US 93 In Arizona Progress

[SSR_317]

I'm sure they'll have to build some frontage roads of short, limited length to maintain ranch road access, unless they plan to allow at-grade intersections along the route.

No, since this will become Interstate 11, no at-grade intersections will remain once full access control is established.

I don't think you understood what I meant about short frontage roads for maintaining ranch road access. Frontage roads would be built in order to prevent ranch roads from intersecting the Interstate main lanes directly. These short frontage roads would be akin to the on/off ramps for a rest area. The frontage roads might run a bit longer or not. They would be there to prevent situations like some guy in a beat-up pickup hauling a trailer and slowly hanging a hard right turn onto the Interstate main lanes. The ranchers would still have access to certain dirt roads via those limited frontage roads. But when they get back on the Interstate they'll have to go to the next full exit in order to cross over to "turn left" in order to go back home.

In Texas they'll be using this approach in certain locations of I-69 projects in far South Texas.

Sorry I misunderstood your post. Yes, the plan all along was to have Local Access Roads (a/k/a "Frontage Roads") to provide connections to public & private properties and primitive (unmaintained dirt) roads all along the route. These would connect to the interchanges to be built when full access control is implemented, which is (of course) a prerequisite to the Interstate 11 designation. As far as I can determine from the original US 93 upgrade plans, all interchanges to be built will be "full service" junctions that would allow for "all-movements" access. None would be stand-alone slip ramps to/from a frontage or other local road.

Along US 93 between I-40 and about 10 miles north of Wickenburg, there is not a lot of development, and not a lot of private land. Most of the area is owned by either the US Bureau of Land Management (US BLM) or the State of Arizona, and as such is only served by primitive roads. There are a few gated and locked utility maintenance roads along the WAPA electrical transmission lines. The scattered private holdings are mostly large ranching operations, and they would be accessed via proposed new local roads extending from the planned interchanges.

[KeithE4Phx]

Along US 93 between I-40 and about 10 miles north of Wickenburg, there is not a lot of development, and not a lot of private land. Most of the area is owned by either the US Bureau of Land Management (US BLM) or the State of Arizona, and as such is only served by primitive roads. There are a few gated and locked utility maintenance roads along the WAPA electrical transmission lines. The scattered private holdings are mostly large ranching operations, and they would be accessed via proposed new local roads extending from the planned interchanges.

There are about 30 private ranch and local/county road turnoffs along US 93 between Wickenburg and I-40.  I counted them several years ago on one trip, but I don't remember the exact number.  Some in or near Wickenburg are not part of what will be I-11, but there are still plenty of them.  That doesn't include the necessary interchanges for access to downtown Wickenburg (what is now part of 93), AZ 89, AZ 71, and AZ 97, as well as access to Burro Creek Campground and other similar sites.

[Bobby5280]

Are they actually considering building I-11 thru Wickenburg? The town looks like a pretty serious obstacle.

I'd anticipate them building a loop around Wickenburg. But even doing that wouldn't be easy due to the terrain surrounding the area. The town itself is pretty spread out as well. It doesn't look like there would be any easy path for I-11 to take through that area without clearing a decent number of properties and/or doing some deep cuts into hillsides.

[The Ghostbuster]

Interstate 11 will likely turn to the south prior to the existing AZ 89 (former US 89)/US 93 intersection. This 2014 Corridor Analysis study from 2014 should give more information on Interstate 11's proposed alignment through Arizona: https://sonoraninstitute.org/files/pdf/proposed-interstate-11-analysis-casa-grande-to-the-mike-ocallaghan-pat-tillman-memorial-bridge-02042014.pdf.

[KeithE4Phx]

Are they actually considering building I-11 thru Wickenburg? The town looks like a pretty serious obstacle.

I'd anticipate them building a loop around Wickenburg. But even doing that wouldn't be easy due to the terrain surrounding the area. The town itself is pretty spread out as well. It doesn't look like there would be any easy path for I-11 to take through that area without clearing a decent number of properties and/or doing some deep cuts into hillsides.

