to Lukeville, although there is no need for such.
Egads. Why would you prefer that? An interstate through a national monument to a dinky town on the border in which my father used to live...
And an Air Force bombing range...
Quote from: aboges26 on December 17, 2021, 12:21:58 AM
The I-11 proposal/plan in Arizona is nothing about a Phoenix or Tucson bypass for the local/regional population like AZDOT or other public officials are trying to sell it. For everyone saying "we were told only Phoenix to Vegas", you need to Google "Canamex Corridor". Look for the maps and research when the corridor was first PUBLICLY proposed. I-11 from Phoenix to Vegas was the bait and switch for a new superhighway/interstate to further facilitate the overall NAFTA agenda. McCain and other politicians have been planning since the 90s to have an interstate run from Nogales to Vegas to connect to I-15 and ultimately to the Canadian border for corporate interests.
When you see the overall picture, the Record of Decision makes perfect sense: I-11 is not about being a new part of the interstate system connecting two close large metropolitan areas, but a NAFTA superhighway connecting Mexico and Canada. The NAFTA name has since gone by the wayside but the intent is still the same by globalist aligned politicians in BOTH parties who play us like fiddles. We can only trust politicians to lie to us and serve the interests that make them money, and we need to understand that this extends to transportation planning along with nearly every facet of our lives. If you think this is opinion, then you are not paying attention and need to wake up.
I-11 running from Vegas to Reno is merely a tangent by NVDOT and not necessarily a part of the overall globalist agenda. At the time of the Canamex Corridor proposal the plan by the globalists was the integration of the North American countries to form the North American Union, and connecting superhighways were a major part of this serving future business interests via paid off politicians pushing things like this in the interim. We can debate whether this is still a plan that is no longer publicly talked about, but when we see governments across the world working in lockstep to overblow COVID in order to take away our rights for assumed ends, we should be able to see the real enemy and put our political differences aside to figure out what the hell is really going on.
Back on track, it is logical that if the full proposal comes to fruition in Pima County then the I-19 designation would be dropped and we will likely see the only 3DI in Arizona for the remainder of I-19 running from I-11 to I-10. If this happens the metric system signage would likely be dropped with the resigning to I-11. In doing so, I-11 would connect to the most access-controlled / superhighway route to Mexico City from the western US, and THAT is the whole point of the ROD routing.
That doesn't explain why these corridors all need to have a uniform number, though. The interstate system already connects Mexico to Canada. Sure, there are some gaps that should be filled in, but there's no need for "NAFTA Superhighways". Why does everybody only think of corridors rather than systems these days? In any case, Canamex would still have more than one number, since I doubt they're renumbering or re-routing I-15. What's wrong with leaving Canamex as just a name and letting I-11 be the connector between I-15 and I-19/I-10? Although at least I-11 will probably get built, unlike I-69, which is turning into another I-74.
As for a North American Union, if that's what they're going for, all the times they've thickened the border since 9/11 would be counter-productive for that. Crossing the border used to be easy. Now it requires a passport and for one to endure an interrogation during which the border guard makes you feel like you're wrong for crossing that line on the map (after waiting a while in line), at best. Even NEXUS just gets you back to the way things were in the 90s, for a fee and lots of red tape and background checks. They also don't seem to be doing a great job of integrating the freeways of the US, Canada, and Mexico into a grand system - in fact, even if Canada were interested in extending the interstates into its country, it would be nearly universally unable to, since most freeways that go to the border don't meet the same standards approaching/leaving the border that the interstates do. And Mexico doesn't even have anything resembling the interstate
system. Plus the different responses to COVID would seem to bring us further apart, not closer together.
Quote from: Rothman on December 17, 2021, 06:51:15 AM
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 17, 2021, 12:50:48 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 16, 2021, 09:17:32 PM
There is zero need to have two Interstate highways going down to Nogales. Out of all the pork barrel proposals for highways being floated nationwide, that's one of the most needless. Existing I-19 is 2 lanes in each direction nearly its entire length. It could be widened from a 2x2 to a 4x4 or even 5x5 configuration within the existing ROW.
I could maybe see I-11 being extended down to the Tucson area in part as a relief route for I-10 and bypass around Tucson to I-19. But since there is generally so much anti-roads opposition in the Tucson area why even bother with any of that. Let Tucson suffocate in stoplight hell as their city continues to sprawl. Divert the highway funding to more worthwhile efforts.
I am not sure why Interstate 11 is going to Nogales though despite it being a part of the CANAMEX corridor. In fact I'd rather prefer one to Lukeville, although there is no need for such.
Egads. Why would you prefer that? An interstate through a national monument to a dinky town on the border in which my father used to live...
Well I wasn't sure why I-11 would be needed south of Phoenix, essentially making a concurrency along I-10 and possibly eliminating I-19 in the process. It wouldn't run through the reservation to the east of the monument either.
This whole interstate just isn't right. It doesn't serve Phoenix to Vegas traffic unless you're out on the far flung westside and goes way the hell east out of Reno instead of connecting to I-580 in Carson City which it should. I really planners rethink this crap proposal before it gets built. At least in the near future the section from Kingman to NV state line is sensible and needed.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 17, 2021, 02:33:25 PM
This whole interstate just isn't right. It doesn't serve Phoenix to Vegas traffic unless you're out on the far flung westside and goes way the hell east out of Reno instead of connecting to I-580 in Carson City which it should. I really planners rethink this crap proposal before it gets built. At least in the near future the section from Kingman to NV state line is sensible and needed.
I thought it would go down US 60 to SR 303 loop and to end at I-10, since it's mostly low density over there.
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 17, 2021, 02:42:35 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 17, 2021, 02:33:25 PM
This whole interstate just isn't right. It doesn't serve Phoenix to Vegas traffic unless you're out on the far flung westside and goes way the hell east out of Reno instead of connecting to I-580 in Carson City which it should. I really planners rethink this crap proposal before it gets built. At least in the near future the section from Kingman to NV state line is sensible and needed.
I thought it would go down US 60 to SR 303 loop and to end at I-10, since it's mostly low density over there.
You mean the segment of I-10 south of Phoenix? Not the segment west because a loop is justified there. To clarify, I am not at all against building the proposed freeways I-11 is planned to be signed on just the fact I-11 will be signed on them. I say still build the freeways but connect I-11 directly from downtown Phoenix to Las Vegas and then DTLV to Reno via connecting I-580 at Carson City and renumbering that road obviously. The latter was ruled by NDOT as being cost prohibitive so now they are proposing I-11 to connect way east of Reno at I-80. It's a joke.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 17, 2021, 02:46:39 PM
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 17, 2021, 02:42:35 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 17, 2021, 02:33:25 PM
This whole interstate just isn't right. It doesn't serve Phoenix to Vegas traffic unless you're out on the far flung westside and goes way the hell east out of Reno instead of connecting to I-580 in Carson City which it should. I really planners rethink this crap proposal before it gets built. At least in the near future the section from Kingman to NV state line is sensible and needed.
I thought it would go down US 60 to SR 303 loop and to end at I-10, since it's mostly low density over there.
You mean the segment of I-10 south of Phoenix? Not the segment west because a loop is justified there. To clarify, I am not at all against building the proposed freeways I-11 is planned to be signed on just the fact I-11 will be signed on them. I say still build the freeways but connect I-11 directly from downtown Phoenix to Las Vegas and then DTLV to Reno via connecting I-580 at Carson City and renumbering that road obviously. The latter was ruled by NDOT as being cost prohibitive so now they are proposing I-11 to connect way east of Reno at I-80. It's a joke.
I first read I-11 as a Las Vegas to Phoenix route with a possible northward extension to Reno, which I get entirely. What I don't get is building another freeway south of Phoenix to Nogales which is covered by both I-10 and I-19. However, there's AZ 85 that have yet be upgraded as well.
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 17, 2021, 03:01:00 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 17, 2021, 02:46:39 PM
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 17, 2021, 02:42:35 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 17, 2021, 02:33:25 PM
This whole interstate just isn't right. It doesn't serve Phoenix to Vegas traffic unless you're out on the far flung westside and goes way the hell east out of Reno instead of connecting to I-580 in Carson City which it should. I really planners rethink this crap proposal before it gets built. At least in the near future the section from Kingman to NV state line is sensible and needed.
I thought it would go down US 60 to SR 303 loop and to end at I-10, since it's mostly low density over there.
You mean the segment of I-10 south of Phoenix? Not the segment west because a loop is justified there. To clarify, I am not at all against building the proposed freeways I-11 is planned to be signed on just the fact I-11 will be signed on them. I say still build the freeways but connect I-11 directly from downtown Phoenix to Las Vegas and then DTLV to Reno via connecting I-580 at Carson City and renumbering that road obviously. The latter was ruled by NDOT as being cost prohibitive so now they are proposing I-11 to connect way east of Reno at I-80. It's a joke.
I first read I-11 as a Las Vegas to Phoenix route with a possible northward extension to Reno, which I get entirely. What I don't get is building another freeway south of Phoenix to Nogales which is covered by both I-10 and I-19. However, there's AZ 85 that have yet be upgraded as well.
I was thinking of a bypass around Estrella Mountain in the far SW connecting to I-8. But yeah I-11 to the border is just stupid. That might just be the most ridiculous road idea in the states with a serious proposal atm.
Quote from: Zonie on December 17, 2021, 10:22:33 AM
And an Air Force bombing range...
Which bombing range? All I see is shooting ranges
The CANAMEX/NAFTA corridor sales pitch is really pretty laughable. How is such a corridor supposed to attract giant volumes of international commercial trucking traffic with such a
freakishly crooked corridor?A bunch of the distorted twists and bends of this proposed "I-11"
thing is really doing more to serve real estate speculator interests than anything else. That's what that stupid path way out West of the White Tanks is about. Build a new freeway out there and a bunch of over-priced housing development projects will follow. There is no other purpose for it than that.
I-11 below I-10 is a solution in search of a problem. How much traffic flows on I-19 currently? Nearly all of it is just 2x2 lanes. If traffic were truly heavy enough to warrant building a second Interstate highway parallel to I-19 the existing I-19 highway would have had to be widened numerous times by now and still bursting at the seams with traffic. Well, it isn't. I-11 would be best as a Vegas-Phoenix corridor (and maybe Reno someday). All the other distractions and misdirections of proposed I-11 are efforts chasing after pork funding.
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4Which bombing range? All I see is shooting ranges
Luke Air Force Range (aka Barry M. Goldwater Air Force Range) is pretty gigantic.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 17, 2021, 03:44:20 PM
The CANAMEX/NAFTA corridor sales pitch is really pretty laughable. How is such a corridor supposed to attract giant volumes of international commercial trucking traffic with such a freakishly crooked corridor?
A bunch of the distorted twists and bends of this proposed "I-11" thing is really doing more to serve real estate speculator interests than anything else. That's what that stupid path way out West of the White Tanks is about. Build a new freeway out there and a bunch of over-priced housing development projects will follow. There is no other purpose for it than that.
I-11 below I-10 is a solution in search of a problem. How much traffic flows on I-19 currently? Nearly all of it is just 2x2 lanes. If traffic were truly heavy enough to warrant building a second Interstate highway parallel I-19 the existing I-19 would have had to be widened numerous times by now and still bursting at the seams with traffic. Well, it isn't. I-11 would be best as a Vegas-Phoenix corridor (and maybe Reno someday). All the other distractions and misdirections of proposed I-11 are efforts chasing after pork funding.
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4Which bombing range? All I see is shooting ranges
Luke Air Force Range (aka Barry M. Goldwater Air Force Range) is pretty gigantic.
I just noticed it covered a half of AZ 85's length south of I-8. :banghead:
I am going to be furious if they do not turn the other half of AZ 85 into a freeway and then designate it as Interstate 711.
Quote from: kernals12 on December 19, 2021, 09:54:05 PM
I am going to be furious if they do not turn the other half of AZ 85 into a freeway and then designate it as Interstate 711.
Why? It's not like any of these designations are chargeable anymore.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 19, 2021, 09:56:20 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 19, 2021, 09:54:05 PM
I am going to be furious if they do not turn the other half of AZ 85 into a freeway and then designate it as Interstate 711.
Why? It's not like any of these designations are chargeable anymore.
It's a joke
Quote from: kernals12 on December 19, 2021, 10:47:41 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 19, 2021, 09:56:20 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 19, 2021, 09:54:05 PM
I am going to be furious if they do not turn the other half of AZ 85 into a freeway and then designate it as Interstate 711.
Why? It's not like any of these designations are chargeable anymore.
It's a joke
But it also raises an interesting point of conjecture. Unsubstantiated word on the street is that's why the Loop Freeways are signed as State Highways. Apparently there might have been some lingering bitterness at ADOT towards the FHWA for the total lack of chargeable three digit Interstates.
Quote from: kernals12 on December 19, 2021, 10:47:41 PM
It's a joke
This is why I've started using strikethrough text as seen on Discord and Reddit (and probably exists on other sites).
Side note: people have used /s to mean sarcasm for years, and BBcode uses /s in brackets as a strikethrough tag. There's a hidden connection here.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 19, 2021, 10:55:44 PM
Apparently there might have been some lingering bitterness at ADOT towards the FHWA for the total lack of chargeable three digit Interstates.
Interesting... if I-19 were to be replaced with I-11 and the remainder made a 3di, that would presumably be a chargeable 3di in Arizona... could make for some interesting dynamics.
The only logical reason that I could see why Interstate 11 going being as fast west as Buckeye is perhaps due to traffic jams on Interstate 10 and 17. But even then, the traffic on Loop 303 appear to be fine.
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 20, 2021, 06:51:11 PM
The only logical reason that I could see why Interstate 11 going being as fast west as Buckeye is perhaps due to traffic jams on Interstate 10 and 17. But even then, the traffic on Loop 303 appear to be fine.
As I've said several times, developers have big plans for that corridor. Douglas Ranch alone is planned for 300,000 people.
That's a whole lot of people for one planned community.
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 20, 2021, 07:28:03 PM
That's a whole lot of people for one planned community.
It's about the same size as Irvine, California.
Phoenix is booming.
I also managed to find a possibility of a Loop 505 as well from US 60 to Interstate 11 in this PDF.
https://arizonacrew.org/getmedia/d4ecf887-6b56-4640-91d0-086e87066f88/AZCREW-Nov19-Presentation.pdf.aspx
Quote from: kernals12 on December 20, 2021, 08:04:46 PM
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 20, 2021, 07:28:03 PM
That's a whole lot of people for one planned community.
It's about the same size as Irvine, California.
Wow.
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 20, 2021, 08:06:41 PM
I also managed to find a possibility of a Loop 505 as well from US 60 to Interstate 11 in this PDF.
https://arizonacrew.org/getmedia/d4ecf887-6b56-4640-91d0-086e87066f88/AZCREW-Nov19-Presentation.pdf.aspx
Quote from: kernals12 on December 20, 2021, 08:04:46 PM
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 20, 2021, 07:28:03 PM
That's a whole lot of people for one planned community.
It's about the same size as Irvine, California.
Wow.
I have no idea why they would number such a freeway as 505 when there's no 404 anywhere on the map, unless ADOT is worried about sign thefts.
Quote from: kernals12 on December 20, 2021, 08:10:22 PM
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 20, 2021, 08:06:41 PM
I also managed to find a possibility of a Loop 505 as well from US 60 to Interstate 11 in this PDF.
https://arizonacrew.org/getmedia/d4ecf887-6b56-4640-91d0-086e87066f88/AZCREW-Nov19-Presentation.pdf.aspx
Quote from: kernals12 on December 20, 2021, 08:04:46 PM
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 20, 2021, 07:28:03 PM
That's a whole lot of people for one planned community.
It's about the same size as Irvine, California.
Wow.
I have no idea why they would number such a freeway as 505 when there's no 404 anywhere on the map, unless ADOT is worried about sign thefts.
I was wondering about where Loop 404 would go as well within the western Phoenix area or any metro area for that matter.
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 20, 2021, 08:14:29 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 20, 2021, 08:10:22 PM
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 20, 2021, 08:06:41 PM
I also managed to find a possibility of a Loop 505 as well from US 60 to Interstate 11 in this PDF.
https://arizonacrew.org/getmedia/d4ecf887-6b56-4640-91d0-086e87066f88/AZCREW-Nov19-Presentation.pdf.aspx
Quote from: kernals12 on December 20, 2021, 08:04:46 PM
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 20, 2021, 07:28:03 PM
That's a whole lot of people for one planned community.
It's about the same size as Irvine, California.
Wow.
I have no idea why they would number such a freeway as 505 when there's no 404 anywhere on the map, unless ADOT is worried about sign thefts.
I was wondering about where Loop 404 would go as well within the western Phoenix area or any metro area for that matter.
Back in the 2000s they toyed with I-11 being Loop 404.
How interesting.
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 20, 2021, 08:06:41 PM
I also managed to find a possibility of a Loop 505 as well from US 60 to Interstate 11 in this PDF.
That proposed Loop 505 alignment, plus the leg of I-11 between it and I-10, looks similar to a 2008-vintage proposal for the Loop 404.
Oh, how interesting. I wonder if it will be signed as Loop 404 or 505 once the freeway is done.
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 20, 2021, 10:48:37 PM
Oh, how interesting. I wonder if it will be signed as Loop 404 or 505 once the freeway is done.
It'll be signed as SR 74 in all likelihood
Quote from: kernals12 on December 20, 2021, 08:10:22 PM
I have no idea why they would number such a freeway as 505 when there's no 404 anywhere on the map
Are you saying...you can't find it?
Quote from: kernals12 on December 20, 2021, 11:25:52 PM
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 20, 2021, 10:48:37 PM
Oh, how interesting. I wonder if it will be signed as Loop 404 or 505 once the freeway is done.
It'll be signed as SR 74 in all likelihood
I did see that SR 74 could be extended to I-11 once Interstate 11 was completed. Plus, it was planned that AZ 74 would be upgraded around 2025.
Quote from: kernals12 on December 20, 2021, 08:26:16 PM
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 20, 2021, 08:14:29 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 20, 2021, 08:10:22 PM
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 20, 2021, 08:06:41 PM
I also managed to find a possibility of a Loop 505 as well from US 60 to Interstate 11 in this PDF.
https://arizonacrew.org/getmedia/d4ecf887-6b56-4640-91d0-086e87066f88/AZCREW-Nov19-Presentation.pdf.aspx
Quote from: kernals12 on December 20, 2021, 08:04:46 PM
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 20, 2021, 07:28:03 PM
That's a whole lot of people for one planned community.
It's about the same size as Irvine, California.
Wow.
I have no idea why they would number such a freeway as 505 when there's no 404 anywhere on the map, unless ADOT is worried about sign thefts.
I was wondering about where Loop 404 would go as well within the western Phoenix area or any metro area for that matter.
Back in the 2000s they toyed with I-11 being Loop 404.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bd/Phoenix_Metro_Area_Future_Freeway_System.svg/2880px-Phoenix_Metro_Area_Future_Freeway_System.svg.png)
In this wikipedia map I stumbled across from 2008, it did show parts of Loop 404 and AZ 174 (both proposed at the time) will become Interstate 11. Additionally, it looked like Loop 404 could connect to Loop 303 and Route 74 being extended to I-11.
Map Key (As of 2008):
Black - Existing Freeways
Blue - Future Freeways
Green - ROW Preservation
Red - Unfunded
I-11 was first proposed in 2011 (I forget the exact date). The Mike O'Callaghan—Pat Tillman Memorial Bridge opened on October 19, 2010. No interstate could be officially proposed until it opened.
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 20, 2021, 11:28:48 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 20, 2021, 11:25:52 PM
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 20, 2021, 10:48:37 PM
Oh, how interesting. I wonder if it will be signed as Loop 404 or 505 once the freeway is done.
It'll be signed as SR 74 in all likelihood
I did see that SR 74 could be extended to I-11 once Interstate 11 was completed. Plus, it was planned that AZ 74 would be upgraded around 2025.
AZ 74 needs to be 4-laned, but only the portion between I-17 and Lake Pleasant needs to be freeway standards at first. The turnoff for Lake Pleasant is as big a bottleneck as Beale St. in Kingman, at least during boating season. It needs to be rebuilt into a full interchange.
