It seems that AZ is one of the few states without any 3-dis. Last I drove the Loop 101, it seems to be Interstate standards, what's preventing an I-210, or I-217? Does AZ not use 3-dis? Seems like federal money, especially in these times, would help.
Technically, I-19 could be I-110, but I digress...
That's a good question...especially since the funding would be greatly increased if it were given an interstate designation.
I think we will see a 3di in Arizona someday, but I'm guessing it will not be around Phoenix or Tuscon. Maybe I-515 will be the first one with an extension into the state from Nevada.
Or perhaps the Arizona 85 corridor, once its upgrade to freeway standards is complete between Interstate 8 at Gila Bend and Interstate 10 near Buckeye.
Arizona does not have 3dis because they increased their sales tax by one cent a while ago, and that one cent goes only to roads. Therefore, AZ finds it is easier to just use their own money, and, by extension, not have to deal with the AASHTO or FHWA or the rest of the federal government.
It is completely ridiculous that Arizona has no 3dis. The state definitely deserves to have some 3dis in the Phoenix area.
^See above. They could have 3dis, they just don't want one.
My idea for a 3di in Arizona is to renumber I-17 south of I-10 to I-610.
Quote from: John on February 08, 2009, 11:15:42 AM
Therefore, AZ finds it is easier to just use their own money, and, by extension, not have to deal with the AASHTO or FHWA or the rest of the federal government.
I actually kind of like that idea--it gives the state department of transportation more flexibility. I wish Oregon's DOT would do that, honestly.
That makes me wonder, though--I know at least here in Oregon, there are several roads that are signed as state routes but entirely under county or city control--would it be permissible for Arizona to sign non-FHWA-funded routes as Interstates?
-Alex (Tarkus)
I'm sure they could post things with an interstate shield without the funding, but they'd have to adhere to all the rules and regulations that come with having an interstate highway anyway so they may as well just take the money
I don't think it is illegal, since the interstate shield, the word interstate, etc are all government owned and therefore public domain. AASHTO and the FHWA would probably jump all over them though.
How, then, did some of the toll roads gain Interstate designations? I don't think they get Federal funding, do they?
Maybe one day Tucson will get I-210. I mean there is an Arizona 210 that parallels I-10 after all :wow:
Also supposedly there are plans to upgrade U.S. 93 between I-40 and Wikiup to interstate standards because of the safety concerns along that stretch of highway. Right now it is still under construction and has some 5 or so miles of expressway standards on that stretch.
I asked one of the contractors that was working on the highway if it was true that U.S. 93 will become a freeway in the future, and he said "Yes". That was back in 2006 and now in 2009 its a expressway standards, so we will see.
If it does indeed become a freeway, then maybe it could get the x40 designation. Can you say Interstate Arizona 540 (or whatever number they choose)?
Hm. If Arizona has that much money to throw around, I wonder if they could get by with no federal money at all. Would be kinda interesting if they started doing all that stuff the Feds threaten to take away the road money for simply to tee them off (lowering drinking age below 21, seatbelt laws, etc etc)
Here is what I know and conjecture:
* Arizona lost out on three-digit Interstates because its population was much lower when the 41,000-mile Interstate system was fixed in the mid-1950's. In 1950 Tucson had a population of 45,000, as opposed to 1 million now. Historical demography for Phoenix is more complicated because it is more suburbanized, but I am going to guess that the 1950 population which corresponds (roughly) to the current metro area was under 200,000. 45,000 population doesn't really justify an Interstate loop (which Tucson has desperately needed for decades and which was planned in the Tucson Area Transportation Study in 1965), and the 1950's planners may have thought the loop around downtown Phoenix would be adequate for its needs.
* Freeway revolts in Phoenix and Tucson in the 1970's meant that the opportunity to fund new freeway mileage using Interstate Construction funds was lost.
* There is currently no financial incentive to redesignate the Loops as Interstates because Interstate conversion now no longer confers eligibility for IM funding. That particular window closed in the last few years (FHWA's Interstate route log and finder list will have the exact date). Arizona DOT could get FHWA and AASHTO approval to re-sign the Loops as Interstates, but there would be no benefit in terms of navigation, and the Interstate designation by itself would not give access to additional sources of funding.
As others have noted, Arizona is still able to access the full amount of federal funding due to it without having to have loop Interstates eligible for IM funding. The basic strategy in Arizona is to collect enough taxes at the state and local level to match all the federal funding that is available, and to depend largely on local resources to fund the necessary capital construction.
The Loops are part of the NHS, so they attract NH funding for capital improvements (widening, etc.) at an 80% federal, 20% state/local share. Rehabilitation work also attracts Surface Transportation Program (STP) funding; indeed Loops 101 and 202 have had their first sign rehabilitations in the last five years, and both were STP projects. It is, of course, completely up to Arizona DOT whether to use NH or STP money on the Loops. Generally they have been built with state and local money alone (the funding category is RAM, whatever that means).
