Interstate 11

[sparker]

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).     

[kkt]

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...

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.

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.

[US 89]

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, which was later revealed to be the driver's fault.

[kkt]

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.

[jakeroot]

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.

[The Ghostbuster]

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.

[kkt]

Only as far north as I-15.  US 95 is plenty for the traffic it's got.

[US 89]

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.

[kkt]

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.

[jakeroot]

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?

[Bobby5280]

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.

[US 89]

I can accept 11 going all the way to 8 only if they upgrade AZ-85 and route 11 there.

[jakeroot]

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?

...AZ-85 between Gila Bend and Buckeye could be upgraded to Interstate quality relatively easily without needing a bunch of new ROW.

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.

[pumpkineater2]

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.

[sparker]

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.

[howlincoyote2k1]

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.

[kkt]

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.

[jakeroot]

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.

[vdeane]

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.

[US 89]

(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.

[vdeane]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[US 89]

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.

[sparker]

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.   

[jakeroot]

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.