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 20, 2021, 10:48:37 PM
Oh, how interesting. I wonder if it will be signed as Loop 404 or 505 once the freeway is done.
With I-11 now being routed further west, I doubt the 404/505/whatever will be built anytime soon. But you're young enough to maybe see it built by the time you retire. :)
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 20, 2021, 11:28:29 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 20, 2021, 08:10:22 PM
I have no idea why they would number such a freeway as 505 when there's no 404 anywhere on the map
Are you saying...you can't find it?
Error, 404 Freeway Not Found
Quote from: kernals12 on December 21, 2021, 07:03:50 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 20, 2021, 11:28:29 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 20, 2021, 08:10:22 PM
I have no idea why they would number such a freeway as 505 when there's no 404 anywhere on the map
Are you saying...you can't find it?
Error, 404 Freeway Not Found
:clap:
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 20, 2021, 11:33:40 PM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bd/Phoenix_Metro_Area_Future_Freeway_System.svg/2880px-Phoenix_Metro_Area_Future_Freeway_System.svg.png)
In this wikipedia map I stumbled across from 2008, it did show parts of Loop 404 and AZ 174 (both proposed at the time) will become Interstate 11. Additionally, it looked like Loop 404 could connect to Loop 303 and Route 74 being extended to I-11.
Map Key (As of 2008):
Black - Existing Freeways
Blue - Future Freeways
Green - ROW Preservation
Red - Unfunded
Just a quick note: What was shown as SR 801 in 2008 is now known as SR 30 (Tres Rios Fwy), and what was SR 802 back then is now SR 24 (Gateway Fwy). A small portion of the latter is now open, with more under construction. The former is still just a proposal, though it appears to be moving forward.
Quote from: SSR_317 on December 26, 2021, 07:51:56 PM
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 20, 2021, 11:33:40 PM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bd/Phoenix_Metro_Area_Future_Freeway_System.svg/2880px-Phoenix_Metro_Area_Future_Freeway_System.svg.png)
In this wikipedia map I stumbled across from 2008, it did show parts of Loop 404 and AZ 174 (both proposed at the time) will become Interstate 11. Additionally, it looked like Loop 404 could connect to Loop 303 and Route 74 being extended to I-11.
Map Key (As of 2008):
Black - Existing Freeways
Blue - Future Freeways
Green - ROW Preservation
Red - Unfunded
Just a quick note: What was shown as SR 801 in 2008 is now known as SR 30 (Tres Rios Fwy), and what was SR 802 back then is now SR 24 (Gateway Fwy). A small portion of the latter is now open, with more under construction. The former is still just a proposal, though it appears to be moving forward.
Also in the map proposed SR 801 didn't extend to the Durango curve yet most proposed SR 30 plans do show that route extending to the Durango curve (although it also appears that SR 30 is planned to join SR 85 and use a limited access SR 85 to access I-10).
Quote from: ztonyg on December 26, 2021, 10:54:21 PM
Also in the map proposed SR 801 didn't extend to the Durango curve yet most proposed SR 30 plans do show that route extending to the Durango curve (although it also appears that SR 30 is planned to join SR 85 and use a limited access SR 85 to access I-10).
I've never heard of any real plans for AZ 30 that don't run it to the Durango Curve. Without that segment, there is little need for the road. After all, its original "concept" name was "I-10 Reliever." It wouldn't be much of a reliever if its eastern end was the South Mountain Fwy/Loop 202.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on December 26, 2021, 11:04:54 PM
Quote from: ztonyg on December 26, 2021, 10:54:21 PM
Also in the map proposed SR 801 didn't extend to the Durango curve yet most proposed SR 30 plans do show that route extending to the Durango curve (although it also appears that SR 30 is planned to join SR 85 and use a limited access SR 85 to access I-10).
I've never heard of any real plans for AZ 30 that don't run it to the Durango Curve. Without that segment, there is little need for the road. After all, its original "concept" name was "I-10 Reliever." It wouldn't be much of a reliever if its eastern end was the South Mountain Fwy/Loop 202.
I disagree to a point, AZ 30 - Loop 202 could be an I-10 reliever (just not for traffic headed to Central Phoenix, N Phoenix, Tempe or Scottsdale). I believe that there was fear that the highly developed segment from Loop 202 - I-17 would be mired in lawsuits and expensive land aquisition costs.
Here's a map of real estate development plans in the Phoenix Area
(https://i.imgur.com/DU9pDzo.png)
Look at all the purple along the proposed I-11 ROW.
:-o
That's a lot of residential plans for the I-11 area which is why the freeway is so far west of Loop 303 and what not.
A bunch of those planned development projects may end up being wishful thinking. The real estate industry is way way into an over-priced bubble economy. Housing costs are rising way beyond the levels of average income growth. With consumer price inflation set to soar even higher in 2022 on things like food and fuel it's going to kill the financial viability of many of those projects. Add in the additional problems of limited natural resources like water. There is only so much additional growth the Phoenix area is going to be able to support.
If I-11 gets built on the proposed routing way out West of the White Tanks I think it's going to be a freeway out in the middle of nowhere, carrying sparse levels of traffic for many years to come. If that area out West is really supposed to blow up with development then why aren't existing towns not all far from Phoenix, such as Gila Bend or Casa Grade, blowing up with development already?
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 03, 2022, 12:07:13 PM
A bunch of those planned development projects may end up being wishful thinking. The real estate industry is way way into an over-priced bubble economy. Housing costs are rising way beyond the levels of average income growth. With consumer price inflation set to soar even higher in 2022 on things like food and fuel it's going to kill the financial viability of many of those projects. Add in the additional problems of limited natural resources like water. There is only so much additional growth the Phoenix area is going to be able to support.
If I-11 gets built on the proposed routing way out West of the White Tanks I think it's going to be a freeway out in the middle of nowhere, carrying sparse levels of traffic for many years to come. If that area out West is really supposed to blow up with development then why aren't existing towns not all far from Phoenix, such as Gila Bend or Casa Grade, blowing up with development already?
I agree. Are there really enough jobs in Arizona to support all that housing? And water? Contributing to a housing bubble isn't really the purpose of interstate highways...
Phoenix had a fairly rough time during the last major housing industry market crash roughly 15 years ago. Speculation going on in the market now is arguably even more ridiculous than ever. My part of the country (Oklahoma) didn't fare too badly in that down-turn because housing prices didn't rise so far out of whack here back then. That isn't really the case now. This current bubble is very big and honestly not sustainable. Personal wages/income is not there to justify the prices.
Adding to the absurdity, look at what kind of homes are typically being built brand new: great big family sized homes for people with significant six figure incomes. Not everyone makes $200,000 or more a year. There is a major shortage in "starter" type homes. Very few of those are being built new. Naturally, speculators from across the globe have noticed the problem and responded by buying and holding a lot of older, existing homes that can fill that demand. We're seeing that kind of activity here in Lawton. Anonymous buyers paying cash.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 03, 2022, 03:34:35 PM
Phoenix had a fairly rough time during the last major housing industry market crash roughly 15 years ago. Speculation going on in the market now is arguably even more ridiculous than ever. My part of the country (Oklahoma) didn't fare too badly in that down-turn because housing prices didn't rise so far out of whack here back then. That isn't really the case now. This current bubble is very big and honestly not sustainable. Personal wages/income is not there to justify the prices.
Adding to the absurdity, look at what kind of homes are typically being built brand new: great big family sized homes for people with significant six figure incomes. Not everyone makes $200,000 or more a year. There is a major shortage in "starter" type homes. Very few of those are being built new. Naturally, speculators from across the globe have noticed the problem and responded by buying and holding a lot of older, existing homes that can fill that demand. We're seeing that kind of activity here in Lawton. Anonymous buyers paying cash.
I know this is getting off topic, and might be worthy of splitting off into a separate thread, but obviously the same thing is happening out here in Colorado just at a higher price point. Denver is one of the more expensive metro areas out here, and about four years ago, even though people said it was the peak of the market, I realized that the super rich were buying all of the real estate so that the middle class couldn't afford their own. So, we bought a nice house in a city that didn't have the same appeal as others in the metro. We became a little bit house poor because of it, but my house has gone up $200k in value in 4 years. Doing a cash out refi helped pay off all other debt, and since we're not paying crappy credit card interest, I could refi into a 15 year mortgage (which wasn't a ton higher than my 30 year with PMI included) and so we can be completely debt free in about 14 years. Had I waited to buy, I wouldn't be able to find a single house out here that we'd be willing to live in for less than $450k. Once you're in, you're good, but it's hard to see how first time home buyers that aren't making minimum $150k between two people could buy in the metro.
Does Denver have urban growth boundaries? There is a lot of land to build large sprawling subdivisions on. Why are homes prices so high?
I think they should complete Interstate 11 to Interstate 8 and then call it a day. Is Interstate 10 between the Interstate 8 junction and Tucson so congested that a parallel route is necessary (which I am not convinced it is)?
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 03, 2022, 12:07:13 PM
A bunch of those planned development projects may end up being wishful thinking. The real estate industry is way way into an over-priced bubble economy. Housing costs are rising way beyond the levels of average income growth. With consumer price inflation set to soar even higher in 2022 on things like food and fuel it's going to kill the financial viability of many of those projects. Add in the additional problems of limited natural resources like water. There is only so much additional growth the Phoenix area is going to be able to support.
If I-11 gets built on the proposed routing way out West of the White Tanks I think it's going to be a freeway out in the middle of nowhere, carrying sparse levels of traffic for many years to come. If that area out West is really supposed to blow up with development then why aren't existing towns not all far from Phoenix, such as Gila Bend or Casa Grade, blowing up with development already?
Quote from: kkt on January 03, 2022, 02:43:30 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 03, 2022, 12:07:13 PM
A bunch of those planned development projects may end up being wishful thinking. The real estate industry is way way into an over-priced bubble economy. Housing costs are rising way beyond the levels of average income growth. With consumer price inflation set to soar even higher in 2022 on things like food and fuel it's going to kill the financial viability of many of those projects. Add in the additional problems of limited natural resources like water. There is only so much additional growth the Phoenix area is going to be able to support.
If I-11 gets built on the proposed routing way out West of the White Tanks I think it's going to be a freeway out in the middle of nowhere, carrying sparse levels of traffic for many years to come. If that area out West is really supposed to blow up with development then why aren't existing towns not all far from Phoenix, such as Gila Bend or Casa Grade, blowing up with development already?
I agree. Are there really enough jobs in Arizona to support all that housing? And water? Contributing to a housing bubble isn't really the purpose of interstate highways...
Phoenix doesn't have a bubble, it has a shortage. Unlike in 2007, the demand is real but supply isn't keeping up. Californians have been set free by telecommuting and they are descending upon the Grand Canyon State.
And yes, Arizona has plenty of jobs and water. People bring jobs with them, as businesses move to where potential workers and customers are. And as I've said several times, Arizona's growth is reducing water consumption. When a cottonfield is turned into a suburban subdivision, water use goes down. That's a big reason why Arizona uses less water now than it did 70 years ago.
Also, Casa Grande is absolutely booming
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 03, 2022, 06:46:43 PM
I think they should complete Interstate 11 to Interstate 8 and then call it a day. Is Interstate 10 between the Interstate 8 junction and Tucson so congested that a parallel route is necessary (which I am not convinced it is)?
Down to I-8 would be just fine. If Arizona wants to facilitate sprawl, they can build state routes.
Quote from: kkt on January 03, 2022, 07:00:23 PM
If Arizona wants to facilitate sprawl, they can build state routes.
ADOT is notorious for not building new state routes, especially in the metro Phoenix area. All there are in Maricopa County are US 60 from I-17 to I-10 via Grand Ave. and Wickenburg, AZ 74 from Morristown to I-17, AZ 87 (Beeline Hwy north of Mesa), most of the now-mostly-closed AZ 88 (Apache Trail), and slivers of US 93, AZ 71, and AZ 347.
AZ 85 between I-10 and I-8 technically still counts, but it will be upgraded to a freeway eventually. US 60X (Apache Trail/Main St) through the Mesa county islands exists, but is unsigned.
Quote from: kernalsPhoenix doesn't have a bubble, it has a shortage. Unlike in 2007, the demand is real but supply isn't keeping up.
There is a housing shortage nation-wide, housing in price levels that match average incomes. All over the US residential developments are popping up as if everyone pulls in a solid six-figure income. I see the disconnect even here in Lawton, OK -which is not what anyone would consider to be a booming real estate market. The federal government and banks have steadily relaxed borrowing standards to let home buyers get in way over their heads
just like in the mid 2000's.The thing currently propping up this new bubble is whole lot of international money. Buyers grabbing up properties to hold like trading cards and not actually live in them. A shit ton of high priced residential property in Manhattan is literally not being lived in, some of it not even furnished.
Another problem with the Phoenix angle and I-11 being routed way the hell out in the sticks is the old rule with real estate:
location, location, location. None of those proposed developments way out West of the White Tanks is going to be viable unless I-11 and a whole lot of other infrastructure gets built to support it. Everything from good and affordable water supply to high speed Internet. Right now it's just open desert. Even if they manage to build a bunch of nice homes way out there, it's still a significant drive to Phoenix. Gasoline prices hitting record highs was one of the key things that destroyed the housing bubble in the mid 2000's. Speculative home buyers had already stretched themselves financially to the snapping point buying McMansions out in the exhurbs. Their driving costs helped make their financial situations untenable.
Quote from: kernalsAnd as I've said several times, Arizona's growth is reducing water consumption. When a cottonfield is turned into a suburban subdivision, water use goes down. That's a big reason why Arizona uses less water now than it did 70 years ago.
Lake Mead and other reservoirs in that region are still hitting record low levels.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 04, 2022, 11:36:08 PM
Quote from: kernalsAnd as I've said several times, Arizona's growth is reducing water consumption. When a cottonfield is turned into a suburban subdivision, water use goes down. That's a big reason why Arizona uses less water now than it did 70 years ago.
Lake Mead and other reservoirs in that region are still hitting record low levels.
Yeah, but that's not driven by urban water use in Arizona... that's the result of drought and reduced runoff probably caused mostly by climate change.
With the high snowfall that's fallen in the west so far we should lower release levels and let the lakes fill back up.
Quote from: kernals12 on January 03, 2022, 06:57:26 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 03, 2022, 12:07:13 PM
A bunch of those planned development projects may end up being wishful thinking. The real estate industry is way way into an over-priced bubble economy. Housing costs are rising way beyond the levels of average income growth. With consumer price inflation set to soar even higher in 2022 on things like food and fuel it's going to kill the financial viability of many of those projects. Add in the additional problems of limited natural resources like water. There is only so much additional growth the Phoenix area is going to be able to support.
If I-11 gets built on the proposed routing way out West of the White Tanks I think it's going to be a freeway out in the middle of nowhere, carrying sparse levels of traffic for many years to come. If that area out West is really supposed to blow up with development then why aren't existing towns not all far from Phoenix, such as Gila Bend or Casa Grade, blowing up with development already?
Quote from: kkt on January 03, 2022, 02:43:30 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 03, 2022, 12:07:13 PM
A bunch of those planned development projects may end up being wishful thinking. The real estate industry is way way into an over-priced bubble economy. Housing costs are rising way beyond the levels of average income growth. With consumer price inflation set to soar even higher in 2022 on things like food and fuel it's going to kill the financial viability of many of those projects. Add in the additional problems of limited natural resources like water. There is only so much additional growth the Phoenix area is going to be able to support.
If I-11 gets built on the proposed routing way out West of the White Tanks I think it's going to be a freeway out in the middle of nowhere, carrying sparse levels of traffic for many years to come. If that area out West is really supposed to blow up with development then why aren't existing towns not all far from Phoenix, such as Gila Bend or Casa Grade, blowing up with development already?
I agree. Are there really enough jobs in Arizona to support all that housing? And water? Contributing to a housing bubble isn't really the purpose of interstate highways...
Phoenix doesn't have a bubble, it has a shortage. Unlike in 2007, the demand is real but supply isn't keeping up. Californians have been set free by telecommuting and they are descending upon the Grand Canyon State.
And yes, Arizona has plenty of jobs and water. People bring jobs with them, as businesses move to where potential workers and customers are. And as I've said several times, Arizona's growth is reducing water consumption. When a cottonfield is turned into a suburban subdivision, water use goes down. That's a big reason why Arizona uses less water now than it did 70 years ago.
Also, Casa Grande is absolutely booming
100% agree. The 2007 crash was brought on because people were buying multiple homes as "investments" in AZ that they thought they could just rent out. The outer areas of town were thousands of new homes that no one lived in.
Now it's different, people just need places to live and there's a shortage which has pushed up prices to be unsustainable.
A lot of these new home developments will include "single family apartments" basically new homes built as rentals.
Agree too that Casa Grande is booming, like Maricopa being they are reasonable commutes to jobs in Chandler and Tempe. Gila Bend has yet to be touched by the growth, the Sun Valley Parkway corridor is much closer to metro Phoenix than Gila Bend.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 03, 2022, 06:35:11 PM
Does Denver have urban growth boundaries? There is a lot of land to build large sprawling subdivisions on. Why are homes prices so high?
Well, we have mountains to the west, so that's our urban growth boundary. Home prices are so high by and large due to a) lots of Californians moving here and paying cash for houses and b) no one really wants to leave once they get here. Two years ago, at the end of the year, there were about 5,000 houses on the market. At the end of 2021, there were less than 1,500. No one is selling which makes the price wars crazy. There is still a good amount of new home building going on (especially on the north and east sides of the metro), but generally all of those houses are north of $500k too.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on January 05, 2022, 04:34:58 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 03, 2022, 06:35:11 PM
Does Denver have urban growth boundaries? There is a lot of land to build large sprawling subdivisions on. Why are homes prices so high?
Well, we have mountains to the west, so that's our urban growth boundary. Home prices are so high by and large due to a) lots of Californians moving here and paying cash for houses and b) no one really wants to leave once they get here. Two years ago, at the end of the year, there were about 5,000 houses on the market. At the end of 2021, there were less than 1,500. No one is selling which makes the price wars crazy. There is still a good amount of new home building going on (especially on the north and east sides of the metro), but generally all of those houses are north of $500k too.
Empty land to the east as far as the eye can see though.
Quote from: US 89 on January 04, 2022, 11:38:46 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 04, 2022, 11:36:08 PM
Quote from: kernalsAnd as I've said several times, Arizona's growth is reducing water consumption. When a cottonfield is turned into a suburban subdivision, water use goes down. That's a big reason why Arizona uses less water now than it did 70 years ago.
Lake Mead and other reservoirs in that region are still hitting record low levels.
Yeah, but that's not driven by urban water use in Arizona... that's the result of drought and reduced runoff probably caused mostly by climate change.
If Arizona turns its cropland into subdivisions, where is the fresh produce going to come from? For that matter, a lot of Arizona produce goes to other parts of the country for winter crops.
Quote from: kkt on January 05, 2022, 05:07:45 PM
Quote from: US 89 on January 04, 2022, 11:38:46 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 04, 2022, 11:36:08 PM
Quote from: kernalsAnd as I've said several times, Arizona's growth is reducing water consumption. When a cottonfield is turned into a suburban subdivision, water use goes down. That's a big reason why Arizona uses less water now than it did 70 years ago.
Lake Mead and other reservoirs in that region are still hitting record low levels.
Yeah, but that's not driven by urban water use in Arizona... that's the result of drought and reduced runoff probably caused mostly by climate change.
If Arizona turns its cropland into subdivisions, where is the fresh produce going to come from? For that matter, a lot of Arizona produce goes to other parts of the country for winter crops.
I'm sure there's lot of land in Arizona that could be converted to farmland. Eventually we really need to pioneer vertical farming but that'll come with time.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 05, 2022, 04:51:18 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on January 05, 2022, 04:34:58 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 03, 2022, 06:35:11 PM
Does Denver have urban growth boundaries? There is a lot of land to build large sprawling subdivisions on. Why are homes prices so high?
Well, we have mountains to the west, so that's our urban growth boundary. Home prices are so high by and large due to a) lots of Californians moving here and paying cash for houses and b) no one really wants to leave once they get here. Two years ago, at the end of the year, there were about 5,000 houses on the market. At the end of 2021, there were less than 1,500. No one is selling which makes the price wars crazy. There is still a good amount of new home building going on (especially on the north and east sides of the metro), but generally all of those houses are north of $500k too.