No, it won't go through Wickenburg.  It'll veer off to the west right before AZ 89, then go south to (at least) I-10.

[SSR_317]

There are about 30 private ranch and local/county road turnoffs along US 93 between Wickenburg and I-40.  I counted them several years ago on one trip, but I don't remember the exact number.  Some in or near Wickenburg are not part of what will be I-11, but there are still plenty of them.  That doesn't include the necessary interchanges for access to downtown Wickenburg (what is now part of 93), AZ 89, AZ 71, and AZ 97, as well as access to Burro Creek Campground and other similar sites.

The three documents I cited in my separate post above detail all such access points. There will be one of four outcomes possible for each once full access control is implemented (other than being directly part of a proposed future interchange):
1 - Future access via newly constructed local roads which connect to one of the future interchanges.
2 - Gated & locked RIRO access, to be used mainly for utility (or USBLM) primitive roads (such as those that run along the WAPA Electrical Transmission Line corridors).
3 - The existing access road to a property has a second outlet that will not involved in the US 93 access control change or will intersect one of the new access roads constructed for it. In these cases the existing US 93 access will be permanently removed.
4 - ADOT buys the access rights for the property (or the property itself) and access is to US 93 permanently terminated.

Of course in a normal situation, there would also be a 5th possibility: that of a grade separation structure being built to replace direct access for such points. But because of the isolated, rural nature of this area, there are none scheduled to be built along this stretch of US 93/fI-11 except for those at planned new interchanges (and the two existing ones at I-40 and at SR 71).
CORRECTION: There will be ONE grade separation in this section, for Chicken Springs Road west of Wikieup.

Modified on 2023/11/12 at 15:03 EST by author to add correction.

[J N Winkler]

In the past week, Arizona DOT has advertised the construction contract (TRACS H799301C) for the first phase of the redeveloped West Kingman Traffic Interchange.  This establishes the free-flowing connection between US 93 and I-40 on the west side of Kingman by building a new roadway connecting the two via ramps that will serve traffic running between Las Vegas and Phoenix.  Ramps to handle the Las Vegas-California movements are to be built in a later phase as funding permits.

As this project by itself will not remove the brief overlap of US 93 and I-40 through Kingman, I don't know if the new interchange will eventually become the west end of an I-11/I-40 concurrency.

[KeithE4Phx]

As this project by itself will not remove the brief overlap of US 93 and I-40 through Kingman,...

The overlap is about 25 miles, not a significant portion of I-40, but not brief, either.

...I don't know if the new interchange will eventually become the west end of an I-11/I-40 concurrency.

AFAIK, it will be.  That's the main reason for its existence.  Eliminating the Beale Street Bottleneck is an added bonus.

[Sub-Urbanite]

Interestingly, ADOT isn't leaving up room for I-11 shields on the BGS's.

In the past week, Arizona DOT has advertised the construction contract (TRACS H799301C) for the first phase of the redeveloped West Kingman Traffic Interchange.  This establishes the free-flowing connection between US 93 and I-40 on the west side of Kingman by building a new roadway connecting the two via ramps that will serve traffic running between Las Vegas and Phoenix.  Ramps to handle the Las Vegas-California movements are to be built in a later phase as funding permits.

As this project by itself will not remove the brief overlap of US 93 and I-40 through Kingman, I don't know if the new interchange will eventually become the west end of an I-11/I-40 concurrency.

[Scott5114]

Interestingly, ADOT isn't leaving up room for I-11 shields on the BGS's.

Did they actually let the signing sheets yet, or is this just based on the video? I would imagine the signs in the video are for demo purposes only and won't reflect exactly what is eventually signed.

[J N Winkler]

Did they actually let the signing sheets yet, or is this just based on the video? I would imagine the signs in the video are for demo purposes only and won't reflect exactly what is eventually signed.

From the plans set:



Other sheets show a similar lack of room for I-11 shields.

[Strider]

Maybe it is because there are still some at-grade intersections with stoplights along US 93 between Kingman and Hoover Dam, or they just have not gotten around to scheduling the upgrading of US 93 to I-11 yet.

