Arizona 3-dis. Will we ever see them?

[agentsteel53]

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.

[Brandon]

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.

[City]

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.

[roadfro]

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.

[J N Winkler]

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.

[national highway 1]

Loop 101: I-410
AZ 51: I-510
I-17 (S of I-10) I-610 (thanks to US 60)
Loop 202: I-810