Empty land to the east as far as the eye can see though.
If you want to live in Limon and have a 90-minute commute, you can get a lovely home for $200K, most likely. <shrugs>
Empty land requires water/sewer. And roads. And power. And some semblance of commercial like nearby grocery stores and whatnot. Or else it remains empty.
Quote from: DenverBrian on January 05, 2022, 06:31:53 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 05, 2022, 04:51:18 PM
Quote from: JayhawkCO on January 05, 2022, 04:34:58 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 03, 2022, 06:35:11 PM
Does Denver have urban growth boundaries? There is a lot of land to build large sprawling subdivisions on. Why are homes prices so high?
Well, we have mountains to the west, so that's our urban growth boundary. Home prices are so high by and large due to a) lots of Californians moving here and paying cash for houses and b) no one really wants to leave once they get here. Two years ago, at the end of the year, there were about 5,000 houses on the market. At the end of 2021, there were less than 1,500. No one is selling which makes the price wars crazy. There is still a good amount of new home building going on (especially on the north and east sides of the metro), but generally all of those houses are north of $500k too.
Empty land to the east as far as the eye can see though.
If you want to live in Limon and have a 90-minute commute, you can get a lovely home for $200K, most likely. <shrugs>
Empty land requires water/sewer. And roads. And power. And some semblance of commercial like nearby grocery stores and whatnot. Or else it remains empty.
There's a LOT of land closer than Limon. I have to say the homes backed up against I-70 in Limon look miserable to live in if they're not sound proof. I'd still take that if that was my only alternative however it's not that bad.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 05, 2022, 06:36:48 PM
There's a LOT of land closer than Limon.
Sure, but you can't just plop homes down in any vacant land. As DenverBrian mentioned, you need infrastructure to support that kind of development. That doesn't exist out there outside a few small towns.
In the areas where you do have that infrastructure, there's been development. I remember being surprised to see these suburban-style homes in Deer Trail (https://goo.gl/maps/dQujAAjCo9wnaFPn9) when I drove 70 through there last summer. Almost certainly these are intended for people who commute to the Denver metro - and they are why these places are in fact rapidly growing. Deer Trail nearly doubled in population between 2010 and 2020.
Quote from: kkt on January 03, 2022, 07:00:23 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 03, 2022, 06:46:43 PM
I think they should complete Interstate 11 to Interstate 8 and then call it a day. Is Interstate 10 between the Interstate 8 junction and Tucson so congested that a parallel route is necessary (which I am not convinced it is)?
Down to I-8 would be just fine. If Arizona wants to facilitate sprawl, they can build state routes.
I can come up with a long list of sprawl inducing interstates all over the country.
Quote from: kkt on January 05, 2022, 05:07:45 PM
Quote from: US 89 on January 04, 2022, 11:38:46 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 04, 2022, 11:36:08 PM
Quote from: kernalsAnd as I've said several times, Arizona's growth is reducing water consumption. When a cottonfield is turned into a suburban subdivision, water use goes down. That's a big reason why Arizona uses less water now than it did 70 years ago.
Lake Mead and other reservoirs in that region are still hitting record low levels.
Yeah, but that's not driven by urban water use in Arizona... that's the result of drought and reduced runoff probably caused mostly by climate change.
If Arizona turns its cropland into subdivisions, where is the fresh produce going to come from? For that matter, a lot of Arizona produce goes to other parts of the country for winter crops.
Florida?
Quote from: US 89 on January 05, 2022, 06:59:27 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 05, 2022, 06:36:48 PM
There's a LOT of land closer than Limon.
Sure, but you can't just plop homes down in any vacant land. As DenverBrian mentioned, you need infrastructure to support that kind of development. That doesn't exist out there outside a few small towns.
In the areas where you do have that infrastructure, there's been development. I remember being surprised to see these suburban-style homes in Deer Trail (https://goo.gl/maps/dQujAAjCo9wnaFPn9) when I drove 70 through there last summer. Almost certainly these are intended for people who commute to the Denver metro - and they are why these places are in fact rapidly growing. Deer Trail nearly doubled in population between 2010 and 2020.
So build the infrastructure. This is obvious why does it even need said? I don't mean to be rude but if the people are moving there the money exists. Build new freeways and underground rail systems.
https://azbigmedia.com/business/heres-why-300000-more-people-may-be-moving-to-buckeye/
The first lot sales at Douglas Ranch will begin in the coming months. At full build-out, DR will be home to 300,000 residents on 37,000 acres.
These people will need freeway access.
Quote from: kernals12 on January 06, 2022, 12:46:58 PM
https://azbigmedia.com/business/heres-why-300000-more-people-may-be-moving-to-buckeye/
The first lot sales at Douglas Ranch will begin in the coming months. At full build-out, DR will be home to 300,000 residents on 37,000 acres.
These people will need freeway access.
We've been hearing this song-and-dance about Buckeye for close to 30 years (the time I've lived here), if not longer. I'll believe it when I see it.
Quote from: kernals12 on January 06, 2022, 12:46:58 PM
https://azbigmedia.com/business/heres-why-300000-more-people-may-be-moving-to-buckeye/
The first lot sales at Douglas Ranch will begin in the coming months. At full build-out, DR will be home to 300,000 residents on 37,000 acres.
These people will need freeway access.
Freeway access alongside with some business centers nearby eventually..
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 05, 2022, 07:38:52 PM
Quote from: US 89 on January 05, 2022, 06:59:27 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 05, 2022, 06:36:48 PM
There's a LOT of land closer than Limon.
Sure, but you can't just plop homes down in any vacant land. As DenverBrian mentioned, you need infrastructure to support that kind of development. That doesn't exist out there outside a few small towns.
In the areas where you do have that infrastructure, there's been development. I remember being surprised to see these suburban-style homes in Deer Trail (https://goo.gl/maps/dQujAAjCo9wnaFPn9) when I drove 70 through there last summer. Almost certainly these are intended for people who commute to the Denver metro - and they are why these places are in fact rapidly growing. Deer Trail nearly doubled in population between 2010 and 2020.
So build the infrastructure. This is obvious why does it even need said? I don't mean to be rude but if the people are moving there the money exists. Build new freeways and underground rail systems.
Awww. That's so sweet.
Quote from: DenverBrian on January 06, 2022, 03:51:34 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 05, 2022, 07:38:52 PM
Quote from: US 89 on January 05, 2022, 06:59:27 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 05, 2022, 06:36:48 PM
There's a LOT of land closer than Limon.
Sure, but you can't just plop homes down in any vacant land. As DenverBrian mentioned, you need infrastructure to support that kind of development. That doesn't exist out there outside a few small towns.
In the areas where you do have that infrastructure, there's been development. I remember being surprised to see these suburban-style homes in Deer Trail (https://goo.gl/maps/dQujAAjCo9wnaFPn9) when I drove 70 through there last summer. Almost certainly these are intended for people who commute to the Denver metro - and they are why these places are in fact rapidly growing. Deer Trail nearly doubled in population between 2010 and 2020.
So build the infrastructure. This is obvious why does it even need said? I don't mean to be rude but if the people are moving there the money exists. Build new freeways and underground rail systems.
Awww. That's so sweet.
Or just post stupid messages on an online talk forum about why we can't do it. Yeah let's do that!
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on January 06, 2022, 01:23:13 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 06, 2022, 12:46:58 PM
https://azbigmedia.com/business/heres-why-300000-more-people-may-be-moving-to-buckeye/
The first lot sales at Douglas Ranch will begin in the coming months. At full build-out, DR will be home to 300,000 residents on 37,000 acres.
These people will need freeway access.
We've been hearing this song-and-dance about Buckeye for close to 30 years (the time I've lived here), if not longer. I'll believe it when I see it.
I agree. I'm just not sure that this project will ever come to completion the way it is envisioned.
Quote from: JayhawkCO on January 05, 2022, 04:34:58 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 03, 2022, 06:35:11 PM
Does Denver have urban growth boundaries? There is a lot of land to build large sprawling subdivisions on. Why are homes prices so high?
Well, we have mountains to the west, so that's our urban growth boundary. Home prices are so high by and large due to a) lots of Californians moving here and paying cash for houses and b) no one really wants to leave once they get here. Two years ago, at the end of the year, there were about 5,000 houses on the market. At the end of 2021, there were less than 1,500. No one is selling which makes the price wars crazy. There is still a good amount of new home building going on (especially on the north and east sides of the metro), but generally all of those houses are north of $500k too.
I didn't want to leave CO 5 years ago, but it was transfer or layoff.
Why does I-11 need to go all the way to Nogales anyway? Couldn't it just use AZ 85 and end at I-8? I can understand overlapping I-10 to Tucson and replace I-19, but a parallel freeway makes no sense whatsoever. Just widen I-19 instead.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 05, 2022, 05:18:54 PM
Quote from: kkt on January 05, 2022, 05:07:45 PM
Quote from: US 89 on January 04, 2022, 11:38:46 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 04, 2022, 11:36:08 PM
Quote from: kernalsAnd as I've said several times, Arizona's growth is reducing water consumption. When a cottonfield is turned into a suburban subdivision, water use goes down. That's a big reason why Arizona uses less water now than it did 70 years ago.
Lake Mead and other reservoirs in that region are still hitting record low levels.
Yeah, but that's not driven by urban water use in Arizona... that's the result of drought and reduced runoff probably caused mostly by climate change.
If Arizona turns its cropland into subdivisions, where is the fresh produce going to come from? For that matter, a lot of Arizona produce goes to other parts of the country for winter crops.
I'm sure there's lot of land in Arizona that could be converted to farmland. Eventually we really need to pioneer vertical farming but that'll come with time.
There is more land in AZ that can be converted, but getting water to it does become an issue in some scenarios. However most of the produce sold around the country actually comes from the Yuma area. The Yuma area is slightly warmer than the rest of the state and has some of the most productive farms in the world. In and around Yuma you don't see farmland being sold for development, it's actually more valuable as a farm than it is as a new housing development. There isn't any loss of farmland to development in the SW part of the state at all.
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 06, 2021, 09:42:31 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on December 06, 2021, 09:36:33 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 06, 2021, 08:58:31 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 17, 2021, 07:40:14 AM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on November 16, 2021, 11:44:51 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 16, 2021, 10:48:09 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on November 16, 2021, 10:27:00 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on November 16, 2021, 10:14:01 PM
Quote from: vdeane on November 16, 2021, 09:57:30 PM
Yeesh. Everything south of I-10 is just a developer pork project rather than one designed to further the transportation needs of regional travelers. Why not just send it down AZ 85 to I-8 and terminate there? That would fill in a genuine gap in the interstate system and not put in pointless extra mileage. And why does it need to overlap or replace I-19? If I-19 were to be replaced by something, I'd rather it be I-17 so that I-17's numbers would at least (appear to - they'd still be off by ~20 miles) make sense. Is this some back-door way to force I-19 away from metric?
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on November 16, 2021, 08:49:11 PM
The purpose of I-11 is to get trucks from Nogales to Las Vegas, while bypassing Phoenix.
That's not what we were told back when I-11 proponents were trying to get traction to get the project started.
I don't think you realize just how much Arizona is projected to grow in the future. If that growth happens in existing cities, it will mean more congestion and less livability. Sprawl means that existing communities aren't faced with the burdens of more people.
But west of the White Tank Mountains? Who is going to live all the way the hell out there when there is no direct access over that range over than slogging all the way down to I-10? The most practical path I-11 could have took was down US 60 and AZ 303 to reach I-10. At least if I-11 went down to I-8 via AZ 85 it would serve as a long haul bypass of Phoenix from the Tucson and border areas around Nogales.
As a matter of fact, they're planning two freeways in that area.
That map is close to 15 years old -- ancient and obsolete. It's so old that it calls the Gateway Fwy AZ 802 (it's AZ 24), and the Tres Rios Fwy AZ 801 (it will be AZ 30), With the route of I-11 going so far west, I don't know when or if they'll ever build the Loop 404, which was supposed to be taken over by I-11.
The Gateway Fwy is currently being expanded, but only the ramps and the ground-level pavement, similar to the original construction of AZ 51, 40 years ago. There's no funding yet to upgrade it to a full freeway.
The Tres Rios is being fast-tracked, from what I've heard, because of the extreme overload on I-10 in the West Valley. It's still many years away from completion.
The Pinal North/South Fwy has just been approved, but it also is not funded. There is also funding to complete the Loop 303 as a full freeway in Peoria, including full ramps at I-17. AZ 85 will also be upgraded to a full freeway between I-10 and I-8, but when it happens is anybody's guess.
Those are the only freeways that are guaranteed to get built in the next decade. I-11 will eventually get done, but it will remain US 93 for the unforeseeable future, even after 4-laning is complete.
You can throw away every other freeway proposal. Not gonna happen in my lifetime (and I'm 66).
There's enough planned development up there to justify a freeway connecting I-11 to Loop 303.
And ADOT has issued an EIS for the Pinal North South Freeway
The Great Recession delayed a lot of growth for the Phoenix area, but now it's back on track and they need to prepare for an extra 2-3 million people by the middle of the century. Most of these extra people will be living in the West Valley and Pinal County.
There's not enough water for that many more people.
Yeah there is. Arizona has enough water to sustain a large cotton industry, it has enough water for millions and millions of new residents
i sincerely doubt this, water levels continue to decrease and the drought isn't subsiding. now they are instituting cuts. unless i see evidence otherwise.
The entire city of Tucson uses 1/7th as much water as Arizona's Cotton Farmers (https://www.pimafoodalliance.org/696/)
Water talk in this thread again? I already posted an Off-Topic thread for this kind of discussion (National Water Policies: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29861.50). Unless Interstate 11 is planned to be built solely on water, I suggest water talk go back to the thread I started.
i wonder, outside of a potential connection to Loop 303, where would the alignment for I-11 be from nevada state line to phoenix?
sorry if i sound ignorant, i haven't 100% caught up on the thread yet. also hi.
^ The likely outcome will be an upgrade of US-93 between the Nevada state line and I-40, an overlap with I-40 east, then continuing to follow US-93 (either existing alignment or new parallel interstate) south to roughly Wickenburg. Around this point, I-11 will likely head due south to meet I-10 at AZ-85.
The connection to Phoenix would be made by following I-10 East into the city.
Others have proposed continuing along US-60 to Loop 303, then following Loop 303 to I-10. Both ultimately put drivers onto I-10 west of the city.
Ideally I-11 would continue straight into Phoenix along US-60, however that would involve upgrading the existing roadway into a six or eight lane urban interstate highway. From an engineering standpoint, it does appear somewhat doable as it's not heavily developed directly onto the roadway and a number of grade separations already exist, but it would still be costly expenditure. Perhaps Phoenix should have constructed a US-60 freeway back in the 1980s and 1990s when constructing all the other beltways around the city. Even without a full interstate highway, it's certainly a busy stretch of highway locally.
While local needs might necessitate an upgrade of the roadway in the future to a freeway, the idea for now is for regional and long distance traffic just to follow the existing I-10 urban interstate from the city center west until far outside of the city, and then turn north onto a new rural interstate highway that will be far less costly to construct, and still provide that connection northward to Las Vegas.
For what it's worth, I-11 would not actually overlap I-10 into Phoenix. It would end at I-10 (or continue south onto AZ-85 if any crazy proposals to actually go all the way to Mexico go forth) and traffic bound to Phoenix would utilize I-10 to complete the link.
Routing I-11 to Loop 303 and having it overlap 303 down to I-10 would be the lesser of all evils involved. It would be the most sensible solution. And it would probably cost a lot less money to build than some of the odd-ball routings that would take I-11 way around the West and South sides of the Phoenix metro area.
I've said it so many times before. No one driving from Las Vegas to Phoenix is going to turn due South at Wickenburg to drive clear down to I-10 (way out past the White Tank Mountains) to then back-track to Phoenix. Nope. They're going to stay on US-60 whether it's a freeway or not.
The only reason why some people are insisting on routing I-11 way out West of Phoenix is so they can extend some big favors to certain real estate developers, hoping for a boom out by Buckeye. I-10 has long crossed through that region. Why hasn't it been booming already? The I-10/AZ-85 junction should be surrounded by outlet malls and planned neighborhoods by now. Chances are if they rout I-11 on a path over Sun Valley Parkway or even farther West the Interstate won't have much effect on that area. And its traffic counts will likely be minimal too since US-60 to Loop 303 is a more direct shot. Even with a few traffic signals along the way.
As for US-60 inside Loop 303, aka Grand Avenue, that's a lost cause for any desires to upgrade it to a fully limited access freeway. The railroad ROW complicates any efforts to build new grade-separated intersections. In most areas along Grand Avenue between Loop 303 and I-17 there just isn't enough ROW to build a proper urban freeway even if the rail line was removed. The best case scenario for Grand Avenue is just more spot upgrades to grade-separate intersections one at a time and do more to restrict side street and driveway access to the US-60 main lanes. But only so many intersections can be upgraded and only so many side streets blocked. US-60 will never be a free flowing arterial free of stoplights in our lifetimes. Inside Loop 303 US-60 will always be a somewhat glorified city street.
You have very narrow spots between Wickenburg and Morristown, such as this location:
33.88862841970958, -112.66446511755845
That part of US 60 was within Option W, which was eliminated in ADOT's 2017 Alternatives Report
http://i11study.com/Arizona/PDF/I-11_ASR_December-2017.pdf
Option W: This option performs poorly against the screening criteria, and is not preferred by stakeholders due to potential community and environmental impacts. Additional reasons for elimination include:
- Sun Valley Parkway (which W is co-located with directly north of I-10) and US 60 are non-access controlled arterials (approximately 120 feet in right-of-way width) surrounded by built, under construction, and entitled properties. It would be challenging to overlay an access-controlled freeway over a functioning arterial with limited future expansion opportunities without major disruption to adjacent urban development. This option would require construction of additional local access routes in addition to the high-capacity facility.
- Option W would require the construction of a second system interchange on I-10 to transition from SR 85 to Sun Valley Parkway. The spacing of these interchanges is not ideal and would add a great cost to the project.
- Various environmental concerns have been voiced by stakeholders, including critical habitat issues identified along the Hassayampa River, major wash and alluvial floodplain issues between the river and White Tank Mountains, difficulty crossing a large linear dam located just north of I-10 managed by the Flood Control District of Maricopa County, impacts to the Town of Wickenburg, and impacts to the Hassayampa River Preserve.
There is a boom in Buckeye, albeit a decade late. Buckeye was 6,500 people at the beginning of the century, and is just shy of 100,000 in the 2020 Census and 110,000 in the latest Census Bureau estimates.
It will probably be a few decades before any substantial segments of Interstate 11 is completed in Arizona. Ditto for Interstate 11 between Las Vegas and Interstate 80. I'm not sure any of us will live to see Interstate 11 completed from the Mexican border at Nogales to Interstate 80 in Nevada (and we most certainly won't be alive when/if Interstate 11 is extended north of 80 to Oregon/Washington/Idaho or the Canadian border).
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 07, 2022, 07:39:51 PM
It will probably be a few decades before any substantial segments of Interstate 11 is completed in Arizona. Ditto for Interstate 11 between Las Vegas and Interstate 80. I'm not sure any of us will live to see Interstate 11 completed from the Mexican border at Nogales to Interstate 80 in Nevada (and we most certainly won't be alive when/if Interstate 11 is extended north of 80 to Oregon/Washington/Idaho or the Canadian border).
I would say that's true, save for the Hoover Dam to I-40 segment of I-11. Construction is slated to begin in 2024 on the new Future I-11/I-40 Kingman interchange and bypass. Once that is finished, I think you'll see ADOT move pretty quickly on upgrading US-93 from the end of the Kingman Bypass to Hoover Dam in fairly short order. That stretch is already 4 lanes through a remote area with relatively few intersecting roads and driveways, so I think it would be fairly easy to upgrade to interstate standards.
Quote from: abqtraveler on November 07, 2022, 07:51:02 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 07, 2022, 07:39:51 PM
It will probably be a few decades before any substantial segments of Interstate 11 is completed in Arizona. Ditto for Interstate 11 between Las Vegas and Interstate 80. I'm not sure any of us will live to see Interstate 11 completed from the Mexican border at Nogales to Interstate 80 in Nevada (and we most certainly won't be alive when/if Interstate 11 is extended north of 80 to Oregon/Washington/Idaho or the Canadian border).