[Sonic99]

Yeah I think they're still a ways out from being ready to make US 93 into I-11. Multiple intersections along the way up to the Dam. It's not just a matter of the I-40 interchange and swapping some signs.

[vdeane]

Did they actually let the signing sheets yet, or is this just based on the video? I would imagine the signs in the video are for demo purposes only and won't reflect exactly what is eventually signed.

From the plans set:



Other sheets show a similar lack of room for I-11 shields.

Wow, that APL is cramped!  Get rid of the exit tab, and one would assume it's a CalTrans sign... (or maybe not... there's something elegant about how it's saving space, while IMO CalTrans signs are more of an ugly cramped)

[Bobby5280]

If they're able to install I-11 shields on those overhead signs within the next 10 years I'm sure they'll just swap out the US-93 shields. Well, that is unless the highway shields are printed into the sign face background (as opposed to being separate metal panels attached the green backgrounds). If the shields, lettering, etc is all "baked" into the green background they'll have to replace the entire sign face when it needs updating. That may not happen until the full "Y" interchange with I-11 and I-40 in Kingman is completed.

[J N Winkler]

Wow, that APL is cramped!  Get rid of the exit tab, and one would assume it's a CalTrans sign... (or maybe not... there's something elegant about how it's saving space, while IMO CalTrans signs are more of an ugly cramped)

I'm not a fan of the use of Series D to secure 20" UC/15" LC legend, but this use of thinner type has been Arizona DOT's SOP for system interchanges since midway through their Clearview era, when they used 4-W in lieu of 5-W.

If they're able to install I-11 shields on those overhead signs within the next 10 years I'm sure they'll just swap out the US-93 shields. Well, that is unless the highway shields are printed into the sign face background (as opposed to being separate metal panels attached the green backgrounds). The the shields, lettering, etc is all "baked" into the green background they'll have to replace the entire sign face when it needs updating. That may not happen until the full "Y" interchange with I-11 and I-40 in Kingman is completed.

I think ADOT has now standardized on direct-applied copy, including for shields.  If that is correct, these signs could be patched when the time comes, if they aren't already due for replacement.  However, this would involve dropping US 93 from the signs, and I don't know whether ADOT would go for the KDOT approach of signing "minor" routes (which can include US highways) using trailblazers at major interchanges.  On the Nevada side, new signs intended for installation in the I-11 corridor have included space for I-11 shields without the need to omit any existing routes other than I-515.

[Occidental Tourist]

Once I-11 is fully built in Arizona (or at least south to Wickenburg), is the assumption that US 93 gets truncated to Arrolime and no longer signed anywhere in the Vegas Valley?

[pderocco]

Since it will be a long time before all of US-93 in Arizona is upgraded to Interstate standards, does anyone think that there is a possibility of I-11 being signed in bits and pieces, say, like I-69?

[Roadwarriors79]

I think there's a possibility, depending on what section(s) are completed early on. If ADOT does a full freeway conversion starting at the Nevada state line and working south, it's more likely than if for instance a Phoenix freeway bypass is completed early on.

[The Ghostbuster]

I wouldn't expect Interstate 11 to be signposted along the US 93 corridor until more significant portions of 93 are upgraded to freeway standards. When Interstate 11 is signposted, I too expect the US 93 signs to be eliminated, so the signs not having space for both 11 and 93 shields will become a moot point.

[pderocco]

I wouldn't expect Interstate 11 to be signposted along the US 93 corridor until more significant portions of 93 are upgraded to freeway standards. When Interstate 11 is signposted, I too expect the US 93 signs to be eliminated, so the signs not having space for both 11 and 93 shields will become a moot point.

Why would they drop the US-93 signs? They have them on the existing I-11, I-515, and I-15 concurrencies. It's not as if it's a minor road, or is always concurrent with an Interstate. After Vegas, it goes all the way to Canada on its own.

[vdeane]

I wouldn't expect Interstate 11 to be signposted along the US 93 corridor until more significant portions of 93 are upgraded to freeway standards. When Interstate 11 is signposted, I too expect the US 93 signs to be eliminated, so the signs not having space for both 11 and 93 shields will become a moot point.