The fact that Arizona is able to fund its new capital construction using state and local resources does not mean that Arizona can afford to have its federal funding cut off by lowering the drinking age below 21, repealing seatbelt laws, etc. Arizona can't say No to having the federal gas tax collected in Arizona. If Washington cuts funding off, federal motor fuel taxes collected in Arizona are not recycled back to Arizona, and state motor fuel and sales taxes would have to go up steeply to compensate for the missing federal match.
If you think about it closely, Arizona's unusual financial position also explains why Jon Kyl, one of the state's two US senators, made a huge fuss about not accepting earmarks for Arizona on principle. Earmarks are worth having only if they are completely outside the distributional cap, and Arizona has more than enough local revenue and projects to hoover up its federal match without needing to add queue-jumpers.
That makes Arizona pretty unusual. Most states are dependant on federal money right now.
I-19 should probably be an I-x10. AZ 101 should probably be a 3di too.
Quote from: John on February 08, 2009, 11:15:42 AM
Arizona does not have 3dis because they increased their sales tax by one cent a while ago, and that one cent goes only to roads. Therefore, AZ finds it is easier to just use their own money, and, by extension, not have to deal with the AASHTO or FHWA or the rest of the federal government.
I wish we'd do something like that here in Michigan. I don't recall the exact figures but from the federal highway dollars we send to Washington we only get about 85% back.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 17, 2009, 06:24:56 AM
Hm. If Arizona has that much money to throw around, I wonder if they could get by with no federal money at all. Would be kinda interesting if they started doing all that stuff the Feds threaten to take away the road money for simply to tee them off (lowering drinking age below 21, seatbelt laws, etc etc)
The boost to their economy by lowering the drinking age would more than offset Federal dollar loss. Raise alcohol tax when you do it for extra bonus money!
Hmm. Well, I think the Arizona loop shields looked better anyway. I just liked them better colored. I saw the old colored Loop 202 (or 303?) shields the other day on US-60/Grand Ave. in Peoria last week. It was a nice blast back to the past. Why did they remove it?
The reason I have heard is that the colors were applied by silkscreening rather than using pigmented retroreflective sheeting, so they were susceptible to fading under the desert sun. This does not explain, however, why Arizona DOT uses silkscreening on Interstate shields, which also fade under the sun. I think the real reason is that ADOT wanted to eliminate the potential quality-control headaches associated with having a separate color for each route number.
I also liked the polychromic shields. But the standard for Loop shields has been white on black for almost 10 years now and installed examples of the colored shields are fast disappearing. I will just save the sign drawings and re-draw the shields in color at some future point.
I like the loop 101 and loop 202 designations. I think Phoenix's big gain should be I-13 (US 93,60,95). AND I-32 (US 60 East). If you want to learn more about my I-13 and I-32, just go to Highways We Like to See section in General Highways. Leif Vanderwall
But what happens if there is an unlikely change and we start needed loops for Tucson? I'd wonder about Yuma, Casa Grande, and Flagstaff, but the terrain looks like it would be difficult to build on around the Flagstaff. Do they use Loop 102 and Loop 203 for Tucson; Loop 103, and Loop 204 for Yuma?
I'm disappointed with the loops losing their colored shields.
At the rate Arizona has been going, I don't think there will be a shortage of palindromic Loop designations. In principle Phoenix could handle a Loop 404 and Loop 505, with Tucson getting Loops 606 and 707, Nogales getting Loop 808, and somewhere in Pinal County (not necessarily Casa Grande) getting Loop 909. But in actuality the trend has been away from Loop designations. SR 74, the Williams Gateway Freeway, and the pipe-dream freeway in the Houghton Avenue corridor all have actual or notional SR designations which are not Loops. Even in the heyday of the Loops, there were non-Loop designations like SR 210 (at one time thought of as a possible future I-210), SR 51, SR 143, and SR 153.
I-715, from I-15 to Colorado City :P
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 17, 2009, 06:24:56 AM
Hm. If Arizona has that much money to throw around, I wonder if they could get by with no federal money at all. Would be kinda interesting if they started doing all that stuff the Feds threaten to take away the road money for simply to tee them off (lowering drinking age below 21, seatbelt laws, etc etc)
how about increasing the speed limit to 90? Goodness knows that's what they enforce half the time.
Quote from: akotchi on February 11, 2009, 10:17:25 PM
How, then, did some of the toll roads gain Interstate designations? I don't think they get Federal funding, do they?
No, they aren't federally funded. It was a matter of petitioning AASHTO. For example, the ISTHA here in Illinois petitioned AASHTO for I-355 for the North-South Tollway (now Veterans Memorial Tollway) in 1988 when it was being built. Hence, it got an interstate number from the start without any federal funding.