I would say that's true, save for the Hoover Dam to I-40 segment of I-11. Construction is slated to begin in 2024 on the new Future I-11/I-40 Kingman interchange and bypass. Once that is finished, I think you'll see ADOT move pretty quickly on upgrading US-93 from the end of the Kingman Bypass to Hoover Dam in fairly short order. That stretch is already 4 lanes through a remote area with relatively few intersecting roads and driveways, so I think it would be fairly easy to upgrade to interstate standards.
I would strongly recommend taking a look at some of the gas stations, truckstops, and convenience stores along US 93 that have been built in the time since the Hoover Dam bypass was opened before concluding how "easy" it would be to upgrade US 93 to a fully access-controlled Interstate 11. Take a special look at the convenience store with the Chevron gas pumps that was built at Pierce Ferry Rd and US 93. Also take note that that particular intersection was considered to be the deadliest in Arizona.
If the cost of a full upgrade gets well into the nine-figure range, I would fully expect ADOT and Arizona's congressional delegation to do what they can to get FHWA to accept US 93 as-is and call it I-11.
^ Most likely scenario, they'll complete the I-40 freeway connector and maybe an interchange or two between Kingman and Nevada, and then leave the existing US-93 divided highway as is for at least a decade or more.
The priorities, IMO, should be getting town bypasses constructed, 4 lane widening / interstate upgrade on the remaining 2 lane portion, and a new location segment between Wickenburg and I-10.
Rural 4 lane portions that are free-flowing make sense to upgrade last. I'm not saying they're never going to happen or not needed, but they are the most adequate existing compared to other portions.
Quote from: brad2971 on November 08, 2022, 01:34:08 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on November 07, 2022, 07:51:02 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 07, 2022, 07:39:51 PM
It will probably be a few decades before any substantial segments of Interstate 11 is completed in Arizona. Ditto for Interstate 11 between Las Vegas and Interstate 80. I'm not sure any of us will live to see Interstate 11 completed from the Mexican border at Nogales to Interstate 80 in Nevada (and we most certainly won't be alive when/if Interstate 11 is extended north of 80 to Oregon/Washington/Idaho or the Canadian border).
I would say that's true, save for the Hoover Dam to I-40 segment of I-11. Construction is slated to begin in 2024 on the new Future I-11/I-40 Kingman interchange and bypass. Once that is finished, I think you'll see ADOT move pretty quickly on upgrading US-93 from the end of the Kingman Bypass to Hoover Dam in fairly short order. That stretch is already 4 lanes through a remote area with relatively few intersecting roads and driveways, so I think it would be fairly easy to upgrade to interstate standards.
I would strongly recommend taking a look at some of the gas stations, truckstops, and convenience stores along US 93 that have been built in the time since the Hoover Dam bypass was opened before concluding how "easy" it would be to upgrade US 93 to a fully access-controlled Interstate 11. Take a special look at the convenience store with the Chevron gas pumps that was built at Pierce Ferry Rd and US 93. Also take note that that particular intersection was considered to be the deadliest in Arizona.
If the cost of a full upgrade gets well into the nine-figure range, I would fully expect ADOT and Arizona's congressional delegation to do what they can to get FHWA to accept US 93 as-is and call it I-11.
That intersection was studied a few years ago for grade separation:
https://azdot.gov/planning/transportation-studies/us-93-pierce-ferry-road-feasibility-study
The intersection of US-93 and CR-25/Pierce Ferry Road in Dolan Springs does not look difficult to upgrade into a freeway exit with slip ramps and frontage roads. There is a lot of land between the Southbound US-93 lanes and the column of utility lines. That little Arizona Trading Post store was technically built inside the highway ROW and utility easement. I'm pretty sure ADOT could arrange to get the store relocated to the other side of the highway or something.
A little farther up the road a the White Hills Rd intersection a new Pilot convenience store opened recently. But that section of US-93 has a 300' wide ROW. It's wide enough to do a freeway upgrade without affecting the travel center.
ADOT really does need to be on the ball about corridor preservation if they really do intend to build I-11 down to Kingman. It's imperative they don't allow any new buildings to stupidly get built right up on the f***king highway. They need to keep a 300' wide ROW clear wherever they can.
Quote from: brad2971 on November 08, 2022, 01:34:08 AM
Take a special look at the convenience store with the Chevron gas pumps that was built at Pierce Ferry Rd and US 93. Also take note that that particular intersection was considered to be the deadliest in Arizona.
If that's the case, then that intersection should be prioritized as the first to be converted to an interchange once the Kingman Bypass and new interchange with I-40 is completed.
If they've been having a lot of deadly collisions at that intersection ADOT should have grade-separated it a long time ago. If they've known that intersection was a big safety problem then it's negligence that they've done nothing about it.
Quote from: abqtraveler on November 18, 2022, 10:18:39 PM
Quote from: brad2971 on November 08, 2022, 01:34:08 AM
Take a special look at the convenience store with the Chevron gas pumps that was built at Pierce Ferry Rd and US 93. Also take note that that particular intersection was considered to be the deadliest in Arizona.
If that's the case, then that intersection should be prioritized as the first to be converted to an interchange once the Kingman Bypass and new interchange with I-40 is completed.
Arizona isn't Mississippi. It's a growing state and isn't poor. I'm sure they could find the money for this one interchange while they build the project in Kingman. They don't seem to really care much which shows with them dragging their feet. The segment from I-40 to Phoenix I can understand not immediately upgrading to I-11 but they really should have a plan to get the entire section from I-40 to the Nevada state line upgraded by 2030.
I don't see why ADOT would have to take a long time converting US-93 to I-11 from Kingman to the Hoover Dam. The I-11 connection in Kingman is, by far, the most difficult part of the project. Everything else appears pretty easy to upgrade.
That intersection a few miles NW of Kingman (US-93 @ Agua Fria Drive and Sundown Drive) looks like the only tight spot along the way. Even at that point they have around 270' of space to work with at the intersection.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 19, 2022, 06:54:25 PM
I don't see why ADOT would have to take a long time converting US-93 to I-11 from Kingman to the Hoover Dam. The I-11 connection in Kingman is, by far, the most difficult part of the project. Everything else appears pretty easy to upgrade.
That intersection a few miles NW of Kingman (US-93 @ Agua Fria Drive and Sundown Drive) looks like the only tight spot along the way. Even at that point they have around 270' of space to work with at the intersection.
Legit looking at a maximum of 8 interchanges between AZ 68 and Hoover Dam:
- Agua Fria Road
- Chloride
- Cerbat Mountains
- Dolan Springs / Pearce Ferry
- White Hills
- Temple Bar
- Willow Beach
- Maybe one between Willow and Old Kingman Wash
That's ... the max.
Now, the problem, of course, is that even if each of those is only $10 million — and I think that's probably a lowball — that's $80 million that isn't being spent on other needs in Arizona...
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on November 21, 2022, 05:32:28 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 19, 2022, 06:54:25 PM
I don't see why ADOT would have to take a long time converting US-93 to I-11 from Kingman to the Hoover Dam. The I-11 connection in Kingman is, by far, the most difficult part of the project. Everything else appears pretty easy to upgrade.
That intersection a few miles NW of Kingman (US-93 @ Agua Fria Drive and Sundown Drive) looks like the only tight spot along the way. Even at that point they have around 270' of space to work with at the intersection.
Legit looking at a maximum of 8 interchanges between AZ 68 and Hoover Dam:
- Agua Fria Road
- Chloride
- Cerbat Mountains
- Dolan Springs / Pearce Ferry
- White Hills
- Temple Bar
- Willow Beach
- Maybe one between Willow and Old Kingman Wash
That's ... the max.
Now, the problem, of course, is that even if each of those is only $10 million — and I think that's probably a lowball — that's $80 million that isn't being spent on other needs in Arizona...
And that's the problem faced by not just Arizona, but every other state. Since Congress banned earmarks about 10-15 years ago, states have had to rack and stack their projects, each project competing against the next for a limited amount of funding. And in Arizona, projects in the Phoenix and Tucson metro areas get prioritized over the rest of the state.
I could see the rural interchanges costing around $10M apiece, as I would think they would be simple diamond interchanges. Out here in New Mexico, a couple of intersections were converted to interchanges on the NM-599 bypass around Santa Fe for about $6-8 million each, but that was about 10 years ago.
Quote from: abqtraveler on November 22, 2022, 07:44:32 PM
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on November 21, 2022, 05:32:28 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 19, 2022, 06:54:25 PM
I don't see why ADOT would have to take a long time converting US-93 to I-11 from Kingman to the Hoover Dam. The I-11 connection in Kingman is, by far, the most difficult part of the project. Everything else appears pretty easy to upgrade.
That intersection a few miles NW of Kingman (US-93 @ Agua Fria Drive and Sundown Drive) looks like the only tight spot along the way. Even at that point they have around 270' of space to work with at the intersection.
Legit looking at a maximum of 8 interchanges between AZ 68 and Hoover Dam:
- Agua Fria Road
- Chloride
- Cerbat Mountains
- Dolan Springs / Pearce Ferry
- White Hills
- Temple Bar
- Willow Beach
- Maybe one between Willow and Old Kingman Wash
That's ... the max.
Now, the problem, of course, is that even if each of those is only $10 million — and I think that's probably a lowball — that's $80 million that isn't being spent on other needs in Arizona...
And that's the problem faced by not just Arizona, but every other state. Since Congress banned earmarks about 10-15 years ago, states have had to rack and stack their projects, each project competing against the next for a limited amount of funding. And in Arizona, projects in the Phoenix and Tucson metro areas get prioritized over the rest of the state.
I could see the rural interchanges costing around $10M apiece, as I would think they would be simple diamond interchanges. Out here in New Mexico, a couple of intersections were converted to interchanges on the NM-599 bypass around Santa Fe for about $6-8 million each, but that was about 10 years ago.
If you think earmarks are "illegal," you didn't look at the most recent transportation-related federal bills...
Earmarks were banned (mostly), but they've sort of been allowed to make a come-back.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/03/17/earmarks-are-back-and-americans-should-be-glad/
The actions to greatly restrict the use of earmarks turned out to be a stupid idea. One big consequence of it was greatly limiting deal-making abilities of lawmakers, which included negotiating across the aisle with representatives or senators from other political parties. With that incentive greatly restricted it allowed the far left and far right "entertainment wings" of the two parties to dominate. The political landscape was already getting polarized thanks to cable networks passing "news" off as a form of anger pornography. The earmarks factor made the polarization even worse.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 23, 2022, 12:33:32 AM
Earmarks were banned (mostly), but they've sort of been allowed to make a come-back.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/03/17/earmarks-are-back-and-americans-should-be-glad/
The actions to greatly restrict the use of earmarks turned out to be a stupid idea. One big consequence of it was greatly limiting deal-making abilities of lawmakers, which included negotiating across the aisle with representatives or senators from other political parties. With that incentive greatly restricted it allowed the far left and far right "entertainment wings" of the two parties to dominate. The political landscape was already getting polarized thanks to cable networks passing "news" off as a form of anger pornography. The earmarks factor made the polarization even worse.
I don't know. Do you really want to sell the idea of how good it is to have good political deal-makers to a nation that is in another one of its periodic low-trust societal periods? Especially when, in the case of transportation projects such as converting US 93 to I-11 from the Hoover Dam to Kingman, it doesn't take much effort to disprove the need for such a project.
Quote from: brad2971Do you really want to sell the idea of how good it is to have good political deal-makers to a nation that is in another one of its periodic low-trust societal periods?
Try thinking about it a little bit rather than accusing me of
"selling an idea."It's very simple. In recent years there has been very little incentive for "lawmakers" to conduct the act of governing in any kind of sane, grown-up manner. Historically this has required actually talking to all members of Congress, even people in other parties, to win support for a piece of legislation. In the past far more members of Congress have been closer to the political center because it was more practical. They could get more things done there.
The combination of a powerful
news-as-entertainment media and the lack of earmarks as a bargaining tool has caused politicians to pander to the most extreme wings of their parties in order to get elected, raise campaign money, etc. The biggest loud-mouth a$$holes get the face time on the cameras. Any serious issue is all levels of gray, not black-and-white. But any politician who wants to talk about an issue like an intelligent adult will be pushed aside by the "news" channels who are only interested in airing content that gets viewers pissed off or scared. This is essentially why the situation is so extremely polarized.
The "news" channels only want to point cameras at a politician willing to give them some red-meat anger porn. During the 2016 primary season the media literally chose the guy who would then become President. That's because he had no problem saying lots of inflammatory things and hurling personal insults. The guy literally got billions of dollars worth of free face time. He "sucked all the oxygen out of the room." The other guys competing in the primaries had no chance, not even a certain senator from Texas. Since then other "lawmakers" have been using the same play book to get attention, raise campaign money, etc.
There might be some hope for more sanity to return. The recent mid-terms have shown the nation is getting tired of being subjected to the hysteria from the
entertainment wings of the two major parties. More people might be getting wise to the fact the news channels and media whore politicians are just yanking their chains to get attention and advertising dollars. When the whole thing is exposed as a pro-wrestling style act it might force those "lawmakers" to grow the f*** up and start conducting themselves more like adults.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 23, 2022, 12:33:32 AM
Earmarks were banned (mostly), but they've sort of been allowed to make a come-back.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/03/17/earmarks-are-back-and-americans-should-be-glad/
The actions to greatly restrict the use of earmarks turned out to be a stupid idea. One big consequence of it was greatly limiting deal-making abilities of lawmakers, which included negotiating across the aisle with representatives or senators from other political parties. With that incentive greatly restricted it allowed the far left and far right "entertainment wings" of the two parties to dominate. The political landscape was already getting polarized thanks to cable networks passing "news" off as a form of anger pornography. The earmarks factor made the polarization even worse.
Not "sort of allowed." They're back and even being called as such.
Quote from: brad2971 on November 23, 2022, 01:29:41 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 23, 2022, 12:33:32 AM
Earmarks were banned (mostly), but they've sort of been allowed to make a come-back.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/03/17/earmarks-are-back-and-americans-should-be-glad/
The actions to greatly restrict the use of earmarks turned out to be a stupid idea. One big consequence of it was greatly limiting deal-making abilities of lawmakers, which included negotiating across the aisle with representatives or senators from other political parties. With that incentive greatly restricted it allowed the far left and far right "entertainment wings" of the two parties to dominate. The political landscape was already getting polarized thanks to cable networks passing "news" off as a form of anger pornography. The earmarks factor made the polarization even worse.
I don't know. Do you really want to sell the idea of how good it is to have good political deal-makers to a nation that is in another one of its periodic low-trust societal periods? Especially when, in the case of transportation projects such as converting US 93 to I-11 from the Hoover Dam to Kingman, it doesn't take much effort to disprove the need for such a project.
Yes. I want people on the opposite sides of issues to learn to talk, work together, and maybe start to trust the other side again. It would be nice to talk with my brothers again about something besides sports, especially since the Packers suck this year.
To get this back on topic. I think if Arizona marks US 93 as "Future I-11" and keeps it a non-stop expressway with a few bridges over the highway and RIRO ramps near the bridges, they can slowly and economically make US 93 a freeway to Boulder Dam easily. Pierce Ferry Road should probably be an interchange regardless but I agree with your assessment that there are maybe eight legit places for new interchanges. I'd also announce those potential future interchange locations in advance saying any businesses or developments built elsewhere risk being cut off from easy interstate access.
AzDOT is holding a public meeting on January 25 (https://azdot.gov/sites/default/files/media/2023/01/i-40-kingman-public-meeting-010623.pdf) to discuss the conversion of the US 93/I-40 interchange into a free flowing interchange.
Construction is expected to begin in 2024 and be complete in 2026. The only downside is this initial design will feature only two ramps (SB US-93 to EB I-40 and WB I-40 to NB US-93). Hopefully ADOT will at least secure enough ROW so 2 more ramps can be added in the future to make it a complete Y interchange.
Farther East the other I-40/US-93 interchange will need some improvement work if it is going to function as a future I-11 interchange.
Proposed southern I-11segmemt still bedeviled by opposition
A proposed 280-mile extension from Wickenburg to Nogales would skirt the Tohono O'odham community.
Nuñez said the original plan called for I-11 to cut through a corner of the reservation.
"We told them "˜no,' we didn't agree with that," he said. "They should keep that corridor as far away from us as possible."
https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2023/02/24/interstate-11-groups-square-off.html
If it was up to me I'd simply upgrade the existing US-93 and US-60 alignments, with a half-loop around Wickenburg in the middle. Shift I-11 onto Loop 303 down to I-10 and be done with it. Wouldn't cause nearly as much heartburn with the tribes.
But, no. The real estate development knuckleheads just have to have I-11 run out West of the White Tank Mountains to fuel a bunch of planned communities that don't exist yet. Never mind the limited water supply or other issues.
Quote from: splashflash on February 26, 2023, 12:41:55 AM
Proposed southern I-11segmemt still bedeviled by opposition
A proposed 280-mile extension from Wickenburg to Nogales would skirt the Tohono O'odham community.
Nuñez said the original plan called for I-11 to cut through a corner of the reservation.
"We told them "˜no,' we didn't agree with that," he said. "They should keep that corridor as far away from us as possible."
https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2023/02/24/interstate-11-groups-square-off.html
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 27, 2023, 12:05:23 AM
If it was up to me I'd simply upgrade the existing US-93 and US-60 alignments, with a half-loop around Wickenburg in the middle. Shift I-11 onto Loop 303 down to I-10 and be done with it. Wouldn't cause nearly as much heartburn with the tribes.
But, no. The real estate development knuckleheads just have to have I-11 run out West of the White Tank Mountains to fuel a bunch of planned communities that don't exist yet. Never mind the limited water supply or other issues.
Good! I wouldn't want I-11 to go to Nogales either.
I wouldn't want I-11 to be a real estate project for new subdivisions when we don't even have enough water for the existing crops and subdivisions.
Quote from: kkt on March 01, 2023, 09:31:31 PM
I wouldn't want I-11 to be a real estate project for new subdivisions when we don't even have enough water for the existing crops and subdivisions.
Crops require far more water than subdivisions do, per acre. Converting farm acreage to residential acreage is a far more efficient use of water.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on March 01, 2023, 10:15:34 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 01, 2023, 09:31:31 PM
I wouldn't want I-11 to be a real estate project for new subdivisions when we don't even have enough water for the existing crops and subdivisions.
Crops require far more water than subdivisions do, per acre. Converting farm acreage to residential acreage is a far more efficient use of water.
And then you have no food.
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on March 01, 2023, 10:15:34 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 01, 2023, 09:31:31 PM
I wouldn't want I-11 to be a real estate project for new subdivisions when we don't even have enough water for the existing crops and subdivisions.
Crops require far more water than subdivisions do, per acre. Converting farm acreage to residential acreage is a far more efficient use of water.
Yeah, but I don't think the area they plan to put subdivisions is cropland now.
Quote from: kkt on March 01, 2023, 10:49:01 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on March 01, 2023, 10:15:34 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 01, 2023, 09:31:31 PM
I wouldn't want I-11 to be a real estate project for new subdivisions when we don't even have enough water for the existing crops and subdivisions.
Crops require far more water than subdivisions do, per acre. Converting farm acreage to residential acreage is a far more efficient use of water.
Yeah, but I don't think the area they plan to put subdivisions is cropland now.
You must not be familiar with the history of residential development in metro Phoenix. Most were built on what had been farmland or citrus groves, especially in the far-east (Mesa/Gilbert/Queen Creek) and far-west/northwest (Peoria/El Mirage/Surprise/Sun City/Buckeye) parts of the Valley. It's been Standard Procedure since the end of World War II, if not before.
Quote from: Rothman on March 01, 2023, 10:19:41 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on March 01, 2023, 10:15:34 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 01, 2023, 09:31:31 PM
I wouldn't want I-11 to be a real estate project for new subdivisions when we don't even have enough water for the existing crops and subdivisions.
Crops require far more water than subdivisions do, per acre. Converting farm acreage to residential acreage is a far more efficient use of water.
And then you have no food.
Food is hardly an issue these days. Water, yes; food, no.