Why would they drop the US-93 signs? They have them on the existing I-11, I-515, and I-15 concurrencies. It's not as if it's a minor road, or is always concurrent with an Interstate. After Vegas, it goes all the way to Canada on its own.

It's not like US 93 would exist south of its overlap with I-11 once the interstate is fully built out.  What would be the point of keeping it around south of where it splits off from I-15?

[pderocco]

I wouldn't expect Interstate 11 to be signposted along the US 93 corridor until more significant portions of 93 are upgraded to freeway standards. When Interstate 11 is signposted, I too expect the US 93 signs to be eliminated, so the signs not having space for both 11 and 93 shields will become a moot point.

Why would they drop the US-93 signs? They have them on the existing I-11, I-515, and I-15 concurrencies. It's not as if it's a minor road, or is always concurrent with an Interstate. After Vegas, it goes all the way to Canada on its own.

It's not like US 93 would exist south of its overlap with I-11 once the interstate is fully built out.  What would be the point of keeping it around south of where it splits off from I-15?

Good point. I suppose it comes down to the order they do things in. While they could construct I-11 in disjoint pieces, they won't turn US-93 into disjoint pieces, so a concurrency could exist for quite a while.

I wonder what is considered more important re commercial traffic, I-11 between Hoover Dam and Kingman, or between I-40 and I-10. The former would certainly be easier.

A counterargument is that there are a few miles of US-85 signed near the Mexican border, despite a 700-mile unsigned concurrency with I-25 separating that from the rest of US-85 up to Canada. I don't think there are any real rules.

[zzcarp]

I wouldn't expect Interstate 11 to be signposted along the US 93 corridor until more significant portions of 93 are upgraded to freeway standards. When Interstate 11 is signposted, I too expect the US 93 signs to be eliminated, so the signs not having space for both 11 and 93 shields will become a moot point.

Why would they drop the US-93 signs? They have them on the existing I-11, I-515, and I-15 concurrencies. It's not as if it's a minor road, or is always concurrent with an Interstate. After Vegas, it goes all the way to Canada on its own.

It's not like US 93 would exist south of its overlap with I-11 once the interstate is fully built out.  What would be the point of keeping it around south of where it splits off from I-15?

Good point. I suppose it comes down to the order they do things in. While they could construct I-11 in disjoint pieces, they won't turn US-93 into disjoint pieces, so a concurrency could exist for quite a while.

I wonder what is considered more important re commercial traffic, I-11 between Hoover Dam and Kingman, or between I-40 and I-10. The former would certainly be easier.

A counterargument is that there are a few miles of US-85 signed near the Mexican border, despite a 700-mile unsigned concurrency with I-25 separating that from the rest of US-85 up to Canada. I don't think there are any real rules.

I could see Arizona changing US 93 from Wickenburg to I-40 to AZ 93 once I-11 makes it down from Vegas to Kingman. After all, they unnecessarily truncated US 89 to Flagstaff and changed the portion south of Ash Fork to AZ 89.

[Scott5114]

I wouldn't expect Interstate 11 to be signposted along the US 93 corridor until more significant portions of 93 are upgraded to freeway standards. When Interstate 11 is signposted, I too expect the US 93 signs to be eliminated, so the signs not having space for both 11 and 93 shields will become a moot point.

Why would they drop the US-93 signs? They have them on the existing I-11, I-515, and I-15 concurrencies. It's not as if it's a minor road, or is always concurrent with an Interstate. After Vegas, it goes all the way to Canada on its own.

It's not like US 93 would exist south of its overlap with I-11 once the interstate is fully built out.  What would be the point of keeping it around south of where it splits off from I-15?

It HAS to be decommissioned because it VIOLATES THE GRID by going EAST OF US-91

...is what Fictional Highways would have said if it was around in 1954.

Right now, I'd be satisified with ADOT just paving the damn thing. The southbound lanes between Hoover Dam and Kingman were in pretty rough shape last time I was there, back in May.