Interstate 11

Started by Interstate Trav, April 28, 2011, 12:58:30 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Bobby5280

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. 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, 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 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. 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.


sprjus4

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.

armadillo speedbump

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. 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.

Plutonic Panda

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. 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.

sprjus4

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. 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.

Bobby5280

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.

vdeane

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 a ranch turnoff.  And I-40 doesn't have private businesses along the mainline, either.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

KeithE4Phx

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 a ranch turnoff.  And I-40 doesn't have private businesses 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.
"Oh, so you hate your job? Well, why didn't you say so? There's a support group for that. It's called "EVERYBODY!" They meet at the bar." -- Drew Carey

X99

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 a ranch turnoff.  And I-40 doesn't have private businesses 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?
why are there only like 5 people on this forum from south dakota

Bobby5280

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.

sparker

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.     

Bobby5280

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.


triplemultiplex

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.
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

Sub-Urbanite

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?

Bobby5280

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.

Plutonic Panda


sparker

^^^^^^^^^
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. 

Sub-Urbanite

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.

Bobby5280

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.

sparker

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.     

The Ghostbuster

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.

Bobby5280

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.

splashflash

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

SSR_317


sparker

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).



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.