Quote from: Rothman on March 01, 2023, 10:19:41 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on March 01, 2023, 10:15:34 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 01, 2023, 09:31:31 PM
I wouldn't want I-11 to be a real estate project for new subdivisions when we don't even have enough water for the existing crops and subdivisions.
Crops require far more water than subdivisions do, per acre. Converting farm acreage to residential acreage is a far more efficient use of water.
And then you have no food.
Plenty of farmland that doesn't have an oversubscribed river as its only water source.
There isn't any "farm land" where they're proposing to route the I-11 alignment. All that area around Buckyeye and past the White Tanks is just arid scrub land. It's the freaking desert.
Most of the seasonal mass-grown citrus and avocados delivered to the US for consumption comes from Mexico, nowadays.
Quote from: Concrete Bob on March 04, 2023, 12:10:29 AM
Most of the seasonal mass-grown citrus and avocados delivered to the US for consumption comes from Mexico, nowadays.
Thanks to their infectiously catchy jingle
AzDOT's 5 year capital plan (https://azdot.gov/adot-news/public-comment-begin-adot%E2%80%99s-tentative-five-year-construction-program-3) includes 3 widenings of US-93: Cane Springs, near Wickenburg, and Big Jim Wash.
Quote from: kernals12 on March 04, 2023, 07:31:03 AM
AzDOT's 5 year capital plan (https://azdot.gov/adot-news/public-comment-begin-adot%E2%80%99s-tentative-five-year-construction-program-3) includes 3 widenings of US-93: Cane Springs, near Wickenburg, and Big Jim Wash.
It's baby steps toward converting US-93 to I-11, but something is better than nothing.
Construction is underway on widening a 5 mile portion of US 93 north of Wickenburg to a 4 lane divided highway
https://azdot.gov/adot-news/adot-begins-us-93-widening-project-near-wickenburg
If they're including frontage roads then at least some of that route segment could incorporate I-11 in the future. ADOT really has to work on establishing a bypass route around Wickenburg for I-11.
There are still four segments of US 93 between AZ 89 (former US 89) and Interstate 40 that still need to be four-laned, plus some sort of bypass of Wikieup will need to be constructed. I can't imagine many interchanges will be constructed along this segment of future Interstate 11, since there is very little along that portion of US 93.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 24, 2023, 11:54:07 AM
There are still four segments of US 93 between AZ 89 (former US 89) and Interstate 40 that still need to be four-laned, plus some sort of bypass of Wikieup will need to be constructed.
And it has to happen ASAP. Today, there was yet another wreck that closed the entire segment of 93 between I-40 and AZ 71.
QuoteI can't imagine many interchanges will be constructed along this segment of future Interstate 11, since there is very little along that portion of US 93.
The only highways that will need full interchanges are AZ 89, AZ 71, AZ 97, and I-40. There will be a few for county roads, including a Wickieup exit, one at Burro Creek Campground, and one at the north side of Wickenburg that is soon to be 4-laned, that will also have to be built. But there are about 30 or so ranch access turnoffs that will have to be accommodated, either by keeping them as at-grade turnoffs (despite the "rules" for interstates) or via frontage roads with ramps at either end.
Quote from: kernals12 on March 23, 2023, 11:13:23 PM
Construction is underway on widening a 5 mile portion of US 93 north of Wickenburg to a 4 lane divided highway
https://azdot.gov/adot-news/adot-begins-us-93-widening-project-near-wickenburg
4 roundabouts does not make this an urban freeway in any shape or form. I mean, great, it's not 2 laned anymore. But this is going to require another project to eventually punch an interstate through there. This is telling me that ADOT isn't in a hurry to extend I-11 to Phoenix.
Quote from: JREwing78 on March 26, 2023, 01:36:46 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 23, 2023, 11:13:23 PM
Construction is underway on widening a 5 mile portion of US 93 north of Wickenburg to a 4 lane divided highway
https://azdot.gov/adot-news/adot-begins-us-93-widening-project-near-wickenburg
4 roundabouts does not make this an urban freeway in any shape or form. I mean, great, it's not 2 laned anymore. But this is going to require another project to eventually punch an interstate through there. This is telling me that ADOT isn't in a hurry to extend I-11 to Phoenix.
If US 93 was brought up to four lane expressway standards between I-40 and US 60 the corridor would function perfectly adequately. As the years wear on I increasingly have come to suspect that I-11 might never make past Kingman.
Roundabouts do not have to be a permanent thing at all. For example, the south end of the Bella Vista Bypass in Arkansas had a roundabout incorporated into the intersection for a few years. That thing was removed when I-49 was phased into its final configuration.
Nevertheless, if I-11 is ever built into the Wickenburg area the freeway will have to go around around Wickenburg somehow. And that might mean going around some of those improvements to existing US-93.
Quote from: JREwing78 on March 26, 2023, 01:36:46 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 23, 2023, 11:13:23 PM
Construction is underway on widening a 5 mile portion of US 93 north of Wickenburg to a 4 lane divided highway
https://azdot.gov/adot-news/adot-begins-us-93-widening-project-near-wickenburg
4 roundabouts does not make this an urban freeway in any shape or form. I mean, great, it's not 2 laned anymore. But this is going to require another project to eventually punch an interstate through there. This is telling me that ADOT isn't in a hurry to extend I-11 to Phoenix.
I-11 is supposed to veer south from the current US 93 a bit northwest of the AZ 89 exit. These roundabouts will not be a part of the freeway.
http://i11study.com/arizona/map.asp
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on March 26, 2023, 04:10:16 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on March 26, 2023, 01:36:46 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 23, 2023, 11:13:23 PM
Construction is underway on widening a 5 mile portion of US 93 north of Wickenburg to a 4 lane divided highway
https://azdot.gov/adot-news/adot-begins-us-93-widening-project-near-wickenburg
4 roundabouts does not make this an urban freeway in any shape or form. I mean, great, it's not 2 laned anymore. But this is going to require another project to eventually punch an interstate through there. This is telling me that ADOT isn't in a hurry to extend I-11 to Phoenix.
I-11 is supposed to veer south from the current US 93 a bit northwest of the AZ 89 exit. These roundabouts will not be a part of the freeway.
http://i11study.com/arizona/map.asp
And what would very likely happen, based on that map, is that the current US 93 with its upcoming roundabouts would be steered into the current SR 89 corridor, and thus the section of US 93 from US 60 to SR 89 would end up being an extension of SR 89. And as for a direct link to new I-11, well, that's what the current exit at SR 71 will be for.
But again, this all depends upon whether or not the Howard Hughes corporation, developers of Teravalis (formerly Douglas Ranch) will front large portions of the cost of building a freeway from I-10 to the connection at US 93.
Quote from: brad2971 on March 26, 2023, 06:25:59 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on March 26, 2023, 04:10:16 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on March 26, 2023, 01:36:46 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 23, 2023, 11:13:23 PM
Construction is underway on widening a 5 mile portion of US 93 north of Wickenburg to a 4 lane divided highway
https://azdot.gov/adot-news/adot-begins-us-93-widening-project-near-wickenburg
4 roundabouts does not make this an urban freeway in any shape or form. I mean, great, it's not 2 laned anymore. But this is going to require another project to eventually punch an interstate through there. This is telling me that ADOT isn't in a hurry to extend I-11 to Phoenix.
I-11 is supposed to veer south from the current US 93 a bit northwest of the AZ 89 exit. These roundabouts will not be a part of the freeway.
http://i11study.com/arizona/map.asp
And what would very likely happen, based on that map, is that the current US 93 with its upcoming roundabouts would be steered into the current SR 89 corridor, and thus the section of US 93 from US 60 to SR 89 would end up being an extension of SR 89. And as for a direct link to new I-11, well, that's what the current exit at SR 71 will be for.
But again, this all depends upon whether or not the Howard Hughes corporation, developers of Teravalis (formerly Douglas Ranch) will front large portions of the cost of building a freeway from I-10 to the connection at US 93.
They should have called "Spruce Goose Ranch."
Quote from: brad2971 on March 26, 2023, 06:25:59 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on March 26, 2023, 04:10:16 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on March 26, 2023, 01:36:46 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 23, 2023, 11:13:23 PM
Construction is underway on widening a 5 mile portion of US 93 north of Wickenburg to a 4 lane divided highway
https://azdot.gov/adot-news/adot-begins-us-93-widening-project-near-wickenburg
4 roundabouts does not make this an urban freeway in any shape or form. I mean, great, it's not 2 laned anymore. But this is going to require another project to eventually punch an interstate through there. This is telling me that ADOT isn't in a hurry to extend I-11 to Phoenix.
I-11 is supposed to veer south from the current US 93 a bit northwest of the AZ 89 exit. These roundabouts will not be a part of the freeway.
http://i11study.com/arizona/map.asp
And what would very likely happen, based on that map, is that the current US 93 with its upcoming roundabouts would be steered into the current SR 89 corridor, and thus the section of US 93 from US 60 to SR 89 would end up being an extension of SR 89. And as for a direct link to new I-11, well, that's what the current exit at SR 71 will be for.
But again, this all depends upon whether or not the Howard Hughes corporation, developers of Teravalis (formerly Douglas Ranch) will front large portions of the cost of building a freeway from I-10 to the connection at US 93.
Honestly, they should have just kept it US 89 to US 93. I know about the I-40 concurrency, but still. If you're going to keep it the same number like that, it doesn't make much sense to downgrade it. They kept US 60 between Brenda and Phoenix, after all.
Quote from: 707 on April 18, 2023, 07:08:00 PM
Quote from: brad2971 on March 26, 2023, 06:25:59 PM
Quote from: KeithE4Phx on March 26, 2023, 04:10:16 PM
Quote from: JREwing78 on March 26, 2023, 01:36:46 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on March 23, 2023, 11:13:23 PM
Construction is underway on widening a 5 mile portion of US 93 north of Wickenburg to a 4 lane divided highway
https://azdot.gov/adot-news/adot-begins-us-93-widening-project-near-wickenburg
4 roundabouts does not make this an urban freeway in any shape or form. I mean, great, it's not 2 laned anymore. But this is going to require another project to eventually punch an interstate through there. This is telling me that ADOT isn't in a hurry to extend I-11 to Phoenix.
I-11 is supposed to veer south from the current US 93 a bit northwest of the AZ 89 exit. These roundabouts will not be a part of the freeway.
http://i11study.com/arizona/map.asp
And what would very likely happen, based on that map, is that the current US 93 with its upcoming roundabouts would be steered into the current SR 89 corridor, and thus the section of US 93 from US 60 to SR 89 would end up being an extension of SR 89. And as for a direct link to new I-11, well, that's what the current exit at SR 71 will be for.
But again, this all depends upon whether or not the Howard Hughes corporation, developers of Teravalis (formerly Douglas Ranch) will front large portions of the cost of building a freeway from I-10 to the connection at US 93.
Honestly, they should have just kept it US 89 to US 93. I know about the I-40 concurrency, but still. If you're going to keep it the same number like that, it doesn't make much sense to downgrade it. They kept US 60 between Brenda and Phoenix, after all.
I seem to recall ADOT wanted to getting rid of the branching US 89 and US 89A south of Flagstaff. I'm to understand that AASHTO had misgivings about having mainline US 89 go through Jerome and Arizona ended up asking for a total decommissioning instead. I don't know if that is captured in the AASHTO notes but I heard said story numerous times when I lived in Arizona.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 18, 2023, 07:10:34 PM
I seem to recall ADOT wanted to getting rid of the branching US 89 and US 89A south of Flagstaff. I'm to understand that AASHTO had misgivings about having mainline US 89 go through Jerome and Arizona ended up asking for a total decommissioning instead. I don't know if that is captured in the AASHTO notes but I heard said story numerous times when I lived in Arizona.
There were also a few times AASHTO denied requests from Arizona, even though California had done similar ones. Refusing to extend US 93 to Nogales being one and refusing time and time again to let Arizona have US 93 from Kingman to Wickenburg, while they had no issue with US 60 and US 70 being totally concurrent between Globe and LA for the benefit of California. I have to wonder if similar actions were at play here?
Quote from: brad2971 on March 26, 2023, 06:25:59 PM
But again, this all depends upon whether or not the Howard Hughes corporation, developers of Teravalis (formerly Douglas Ranch) will front large portions of the cost of building a freeway from I-10 to the connection at US 93.
I believe they were responsible for the initial construction of Summerlin Parkway in the Las Vegas area as an expressway, which later got passed off to the City of Las Vegas and then NDOT as NV 613 (which got upgraded to freeway somewhere between the time Hughes handed it over and the present).
If they did something similar, where Hughes built an expressway in the preferred ROW and then let ADOT handle the bridge and interchange work, that wouldn't be too bad a deal for the state, I would think.
You guys want a good laugh? The Center for Biological Diversity put out a "report" (https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/report-proposed-interstate-11-would-worsen-arizonas-water-crisis-2023-05-23/) claiming that the building of I-11 will cause 2.8 million people along with suburban homes and SUVs to appear out of the aether in the middle of the Sonora Desert and their water consumption will dry the state out
QuoteAmong the report's findings:
Population in growth areas would soar more than 10 times from roughly 220,500 people to more than 2.8 million, increasing Arizona's population by a third.
Water use would increase more than 10-fold, from 33,593 acre-feet of water per year to 396,400 acre-feet per year. That's 2,774,800 acre-feet every seven years, roughly Arizona's entire annual Colorado River allotment.
At least one area, metropolitan Phoenix's West Valley, lacks enough water to support the development Interstate 11 is proposing to serve.
The highway's environmental analysis doesn't consider how much water demand it could induce or whether there's enough water to support these growth areas.
This is ridiculous for 3 reasons
1. They have cause and effect confused; the highway is planned where it is to serve new development that would in all odds be built with or without the highway
2. They ignore that much of the land these homes will be built on already guzzles water; it's farmland
3. They assume that people won't change their behavior in response to water shortages. Arizona already requires developers have a 100 year supply of water guaranteed before they can build. Developers have already eschewed lawns for cacti and if things get bad enough, they'll start including greywater recycling systems and rainwater harvesting
I'm still stuck on why I-11 west of the White Tanks is necessary to begin with.
Quote from: kernals12 on May 27, 2023, 02:56:46 PM
You guys want a good laugh? The Center for Biological Diversity put out a "report" (https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/report-proposed-interstate-11-would-worsen-arizonas-water-crisis-2023-05-23/) claiming that the building of I-11 will cause 2.8 million people along with suburban homes and SUVs to appear out of the aether in the middle of the Sonora Desert and their water consumption will dry the state out
QuoteAmong the report's findings:
Population in growth areas would soar more than 10 times from roughly 220,500 people to more than 2.8 million, increasing Arizona's population by a third.
Water use would increase more than 10-fold, from 33,593 acre-feet of water per year to 396,400 acre-feet per year. That's 2,774,800 acre-feet every seven years, roughly Arizona's entire annual Colorado River allotment.
At least one area, metropolitan Phoenix's West Valley, lacks enough water to support the development Interstate 11 is proposing to serve.
The highway's environmental analysis doesn't consider how much water demand it could induce or whether there's enough water to support these growth areas.
This is ridiculous for 3 reasons
1. They have cause and effect confused; the highway is planned where it is to serve new development that would in all odds be built with or without the highway
2. They ignore that much of the land these homes will be built on already guzzles water; it's farmland
3. They assume that people won't change their behavior in response to water shortages. Arizona already requires developers have a 100 year supply of water guaranteed before they can build. Developers have already eschewed lawns for cacti and if things get bad enough, they'll start including greywater recycling systems and rainwater harvesting
1. No, development will not happen unless there is a road to serve it or the immediate prospect of one being built.
2. Farmland will not escape water restrictions either. But it's a lot easier to restrict water use on farmland than to wait until homes are built and occupied and then tell the people living there that they can't have any water.
3. People change their behavior if forced, for instance by denying new water hookups and not building freeways to serve new subdivisions that there isn't enough water to serve. The 100 year water supply requirement has no effective enforcement - developers get away with picking the wettest years since weather records have been kept, and claiming that those wet years will continue forever in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Getting rid of the lawns is a start, but all those people the developers want to sell houses to will still want baths every day, flush toilets, and laundry. Things are already bad enough but greywater recycling has not and will not be accepted until it is mandatory. I don't think there's enough rainwater to harvest.
Quote from: Max RockatanskyI'm still stuck on why I-11 west of the White Tanks is necessary to begin with.
I-11 way out West of the White Tanks is 100% about helping real estate developers sell proposed projects way out there. It serves zero other purpose.
If it was up to me I-11 would be routed along US-60 from Wickenburg to the AZ-303 interchange and routed on AZ-303 down to I-10. The primary purpose of I-11 is to directly connect Las Vegas to Phoenix. Not do a Las Vegas to some bum-f*** point way West of Phoenix. Either freaking way, US-60 needs to be brought up to Interstate standards between Wickenburg and Sun City. Such a thing is still do-able as long as space next to the existing 4-lane road remains somewhat clear. If the powers that be fart around too long eventually developers will hug a bunch of new buildings and other crap right up next to the road. Then it won't be any different than US-60 inside of AZ-303 or AZ-101. Except there would probably be
more stop lights and none of those intersection overpasses.
I fail to see the purpose of the real estate grab in general west of the White Tanks. There is way better places to develop land still east of the White Tanks and it's largely bounded by US 60, AZ 74 and AZ 303. But yes, let's placate the fantastical real estate speculation that Buckeye has promised for decades but yet has come to fruition. So yeah, forcing I-11 into an undesirable corridor that Buckeye is pushing seems at best questionable. The obvious corridor for I-11 ought to have been US 60 and AZ 303 to I-10.
Quote from: kkt on May 28, 2023, 12:44:47 PM
1. No, development will not happen unless there is a road to serve it or the immediate prospect of one being built.
Development is going to occur in suburban / exurban areas of a major city, whether or not a freeway or high quality roadway is built. The difference is that, in areas of poor planning, narrow 2 lane country roads will be serving the traffic load from tens of thousands of new homes, as opposed to a proper 4 lane widening or freeway.
No proper infrastructure will just lead to more dangerous roadways and traffic congestion.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 29, 2023, 12:31:29 PM
Quote from: kkt on May 28, 2023, 12:44:47 PM
1. No, development will not happen unless there is a road to serve it or the immediate prospect of one being built.
Development is going to occur in suburban / exurban areas of a major city, whether or not a freeway or high quality roadway is built. The difference is that, in areas of poor planning, narrow 2 lane country roads will be serving the traffic load from tens of thousands of new homes, as opposed to a proper 4 lane widening or freeway.
No proper infrastructure will just lead to more dangerous roadways and traffic congestion.
Buckeye annexed much of the land in the I-11 corridor long ago. It has been pretty clear for awhile nothing was getting built unless the state threw them a bone and built a major highway out west of the White Tanks.
Similarly you can observe large swaths of empty desert in the Peoria and Goodyear. Likewise, nobody is building anything unless the state chips in with a new state highway corridor.
Quote from: kkt on May 28, 2023, 12:44:47 PM
1. No, development will not happen unless there is a road to serve it or the immediate prospect of one being built.
Developers say hold my beer and . . . There's every possibility that development will happen either way, just without a freeway. (Or possibly still with, just not as part of I-11–as mentioned upthread apparently the Howard Hughes Corporation is involved, and they've straight up built an expressway themselves as part of a development before.)
Quote from: kkt on May 28, 2023, 12:44:47 PM
2. Farmland will not escape water restrictions either. But it's a lot easier to restrict water use on farmland than to wait until homes are built and occupied and then tell the people living there that they can't have any water.
My understanding is that the average acre of residential development uses less water than the average acre of farmland. It's not like anyone is proposing high-density NYC-style living out there.
(And in many cases, it's actually easier to restrict residential water usage than agricultural. Ag users often have senior water rights attached to the parcel that entitle them to a certain allocation of water ahead of other users. These users get their water directly from canals, rivers, or groundwater. Residential users often do not have water rights at all, or at least don't exercise them, in favor of obtaining water from a water utility, where it's a lot easier to set restrictions.)
Quote from: kkt on May 28, 2023, 12:44:47 PM
Things are already bad enough but greywater recycling has not and will not be accepted until it is mandatory.