The growth of Phoenix and Tucson will play a big part on how Arizona will sign its 3dis. The two cities are probably going to grow into each other. This means more people, which in turn means more traffic, which makes the need for more freeways. The problem is, can Arizona afford all these freeways with the funding coming from sales tax? I doubt it. Federal funding is the way to go. Arizona would probably pay its 10% of the freeways' cost through sales tax, but still, 10% beats 100%.
Since Arizona would have agreed to utilizing federal money on building the freeways, AZDOT would have to give these freeways an interstate designation. They don't have to be signed, but, signed or not, the interstate designations would have to be noted (in paperwork) to benefit from federal financing.
So, nonetheless, the growth of Phoenix and Tucson will probably define if Arizona will ever get 3dis.
Quote from: City on November 07, 2009, 12:20:43 PM
The problem is, can Arizona afford all these freeways with the funding coming from sales tax? I doubt it. Federal funding is the way to go. Arizona would probably pay its 10% of the freeways' cost through sales tax, but still, 10% beats 100%.
Since Arizona would have agreed to utilizing federal money on building the freeways, AZDOT would have to give these freeways an interstate designation. They don't have to be signed, but, signed or not, the interstate designations would have to be noted (in paperwork) to benefit from federal financing.
Not necessarily. Clark County in Nevada passed various measures to fund construction of the Las Vegas Beltway (I-215/CR 215). Excepting the southern interchanges at I-15 and at I-515/US 95, the beltway was constructed using bonds of county funds.
Federal funding doesn't automatically generate an Interstate designation. Federal funding, in conjunction with Interstate design standards, make a highway more likely to receive an Interstate designation, though.
If I am wrong, I beg to be corrected, but I don't think it is possible any longer to build new Interstate highways under the FAI program with its 90% federal, 10% state/local funding formula, except for the microscopic lengths of the chargeable Interstate system which remain unbuilt. The more common scenario seems to be to add unbuilt lengths of new principal arterial (whether Interstate or US/state route freeway) to the NHS, and then build them with the 80% federal, 20% state funding ratio that applies to new construction on NHS routes.
It used to be the case that you could build a so-called "non-chargeable" Interstate using some funding source other than FAI, and then stick the federal government for subsequent 3R/4R work at the 90% federal/10% state/local funding ratio which applies to the Interstate Maintenance (IM) program. But that arrangement does not apply to non-chargeable Interstates built after (I think) 2003. I do not know if they are eligible for IM at a different funding ratio, or if they are not eligible at all. In the latter case I would expect 3R/4R work to be eligible for cofinancing under the Surface Transportation Program (STP).
Now, let me make a point about ratios of grant. Regardless of the federal-state funding ratio, as a state you cannot normally expect to get more back from Washington than is produced by federal fuel-tax revenues collected in your state. Some very large states, like Texas, California, and Michigan have to make do with less than total recovery; the lucky states, like Montana and Alaska, tend to have low population combined with strong Congressional delegations, and thus get back as much as $2 or $3 for every dollar they send.
What this means is that if you use FAI or NHS funding to build a new length of freeway, you are burning through a lot of your allocation of federal highway funding. This leaves a lot less for other federally funded work, including IM, STP, other NHS, and bridge replacements. You are not allowed to obligate funds for every federally funded project for which you can find the match at the state and local level--you have to pick and choose so that the cumulative federal share of all the federally funded projects you commit in a given year is equal to or less than your total allocation of federal highway funds for that year.
This is why you don't hear state DOTs complaining about having to impose sales tax increments to fund new freeways. For them, grant ratios are a complete nonissue. Sales tax money for freeways just frees up more state gas tax revenue for STP projects and bridge replacements, and allows them to have a balanced construction program which responds to the political pressure in favor of new capital construction while carrying out the basic responsibility to maintain the existing highway system.
On the other hand, state DOTs hate, and complain loudly about, the following:
* The frictional losses inherent in sending money to Washington, and back again. (On the other hand, FHWA helps them by cracking down on fuel tax evasion, and the FHWA share helps finance highway research and large-scale planning efforts which save the state DOTs money.)
* Recissions of federal funding, which happen when FHWA collects less fuel tax revenue than projected and then has to cut payments out of the federal Highway Trust Fund in order to keep it solvent. At the state level this means federal obligations for federally funded projects are cancelled, which leads to the projects themselves being postponed until there is enough federal money to re-obligate them.
So, in a nutshell, FAI and NHS funding ratios have little to no relevance to the capital improvements to the highway network that will become necessary as Phoenix and Tucson continue to expand. The Interstate designations don't even have any navigational value for what will essentially be local commuter routes.
Loop 101: I-410
AZ 51: I-510
I-17 (S of I-10) I-610 (thanks to US 60)
Loop 202: I-810