Maybe it's not "greywater recycling" according to the exact definition of the term, but you can do some amazing stuff with a central sewage treatment plant. On average the same water goes through the Las Vegas municipal water system something like 16 times before it makes it past Hoover Dam. At that point, the only behavioral issues you need to correct are getting people to not do things like water lawns and wash cars in their driveways since those types of water usage cannot be recaptured. (Las Vegas has more or less banned both of these, and water inspectors drive around looking for violators.)
Quote from: kkt on May 28, 2023, 12:44:47 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on May 27, 2023, 02:56:46 PM
You guys want a good laugh? The Center for Biological Diversity put out a "report" (https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/report-proposed-interstate-11-would-worsen-arizonas-water-crisis-2023-05-23/) claiming that the building of I-11 will cause 2.8 million people along with suburban homes and SUVs to appear out of the aether in the middle of the Sonora Desert and their water consumption will dry the state out
QuoteAmong the report's findings:
Population in growth areas would soar more than 10 times from roughly 220,500 people to more than 2.8 million, increasing Arizona's population by a third.
Water use would increase more than 10-fold, from 33,593 acre-feet of water per year to 396,400 acre-feet per year. That's 2,774,800 acre-feet every seven years, roughly Arizona's entire annual Colorado River allotment.
At least one area, metropolitan Phoenix's West Valley, lacks enough water to support the development Interstate 11 is proposing to serve.
The highway's environmental analysis doesn't consider how much water demand it could induce or whether there's enough water to support these growth areas.
This is ridiculous for 3 reasons
1. They have cause and effect confused; the highway is planned where it is to serve new development that would in all odds be built with or without the highway
2. They ignore that much of the land these homes will be built on already guzzles water; it's farmland
3. They assume that people won't change their behavior in response to water shortages. Arizona already requires developers have a 100 year supply of water guaranteed before they can build. Developers have already eschewed lawns for cacti and if things get bad enough, they'll start including greywater recycling systems and rainwater harvesting
1. No, development will not happen unless there is a road to serve it or the immediate prospect of one being built.
2. Farmland will not escape water restrictions either. But it's a lot easier to restrict water use on farmland than to wait until homes are built and occupied and then tell the people living there that they can't have any water.
3. People change their behavior if forced, for instance by denying new water hookups and not building freeways to serve new subdivisions that there isn't enough water to serve. The 100 year water supply requirement has no effective enforcement - developers get away with picking the wettest years since weather records have been kept, and claiming that those wet years will continue forever in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Getting rid of the lawns is a start, but all those people the developers want to sell houses to will still want baths every day, flush toilets, and laundry. Things are already bad enough but greywater recycling has not and will not be accepted until it is mandatory. I don't think there's enough rainwater to harvest.
In the 1970s, there was a city that said they could keep people out if they didn't build any freeways. By 1985, it became clear that development was happening anyways and so freeways were needed. That city was Phoenix.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 28, 2023, 12:50:52 PM
Quote from: Max RockatanskyI'm still stuck on why I-11 west of the White Tanks is necessary to begin with.
I-11 way out West of the White Tanks is 100% about helping real estate developers sell proposed projects way out there. It serves zero other purpose.
If it was up to me I-11 would be routed along US-60 from Wickenburg to the AZ-303 interchange and routed on AZ-303 down to I-10. The primary purpose of I-11 is to directly connect Las Vegas to Phoenix. Not do a Las Vegas to some bum-f*** point way West of Phoenix. Either freaking way, US-60 needs to be brought up to Interstate standards between Wickenburg and Sun City. Such a thing is still do-able as long as space next to the existing 4-lane road remains somewhat clear. If the powers that be fart around too long eventually developers will hug a bunch of new buildings and other crap right up next to the road. Then it won't be any different than US-60 inside of AZ-303 or AZ-101. Except there would probably be more stop lights and none of those intersection overpasses.
That's what they said about William Callahan's plan to build a 4 lane parkway around Boston.
Florida is proof that you can develop without freeways. That is why our two lane roads are overcapacity and years away before money can allocate to widening those roads.
Plus our interstates are crowded more than they can handle.
I don't have a particular objection to holding right of way in anticipation that a corridor might develop. That's pretty much how AZ 101 and AZ 202 got built after people started moving out to where the freeways would be. This is a different thing pushing for I-11 where literally nobody lives.
I don't know, all this focus on sprawl just tells me walking away from Phoenix in 2013 was the right idea. Whole concept I had moving there in the first place (2001) was that Phoenix wasn't sprawled like Los Angeles. The city was great with three million in the metro area, can't say I feel the same at close to five million. By the time I left in 2013 all the decently priced homes were in Gilbert of the far West Valley. If I ever find myself moving back it probably will be to either the Tucson or Flagstaff areas.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 29, 2023, 06:44:09 PM
I don't have a particular objection to holding right of way in anticipation that a corridor might develop. That's pretty much how AZ 101 and AZ 202 got built after people started moving out to where the freeways would be. This is a different thing pushing for I-11 where literally nobody lives.
I don't know, all this focus on sprawl just tells me walking away from Phoenix in 2013 was the right idea. Whole concept I had moving there in the first place (2001) was that Phoenix wasn't sprawled like Los Angeles. The city was great with three million in the metro area, can't say I feel the same at close to five million. By the time I left in 2013 all the decently priced homes were in Gilbert of the far West Valley. If I ever find myself moving back it probably will be to either the Tucson or Flagstaff areas.
As I recall, you said you moved *to* Florida to get *away from* the shady real estate tactics in Arizona.
Quote from: kernals12 on May 29, 2023, 07:04:18 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 29, 2023, 06:44:09 PM
I don't have a particular objection to holding right of way in anticipation that a corridor might develop. That's pretty much how AZ 101 and AZ 202 got built after people started moving out to where the freeways would be. This is a different thing pushing for I-11 where literally nobody lives.
I don't know, all this focus on sprawl just tells me walking away from Phoenix in 2013 was the right idea. Whole concept I had moving there in the first place (2001) was that Phoenix wasn't sprawled like Los Angeles. The city was great with three million in the metro area, can't say I feel the same at close to five million. By the time I left in 2013 all the decently priced homes were in Gilbert of the far West Valley. If I ever find myself moving back it probably will be to either the Tucson or Flagstaff areas.
As I recall, you said you moved *to* Florida to get *away from* the shady real estate tactics in Arizona.
Yes, certainly was a contributing factor. I wasn't interested in living in Gilbert or moving to Southern California with my employer at during that time. I did had a transfer lined up for the El Paso/Las Cruces area but that fell through.
I ultimately ended up taking a Federal in job in Florida instead and transferred around with it on several paid relocations (which is how I ended up in Fresno). Florida definitely had its merits, especially with inland home pricing. Trouble was for me I found Florida incredibly dull and got bored with it. Fortunately I got into the housing market in Fresno before it became a hot spot to relocate to. Ideally I would like to eventually end up either in southern Oregon, western Nevada or the two places I mentioned already in Arizona come the retirement wind down.
Fair chance I would have relocated to Washington State by now if I hadn't met my now wife. Our financial, pension and mortgage situation is way too stable for the time being to consider changing much.
Klamath Falls is the best place to be in the post-quake environment after the Cascadia Subduction Zone breaks loose. Kingsley AFB will be getting supplies and equipment flown in so you will have a chance to be saved.
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on May 30, 2023, 09:37:57 AM
Klamath Falls is the best place to be in the post-quake environment after the Cascadia Subduction Zone breaks loose. Kingsley AFB will be getting supplies and equipment flown in so you will have a chance to be saved.
Rick
I believe most of the operational plans envision Redmond Airport as the hub for supply distribution because of its proximity to the Willamette Valley and adjacent rail line. Kingsley might play some role though.
Quote from: kernals12That's what they said about William Callahan's plan to build a 4 lane parkway around Boston.
Are you referring to the Massachusetts Turnpike, the I-95 half loop or I-495 outer half loop? Either way I-90 and I-93 both reach and/or go thru Downtown Boston. And Boston has limited access highway links directly to the other major population centers in that region.
By contrast, I-11 can't even do the basic thing if directly linking the Las Vegas and Phoenix metros. I-11 does get into Las Vegas (and will likely consume I-515). But the proposed route for I-11 gets down to Wickenburg and takes a stupid detour.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 30, 2023, 11:47:43 PM
Quote from: kernals12That's what they said about William Callahan's plan to build a 4 lane parkway around Boston.
Are you referring to the Massachusetts Turnpike, the I-95 half loop or I-495 outer half loop? Either way I-90 and I-93 both reach and/or go thru Downtown Boston. And Boston has limited access highway links directly to the other major population centers in that region.
By contrast, I-11 can't even do the basic thing if directly linking the Las Vegas and Phoenix metros. I-11 does get into Las Vegas (and will likely consume I-515). But the proposed route for I-11 gets down to Wickenburg and takes a stupid detour.
1. What is so stupid about having I-11 go straight south from the current end of the four-lane US 93 between SR 71 and SR 89 down to I-10? (Bear in mind, ADOT is advertising right now for a DCR report that will show how this will work.) Part of this new-terrain I-11 is going to go through the western part of Teravalis, so there is a development justification (sort of) for it.
2. If one is so worried about "overloading" I-10 east of where I-11 will intersect it west of Buckeye, keep in mind all ADOT would have to do is 6-lane I-10 from that I-11 junction to SR 85. Especially since the section of I-10 from Verrado Way to SR 85 is just about finished with its own 6-laning project.
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 29, 2023, 05:38:11 PMQuote from: kkt on May 28, 2023, 12:44:47 PM2. Farmland will not escape water restrictions either. But it's a lot easier to restrict water use on farmland than to wait until homes are built and occupied and then tell the people living there that they can't have any water.
My understanding is that the average acre of residential development uses less water than the average acre of farmland. It's not like anyone is proposing high-density NYC-style living out there.
(And in many cases, it's actually easier to restrict residential water usage than agricultural. Ag users often have senior water rights attached to the parcel that entitle them to a certain allocation of water ahead of other users. These users get their water directly from canals, rivers, or groundwater. Residential users often do not have water rights at all, or at least don't exercise them, in favor of obtaining water from a water utility, where it's a lot easier to set restrictions.)
The stylized fact is that, in areas subject to the prior appropriation doctrine, cities eventually buy up a large share of the senior water rights in order to guarantee their residents' water supply. Pueblo has done this in the Arkansas River valley, for example, so the water allocation fights in that basin pit farmers in eastern Colorado with junior rights against counterparts in western Kansas with senior rights.
As agriculture typically operates at low margins and is an extensive rather than intensive land use, cities tend to have the capacity to buy out farmers, as Los Angeles (in)famously did in the Owens Valley.
AIUI, Arizona is a bit of a special case since Native tribes are among the biggest agricultural water users.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 30, 2023, 11:47:43 PM
Quote from: kernals12That's what they said about William Callahan's plan to build a 4 lane parkway around Boston.
Are you referring to the Massachusetts Turnpike, the I-95 half loop or I-495 outer half loop? Either way I-90 and I-93 both reach and/or go thru Downtown Boston. And Boston has limited access highway links directly to the other major population centers in that region.
By contrast, I-11 can't even do the basic thing if directly linking the Las Vegas and Phoenix metros. I-11 does get into Las Vegas (and will likely consume I-515). But the proposed route for I-11 gets down to Wickenburg and takes a stupid detour.
I'm referring to the I-95 half loop, known to locals as Route 128.
Also, I think the plan is to build a link from I-11 to Loop 303.
I have not seen any official plans to improve US-60 between Wickenburg and Loop 303 to Interstate standards. The various I-11 concept maps do not show that segment of US-60 being improved. I-11 just goes straight South before or shortly after passing the Wickenburg area.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 29, 2023, 07:16:30 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on May 29, 2023, 07:04:18 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 29, 2023, 06:44:09 PM
I don't have a particular objection to holding right of way in anticipation that a corridor might develop. That's pretty much how AZ 101 and AZ 202 got built after people started moving out to where the freeways would be. This is a different thing pushing for I-11 where literally nobody lives.
I don't know, all this focus on sprawl just tells me walking away from Phoenix in 2013 was the right idea. Whole concept I had moving there in the first place (2001) was that Phoenix wasn't sprawled like Los Angeles. The city was great with three million in the metro area, can't say I feel the same at close to five million. By the time I left in 2013 all the decently priced homes were in Gilbert of the far West Valley. If I ever find myself moving back it probably will be to either the Tucson or Flagstaff areas.
As I recall, you said you moved *to* Florida to get *away from* the shady real estate tactics in Arizona.
Yes, certainly was a contributing factor. I wasn't interested in living in Gilbert or moving to Southern California with my employer at during that time. I did had a transfer lined up for the El Paso/Las Cruces area but that fell through.
I ultimately ended up taking a Federal in job in Florida instead and transferred around with it on several paid relocations (which is how I ended up in Fresno). Florida definitely had its merits, especially with inland home pricing. Trouble was for me I found Florida incredibly dull and got bored with it. Fortunately I got into the housing market in Fresno before it became a hot spot to relocate to. Ideally I would like to eventually end up either in southern Oregon, western Nevada or the two places I mentioned already in Arizona come the retirement wind down.
Fair chance I would have relocated to Washington State by now if I hadn't met my now wife. Our financial, pension and mortgage situation is way too stable for the time being to consider changing much.
I'd give serious consideration to Western Nevada. That's probably where I will end up. That whole area along with Vegas, death Valley and the Grand Canyon... it doesn't even seem real
Wrote a Nevada-centric blog on Interstate 11. I wanted to keep things grounded as they are presently defined by the FHWA and AASHTO:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2023/06/interstate-11-and-boulder-city-bypass.html
I clinched i-11 tonight. The part just south of Lake Mead was spectacular. They created a manmade canyon for an interstate highway.
I also discovered they had barriers on the bridge over the Colorado River that block views of the Hoover Dam. I understand they want to prevent rubbernecking, but it still sucked
I thought that was more for wind and security for the Hoover Dam facility? I climbed the retaining wall on the Arizona side when the bridge opened, but it wasn't exactly a snap.
Quote from: kernals12I also discovered they had barriers on the bridge over the Colorado River that block views of the Hoover Dam. I understand they want to prevent rubbernecking, but it still sucked
Yeah, those Jersey barriers are tall, probably over 5 feet. Can't see anything from a regular passenger vehicle. On the bright side there is a free parking area off the Hoover Dam Access Road at the Pat Tillman Memorial. You can walk up from there on to the bridge over the Colorado River. That is a pretty spectacular view. But it is a bit unnerving how you can feel the bridge deck "bounce" a bit as heavy trucks and other vehicles speed cross the bridge.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 15, 2023, 10:24:22 AM
Wrote a Nevada-centric blog on Interstate 11. I wanted to keep things grounded as they are presently defined by the FHWA and AASHTO:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2023/06/interstate-11-and-boulder-city-bypass.html
Surprised you didn't also post this in Pacific Southwest.
Some corrections for the write-up:
The first segment of what would become the Boulder City Bypass was the Mike O'Callaghan-Pat Tillman Bridge.The bridge was built as part of the Hoover Dam Bypass (and the bridge and road were all one project). The Boulder City Bypass was a completely separate project that was ultimately constructed later. Both projects had construction limits at what is now the Exit 2 US 93 Business/Hoover Dam interchange.
The two projects may have been conceived around the same time, or the Boulder City Bypass might have been a conceptual idea even earlier (I can't recall). But after the 9-11 attacks, security concerns of having an active highway atop Hoover Dam, which prompted semi-permanent vehicle checkpoints approaching the dam and the long-term commercial vehicle detour, elevated priority of getting the dam bypass done.
Upon Hoover Dam being bypassed the former routings over the structure became Nevada State Route 172 and US Route 93X in Arizona. Actually, SR 172 ends about 1.6 miles north/west of the state line on the dam at the Bureau of Reclamation boundary, which is just before the security checkpoint and where the mainline goes over the access road. (The gap in maintenance between the dam and this point was also present in NDOT's State Maintained Highways books' descriptions of US 93 in the mid-2000s, before the highway was relocated onto the bypass.)
US Route 93 Business in Boulder City is the former mainline routing of US Route 93 prior to the Boulder City Bypass opening. Despite the US Route 93 Business Route being signed the designation was never officially sought through the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. NDOT sought recognition of US 93 Business from AASHTO at the same time as they sought relocation of US 93 and US 95 onto the Boulder City Bypass. These were all approved at AASHTO's May 2017 meeting.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 18, 2023, 02:15:30 PM
Yeah, those Jersey barriers are tall, probably over 5 feet. Can't see anything from a regular passenger vehicle. On the bright side there is a free parking area off the Hoover Dam Access Road at the Pat Tillman Memorial. You can walk up from there on to the bridge over the Colorado River. That is a pretty spectacular view. But it is a bit unnerving how you can feel the bridge deck "bounce" a bit as heavy trucks and other vehicles speed cross the bridge.
I'd guess the barrier walls are not any taller than 5 feet.
While unnerving, the bridge deck bouncing like that is normal. Bridges need to flex a bit by design, and too much rigidity actually makes it more susceptible to cracking and even failure.
Quote from: roadfro on June 18, 2023, 04:00:54 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 15, 2023, 10:24:22 AM
Wrote a Nevada-centric blog on Interstate 11. I wanted to keep things grounded as they are presently defined by the FHWA and AASHTO:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2023/06/interstate-11-and-boulder-city-bypass.html
Surprised you didn't also post this in Pacific Southwest.
Some corrections for the write-up:
The first segment of what would become the Boulder City Bypass was the Mike O'Callaghan-Pat Tillman Bridge.
The bridge was built as part of the Hoover Dam Bypass (and the bridge and road were all one project). The Boulder City Bypass was a completely separate project that was ultimately constructed later. Both projects had construction limits at what is now the Exit 2 US 93 Business/Hoover Dam interchange.
The two projects may have been conceived around the same time, or the Boulder City Bypass might have been a conceptual idea even earlier (I can't recall). But after the 9-11 attacks, security concerns of having an active highway atop Hoover Dam, which prompted semi-permanent vehicle checkpoints approaching the dam and the long-term commercial vehicle detour, elevated priority of getting the dam bypass done.
Upon Hoover Dam being bypassed the former routings over the structure became Nevada State Route 172 and US Route 93X in Arizona.
Actually, SR 172 ends about 1.6 miles north/west of the state line on the dam at the Bureau of Reclamation boundary, which is just before the security checkpoint and where the mainline goes over the access road. (The gap in maintenance between the dam and this point was also present in NDOT's State Maintained Highways books' descriptions of US 93 in the mid-2000s, before the highway was relocated onto the bypass.)
US Route 93 Business in Boulder City is the former mainline routing of US Route 93 prior to the Boulder City Bypass opening. Despite the US Route 93 Business Route being signed the designation was never officially sought through the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
NDOT sought recognition of US 93 Business from AASHTO at the same time as they sought relocation of US 93 and US 95 onto the Boulder City Bypass. These were all approved at AASHTO's May 2017 meeting.
Do you have the minutes for 2017 or where I can find them? They weren't exactly apparent in the AASHTO database when I looked for US 93 Business. Regarding NV 172 and US 93, I was planning a Part 4 of my US 466 series for that. Wasn't sure how wide of a net I wanted to cast given so much I-11 stuff as is in flux.
Edit: I went back and touched up the points you hit on. If you know where I can find the US 93 Business documents let me know, I have the Hoover Dam blog coming likely this week. Regarding Pacific Southwest, I'll cross post over there momentarily.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 18, 2023, 04:18:49 PM
Do you have the minutes for 2017 or where I can find them? They weren't exactly apparent in the AASHTO database when I looked for US 93 Business. Regarding NV 172 and US 93, I was planning a Part 4 of my US 466 series for that. Wasn't sure how wide of a net I wanted to cast given so much I-11 stuff as is in flux.
Edit: I went back and touched up the points you hit on. If you know where I can find the US 93 Business documents let me know, I have the Hoover Dam blog coming likely this week. Regarding Pacific Southwest, I'll cross post over there momentarily.
The Wikipedia U.S. Roads project maintains a project page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Resources/AASHTO_minutes) indexing AASHTO route numbering committee meeting minutes, which includes links to the minutes documents (or an internet archive version, as is the case here).
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 18, 2023, 04:18:49 PM
Do you have the minutes for 2017 or where I can find them? They weren't exactly apparent in the AASHTO database when I looked for US 93 Business. Regarding NV 172 and US 93, I was planning a Part 4 of my US 466 series for that. Wasn't sure how wide of a net I wanted to cast given so much I-11 stuff as is in flux.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190113062937/http://sp.route.transportation.org/Documents/USRN%2001-Agenda%20and%20List%20of%20Applications%20SM-2017.pdf
Page 5 (top)
Could anyone hazard a guess on when the Interstate 11 designation will be extended up the US 95 corridor to NV 157 (swallowing up the rest of Interstate 515 in the process)? That, of course, will happen a lot sooner than seeing Interstate 11 signs posted in Arizona (excluding future Interstate 11 signs that is).
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 22, 2023, 01:10:41 PM
Could anyone hazard a guess on when the Interstate 11 designation will be extended up the US 95 corridor to NV 157 (swallowing up the rest of Interstate 515 in the process)? That, of course, will happen a lot sooner than seeing Interstate 11 signs posted in Arizona (excluding future Interstate 11 signs that is).
It likely won't be until the rest of the freeway gets built up to I-80, if ever. Until that time comes, I'd expect I-11 to end at I-15, like I-515 currently does. Then in the meantime, let the chips fall where they may.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 22, 2023, 01:10:41 PM
Could anyone hazard a guess on when the Interstate 11 designation will be extended up the US 95 corridor to NV 157 (swallowing up the rest of Interstate 515 in the process)? That, of course, will happen a lot sooner than seeing Interstate 11 signs posted in Arizona (excluding future Interstate 11 signs that is).
My guess is after the completion of the Centennial Bowl.
Howdy from the Mid-South forums
So how much has I-11 progressed the past 2-3 years since the last time I came here?
Quote from: Henry on June 23, 2023, 12:28:51 AM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 22, 2023, 01:10:41 PM
Could anyone hazard a guess on when the Interstate 11 designation will be extended up the US 95 corridor to NV 157 (swallowing up the rest of Interstate 515 in the process)? That, of course, will happen a lot sooner than seeing Interstate 11 signs posted in Arizona (excluding future Interstate 11 signs that is).
It likely won't be until the rest of the freeway gets built up to I-80, if ever. Until that time comes, I'd expect I-11 to end at I-15, like I-515 currently does. Then in the meantime, let the chips fall where they may.
Not true. I-11 from the Beltway to I-80 is pretty much a dream at this point, whereas the route to NV 157 has already been designated by NVDOT.
The furthest north I could see future Interstate 11 getting is perhaps its junction with NV 373 in Amargosa Valley. There are plenty of locations along US 95 between Beatty and Interstate 80 where the terrain looks to be too rough for an Interstate to be constructed. Besides, the traffic demands are probably too low to warrant an upgrade very far beyond the Las Vegas Metropolitan Area. The four-lane segment of US 95 ends at Mercury Highway (Exit 136), and I'm not sure it needs to be extended any further north.
I could see I-11 getting built up to the Southern outskirts of Beatty within the next 10-20 years. Further development of I-11 between Las Vegas and the Reno region will depend on some other factors.
I think I-11 will probably have to be completed down to the Phoenix area in order for I-11 to be able to attract a lot of cross-border commercial traffic. The Las Vegas metro is continuing to grow. Certain highways in the Reno area also need improvement in order to provide a connection into I-80. Some of that work needs to happen in the near term. Specifically, I think the NV-439 corridor in Clark needs to be improved to an Interstate quality freeway from I-80 down to US-50. That looks like the most obvious, do-able potential I-11 connection into I-80. If they started building that corridor South to Schurz then it would just be a matter of two I-11 segments eventually meeting somewhere in the middle.
The easiest way for I-11 to "progress" is to re-sign and de-list I-515.
I don't see any reason to build it to Amargosa Valley and then stop. Just an RV park, a gas station, a tourist trap for Section 31 souvenirs, and that's about it. I-11 should take over I-515 and stop at I-15.
The Interstate 11 designation is already going to terminate at the NV 157 interchange, so stopping it at Interstate 15 (like Interstate 515 currently does) isn't practical. Interstate 11 will probably be gradually extended beyond NV 157, although whether it will eventually make it to Interstate 80 is unknown at this time. The previously-proposed extensions of Interstate 11 through northern Nevada, Oregon, Washington, or Idaho enroute to the Canadian border were likely always pipe dreams.
Quote from: kkt on November 07, 2023, 10:54:43 PM
I don't see any reason to build it to Amargosa Valley and then stop. Just an RV park, a gas station, a tourist trap for Section 31 souvenirs, and that's about it. I-11 should take over I-515 and stop at I-15.
Section 31? Like the Starfleet black ops organization?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 08, 2023, 12:26:20 PM
The Interstate 11 designation is already going to terminate at the NV 157 interchange, so stopping it at Interstate 15 (like Interstate 515 currently does) isn't practical. Interstate 11 will probably be gradually extended beyond NV 157, although whether it will eventually make it to Interstate 80 is unknown at this time. The previously-proposed extensions of Interstate 11 through northern Nevada, Oregon, Washington, or Idaho enroute to the Canadian border were likely always pipe dreams.
Were there ever real (ie, proposed by DOTs or political officials) proposals to do so, or were they just roadgeek discussions that came up more often than most fictional proposals?
Quote from: vdeane on November 08, 2023, 12:47:59 PM
Quote from: kkt on November 07, 2023, 10:54:43 PM
I don't see any reason to build it to Amargosa Valley and then stop. Just an RV park, a gas station, a tourist trap for Section 31 souvenirs, and that's about it. I-11 should take over I-515 and stop at I-15.
Section 31? Like the Starfleet black ops organization?
Oops. Sorta, I expect Area 51 was in the writers' minds at DS9 when they thought up Section 31.
There is an Area 51 convenience store at Amargosa Valley, but nothing for fans of Star Trek: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_31_(Star_Trek).
When are they gonna do anything about the 2-lane undivided sections on US-93 (future I-11)
Like from here to there: (in the middle of nowhere)
https://www.google.com/maps/place/US-93,+Kingman,+AZ/@34.9505699,-113.6889213,14z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x80abe7ca5e36236f:0xe822420299ed10c3!8m2!3d34.9505716!4d-113.6682788!16zL20vMDFxandz?authuser=1&entry=ttu
https://www.google.com/maps/place/US-93,+Kingman,+AZ/@34.9122609,-113.677472,14z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x80abe7ca5e36236f:0xe822420299ed10c3!8m2!3d34.9122626!4d-113.6568295!16zL20vMDFxandz?authuser=1&entry=ttu
North of Wikieup
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Wikieup,+AZ+85360/@34.7218133,-113.6231503,6872m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m15!1m8!3m7!1s0x80abe7ca5e36236f:0xe822420299ed10c3!2sUS-93,+Kingman,+AZ!3b1!8m2!3d34.9505716!4d-113.6682788!16zL20vMDFxandz!3m5!1s0x80d27a8681b71e1b:0x371b4820dd669d15!8m2!3d34.7051439!4d-113.6118214!16zL20vMDh5ODI2?authuser=1&entry=ttu
From here to there: (also in the middle in nowhere)
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.3615539,-113.1733681,3a,75y,145.91h,88.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sj_Rzd6hZa6eENXjchflYMQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1&entry=ttu
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1022896,-112.9202324,3a,75y,133.16h,86.32t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1srSYN72LShuDgRSUTirVZ6w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DrSYN72LShuDgRSUTirVZ6w%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D46.190247%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1&entry=ttu
and finally north of Wickenburg
That's four unvidived 2-lane sections, which is a lot more than i remembered
Probably bypass Wikieup. The others look enough in the middle of nowhere like a second roadway could be built alongside the existing one with little or no property acquisition.
Would it be more practical to build an eastern bypass of Wikieup or a western bypass? I think it should be built before this segment of the US 93 corridor becomes part of Interstate 11.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 09, 2023, 09:49:31 PM
Would it be more practical to build an eastern bypass of Wikieup or a western bypass? I think it should be built before this segment of the US 93 corridor becomes part of Interstate 11.
It's sometimes hard to tell just looking at Google Maps, but probably western, so that traffic from the interstate to the town and back doesn't have to go so far or cross the creek that might flood sometimes. Looks like lots of empty land just a little west of the town.
I see there's already an ADOT maintenance yard in Wikieup.
Wikieup is a small enough town that it might be more profitable to upgrade US-93 in place and just pay to relocate/rebuild any homes and businesses that get displaced to spots just outside the new ROW.
The current road in Wikieup is a 5-lane undivided roadway. It looks like adding new frontage roads might only just shave down some parking lots and driveways.
Quote from: DenverBrianThe easiest way for I-11 to "progress" is to re-sign and de-list I-515.
I don't think there is a feasible way (feasible in American terms) to connect I-11 into the South end of I-515 in Carson City and overlap it to I-80. The highway would have to cut through the mountain range on the West side of Walker Lake. That's North of Hawthorne and the Army Ammunition Plant. Going through those mountains would probably require at least one stretch of tunnels. We currently can't build tunnels in the US without it breaking the bank.
I think the more practical path for I-11 to reach I-80 is overlapping Pole Line Road just West of Tonopah.
Pole Line Road (CR-89) takes a fairly direct path Northwest to NV-316, skirting by the Paradise Peak Mine. From the intersection with NV-316 just South of Gabbs an I-11 route could take a fairly direct path West to Schurz. From Schurz I-11 could run parallel to the rail line to meet Alt US-95. Then it would be a simple matter of going North to US-50 and the intersection with NV-439, the 4-lane divided highway going into Clark and the big logistical/manufacturing hub there.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 10, 2023, 12:18:24 PM
Quote from: DenverBrianThe easiest way for I-11 to "progress" is to re-sign and de-list I-515.
I don't think there is a feasible way (feasible in American terms) to connect I-11 into the South end of I-515 in Carson City and overlap it to I-80. The highway would have to cut through the mountain range on the West side of Walker Lake. That's North of Hawthorne and the Army Ammunition Plant. Going through those mountains would probably require at least one stretch of tunnels. We currently can't build tunnels in the US without it breaking the bank.
I think the more practical path for I-11 to reach I-80 is overlapping Pole Line Road just West of Tonopah.
Pole Line Road (CR-89) takes a fairly direct path Northwest to NV-316, skirting by the Paradise Peak Mine. From the intersection with NV-316 just South of Gabbs an I-11 route could take a fairly direct path West to Schurz. From Schurz I-11 could run parallel to the rail line to meet Alt US-95. Then it would be a simple matter of going North to US-50 and the intersection with NV-439, the 4-lane divided highway going into Clark and the big logistical/manufacturing hub there.
Are you thinking of the I-11 reaching the south end of
I-580 at Carson City? Because I agree that would be impractical.
I'm pretty sure DenverBrian was thinking of I-11 reaching just to I-15 in Las Vegas via I-515.
Whoops. Derp.
:crazy:
I thought officials had all but made up their minds to let I-11 overlap I-515 and US-95 going out to the NW corner of the 215 loop.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 10, 2023, 12:48:35 PM
Whoops. Derp.
:crazy:
I thought officials had all but made up their minds to let I-11 overlap I-515 and US-95 going out to the NW corner of the 215 loop.
Still hasn't been signed as such though...except for one rogue I-11 sign on southbound I-515 just west of the Charleston Rd exit.
Quote from: kkt on November 09, 2023, 08:36:16 PM
Probably bypass Wikieup. The others look enough in the middle of nowhere like a second roadway could be built alongside the existing one with little or no property acquisition.
There's not much property to acquire. Wickieup is fading fast. I believe the population is somewhere around 300 now. The main gas station/convenience store/souvenir shop/restaurant/campground on the east side of 93 burned down a few years ago. The gas station was rebuilt and was set to reopen, but as of early September, it had not. I'll be up that way on Monday, and I'll see what's up.
The other major-chain gas stations on the west side of 93 are grossly overpriced (close to $6 a gallon in September, we'll see what they are next week). There are still a couple of restaurants on the north side of town, but I don't see a future for them. The rest of the town is a dump.
I expect Interstate 11 to be completed and signed along the segment of US 93 between the Arizona/Nevada border and Kingman, before the segment between Interstate 40 and Wickenburg.
Quote from: TheBox on November 09, 2023, 05:46:11 PM
When are they gonna do anything about the 2-lane undivided sections on US-93 (future I-11)
Like from here to there: (in the middle of nowhere)
https://www.google.com/maps/place/US-93,+Kingman,+AZ/@34.9505699,-113.6889213,14z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x80abe7ca5e36236f:0xe822420299ed10c3!8m2!3d34.9505716!4d-113.6682788!16zL20vMDFxandz?authuser=1&entry=ttu
https://www.google.com/maps/place/US-93,+Kingman,+AZ/@34.9122609,-113.677472,14z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x80abe7ca5e36236f:0xe822420299ed10c3!8m2!3d34.9122626!4d-113.6568295!16zL20vMDFxandz?authuser=1&entry=ttu
North of Wikieup
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Wikieup,+AZ+85360/@34.7218133,-113.6231503,6872m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m15!1m8!3m7!1s0x80abe7ca5e36236f:0xe822420299ed10c3!2sUS-93,+Kingman,+AZ!3b1!8m2!3d34.9505716!4d-113.6682788!16zL20vMDFxandz!3m5!1s0x80d27a8681b71e1b:0x371b4820dd669d15!8m2!3d34.7051439!4d-113.6118214!16zL20vMDh5ODI2?authuser=1&entry=ttu
From here to there: (also in the middle in nowhere)
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.3615539,-113.1733681,3a,75y,145.91h,88.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sj_Rzd6hZa6eENXjchflYMQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1&entry=ttu
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1022896,-112.9202324,3a,75y,133.16h,86.32t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1srSYN72LShuDgRSUTirVZ6w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DrSYN72LShuDgRSUTirVZ6w%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D46.190247%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1&entry=ttu
and finally north of Wickenburg
That's four unvidived 2-lane sections, which is a lot more than i remembered
Please see
pages 8 & 9 of this topic --> https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=14905.0 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=14905.0) for more discussion on this particular stretch of planned future I-11.
But from just north of Wickenburg (where the fI-11 alignment will diverge from existing US 93) to the south, plans are a little less "set in stone".
i hope soon I-11 would be built to phoenix. i don't think i'd like to live near the arizona/utah/nevada border if its basically just going to end at wickenburg
i'd like to go to phoenix for some shopping while doing some gambling/socializing in vegas.
Quote from: civilengineeringnerd on January 28, 2024, 11:50:08 PM
i hope soon I-11 would be built to phoenix. i don't think i'd like to live near the arizona/utah/nevada border if its basically just going to end at wickenburg
i'd like to go to phoenix for some shopping while doing some gambling/socializing in vegas.
Maybe I misunderstanding your post, but are you suggesting that Phoenix has a better shopping scene than Vegas?
I mean, sure, in a wonderful dream world, the United States would have the wherewithal to tunnel under Mount Grant and take I-11 west from Hawthorne to Topaz Lake and then run it up the 395 corridor.
But that wonderful dream world does not exist on our continent. Europe can do it. But not North America.
Quote from: kkt on November 10, 2023, 12:33:50 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 10, 2023, 12:18:24 PM
Quote from: DenverBrianThe easiest way for I-11 to "progress" is to re-sign and de-list I-515.
I don't think there is a feasible way (feasible in American terms) to connect I-11 into the South end of I-515 in Carson City and overlap it to I-80. The highway would have to cut through the mountain range on the West side of Walker Lake. That's North of Hawthorne and the Army Ammunition Plant. Going through those mountains would probably require at least one stretch of tunnels. We currently can't build tunnels in the US without it breaking the bank.
I think the more practical path for I-11 to reach I-80 is overlapping Pole Line Road just West of Tonopah.
Pole Line Road (CR-89) takes a fairly direct path Northwest to NV-316, skirting by the Paradise Peak Mine. From the intersection with NV-316 just South of Gabbs an I-11 route could take a fairly direct path West to Schurz. From Schurz I-11 could run parallel to the rail line to meet Alt US-95. Then it would be a simple matter of going North to US-50 and the intersection with NV-439, the 4-lane divided highway going into Clark and the big logistical/manufacturing hub there.
Are you thinking of the I-11 reaching the south end of I-580 at Carson City? Because I agree that would be impractical.
I'm pretty sure DenverBrian was thinking of I-11 reaching just to I-15 in Las Vegas via I-515.
Come to think of it, how did a Phoenix-to-Flagstaff highway get built 60 years before the Phoenix-to-Las Vegas Highway? Was it meant to serve travel to the Grand Canyon?
Quote from: kernals12 on January 29, 2024, 07:21:42 PM
Come to think of it, how did a Phoenix-to-Flagstaff highway get built 60 years before the Phoenix-to-Las Vegas Highway? Was it meant to serve travel to the Grand Canyon?
A lot of I-17 was constructed as AZ 69 when the Black Canyon Highway was becoming the favored corridor between Phoenix-Prescott. Hard to argue from there that I-17 had a superior routing over existing US 89 and US 89A north to Flagstaff. In the early Interstate era improving access between Phoenix-Flagstaff would have been a much larger priority than Las Vegas.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 29, 2024, 07:41:02 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 29, 2024, 07:21:42 PM
Come to think of it, how did a Phoenix-to-Flagstaff highway get built 60 years before the Phoenix-to-Las Vegas Highway? Was it meant to serve travel to the Grand Canyon?
A lot of I-17 was constructed as AZ 69 when the Black Canyon Highway was becoming the favored corridor between Phoenix-Prescott. Hard to argue from there that I-17 had a superior routing over existing US 89 and US 89A north to Flagstaff. In the early Interstate era improving access between Phoenix-Flagstaff would have been a much larger priority than Las Vegas.
Not to mention neither city really had the "draw" that they developed closer to the end of the century, especially between each other. Flagstaff had Route 66 as a main thoroughfare connecting Chicago to Los Angeles, so getting a connection between Phoenix and Flagstaff made a lot more sense. In the mid-century, the main focus of travel was E/W, so connecting Vegas and Phoenix wasn't really needed for a while.
At the time the Interstate System was planned, Las Vegas didn't even merit being a control city (I-15 south out of Salt Lake City was signed for Los Angeles), much less a reason to build an entire Interstate route to an adjoining state's capital.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 29, 2024, 11:46:53 PM
At the time the Interstate System was planned, Las Vegas didn't even merit being a control city (I-15 south out of Salt Lake City was signed for Los Angeles), much less a reason to build an entire Interstate route to an adjoining state's capital.
Phoenix was dinky back then, too.
With over 400,000 residents by 1960?
Quote from: Rothman on January 30, 2024, 12:07:24 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 29, 2024, 11:50:16 PM
With over 400,000 residents by 1960?
107,000 in 1950...
A significant portion of that population jump in Phoenix by 1960 was from unincorporated parts of Maricopa County via annexation such as Sunnyslope in 1959. Maricopa County had over 330,000 residents by 1950.
Quote from: Rothman on January 30, 2024, 12:07:24 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 29, 2024, 11:50:16 PM
With over 400,000 residents by 1960?
107,000 in 1950...
That's only because they annexed a bunch of land in the 50s. Maricopa County as a whole had 300,000 in 1950.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 29, 2024, 11:46:53 PM
At the time the Interstate System was planned, Las Vegas didn't even merit being a control city (I-15 south out of Salt Lake City was signed for Los Angeles), much less a reason to build an entire Interstate route to an adjoining state's capital.
Quote from: Sonic99 on January 29, 2024, 09:21:00 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 29, 2024, 07:41:02 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on January 29, 2024, 07:21:42 PM
Come to think of it, how did a Phoenix-to-Flagstaff highway get built 60 years before the Phoenix-to-Las Vegas Highway? Was it meant to serve travel to the Grand Canyon?
A lot of I-17 was constructed as AZ 69 when the Black Canyon Highway was becoming the favored corridor between Phoenix-Prescott. Hard to argue from there that I-17 had a superior routing over existing US 89 and US 89A north to Flagstaff. In the early Interstate era improving access between Phoenix-Flagstaff would have been a much larger priority than Las Vegas.
Not to mention neither city really had the "draw" that they developed closer to the end of the century, especially between each other. Flagstaff had Route 66 as a main thoroughfare connecting Chicago to Los Angeles, so getting a connection between Phoenix and Flagstaff made a lot more sense. In the mid-century, the main focus of travel was E/W, so connecting Vegas and Phoenix wasn't really needed for a while.
Flagstaff had 7,600 people in 1950. Las Vegas had over 24,000. A route to Las Vegas would've still connected to I-40.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 30, 2024, 12:28:53 AM
Quote from: Rothman on January 30, 2024, 12:07:24 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 29, 2024, 11:50:16 PM
With over 400,000 residents by 1960?
107,000 in 1950...
A significant portion of that population jump in Phoenix by 1960 was from unincorporated parts of Maricopa County via annexation such as Sunnyslope in 1959. Maricopa County had over 330,000 residents by 1950.
Maricopa County is multiple times larger than Rhode Island... :D
Quote from: Rothman on January 30, 2024, 07:11:10 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 30, 2024, 12:28:53 AM
Quote from: Rothman on January 30, 2024, 12:07:24 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on January 29, 2024, 11:50:16 PM
With over 400,000 residents by 1960?
107,000 in 1950...
A significant portion of that population jump in Phoenix by 1960 was from unincorporated parts of Maricopa County via annexation such as Sunnyslope in 1959. Maricopa County had over 330,000 residents by 1950.
Maricopa County is multiple times larger than Rhode Island... :D
And almost all of it is barren desert, only around the Gila and Salt Rivers do you find significant quantities of human life.
Both metros were basically tiny 'Nowherevilles' before air conditioning.
Mike
Okay, if not a Phoenix-to-Las Vegas highway, why not at least a Phoenix-to-Kingman highway? Kingman is also on Route 66 and such a route is more direct for traffic heading towards California.
My guess would be the relative lack of activity in that direction, as opposed to all of the copper mines and recreational areas due North of Phoenix.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 29, 2024, 11:46:53 PM
At the time the Interstate System was planned, Las Vegas didn't even merit being a control city (I-15 south out of Salt Lake City was signed for Los Angeles), much less a reason to build an entire Interstate route to an adjoining state's capital.
One of my great quibbles with the Eisenhower system is how there hasn't been a reckoning with the population growth of the West. I mean, great, America dumped investment into the system, but if the system were built today we'd see a much more robust network – not overwhelming, but at least sufficient – out here.
Yet here we are, piecemealing an Interstate on the only road between a city of 4.5 million people and a city of 2 million people.
(Not to let this topic get off topic...)
If the system were built today, nothing would get built at all, because that would cost money and someone would be offended by that.
Quote from: kernals12 on January 30, 2024, 01:54:43 PM
Okay, if not a Phoenix-to-Las Vegas highway, why not at least a Phoenix-to-Kingman highway? Kingman is also on Route 66 and such a route is more direct for traffic heading towards California.
My guess would be the relative lack of activity in that direction, as opposed to all of the copper mines and recreational areas due North of Phoenix.
Even getting US 93 past Kingman was surprisingly contentious even into the 1960s:
https://www.gribblenation.org/2023/07/the-us-routes-of-wickenburg-arizona.html?m=1
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 30, 2024, 07:34:11 PM
If the system were built today, nothing would get built at all, because that would cost money and someone would be offended by that.
Plus environmental issues today.
Construction of Interstate 11 between Las Vegas and Phoenix is better late than never. We all know that Interstate 11 will not enter the city of Phoenix itself, instead bypassing the city. I don't think Interstate 11 should go all the way to Nogales, having it stop at Interstate 10 would probably be sufficient. If the Casa Grande-to-Tuscon segment is ever constructed, maybe it should be an extension of Interstate 8.
At least chances are very good for I-11 to be completed from the Hoover Dam to I-40 in Kingman. Going Southeast past that is questionable.
The whole ploy of diverting the proposed I-11 route pretty much straight South from Wickenburg down to some desolate spot on I-10 is about fueling real estate growth. Who cares if the land is 20 or so miles West of the 303 loop?
I believe a market catastrophe is likely to happen in America's housing industry in the 2030's and 2040's. Is any of I-11 getting built South of Wickenburg by then? These planned communities they have in mind out past the White Tank Mountains could turn into quite a boondoggle for both the developers and buyers. There wouldn't be any point of building I-11 way the hell out there by the time they get around to doing it.
Arizona's designation of interstate corridors was different than how they ended up. Here is a 1951 map - https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015020911791&seq=143&q1=interstate
In 1957 the map looks much more like the built system - https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015020911858&seq=166
A good indication of why there was no Phoenix to Kingman interstate routing can be found in the 1st 1957 interstate document for Arizona in the AASHO database. (https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default) There is a clearly presented traffic count map on page 3.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 30, 2024, 07:34:11 PM
If the system were built today, nothing would get built at all, because that would cost money and someone would be offended by that.
And it would endanger the Neufstaedler sand weebil.
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 30, 2024, 07:34:11 PM
If the system were built today, nothing would get built at all, because that would cost money and someone would be offended by that.
Or at least Interstates 15 and 29 probably wouldn't reach the Canadian border.
Quote from: kphoger on February 01, 2024, 10:49:43 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 30, 2024, 07:34:11 PM
If the system were built today, nothing would get built at all, because that would cost money and someone would be offended by that.
Or at least Interstates 15 and 29 probably wouldn't reach the Canadian border.
They both point towards fairly large population and economic centers in Canada and likely had fairly strong traffic numbers at the border in the 1950s. The north end of I-95 in Maine is the one that I most question.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on February 02, 2024, 11:56:03 AM
Quote from: kphoger on February 01, 2024, 10:49:43 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on January 30, 2024, 07:34:11 PM
If the system were built today, nothing would get built at all, because that would cost money and someone would be offended by that.
Or at least Interstates 15 and 29 probably wouldn't reach the Canadian border.
They both point towards fairly large population and economic centers in Canada and likely had fairly strong traffic numbers at the border in the 1950s. The north end of I-95 in Maine is the one that I most question.
Mike
Yeah, I don't know why they picked that. I think it was some kind of compromise between sending it all the way up to Van Buren or Madawaska vs. not getting into northern Maine at all, with the border crossing consideration secondary at best. If it were being built today, it would make more sense to send I-95 east from Bangor to Calais to tie into the NB 1 freeway.
Quote from: mgk920They both point towards fairly large population and economic centers in Canada and likely had fairly strong traffic numbers at the border in the 1950s. The north end of I-95 in Maine is the one that I most question.
The location of the North end of I-95 makes sense when you look at how the Trans Canada Highway cuts across New Brunswick and into Nova Scotia. It remains as a limited access freeway well into Nova Scotia. Plus there's the 102 spur freeway going down to Halifax.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 02, 2024, 04:03:06 PM
The location of the North end of I-95 makes sense when you look at how the Trans Canada Highway cuts across New Brunswick and into Nova Scotia. It remains as a limited access freeway well into Nova Scotia. Plus there's the 102 spur freeway going down to Halifax.
I do agree that it would have made more sense to connect I-95 to the trunk line of the TCH. And I do believe that was the timeline. When the decision was made to route the Interstate to Houlton instead of Fort Kent, the TCH was already slated to pass through Woodstock (1965). But I'm having trouble figuring out exactly when that decision was made. Anyone?
While US-1 does end in Fort Kent, was I-95 ever actually proposed to end there as well? There are no significant destinations on the other side of the border with Canada where the highway would point.
With I-95 crossing the US/CN border at Houlton it connects into the TCH as it makes its turn due West past Woodstock. The TCH is the main East-West route across New Brunswick.
The only other places that could have been logical points on the border for I-95 are Calais or Sandy Bay. Calais is South of Houlton, but the route 1 super highway in New Brunswick ends at a border crossing there. US-201 is the main route in Maine going North to Quebec City. But routing I-95 along US-201 would have diverted the Interstate at Fairfield well before reaching Bangor. US-201 is not a high traffic route and the Canadian route on the other side of the border is a 2-lane road.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 02, 2024, 04:03:06 PM
Quote from: mgk920They both point towards fairly large population and economic centers in Canada and likely had fairly strong traffic numbers at the border in the 1950s. The north end of I-95 in Maine is the one that I most question.
The location of the North end of I-95 makes sense when you look at how the Trans Canada Highway cuts across New Brunswick and into Nova Scotia. It remains as a limited access freeway well into Nova Scotia. Plus there's the 102 spur freeway going down to Halifax.
The thing is, that's not the most direct route to very many places. Doing directions on Google Maps from just south of Bangor to close to Moncton, it's actually seven minutes
shorter to take I-395/ME 9/NB 1 than it is to take I-95/NB 2. That difference will probably get larger once the I-395/ME 9 connector is finished. If there were a freeway on the ME 9 alignment, it would be even larger still. Traffic going to places like Nova Scotia isn't taking I-95 to Houlton.
Quote from: vdeane on February 02, 2024, 11:11:26 PM
The thing is, that's not the most direct route to very many places. Doing directions on Google Maps from just south of Bangor to close to Moncton, it's actually seven minutes shorter to take I-395/ME 9/NB 1 than it is to take I-95/NB 2. That difference will probably get larger once the I-395/ME 9 connector is finished. If there were a freeway on the ME 9 alignment, it would be even larger still. Traffic going to places like Nova Scotia isn't taking I-95 to Houlton.
In theory, but at least me, I'd personally drive 5-8 minutes more to avoid nearly 100 miles of two-lane highway. That's almost 2 hours on 55 mph road with limited passing opportunities at time, vs. the 75 mph I-95 with little traffic.
I do agree though for the desire of a limited access highway along ME-9, but it likely isn't happening anytime soon.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 03, 2024, 12:08:39 AM
Quote from: vdeane on February 02, 2024, 11:11:26 PM
The thing is, that's not the most direct route to very many places. Doing directions on Google Maps from just south of Bangor to close to Moncton, it's actually seven minutes shorter to take I-395/ME 9/NB 1 than it is to take I-95/NB 2. That difference will probably get larger once the I-395/ME 9 connector is finished. If there were a freeway on the ME 9 alignment, it would be even larger still. Traffic going to places like Nova Scotia isn't taking I-95 to Houlton.
In theory, but at least me, I'd personally drive 5-8 minutes more to avoid nearly 100 miles of two-lane highway. That's almost 2 hours on 55 mph road with limited passing opportunities at time, vs. the 75 mph I-95 with little traffic.
I do agree though for the desire of a limited access highway along ME-9, but it likely isn't happening anytime soon.
I agree that it's unlikely that such a freeway will be built
anytime soon ever, but even back at initial construction it would have made more sense. NB 2 went down to Saint John at the time, and even the TCH still dipped down to Sussex; the freeway connection that exists now just wasn't there. Taking I-95 to Houlton was always a longer diversion, that's not exactly a recent development. In fact, US 1 used to end (prior to being extended to Fort Kent) at the crossing which used to be NB 1 in Calais, probably for that exact reason.
US 1 going to Fort Kent is another oddball. There's nothing on the Canadian side, and it has to turn due west from Madawaska (which is opposite Edmundston) to get there.
Interesting. Maybe I'm just blessed that most of my traveling has interstate corridors that make it quicker. But sometimes I'll go out of my way to drive on a two-lane road. As much as I love interstates, they can get incredibly boring and the perception to me at least is that they feel as if they take longer even if they don't in reality.
Gee, you can't get much further away from I-11 than this...
Quote from: pderocco on February 03, 2024, 10:47:37 PM
Gee, you can't get much further away from I-11 than this...
Wrong. I searched it on GPT4 and it said the furthest possible place(the opposite side on the globe) is the Indian Ocean near Madagascar and Mozambique. If someone started talking about that then it would be about as far as you could get from the I-11 corridor assuming we're only talking about earths surface.
You can't get much further away on the Interstate Highway System from I-11.
Quote from: pderocco on February 05, 2024, 02:03:43 AM
You can't get much further away on the Interstate Highway System from I-11.
I know I get what you meant. ;)
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 02, 2024, 09:14:18 PM
While US-1 does end in Fort Kent, was I-95 ever actually proposed to end there as well?
AIUI, the pre-Interstate turnpike was originally proposed to end at Fort Kent. But the timing after that point is fuzzy to me.
I those days, when you didn't need a passport, I suppose there was little need for I-95 to go from Houlton to Fort Kent, since you could always take route 2 in Canada.
I've decided to take the Maine discussion over the the main thread for Maine (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=513.msg2905033#msg2905033) (pun intended).
Quote from: vdeane on February 08, 2024, 12:48:39 PM
I've decided to take the Maine discussion over the the main thread for Maine (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=513.msg2905033#msg2905033) (pun intended).
That is quite a tongue-twister, if I ever heard one!
I look forward to the Interstate 515 signs coming down this year, and the erection of Interstate 11 signs in their place. Hopefully, Interstate 11 will be signposted from Interstate 215 all the way to NV 157, and the new signs have the new exit numbers as well. They probably won't renumber Exit 99 and Exit 136 until Interstate 11 officially reaches those exits, which will probably happen eventually.
There are also two last McCarran Airport signs that I assume will come down for Harry Reid Airport signs.
Quote from: DenverBrian on February 09, 2024, 09:05:56 PM
There are also two last McCarran Airport signs that I assume will come down for Harry Reid Airport signs.
Hopefully they'll the replace the ones *inside* the airport soon
I've done some research and Nevada is the only state in the lower 48 that doesn't have a controlled access highway between its two largest urban areas! Even Wyoming lets you drive directly from Cheyenne to Casper.
Alaska and Hawaii are states...
:poke:
Quote from: triplemultiplex on February 20, 2024, 09:59:26 AM
Alaska and Hawaii are states...
:poke:
That's why kernals12 said "in the lower 48".
Nevada is also one that has both an E-W and N-S primary interstates that don't intersect within its borders. Okay Idaho too, but like I-15 and I-90 meeting outside Idaho inside Montana, both I-15 and I-80 meet in another state in the City of Salt Lake City.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on February 20, 2024, 09:59:26 AM
Alaska and Hawaii are states...
:poke:
They're in the lower 48?
Quote from: roadman65 on February 20, 2024, 10:31:25 AM
Nevada is also one that has both an E-W and N-S primary interstates that don't intersect within its borders. Okay Idaho too, but like I-15 and I-90 meeting outside Idaho inside Montana, both I-15 and I-80 meet in another state in the City of Salt Lake City.
Then there's Delaware.
Do they have a date yet for extending the Interstate 11 designation up Interstate 515 and US 95 to the NV 157 interchange? I believe it was planned to happen this year.
It almost makes sense that Nevada doesn't have that given the terrain challenges which would be expensive to overcome and the cities didn't seem very big back during the interstate boom. Wyoming seems to have gotten lucky that it was in the way of a north to south corridor planned for the region and Cheyenne and Casper just happened to be part of it. No way those cities would be connected by a controlled access highway by themselves.
I'd have to imagine a fair amount of traffic using a Vegas to Reno interstate would not be through traffic.
The problem is getting that jog to Reno. Likely any improved corridor would reach I-80 via Fernley or USA Parkway.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 20, 2024, 01:44:47 PM
The problem is getting that jog to Reno. Likely any improved corridor would reach I-80 via Fernley or USA Parkway.
Ideally it would tie into Carson City at I-580 and that road would be remembered I-11. I understand this to be a costly endeavor however it probably won't happen.
If I-11 ever gets extended north(and I peg that having as much as a chance as it getting extended south of I-10) it would have a pretty large concurrency along I-80. I wonder if tying into I-80 that far east if it would even save time versus the current route.
Fair to note though, travelers heading to Reno aren't likely to pass Carson City even now. The opening of USA Parkway really streamlined getting between Reno-Las Vegas by way of US 95A.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 20, 2024, 01:22:17 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 20, 2024, 10:31:25 AM
Nevada is also one that has both an E-W and N-S primary interstates that don't intersect within its borders. Okay Idaho too, but like I-15 and I-90 meeting outside Idaho inside Montana, both I-15 and I-80 meet in another state in the City of Salt Lake City.
Then there's Delaware.
Delaware don't have an E- W interstate. Heck they don't want East West freeways at all such as upgrades to the DE 404 corridor which is a summer beach travel route.😄
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 20, 2024, 01:59:26 PM
Fair to note though, travelers heading to Reno aren't likely to pass Carson City even now. The opening of USA Parkway really streamlined getting between Reno-Las Vegas by way of US 95A.
Yep. I had forgotten all about this road actually. Really came in handy last time around.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 20, 2024, 02:07:33 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 20, 2024, 01:59:26 PM
Fair to note though, travelers heading to Reno aren't likely to pass Carson City even now. The opening of USA Parkway really streamlined getting between Reno-Las Vegas by way of US 95A.
Yep. I had forgotten all about this road actually. Really came in handy last time around.
A proper bypass or Yerington would be welcome. All the same, most local traffic knows what local roads to use to bypass the city already.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 20, 2024, 01:59:26 PM
The opening of USA Parkway really streamlined getting between Reno-Las Vegas by way of US 95A.
Except they'll all die a horrible death shortly before leaving home, because the roundabout at USA Parkway's southern terminus is a multi-lane roundabout with fixed objects inside the circle. I can only assume it's a crash-prone roundabout of the highest order.
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2020/04/14/09/27167660-0-image-a-36_1586854629715.jpg)
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 20, 2024, 01:59:26 PM
Fair to note though, travelers heading to Reno aren't likely to pass Carson City even now. The opening of USA Parkway really streamlined getting between Reno-Las Vegas by way of US 95A.
I was looking at the Nevada Official maps online, and noticed something interesting. Those older ones that included city insets always included Las Vegas, Reno, and ... Ely until 1972. Few of them showed Carson City until 2002, even though that's the capitol, and a heck of a lot bigger than Ely. They had Tahoe region insets that included CC, but didn't show any CC streets.
Quote from: kphoger on February 20, 2024, 02:13:06 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 20, 2024, 01:59:26 PM
The opening of USA Parkway really streamlined getting between Reno-Las Vegas by way of US 95A.
Except they'll all die a horrible death shortly before leaving home, because the roundabout at USA Parkway's southern terminus is a multi-lane roundabout with fixed objects inside the circle. I can only assume it's a crash-prone roundabout of the highest order.
...if they're drunken idiots.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on February 21, 2024, 10:01:34 AM
Quote from: kphoger on February 20, 2024, 02:13:06 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 20, 2024, 01:59:26 PM
The opening of USA Parkway really streamlined getting between Reno-Las Vegas by way of US 95A.
Except they'll all die a horrible death shortly before leaving home, because the roundabout at USA Parkway's southern terminus is a multi-lane roundabout with fixed objects inside the circle. I can only assume it's a crash-prone roundabout of the highest order.
...if they're drunken idiots.
Sorry, I forgot the [/sarc] tag.
And my snark setting was too high.
:)
After driving US-95 northwest of Las Vegas, it seems like it would be relatively cheap to extend I-11 to just past the Clark/Nye county line. There are precious few intersections; it's already four lane divided with interstate-standard shoulders and grades; I'd guess fewer than 10 interchanges to be built.
If this were in Texas, they'd already have it done, and if they had to start today, they'd have it finished in six months.
A lot of that expressway was purpose built to facilitate the military installation at Mercury and the wider Nevada Test Site. Traffic drops considerably north NV 157 and usually can be fairly well timed to the typical 7 AM-4 PM military admin day.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 24, 2024, 10:15:15 AM
A lot of that expressway was purpose built to facilitate the military installation at Mercury and the wider Nevada Test Site. Traffic drops considerably north NV 157 and usually can be fairly well timed to the typical 7 AM-4 PM military admin day.
Yep. Back then, most civilian workers at the test site – and there were a lot of them – commuted from Las Vegas.
Quote from: Sub-Urbanite on February 25, 2024, 11:31:26 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on February 24, 2024, 10:15:15 AM
A lot of that expressway was purpose built to facilitate the military installation at Mercury and the wider Nevada Test Site. Traffic drops considerably north NV 157 and usually can be fairly well timed to the typical 7 AM-4 PM military admin day.
Yep. Back then, most civilian workers at the test site – and there were a lot of them – commuted from Las Vegas.
It is also a common pattern to see expressway and freeway segments built to facilitate commutes to bases. That was the large driver for a freeway and expressway alignment of CA 198 being built to NAS Lemoore from Hanford. Likewise there is a four lane expressway segment of US 1 from Key West to Boca Chica Key where the flight line for NAS Key West is.
Or Air Base Parkway in Fairfield for Travis AFB.